The text of Jeremiah : or, a critical investigation of the Greek and Hebrew, with the variations in the LXX; translated into the original and explained

> > '

;

\-.

<

/

a

f.

wm

TBE PUBLISHERS'

COMPLI.^'

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB
FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.

DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT.

NEW YORK, SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.

TORONTO, METHODIST BOOK & PUBLISHING HOUSE.

LEIPZIG, J. c. HINRICHS'SCHE BUCHHANDLUNG.

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH;

OK,

A CRITICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE GREEK AND HEBREW,
WITH TEE VARIATIONS IN THE LXX. RETRANSLATED
INTO THE ORIGINAL AND EXPLAINED.

BY THE

Eev. GEOEGE COULSON WOEKMAN, M.A,

PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAJIENT EXEGESIS ASSD LITERATURE IN
VICTORIA UXIVERSITy, COBOURO, ONT., CANADA.

WITH

an 3ntroC»uctor^ IHotfce

BY

Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D. C\^ix

'V'

'^^'

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

1889.

TO
MY VENERABLE AND VALUED FRIEND,

PROFESSOR FRANZ DELITZSCH, D. D.

OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG,

IN ADMIRATION OF

HIS DEEP PIETY AND PROFOUND SCHOLARSHIP,

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED

AS A TOKEN OF
GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION.

I

CONTENTS.

PAGE

PREFACE, ....... ix

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE, ..... XV

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS, ..... xxiii

CHAPTER I.

THE RELATION OF THE VERSION, .... 1

CHAPTER II.

THE VARIATIONS — OMISSIONS, .... 18

CHAPTER III.

THE VARIATIONS — ADDITIONS, .... 70

CHAPTER IV.

THE VARIATIONS — TRANSPOSITIONS, .... 95

CHAPTER V.

THE VARIATIONS— ALTERATIONS, . . . " . 135

CHAPTER VI.

THE VARIATIONS— SUBSTITUTIONS, .... 155

Vni CONTENTS.

CHAPTER YII.

PAGE

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS, . . . .182

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION, . . . 210

CHAPTER IX.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION, . . . 229

CHAPTER X.

THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS, . . . 283

CORKECTIOX.

Omit "bride" and "bridegroom," chap. vii. 34, on page 129,
lines 15, 16 from the top.

PREFACE.

As intimated on the title-page, the present volume
is an earnest attempt to solve the difficult problem
of the variations between the Greek and Hebrew
texts of Jeremiah. Besides discussino; the condition
and relation of the texts, and explaining the nature
and origin of the divergences between them, I have
endeavoured to deduce the fundamental principles
of deviation, by the application of which the
Septuagint translation reveals important matter,
as well for the Hebrew grammar and the Hebrew
lexicon, as for the history, the interpretation, the
correction, and the reconstruction of the present
Massoretic text.

Although the latter portion of the work has been
prepared exclusively for scholars, the former and
by far the larger portion of it has been prepared,
as well for general as for special students of the
Old Testament. It is intended to be used by all
who have an interest in the critical condition of the
Scripture text. For this reason, the entire discus-

PREFACE.

sion has been written in such a style that any one,
whether acquainted with Greek and Hebrew or not,
may read it easily and intelligently. Having aimed
throughout at plainness and perspicuity, I have
purposely avoided, so far as practicable, the use of
purely technical language, and have everywhere
explained the terms and translated the words and
expressions, which an ordinary English reader might
not reasonably be expected to understand.

In trying to recover the original of the Septua-
gint by the process of retranslation, I have been
encouraged by many competent judges to believe
that the method I have adopted for exhibiting the
deviations to the best advantage will be reo;arded as
both convenient and important, inasmuch as it not
only presents concisely a general view of the diver-
gences in this book, but also indicates clearly how
the same kind of service may be performed for the
other books of Jewish Scripture. A very small
amount of work has hitherto been done in this
department. Without a guide, therefore, in a
comparatively untrodden field, I have striven to
beat out a path which other investigators may
tread more confidently than I have dared, and
more successfully, perhaps, than I have hoped, to
tread myself.

Owing to the extent of this prophetic book,
comprising, as it does, almost a twelfth part of the

rREFACE. XI

wliole Old Testament, the work lias naturally cost
a great expenditure of time and toil. After nearly
three years and a half of patient and painstaking
study, in connection with other absorbing and
exactins^ duties, havino; been engao-ed at this
inquiry since the summer of 1885, I am aware
that it is still, in some respects, deficient as well
as incomplete. Much more time might have been
devoted advantageously to the investigation. A
longer study would have enabled me more
thoroughly to weigh difficult and doubtful words,
more fully to discuss personal and proper names,
and more copiously to illustrate generic and specific
kinds of deviation.

Many important features of the Septuagint,
moreover, have been briefly indicated in a para-
graph or two that might have been abundantly
exemplified by striking and convincing illustra-
tions ; but the want of time and the fear of making
too large a volume have deterred me from multi-
plying examples. I have spared no pains, however,
to make the work as thorough as its compass would
permit. The results of my researches, therefore,
are modestly submitted to Biblical scholars and
students for careful and unprejudiced consideration,
with the consciousness that, had more time and
study been allowed, they might have been much
more complete, but also with the conviction that,

Xll PREFACE.

inexhaustive as they are, they will be found to be
a serviceable contribution to the science of Old
Testament text-criticism.

Several distino-uished scholars have desired to
see the Septuagint text of Jeremiah entirely re-
translated into Hebrew. Having; often been
advised by persons of experience to publish a
complete and accurate retranslation of the book, as
soon as an opportunity for investigating the Greek
manuscripts may be afforded, I shall esteem it a
great favour if practised critics, after an examina-
tion of the work, will have the kindness to sjive me
any suggestions that may occur to them, particularly
in the way of indicating imperfections, or of pointing
out improvements.

While personally responsible for the views
advanced, the positions maintained, and the con-
clusions reached throughout the whole discussion, I
desire, in this place, to express my deep gratitude
to all who have assisted me in any respect with the
investigation. My grateful acknowledgments are
especially due for kind advice and constant interest
during the preparation of the work to Professor
Franz Delitzsch, D.D., the eminent Old Testament
commentator ; for useful suggestions and valuable
services in the process of retranslation to Dr. S.
Mandelkern, the excellent Hebrew specialist ; for
careful and conscientious help in comparing the

PREFACE. XIU

Targiim of Jonathan with the Septuagint translation,
and in revising the manuscript of the variations for
the press, to Dr. M. Chamizer, the able Literary-
Manager of the famous Oriental printing-house of
AY. Drugulin, Leipzig, where the last chapter of the
work was composed and stereotyped.

Althouoh the terms of notation or abbreviation
employed throughout the last chapter are few and
simple, yet it may be worth while giving, in this
connection, a brief explanation of them. In the
text, "Deest" indicates the absence from the
Septuagint of the word or words standing opposite
to it, and " Desunt," the absence from the same of
the words or verses opposite to which it stands.
In the footnotes, " Cf." refers to a similar readins:,
and " ut " to an identical reading, in the Hebrew ;
" Vid." refers to a similar or like renderino- in the
Greek ; ''Inc." denotes a different verse-division in
the version; "Targ." stands for the Targum of
Jonathan ; " Alex." for the Alexandrian Codex,
and "Aram." for i\.ramaic.

The volume is now given to the world with the
hope that it may prove an interest-aw^akening and
a science-furtherins; investigation. In so far as this
discussion of one of the most complicated questions
of Old Testament interpretation shall stimulate the
spirit of Scriptural inquiry or help the progress of
Biblical criticism, and thus promote the cause of

XIV PREFACE.

sacred truth of which the prophet Jeremiah was a
powerful and uncompromising preacher, my reverent
researches will be rewarded, and my earnest wishes
realized.

G. C. WORKMAN.
Leipzig, January 1889.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

BY

PROFESSOR DELITZSCH.

There is no prophetic life and no prophetic book,
of which so many details are known to us, as the
life of Jeremiah and the collection of his j)rophecies.
AVe know that this prophet twice dictated his
prophecies to his amanuensis, Baruch, as Paul
the Epistle to the Romans to Tertius ; that king
Jehoiakim burned one roll, and that Jeremiah
then prepared a new and, according to chap,
xxxvi. 32, a greatly enlarged edition, which, per-
liaps, was left unfinished, to be gradually com-
pleted. It was possibly concluded in Egypt either
by the prophet himself or by his secretary, Baruch ;
but that we do not know. This, however, is cer-
tain, that the collection of prophecies, as it now
stands before us, has not the form which it finally
received from Jeremiah, or from his faithful ser-
vant. The oriojinal arrang-ement must have been
another and a difi'erent one, because the present
order of the component parts of the book amongst

XVI INTEODUCTOKY NOTICE.

themselves gives the impression of an arbitrary
and a confused disarrangement. Besides, this later
redaction or revision shows itself to be such by
insertions from the book of the Kino;s. But even
the form which the later redactor gave the collec-
tion is not perfectly preserved. Chap. xxvi. 1 7 was
evidently not written by the redactor of the collec-
tion. It betrays itself at once as a later and a
very misleading insertion. In chap. xl. 1, a divine
revelation to Jeremiah is announced, but no such
communication foUow^s. It seems that here chaps.
XXX., xxxi. have got out of their right place. The
expression ^QV''1 ("and they shall be weary"), in
chap. li. 64, is manifestly repeated from ver. 58.
The historical piece, vers. 59-64, therefore, may
originally have occupied another position in this
prophetic book.

From what standpoint the prophet's last edition
was arranged we do not know, but the singular
disarrangement, by which the later redactor has
destroyed the orimnal arrano;ement, nevertheless,
cannot be purely arbitrary or absolutely thought-
less. The considerations by which he was governed,
or the principles by which he was guided, must
certainly be penetrable. But, so far as I can sur-
vey the literature of the interpretation and expla-
nation of the book, no one, as yet, has been
successful in finding out the point of view from

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. XVU

wliich tlie later redactor has torn to pieces things
which chronologically and essentially belong to
each other, and has placed them together, as they
now ap|)ear. J. J. Staehelin in his discussion of
the arrangement of Jeremiah's prophecies divides
the book into seven parts,^ and Anton Scholz in
his monograph on the relation between the Greek
and Hebrew^ texts of Jeremiah divides it into six
decades ; ' but neither in Staehelin's seven nor in
Scholz's six divisions is a planned unity of con-
tents perceptible. As for me, I flatter myself with
the opinion, that I may have succeeded in dis-
covering the views which influenced the redactor.

The collection of Jeremiah's prophecies, as it
now lies before us, according to my opinion, falls
into nine groups or books of which each three, in a
certain sense, form a trilogy, and that, indeed, in
the following manner : — 1. The book of the time
of Josiah, or of the calling and first preaching of
the prophet, chaps. i,-vi. 2. The book of the time
of Jehoiakim, or the preaching at the gate of the
Temple, in the cities of Judah (Anathoth), and in
the streets of Jerusalem, especially concerning the
idolatry of the people, chaps, vii. - xii. 3. The
])ook of the irrevocable curse, l)elonQ;in2; to the

^ Zdti^chrift der deutschen MorfjenUindischen Gesellschaft, I. iii.,
1849, p. 216.

- Der masorethiiche Text und die LXX - Uebersetzung des Buches
Jeremias, 1875.

b

XVin INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

time of Jeconiali, chaps, xiii. - xx. Hereupon
follow the three middle groups. 4. The book
against the shepherds of the people, without
chronological arrangement, chaps, xxi. - xxv. 5.
The book of the conflict of Jeremiah with the false
prophets, belonging partly to the time of Jehoiakim
and partly to the first years of Zedekiah, chaps,
xxvi. -xxix. Here alono; with Jeremiah, as true
prophets, are mentioned the elder Micali and
the contemporary Uriah ; and, as false prophets,
Hananiah, Ahab, Zedekiah, and Shemaiah, the
warning against false prophets in chap, xxvii.
constituting a keynote. 6. The book of the
restoration of Israel, without chronoloo;ical
arrangement, chaps, xxx.-xxxiii. The remaining
three groups form the conclusion of the collection.
7. The book of the accounts of the unbelief and
scepticism of the kings and of the people of Israel,
accounts belonoino- to the time of Jehoiakim, and
encompassed by incidents of the time of Zedekiah,
chaps, xxxiv.-xxxviii. 8. The book of the destinies
of the people after the destruction of Jerusalem,
chaps, xxxix.-xlv., with the supplementary notice
respecting Baruch, chap, xlv., standing in un-
chronological position. 9. The book of the pro-
phecies concerning the nations, a decade of oracles,
beginning with Egypt and ending with Babylon,
chaps, xlvi. -li., belonging partly to the time of

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. XIX

Jelioiakim, chaps, xl.-xlix. 33, and partly to the
time of Zedekiah, chaps, xlix, 34-39 ; l.-li.

This is, as I think, the distribution aimed at l)y
the redactor of our Hebrew text of Jeremiah. Such
seem to me to have been the motives which im-
pelled him to destroy the ancient order of the
general contents of the book, and to substitute
the present singular arrangement. I dare venture
to hope that my results will bear examination.
All kind of questions respecting the incorrect
position, which many sections of the book appear
to occupy, admit of a solution in this way. The
outpouring of the intoxicating cup, chap, xxv.,
which is properly the exordium to book 9, stands
in book 4, because the doom therein pronounced
embraces all the shepherds (rulers) of the nations.
The scourging of idolatry, chap. x. 1-16, stands in
book 2, because in that book the prophet's preach-
ing is preeminently directed against the idol-
worship of the people, chaps, vii. 18, 31 ; viii. 2.
The section, which relates the conspiracy to take
the prophet's life, because of his preaching against
the Temple and the City, in the beginning of
Jehoiakim's reign, chap, xxvi., although it belongs
to the history of the prophetic discourse in chaps,
vii.-xii., stands in book 5, because it relates a part
of Jeremiah's struggle with the priests, the pro-
phets, and the princes. The history of the burning

XX INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

of the first roll, chap, xxxvi., stands in book 7,
because it furnishes a proof of the unbelieving
conduct of the Court toward the word of Jehovah
and toward the person of his prophet. The con-
solatory prophecy for Baruch, chap, xlv., belong-
ing to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, stands in book
8, because it promises to Baruch deliverance from
the fate of death after the destruction of Jeru-
salem ; and the prophecies concerning the nations,
chaps, xlvi.-li., constitute the last book, because
they are appointed for the nations just as sj^ecially
as chaps, i. -xliv., together with chap, xlv., are
apjDointed for the people of Israel.

We possess, however, still another form of the
collection, which differs conspicuously from that
which it received from the hand of the Hebrew
redactor. This is the Alexandrian form of the
book, which deviates from the foregoing one not
only in the arrangement, but also in the subject-
matter, of the text. In the Septuagint, the pro-
phecies concerning the nations occupy the middle
of chap. XXV., vers. 1-13 forming a prologue, and
vers. 15-38 forming an epilogue, to the whole group.
These prophecies follow each other also in a quite
divergent order. The prophecy respecting Elam,
for instance, stands at the very beginning of the
group in Greek, but almost at the very end of it in
Hebrew. In the version, this nation, as it seems,

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. XXI

may liave been threatened first, because of Alex-
ander's recent military expedition. The Greek
text, moreover, in all parts of the book, diverges
frequently and remarkably from the Hebrew text,
transmitted for ases before the time of Christ
by Palestinean and Babylonian tradition, attested
during the early centuries of the Christian era by
the Massorites, and handed down in its present
form from them to us.

In the accompanying work, my Canadian friend,
Professor G. C. Workman, M.A., has undertaken
the task of ascertaining, as far as practicable, the
ancient Hebrew text which lay before the Greek
translator, and which often seems to him to merit
the preference over the present Massoretic text.
The undertaking is a very interesting and im-
portant one. I fully concur with him in the
opinion that the original of the Septuagint was, in
many respects, a different text from that attested
and established by the Massorites. I am utterly
opposed to the view of Wichelhaus (1847) and
others, who attribute to the Septuagint no critical
value whatever. Although in places the Greek
translator has made mistakes, owino; to a combina-
tion of causes, as the following discussion shows,
nevertheless, I consider that the Alexandrian ver-
sion unquestionably presents a special textual
arrangement, or represents, in short, a special text-

XXll INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

recension. I also regard the version as of very
great importance for the history and the criticism
of the Okl Testament text.

The present investigation transports the question
respecting the nature and origin of the variations
in the prophecy of Jeremiah to an entirely new
stage, inasmuch, especially, as it presents a com-
plete and comprehensive view of the differences
between the Greek and Hebrew texts in a way in
which it hitherto has never been presented. The
author thereby contributes to the science of
Biblical criticism a work of valuable and lasting
service. This production of my friend is the fruit
of several years of indefatigable labour ; and, if he
sometimes thinks too favourably of the Septuagint
translator, this is only the result of the loving
devotion with which he has absorbed himself in
the study of the Alexandrian text.

FRANZ DELITZSCH.
LEiPisic;, December 1888.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

A CRITICAL investigation of any Old Testament
writing involves particularly a fourfold inquiry.
It embraces a thorough discussion of the character
and condition of the present Hebrew or Massoretic
text, and a careful consideration of the nature and
importance of the other textual authorities. Of
the latter there are principally four, namely, the
Aramaic, the Syriae, the Latin, and the Greek
translations. Each of these possesses some signifi-
cance, and furnishes some materials for the lower
or textual criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures ;
but the Greek translation, commonly called the
Septuagint, or the Alexandrian version, is univer-
sally regarded as by far the most important of
them all. Because of its age and influence, scholars
in general are agreed that the Septuagint transla-
tion constitutes the principal aid for the Biblical
(;ritic in the textual w^ork of the Old Testament.
Hence the need of determining, as nearly as possible,
its true nature and its real worth.

In undertaking to investigate the text of Jere-
miah by the help of the .*"eptuagint, one is con-

xxiv PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

fronted at the outset with the character of the
deviations in the version. The dili'erences between
the Greek and Hebrew are so numerous and so
striking, that the question of their origin challenges
immediate attention. The first thing necessary,
therefore, in commencing a comparative study of
the two texts, is an honest endeavour to solve the
problem of the divergences between them. Not
till this has been accomplished, can the Septuagint
be safely or intelligently employed in the textual
criticism of this prophetic book. Before attempting
a solution of the problem, it will be expedient to
explain the plan proposed in the present inquiry for
this purpose.

In order the more completely to exhibit the
character of the version, as well as the more clearly
to account for its deviations, the method here
adopted is that of retranslation ; that is, of trans-
lating the Greek back again into Hebrew. By this
means it can be shown, substantially at least, just
what sort of text the original Hebrew manuscript
of the Alexandrian version must have been. By
this means, too, the nature and origin of the
variations, it is believed, can be most readily
demonstrated, the difi'erences between the Greek
and Hebrew most easily appreciated, and the im-
portance of the Septuagint for purposes of text-
criticism most accurately estimated.

In the complete Conspectus of the variations at
the end of the Avork, the diverg-ences are arrano;ed
in parallel columns, the divergent words, or letters

rRELIMINAEY OBSEKVATIONS. XXV

only, so far as practicable, being punctuated. In
this way the difterences between the two texts
become manifest at once. The right-hand column
contains the deviations from the Greek in the
Hebrew ; the left-hand column contains the devia-
tions from the Hebrew in the Greek, retranslated
into Hebrew. If the words in the latter be
systematically substituted for those in the former,
and carefully inserted where they logically belong
in the present Massoretic text, the original of the
version may be promptly and approximately ob-
tained. This method has the advantage of giving
a concise and comprehensive view of the variations
without repeating subject-matter common to each
text alike, except in so far as such a repetition is
necessary in order to display the variations clearly
and conspicuously.

An important rule observed in retranslating, it
should be stated, is that of endeavouring to explain
the minor variations by means of similar Hebrew
letters. Wherever there seemed to be the slightest
reason for believino; that the orio;inal of the one text
was substantially, if not identically, the same as the
original of the other, an effort has been made to
find a resemblinoj substitute. The constant observ-
ance of this rule has been most advantao-eous in
discovering the various principles of divergency
deduced and illustrated in the accompanying dis-
cussion. But for its systematic application, several
fundamental illustrations could scarcely have been
ascertained. As the arrangement of the Greek

XXVI PRELIMIXARY OBSERVATIONS.

words follows almost slavislil}^ the Hebrew order,
even to the reproduction of the smallest particles
and the most peculiar idioms, the intensely literal
character of the Septuagint translation has helped
materially in applying this simple but extremely
essential rule.

Notwithstanding the extreme literalness of the
translation, however, it is often difficult to tell
whether an apparent deviation in the version
represents a real deviation in the original manu-
script. For this reason, many doubtful words in
Greek are indicated in connection with the Con-
spectus of the variations. Sometimes, too, it is
difficult to determine wdiether or not a peculiar
Greek expression represents a variant Hebrew read-
ing ; and, if it does, it is practically impossible to
tell how it should be retranslated. One example
out of several that might be given is found in
chap. xlix. 16, where the combination rj irav^via aov
iv€xetpr]cre aoi, stands for "^jn'^ i^^trn TJill'TCri (" thy
terribleness hath deceived thee"). The Hebrew
word translated " terribleness " docs not elsewhere
occur throughout the Bible, and its exact significa-
tion here is exceedingly obscure. In all such cases
of obscurity, Hebrew scholars will be able to
appreciate the great perplexity experienced very
frequently in the work of retranslation.

As in the English, so also in the Alexandrian,
version, the same expression, even in a similar con-
nection, is not uniformlv translated. This want
of uniformity greatly increases the difficulty of

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXV 11

retranslation, because the same word, or tlie same
combination of words, is differently rendered by
different translators in different books, as well as
in different parts of the same book. Although in
general this book is characterized by great consis-
tency in the use of many specific terms, yet suffi-
cient irregularity appears in certain portions of it
to justify the supposition that several persons were
employed in making the Greek version. For these
reasons, as doubt was frequently inevitable and
certainty sometimes impracticable, the retranslation
of very many words and phrases must be regarded
as tentative, and not in any sense as final. In all
such instances of uncertainty, other investigators
might give another and, perhaps, a happier render-
ing of the Greek.

Even in passages where a special textual arrange-
ment in the version is unquestionable, it is by no
means easy always to determine which expression
should be used in retranslating; from the Greek,
since one must choose between two and three and
sometimes four synonymous Hebrew words. As
the choice requires the exercise of both taste and
skill, alternatives have often been presented for the
consideration of those experienced in this kind of
criticism. In the case of a word of rare or sing-le
occurrence, it is practically, if not absolutely, impos-
sible to decide with certainty. A simple example
of perplexity occurs in the opening sentence of the
book, which, in the Septuagint, reads, To 'p7]yLa rov
Geov o eyiveTo iirl ' lepefiiav. In this Superscription,

XXVm rKELIMIXARY OBSEEVATIOXS.

wliich forms a common introduction to the prophetic
l)Ooks, as may be seen by reference to Hosea, Joel,
Micah, Zephaniah, and which reproduces an original
Hebrew text, as every competent critic will perceive,
it is quite uncertain whether the expression T6 prj^a
Tov Qeov should be rendered nin'^""ll'l (the word of
Jehovah) or DTI^Si'llT (the word of God). Inas-
much as the latter, so far as has been ascertained,
nowhere else occurs in such a superscription, the
former has been given in the Conspectus of the
variations. The Alexandrian introduction, though,
may be translated, " The word of God (or, the word
Jehovah) which was to Jeremiah."

When quoting from the English Bible, it will be
seen, the Revised Version, except in a few cases of
verbal translation, has always been used ; but,
w^hen translating from the Septuagint, it will be
observed, a literal renderino; of the Greek text has
invariably been given. The Greek word KvpLo<;,
which generally represents the Hebrew word XTSiV

has been regularly translated by the English
word " Jehovah." The term in Hebrew is not a
divine title, but a di^'ine name, and, therefore,
should be literally reproduced. Not only is
"Jehovah" a tolerably accurate, though very
debatable, reproduction in English of the present
Hebrew word, but also it is an euphonious word
which has long become naturalized in the language.
This pronunciation of this name of the Deity,
moreover, has been in circulation, more or less

PRELIMINAIIY OBSEllVATIOXS. XXIX

extensively, since tlie sixteenth century, at least.

For these reasons, it seems to be quite expedient

to retain the common form of the old English word.

By way of distinguishing the Hebrew phrase

rrirr^ 'l^^b^ (" says Jehovah ") from ninV^i;^: (" 'i

declaration of Jehovah "), which throughout this
book is usually represented by the Greek \eyei,
KvpLo<i or etTre Kvpto<i, the latter Hebrew phrase has
been regularly translated by " declares Jehovah."
The word U'^':, which is a passive participle in the

construct state used as a substantive, is so uniformly
rendered in the Septuagint as a verb that it may,
perhaps, have been so considered by the Greek
translators, who render it as though it was formerly
pronounced DhJ^? and employed as an emphatic
synonym for "^^i^. Whether probable or not, the

supposition is here suggested as being possible, at
least. The words in Hebrew are not identical, as
the renderino; of them in the Enoiish versions
might seem to ordinary readers to imply, and
there appears to be a great propriety in observing
the true distinction between them, when giving an
exact translation of them.

The Greek text used throughout the present
work is that of Tischendorf, this having been
esteemed the best edition of the Septuagint avail-
able at the time that the investigation was com-
menced. The Hebrew text employed is Hnhn's
edition of van der Hooght. When citing Hebrew
words, the Massoretic pointing has generally been

XXX PKELIMIXAEY OBSERVATIONS.

reproduced, wherever a point of punctuation or of
accentuation might be regarded as really essential ;
Ijut wherever such a point might be regarded as
purely euphonic, its reproduction has not always
been observed. This remark, of course, applies to
the use of the signs for aspirate-letters and tone-
syllables. It should be noted further that in
exhibiting the different kinds or classes of varia-
tion, several examples have been once or twice
repeated, because the same example sometimes
illustrates two and three different species of
divergency.

The last chapter of the work, which comprises
the Conspectus of the variations, is so arranged as
to constitute a kind of critical apparatus, by means
of wdiich Biblical critics may examine the full
results of the investigation in detail, and by the
use of which they may apply the different prin-
ciples of variation to the textual criticism of the
other Hebrew Scriptures. The footnotes in this
chapter contain references to parallel passages and
analoo^ous constructions, both in this book and in
other books of the Old Testament ; citations from
the Tarofum, when it either ag;rees with or corre-
sponds to the Septuagint translation ; doubtful and
peculiar words and phrases in the Greek, wdiicli
seem to possess a special interest ; a few readings
from the Alexandrian manuscript, which appear to
l)e of some imjDortance ; and an occasional Aramaic
word, which suggests the possible origin of a
deviation in the version.

rKELLMlNARY OBSERVATIONS. XXXI

111 discussing the character and condition of the
present Hebrew text, an endeavour has been made,
first to ascertain the facts, and then to let these
speak for themselves. Indeed, throughout the
whole investigation the scientific or comparative
method has been employed. This method has
already been successfully applied to physical and
to philological science, and it may be as properl}^,
if not as fruitfully, applied to Biblical as to any
other science. All true theories must be formed
from facts, tested with facts, and established bv
facts. Sweeping generalizations from insufficient
data, or from superficial knowledge of them, are
utterly valueless. Only by collecting all the
evidence available can sound princi23les be deduced
or safe inferences drawn.

From copious internal evidence it must with
disappointment be admitted that the character of
the Massoretic text of Jeremiah is deplorably
unsatisfactory. This text is both imperfect and
defective. Its imperfections have long been
recognized by most impartial critics, and its
defects are now acknowledged by every competent
scholar. The question of its absolute integrity
or infallibilitv is no longer a matter of debate.
Difficulties and obscurities abound all throuo;h the
book. As the Hebrew stands at present, it is
often hard either to give a tolerable translation
of it, or to obtain an intelligible meaning from
it. Of many passages more than one rendering-
is fairly possible ; and of many other passages an

XXXll PRELIMINAEY OBSERVATIONS.

adequate rendering or interpretation is practically
impossible.

From ample external evidence, moreover, the
condition of the Hebrew text is also exceedingly
unsatisfactory. It can be proved conclusively to
have suffered not only from corruption, but also
from alteration. In many ways and at different
times it has uncjuestionably undergone considerable
change. Apart from manifest alterations, trans-
positions, interpolations and revisions, the in-
dependent testimony of each ancient version,
especially of the Septuagint translation, establishes
this fact beyond a doubt. A critical comparison
of the Greek and Hebrew shows clearly that the
latter text has been extensively and systematically
modified. Such a comparison further shows that the
ancient manuscript, from wdiich the original of the
Massoretic text was taken, differed essentially from
that now known to us, as well as materially from that
known to the makers of the Alexandrian version.

It has been commonly supposed that the chief
sources of textual divergency between the Greek
and Hebrew were either the caprice and ignorance
of translators, or the carelessness and indifference
of copyists. For this reason, the variations have
been hitherto attributed, partly to accident but
principally to design. The supposition seems both
unreasonable and incredible. Such surprising
deviations as occur throughout the version must
have had a worthy origin. If the Alexandrian
translators were authoritatively employed to make

niELIMINAEY OBSERVATIONS. XXXlll

a version of the Hebrew Scriptures, as lias been
generally held, it is natural to suppose that they
were jiroperly qualified for their duties, as well as
reasonable to believe that they honestly j)erformed
their work. Assuming in this investigation the
efficiency and integrity of the Greek translators,
the facts collected and the principles deduced
demonstrate the hypothesis of a special text, or
text - recension, as it is technically termed, from
which the Septuagint translation was original!}^
made. No other explanation of the divergences,
it can be shown, is either adequate or admissible.

Since, in several other Old Testament books, the
Greek text differs greatly from the Hebrew text, it
may be asked, as Graf, for instance, asks, Why
should the hypothesis of a special text-recension be
assumed simply for this book, and not for those
other books in which divergences abound ? In
reply, it may be stated that the variations in the
present book are exceptionally numerous and
significant, and that their number, as well as their
nature, establishes the truth of the hypothesis
respecting their origin. The same hypothesis,
though, it may be added, seems to be just as
probable in reference to Daniel, Esther, Job, and
Proverbs, as in reference to Jeremiah. Only on
this assumption can the variations in each of these
books be satisfactorily explained. Indeed, the
same hypothesis possibly may, and probably does,
apply to each book of the Old Testament.

The theory of different text -recensions of the

XXXIV PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

ancient Jewish Scriptures is rapidly and rationally
finding favour. In tlieir Preface to the Eevised
Version of the Hebrew Bible, the Enoiish trans-
lators openly acknowledge its reasonableness and
probability. " The Keceived or, as it is commonly
called, the Massoretic text of the Old Testament
Scriptures," they say, " has come down to us in
manuscripts which are of no very great antiquity,
and which all belong to the same family or recen-
sion. That other recensions were at one time in
existence is probable from the variations in the
Ancient Versions, the oldest of which, namely
the Greek or Septuagint, was made, at least in
part, some two centuries before the Christian era."
This assertion of the Eevisers is exceedingly
important, inasmuch as an unreasonable prejudice
against such an assumption has hitherto prevailed.
There has been a great reluctance, on the part of
Christian scholars in the past, to acknowledge that
the Septuagint translators could have used a Hebrew
text different from that which the Massorites em-
ployed. The proofs, though, are so overwhelming
that the conclusion is inevitable. That there were
certainly two recensions of the book of Jeremiah,
at the time of its translation into Greek, when all
the facts are considered, and when all the evidence
is weighed, cannot be reasonably doubted. That
this was possil^ly the case respecting many, if not
all, of the other books of the Old Testament may
be just as reasonably believed. The ancient cir-
cumstances of the Jewish people and the early

PKELIMIXARY OBSEKVATIONS. XXXV

condition of tlieir sacred writings render the sup-
position not simply possible but probable.

During the present investigation, the thought
has often been suggested that, instead of two, there
may have once been several recensions of certain
books, at least. Just how many it is useless to
conjecture. There ap^^ear to have been Scripture
rolls for public services, for official purposes, and
for private use. Different distinguished individuals,
as well as families, may have possessed a copy.
The probability of this suggestion, which partially
explains how variations might gradually and
naturally arise, is strengthened by the statement
of a recent writer in an able article on the Revised
Version of the Old Testament. Speaking of the
ancient documents and rolls, of which the existing
Hebrew manuscripts present a later revision of the
sacred text, which has restored to it the greater
purity in which it now appears in contrast to the
versions, he asserts, " We are expressly informed
that there were standard copies kept in the Temple,
perhaps also in some synagogues. This would not
exclude, rather it seems to imply, the existence of
diverg-iuo' reading;s in manuscripts belon2;ino- to
families or individuals." ^

In considering the nature of the Septuagint, the
purpose has been, so far as possiljle, to let the
translation tell its own story. An unprejudiced
examination of the Greek text shows the ground-
lessness of the charge of arbitrariness generally

1 Edinburgh Eerietr, October, WSr,, p. 460.

XXXVl PRELIMINAEY OBSERVATIONS.

brouglit against the Alexandrian translators, and
the inadequacy of the opinion popularly entertained
respecting the character of their work. That they
sometimes made mistakes, considering the circum-
stances of their time, was natural. With all their
practised skill, the Massorites have also made
mistakes. That they sometimes translated con-
jecturally, considering the condition of their
manuscript, was inevitable. Eather than change
the sacred text, modern translators have also done
the same. In rendering obscurely written parch-
ment rolls no other course could be pursued. The
very mistakes and imperfections of the version,
most of which can be with almost scientific
certainty explained, attest the genuine integrity
of the Greek translators and the exceedino^ con-
scientiousness with Avhich their arduous labours
were performed.

When indicating the importance of the Septuagint,
no undue excellence has been intentionally claimed
for it. If a preference for its general textual
arrangement has been emphatically expressed, this
has been because it really appears to possess the
preference in this respect. Only a few of its more
striking features of suj)eriority have been pointed
out. Beautiful illustrations of superior reading-
might have been many times increased, but space
forbade the multiplying of examples. A sufficient
number has been given, though, to indicate that
the critical value of the version can scared}'' be too
highly estimated. An impartial consideration of

riiELLMINAKY OBSEKVATIONS. XXXVU

its character proves that for the emendation of
the Massoretic text, an entire reconstruction of
which the English Revisers have suo;o;ested but
have not attempted, the Septuagint translation
claims the foremost place as the chief corrective
instrument in the textual criticism of this prophetic
book.

The absence of a critical edition of the Septuagint
has been urged as an excuse for not attempting by
its help to reconstruct the present Hebrew text.
Some scholars, believing that the Greek text is in
a very different state from that in which it left the
hands of the Alexandrian translators, propose to
postpone the use of it altogether as a critical aid
till after it has been restored, so far as possible, to
its original form. Just how much reason there
may be for holding that the Septuagint has suffered
seriously by transmission is a question that must
be left for settlement to those wdio have the time
and opportunity to investigate it. It is evident,
of course, that before the full value of the version
can be clearly evinced, the Greek text itself must
first be thoroughly investigated. Only when this
has been accomplished can perfectly satisfactory
work with it be performed. Sometimes one of the
other manuscripts, it has been noticed in the process
of retranslation, presents a more probable reading
than that presented by the Vatican manuscript
used by Tischendorf. But, notwithstanding the
uncritical condition of the Septuagint, this investi-
gation shows that even iu its present state it

XXXVin Pl.'ELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

furnishes valuable textual materials, and reveals
important critical results.

Inasmuch as this book has existed in a twofold
form for upwards of two thousand years, at least,
and inasmuch as its ancient form has been con-
siderably modified, it is now impossible to ascertain
with certainty the exact shape which it may have
received either from the prophet Jeremiah or from
his secretary, Baruch, That is, its absolutely
original form can never be discovered, because of
the manifold textual changes that were made in it
during the centuries that intervened between the
period of its composition and the time of its
establishment by the Massorites. In so far, how-
ever, as the present Greek text can be relied upon,
as representing a trustworthy text of the date of
its translation, it brings us many centuries nearer
to the materials with which to work in reconstruct-
ino; the sacred text. In endeavouring; to recover
the oriofinal of the version bv the method of re-
translation, the relation between the Greek and
Hebrew will be made more manifest, and the
relative age and purity of each text will become
more clear.

The ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript from
which the Septuagint was translated belonged to
the third century before Christ, w^hereas the oldest
Hebrew manuscript of which the age is definitely
known belongs to the tenth century after Christ.
If, therefore, the original of the Greek text was a
good one, as it most probably was, and, if the work

PRELIMINAKY OBSERVATIONS. XXXI.K

of translation was well done, as it most certainly
seems to have been, then, so far as the original text
of the Septuagint can be regained, we have a text
of Jeremiah in a recension four or five hundred
years older than the text attested and established
by the Massorites, and twelve or thirteen hundred
years older than the earliest Hebrew manuscript at
present in existence. The original of the Septuagint
unquestionably represented much more nearly the
original form of the book than the existing Hebrew
represents it. For this reason, its careful reproduc-
tion, so far as practicable, becomes a matter of the
utmost possible importance.

Up to the present time, the Massoretic text has
generally been taken by modern translators as the
oToundwork of Old Testament criticism, because it
has been commonly supposed to furnish the best
attested text of the Jewish Scriptures. In some
respects, it is undoubtedly entitled to special con-
sideration ; but it possesses no such exceptional
claim to authority as to entitle it to infallibility.
On the contrary, it is now known and acknowledged
to be fallible and imperfect in many places and in
many ways. Since the publication of the Kevised
Version especially, the question of its absolute
trustworthiness has come into prominence as never
liefore. The judgment, though, of Christian
scholars differs greatly as to how far the supremacy
should be given to it. While the English Kevisers
have made the Massoretic text the basis of their
work, they have frequently departed from it, having

xl PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

quite often, in an instance of extreme difficulty,
adopted a reading on the authority of the ancient
versions, which is always inserted in the margin,
but never incorporated with the text. The Ameri-
can Revisers, on the other hand, have refused even
this reference to secondary sources, as they regard
the versions, and have suggested the omission from
the margin of all renderings from the Septuagint
and other textual authorities.

Althouo;h the Hebrew has ever been the received
text in the Protestant Church, yet a portion of
Christendom has always adhered to the authority
of the Greek ; and, " for a long period, the Septua-
gint was the Old Testament of the far larger part
of the Christian Church."^ Hence both its aoje and
history entitle it to the profoundest consideration.
The opinion, there is a reason to believe, is gradu-
ally gaining ground that hitherto enough importance
has not generally been attached to this ancient
version, and that due attention has not generally
been given to its testimony. Whatever may be
shown to be its value in reference to the other
books, its value for the textual criticism of this
book is inestimable. Its critical sio-nificance for
the text of Jeremiah points to the conclusion, not
only that it should be constantly consulted, but
also that it should be carefully compared, in
investigating the text of every Old Testament
writing. In comparing the Hebrew with the
Greek throughout each book certain inquiries

^ Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii., p. 1204.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xU

should be made. Firstly, do tlie two texts agree ?
Secondly, if they disagree, were their originals
similar or different ? Thirdly, if similar, by what
principle can the variations be explained ? Fourthly,
if different, which text exhibits the more primitive
or more probable rendering ? The answers to these
questions, it is thought, can be most easily obtained
by turning the Greek back into Hebrew again.

Because, as has been mentioned, the present
Massoretic text rests npon documents of no very
great antiquity, documents which are supposed to
represent a single prototype of the time of the
Emperor Hadrian, several distinguished scholars,
like Lagarde and his disciples, find in the Alex-
andrian version the leadino- or controllino- factor
for the restoration of the Old Testament text to
its original purity. The textual supremacy of the
Septuagint is vigorously maintained and, perhaps,
justly claimed by this school of critics, on the
ground of the significantly greater age of its
Hebrew or Aramaic original. Thus far, this prin-
ciple of giving the precedence to the Septuagint has
only been partially applied by Wellhausen to the
books of Samuel, and thoroughly applied by Cornill
to the book of Ezekiel, the latter scholar having,
by this method, entirely and even radically recon-
structed the Ezekiel text. If the Greek translation
of Jeremiah really bears the relation which it seems
to bear to the original form of this book, then it
should not simply be consulted in correcting and
emending the present Hebrew, but, when its text

Xlii PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

has been restored, it should itself be made the
basis of reconstruction.

Thus a critical and impartial consideration of the
character and condition of the Massoretic text of
Jeremiah, and also of the nature and importance of
the Septuagint translation of it, will prove con-
(:;lusively, it is believed, that the popular notions
that prevail respecting each text are entirely
incorrect. In the past, too much dependence has
been placed upon Massoretic teaching and tradition.
The more carefully the true relation between the
Greek and Hebrew is investigated, the more clearly
it will appear that most of the traditional views of
this, as well as of every other, book of Jewish Scrip-
ture have been the outcome both of prejudice and
of prepossession. Whether they have been more
largely due to the one than to the other cause, or
whether they have been ecjually due to each, it is
useless to discuss, because it is impossible to deter-
mine. At all events, they have resulted from an
exercise of criticism which only a predilection for a
preconceived opinion could produce.

Earnest Christian scholars are now labouriim- t<j
find a better text of the Old Testament. In their
inquiries and discussions, the central and essential
(juestion is the comparative worth or excellence of
the Greek and Hebrew texts. On whichever side
tlie final verdict may fall, after the fullest and
deepest researches have been made, the proved
results of Biblical criticism must neither be dis-
<!arded nor discredited. Both on philological and

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xliii

theological grounds, Biblical science requires a
prudent application to all the books of Scripture of
the most improved as well as of the most approved
methods of textual criticism. A perfect text of
the Old Testament is unattainable at present, and
may not be attainable in future ; but a more
perfect one than we now possess may easily be
attained. Towards its attainment the interests of
truth demand the employment of every aid available
and the use of every means accessible. "For," as
Canon Cheyne says, "the true spiritual meaning
of the Scriptures can only be reached through the
door of the letter ; and the nearer we approach to a
correct reading of the text, the more vivid will be
our apprehension of the sacred truths which it
conveys." ^

It is not now denied, and it should no longer be
concealed, that the received text of the Old Testa-
ment is both faulty and defective. There is no
use of saying respecting it, " Peace, peace ; when
there is no peace." It is worse than useless to
make claims for Scripture, or for Scripture text,
that cannot be maintained. What is needed is a
sober knowledge of the true state of the case. By
all efforts, we should seek to ascertain the facts ;
and, at all hazards, we should strive to let the facts
be known. The truth must be sought at any cost,
and it must not be sold at any price. The truth,
moreover, has nothing to fear, but everything to
hope, from critical investigation. " We can do

^ The Prophecies of Isaiali, vol, ii., third edition, p. 240.

Xliv PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

iiotliiiig," Paul declares, " against the truth, but
for the truth." Reverent textual criticism, how-
ever keen or searching, can only lead to the adop-
tion of sounder principles, and to the employment
of correcter methods, in the discovery and eluci-
dation of the truth. Every judicious Christian
teacher, therefore, should proclaim, as the venerable
Delitzsch, in the Introduction to 'his new and
valuable commentary on the book of Genesis, with
weighty words of golden worth, significantly pro-
claims, " God is the God of truth ; love of truth,
yielding to the constraint of truth, giving up the
traditional views, which cannot stand the test of
truth, is a sacred duty, a part of the fear of God.'

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

CHAPTER L

THE E ELATION OF THE VERSION.

The relation of tlie Septuagint translation of the
Old Testament to the present Hebrew text is an
interesting subject of investigation which has been
too little regarded in the past. For this reason,
the true value of the Alexandrian version for
purposes of text-criticism has been either greatly
underestimated or largely overlooked. Although,
of late years, considerable discussion amongst
distinguished scholars has taken place upon the
nature and sig-nificance of this ancient textual
authority, the question is only just beginning to
receive that measure of attention which its import-
ance properly deserves. Very divergent views
have been advanced, and very opposite opinions
still prevail, respecting its real critical worth for
the interpretation and correction of the so-called
Massoretic text of the Old Testament.

A

2 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

In general, the Greek and Hebrew renderings of
the Jewish Scriptures pretty closely correspond.
There are, however, notable exceptions to this rule.
The Books of Jeremiah, Proverbs, Job, Esther, and
Daniel exhibit remarkable irrcojularities. In the
first-named book especially, the dissimilarity of the
readings is prodigious. A casual comparison of the
texts in question discovers singular discrepancies,
such as changes in the position of the chapters, in
the order of the j)rophecies, and in the arrange-
ment of the general contents of the book. A closer
investio-ation reveals divero-ences of a much more

o o

serious sort, such as modifications of statements and
expressions, and transpositions of words and verses.
A minute examination discloses the absence from
the Greek of an enormous amount of matter belong:-
ing to the Hebrew, the presence in the former of
very many words and phrases wanting in the latter,
and the existence in both Greek and Hebrew of a
great variety of minor difierences of more or less
vsio-nificance. So numerous altoorether are the varia-
tions, and so startling in many places is their
character, that it has sometimes been a question in
the minds of earnest critics which of these texts is
the more authoritative, or which one ought to be
adopted in translating this ancient book of pro-
phecy into a modern tongue.

From authentic sources, these divergences are

THE RELATION OF THE VERSIOX. 3

proved to have existed at a very early date.
Keference was made to them by Origen and
Jerome, each of whom commented on the character
of the Alexandrian version in his day. The
former, after referring to the numerous variations
in the Book of Job, describes the relation of the
Greek and Hebrew to each other in the present
book as follows : — "We have observed many such
things also in Jeremiah, in which we found much
transposition and alteration of the reading in the
prophecies."^ The latter, in discussing the differ-
ences between the two texts, scarcely more than
mentions the general character of the deviations in
the Greek. Neither of these early Christian Fathers
attempted seriously to explain them, although the
latter was disposed to attribute them chiefly to the
carelessness of copyists.

Not simjDly are the divergences thus proved to
be very old, but their extreme age indicates that
most of them cj^uite probably belonged to the
Septuagint translation at the time that it was
made. Hence many Hebrew scholars have con-
cluded that the Greek translators used a much
conciser copy of this book than that now repre-
sented by the Massoretic text. As Jeremiah spent

xoXXflf oi Toiavrx y,x\ Iv ru ' lioifciet Kunvotjaxftsi/, Iv L kuI tto'K'K^v
fisrctdeatu x.x\ luxKhxyr^v rr,; Tie^eu; tuv Trpo(pYiTiVQfCiiiu<j tvpof^iu.
Epistola ad Afrkanum, tomus x^di., p. 25 ; Loinmatzsch edition.

4 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the evening of liis life in Northern Egypt, and as
he may have ended there, as well his prophecies as
his career, it has been naturally suggested that an
earlier and a more authentic edition of the prophet's
writinofs was in use among;st the Jews of Alexandria
than amongst the Jews of Palestine and Babylonia.
The likelihood of this suggestion, which does not
appear to be unreasonable, has been much disputed,
and the subject still remains a matter of debate.
In this investigation, the question will be carefully
considered in the clear light of the only hypothesis
that consistently accounts for all the variations in
this prophetic book.

In modern times three general opinions have
prevailed respecting the comparative excellence of
the Greek and the Hebrew text of this particular
book. Some scholars have thoug;ht the former
quite superior to the latter ; others, while giving
precedence to the latter, have placed both texts, in
general, upon pretty nearly the same level ; others
again have thought the latter not merely prefer-
able to the former, but alone authoritative in
presenting Jeremiah's words. Of those wdio have
claimed superiority for the Greek, the principal are
J. D. Michaelis, Movers and de AVette, Hitzig,
Bleek and Scholz. Of those who have regarded the
Hebrew as exhibiting, on the whole, the better
readings, but the Greek, in spite of many supposed

THE EELATION OF THE VERSION. 5

errors of translation, as approacliing much more
nearly that which one might reasonably expect the
original Hebrew to have been, Ewald, Schrader,
and Kuenen are the most disting-uished. Of those
who have considered the Hebrew incomparaljly
superior to the Greek, the most prominent are
Eichhorn, Rosenmidler and Spohn, Kueper, Haver-
nick and Wichelhaus, Nao;elsbach and Heno;sten-
berg, Keil, Graf and Orelli. These are particularly
decided in pronouncing for the integrity of the
Massoretic text. They one and all attribute only
inferiority and uncertainty to the Septuagint trans-
lation. Indeed, the most interpreters in Europe
and America, especially since the labours of Graf,
have looked upon the Alexandrian version as
totally untrustworthy, and as critically valueless.

Not only do modern opinions greatly differ as to
the respective values of the texts in question, but
also they widely dififer as to the true origin of
the manifold divergences between them. Several
reasons for the variations have been assigned.
They have been ascribed to carelessness, to ignor-
ance, to haste, to design, and to different text-
recensions. Some of these theories are the outcome
of an almost superstitious veneration for the
Massoretic text. They have arisen from a powerful
and prevalent persuasion that the Hebrew text
alone represented the ancient and original form of

6 THE TEXT or JEREMIAH.

the book, and that no other version or recension
could, by any possibility, be correct. Without
such a prejudice or prepossession, it is practically
inconceivable either why or how the first four
theories should have ever been suo-o-ested. Hitherto
almost any explanation of the variations has
been commonly considered more credible than the
supposition that the Hebrew was not absolutely
w^orthy of implicit confidence. In this connection
these hypotheses require to be more fully stated.
Each one of them does not call for an extended
treatment, but each one claims, at least, a brief
discussion and consideration.

The first hypothesis was proposed about the
beginning of the fifth century of our era, by
Jerome, and was adopted in the present century by
Grabe. These have both attributed the variations
to the carelessness of copyists. Divergences were,
doubtless, sometimes due to such a cause ; but
errors by transcribers have not been restricted to
the Septuagint. They belong as truly and, perhaps,
as frequently to the Hebrew as to the Greek.
Guilty, though, as copyists often are in this respect,
it is impossible to account for many, much less
for most, of the discrepancies on this hypothesis.
Though some words had been overlooked, or
added to the text, or even wrongly copied, by
a transcriber, such mistakes, at least the great

THE KELATION OF THE VERSION. 7

majority of them, must have been discovered and
corrected on revision. In such a standard copy of
the Jewish Scriptures as the Septuagint was for
many centuries, as it is, indeed, and always has
been, in the Eastern Catholic Church, it is incredible
that a prodigious number of transcriber's errors
(the divergences amount to many thousand in this
book alone) should have escaped detection and
correction.

The second hypothesis has been adopted at
different times by a few interpreters, who have
held that very many of the variations were due
to want of understanding on the part of the
translator. Even Hitzig, Graf, and Umbreit have
endeavoured to account for a considerable number
of so-called abridgments and omissions by ascrib-
ing them to ignorance. This hypothesis is both
unworthy and inadequate. It neither comports
with the probabilities nor explains the great
majority of the divergences. The translator must
have had the fullest qualifications for his arduous
undertaking. Without the necessary scholarship
he would surely not have been selected for his
sacred and important task. From the nature of
his office and the character of his work, he must
have been considered altogether competent by
those responsible for his dignified appointment.
A devout and cultured Jew, living at the height

8 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

of Alexandrian learning, trained in all the wisdom
of tlie schools of that distinguished age, he, doubt-
less, was an efficient scholar, both in Hebrew and
in Greek. Of his competency his translation,
where his Hebrew text was not corrupt, or in
some respect imperfect, affords the clearest and
the most convincing proof, as will later on be
fully shown, it is believed.

The third hypothesis has been suggested by
Dean K. Payne Smith. ^ He supposes that the
discrepancy between the texts was chiefly due to
haste in the transcription of the Hebrew original
of the Septuagint. During the period of his
captivity in Egypt, either before or after Jeremiah's
death, the prophet's secretary, Baruch, it is thought,
may have employed a number of persons to pre-
pare, as speedily as possible, perhaps on separate
parchment rolls, a copy of this book of prophecy,
wdiich he desired to take back with him into Pales-
tine. Were it only probable, a number of omis-
sions might be easily explained on this hypothesis.
It does not appear, however, to possess the slightest
probability. As many of Jeremiah's prophecies had
been delivered before the prophet left his native
land, and had been for some time in his secretary's
possession, Baruch had no need to have a special
copy of them made. Moreover, apart from a large

^ Speaker''s Commentary, vol. v., pp. 324, 325.

THE KELATION OF THE VERSION. V

proportion of the omissions for which it absolutely
fails to account, the hypothesis altogether over-
looks the numerous additions to the Septuagint,
as well as the other kinds of deviation which
continually occur throughout the book. This con-
jecture, therefore, must be looked upon as worth-
less, so far as furnishing a solution of the problem
is concerned.

The fourth hypothesis has been maintained by
Kueper and Hiivernick, Spohn and Niigelsl^ach,
Wichelhaus, Keil and Graf. These scholars, to-
gether with the great majority of recent expositors,
ascribe the variations almost entirely to design.
By them the Alexandrian version is considered a
corrupt translation of the present Hebrew text.
According to their hypothesis, the differences of
rendering arose, partly from the arbitrariness and
fickleness of the translator, and partly from the
caprice and negligence of the transcribers, especially
the later copyists. An unprejudiced consideration
of the phenomena presented by a careful investiga-
tion of the two texts shows this hypothesis to be
untrue. The variations are of such extent and
character that they cannot have proceeded from
either of the causes indicated, or from both- of them
combined. The very nature of the Septuagint
itself disproves the theory. The Greek translation
of this book in general, and of large portions of it

10 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

in particular, reproduces the Hebrew text, wliere
there is reason to believe that the original of each
text was formerly the same, with such literalness
and fidelity, that it is utterly incredible that a
translator or transcriber should have made such
arbitrary and prodigious changes, as more or less
abound in nearly every section of the work. It
is only reasonable to assume that the Alexandrian
version must have essentially agreed with the
ancient Hebrew manuscript from which it was
translated.

The fifth hypothesis was first proposed by
Eichhorn. He suo-g-ested that the translator of
the Septuagint used a Hebrew text which differed,
as the variations indicate, from the traditional
Massoretic text. He also believed that Jeremiah
himself authorized various versions of his prophecies
during his own lifetime. As the book is extant in
a twofold form, both in respect to matter and
arrangement, the hypothesis of different text-
recensions, two at least, has been adopted and
defended by Bertholdt, Michaelis, Movers, and
Bleek. A Palestinean recension is supposed to
have formed the original of the present Hebrew
text, and an Alexandrian recension the orio;inal of
the Septuagint translation. These two recensions,
it is thought, must have been in circulation, the
one in Asia, the other in Egypt, from some remote

THE KELATIOX OF THE VERSION. 11

but unknown period in tlie past. Wlietlier, from
the time this book became incorporated with the
other prophetic books by Ezra or Nehemiah, it
always had in Palestine and Babylonia the form in
which it now appears in Hebrew^, as Movers and
Bleek believe, is questionable, but that the original
manuscript from which the Septuagint was trans-
lated w^as not the same as the existing Hebrew
text is unquestionable. The truth of this assertion
can be fully demonstrated.

The general character of the variations has often
been discussed by modern scholars, their ap-
proximate number indicated, and their distinctive
features more or less completely pointed out.
They have received, perhaps, the fullest treatment
from the pen of Dr. Anton Scholz.^ He has given
a tolerably complete and systematic classification of
their more important kinds. A full and sufficient
explanation of them, though, has never yet been
given. The problem, notwithstanding, must cer-
tainly admit of a solution. There must have been
a worthy cause for such remarkable divergences.
They are too numerous to have been accidental, too
sisfnificant to have been intentional. Althouo;h thus
far no satisfiictory account of them has been put
forth, the need of a new^ and thorough investigation

1 Der masorduche Text tend die LXX - Uebersetzung des Buclies
Jeremias, Regensburg, 1875.

12 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

of tliem Las often been expressed, and has much
more frequently been felt. In view of the im-
portance of the problem, it appears a little sin-
efular that some of those who have maintained the
existence of a twofold text -recension have not
endeavoured to present a complete and scientific
proof of their hypothesis. Even the conservative
critic, Keil, significantly says, " None of the
advocates of a special text -recension, which lay
at the basis of the Alexandrian version, has given
himself the trouble more accurately to investigate
the nature of the translation." ^

A fresh and full discussion is thus considered
desirable, as well by some of those who commonly
depreciate the value of the Septuagint, as by
all of those who look upon it as a most im-
portant textual authority. The question of the
variations is too momentous to remain un-
answered, at least, to rest without an earnest
eff"ort being made to answer it. Its solution must
aff"ect the true interpretation of many portions of
this old prophetic book. A minute examination
is, moreover, necessary, in order, if possible, to
determine which of these two ancient authorities

1 " Keiner von den Verteidigern der Hypotliese einer der alexan-
drinisclien Uebersetzung zu Grunde liegenden besondern Text-
recension hat sich der Miihe unterzogen, die Bescliaifenheit dieser
Uebersetzung genauer zu untersucben." Bihlischer Commentar iiber
den Propheten Jerernia, etc., p. 24.

THE RELATION OF THE VERSION. 13

is the more correct, or wliicli more nearly represents
the original form of the book as it existed in the
prophet's day. Only by close and careful investi-
gation can the comparative excellence of each text
be estimated. The inquiry has a further import-
ance still. It concerns the critical relation of the
Greek and Hebrew texts for all the ancient Jewish
Scriptures. As Scholz has well observed, " The
solution of the question is not alone important for
the Book of Jeremiah, but decisive for the criticism
of the entire Old Testament. Should the decision
fall in favour of the Septuagint, then the opinion
of the almost absolute trustworthiness of the
Hebrew text must be not immaterially modified." ^
After discussing briefly the chief features of the
Septuagint translation of Jeremiah, in the Intro-
duction to his critical commentary on this book, Graf
emphatically asserts, " With the innumerable evi
dences of the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the
Alexandrian translator, it is quite impossible to give
his work — for one can scarcely call it a translation
— any critical authority, or infer from it a diff'erent
form of his Hebrew text from that which has been

1 " Die Lbsung der Frage ist nicht allein fiir das Buc.li Jeremias
von Wichtigkeit, sondern entscheidend fiir die Beurtheilung des
ganzen alten Testamentes. Fiillt namlich die Entsclieidung zu
Gunsten der LXX., so muss die Ansiclit von der fast absoluten
Zuverlassigkeit des hebraiischen Textes nicht unwesentlicli modiiizirt
werden." Der masoret. Text unci die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., pp. 4, 5.

14 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

handed down to us." ^ This judgment is unjust,
and can be proved to be untrue. The Alexandrian
version cannot, indeed, be properly called a trans-
lation of the present Hebrew text. In this sense,
and in this sense only, Grafs statement is unques-
tionably true. There must have been a special
text from which the version has been made. On
no other li}^othesis can the divergences between
the Greek and Hel^rew be explained. That the
Septuagint does not reproduce the Hebrew text as
known to us is very obvious ; that it does represent
another and a very different text is quite demon-
strable. The peculiar arrangement of many portions
of the book, especially of the prophetic parts,
furnishes a probable indication that it once existed
in another form from that in which we have it in
our Hebrew Bibles ; but the nature, as well as the
number, of the variations furnishes conclusive
evidence that such a supposition is correct.

Before proceeding to adduce the a'rguments for
the existence of a special text - recension, which
formed the orig;inal of the Alexandrian version of
Jeremiah, it may be advisable to present in brief

^ "Bei den unzahligen Beweisen der Eigenmaclitigkeit iind
"Willkurlichkeit des alexandrinisclien Uebersetzers ist es ganz un-
moglich seiner Bearbeitung — denn Uebersetzung kann man es
kaum nennen — irgend eine kritisclie Auctoritat zuzuerkennen und
daraus auf eine von der uns iiberlieferten verschiedeue Gestalt
seines hebraisclien Textes zu schliessen." Der Prophet Jeremia,
Einleitung, p. Ivi.

THE EELATIOX OF THE VERSION. 15

an outline of the plan proposed for the proving
of this hypothesis. Either the omissions from the
Greek, which amount to a few thousand words, or
the additions to the Greek, which number several
hundred words, are sufi&ciently significant of them-
selves for such a purpose ; but these two classes of
variation tosrether render the evidence cumulative.
A great variety of minor differences also gives the
combined arguments additional strength. Each
line of proof will be developed by itself. After-
wards the sum-total of the evidence will be taken
as establishing the hypothesis beyond a doubt.
The chief divero^ent features between the two

O

texts may be grouped conveniently in five general
classes, namely, (1) Omissions of letters, words,
phrases, verses, and paragraphs ; (2) Additions of
letters, words, phrases, and sentences; (3) Trans-
positions of letters, words, verses, and chapters ;
(4) Alterations of mood, tense, gender, person,
number, and case ; (5) Substitutions of parts of
speech, rhetorical expressions, syntactical forms,
proper names, etc. This order will be followed
throughout the investigation, and the evidence
afforded by each class of variation will be indi-
cated in its proper place.

It should be noted here that these five terms
have been adopted simply for convenience' sake,
some of them having always been employed by

16 thp: text of jeremiah.

critics in discussing tlie cliaracter of the Septuagint
translation of this particular book. Certain varia-
tions have so long been characterized as Omissions,
and certain others as Additions, by those who have
attributed all the divero-ences between the Greek
and Hebrew texts exclusively to design that it is
expedient to retain these terms, but only with a
meaning modified to suit the present hypothesis of
a special text-recension. In this discussion, the
variations are not in any sense, or, indeed, in an}^
instance, regarded as intentional. They are re-
garded simply as textual characteristics, or as
recensional peculiarities. This theory assumes that
the translator, in every case, endeavoured to
reproduce the text before him, as literally and as
faithfully as the genius of his language would
justly allow.

AYith this view of the translation, the hypothesis
implies that these words must be understood as
being used only in an accommodated sense. Taking
the Massoretic text as the accepted standard, and
making it the basis of the investigation, by
Omissions are meant forms and expressions in the
Hebrew that are wanting in the Greek ; by
Additions are meant forms and expressions in the
Greek that are wanting in the Hebrew ; by Trans-
positions, Alterations and Substitutions are meant
peculiarities of reading which these terms naturally

THE ItELATION OF THE VERSION. l7

express, but peculiarities that belonged in general
to tlie individual manuscript that formed the
original of the Alexandrian v^ersion. An occasional
instance of each class of variation may have arisen
from oversight, on the part of the translator or
transcriber, but not properly from intention. A
variation, moreover, may have been due sometimes
to accident, but never to design. With this ex-
planation of the sense in which these terms are
used in this investigation, it will be in order now
to exhibit the proof, furnished by each species of
divergence, of a special text-recension from which
the Septuagint translation has been made.

B

CHAPTER 11.

THE VARIATIONS — OMISSIONS.

Because of their number and significance, the
Omissions claim consideration first. In pointing
out and dealing with their several species, an
endeavour will be made to sfive a reasonable
explanation of each kind, and also to show the
folly and unfairness of ascribing them to careless-
ness, to ignorance, to haste, or to design. The
inadequacy of the first three theories has already
been evinced. The fourth hypothesis, because of
its general acceptance by leading scholars, demands
a special examination. By way of testing it
thoroughly, it will be necessary to consider care-
fully the causes of omission which its chief
defenders have supposed are everywhere manifest
throughout this book.

It is assumed by Graf and others that the trans-
lator must have been responsible for the omissions,
because of the improbability of any later writer
having added such a quantity of matter to the
Massoretic text. This is a most remarkable

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 19

assum^^tioii. It is not fair to suppose either that
the omissions were made capriciously hj the
translator, or that they were inserted arbitrarily
by a later hand. The alternative suggested is as
unnecessary as the method of reasoning is unjust.
It is simply begging the question to assume that
all such variations arose from one or other of these
two causes, or, indeed, from both of them put
together. Many of the omissions, as some of the
ablest critics have admitted, appear to have been
due directly to interpolation at a date subsequent
to the time of the Septuagint, although, doubtless,
some of them may have existed in the Palestinean
recension lono; before the work of translation was
commenced.

Granting with Graf that it is improbable that
a later writer should have added the omissions, it
is still more improbable that the translator should
have left them out. This supposition practically
implies on his part personal dishonesty — dishonesty,
too, of a very serious sort, inasmuch as he has
nowhere given an intimation of any such design.
Such a charg-e has never been substantiated ag-ainst
the translator of any ancient classic work. Tlie
Septuagint translators were appointed to prepare
for general circulation a Greek version of the
Hebrew Bible, and the Scriptures must have
seemed to them as holy as they seemed to any

20 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

other learned Jews. That any one of these men
should have capriciously abridged liis text appears
to one unprejudiced incredible and inconceivable.
The sacred character of his text, and the solemn
nature of his task, alike forl:)id the supposition that
many, much less most, of the omissions were due
to arbitrary purpose on his part. He must have
been an honest man, who did his duty con-
scientiously and in good faith.

The unreasonableness of the alternatives assumed
by Graf appears so evident as scarcely to require to
be more fully pointed out. As, however, he re-
peatedly refers to them, it seems important, in this
connection, to quote Bleek's observations in regard
to them. His judgment is deliberate and just.
After speaking of the extreme literalness and
fidelity of extensive portions of the Septuagint
translation of this book, he says, " It is, therefore,
altogether improbable that the translator elsewhere,
and in so many places, should have allowed himself
such arbitrary alterations, and especially omissions,
as must have been the case, if all the changes w^hich
his text furnishes against the Hebrew-Massoretic
text had proceeded from him. Even so little is it
at all probable that these changes in general should
be placed to the account of later transcribers of the
Septuagint. For there would occur in the manu-
scripts of the Septuagint even greater deviations

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 21

from the Hebrew text, and, in part, greater coin-
cidences with it, than is the case, or than already
was the case at the time of Origen." ^

Notwithstanding the evident unreasonableness of
Oraf s h3rpotliesis, he alleges further, not only that
the translator deliberately omitted difficult and, to
him, unknown and unnecessary expressions, but
also that he, in his constant striving after brevity,
svstematically al)ridged his text. This system of
al)ridgment, Graf believes, is very manifest. He
professes to discover traces of it throughout the
entire book. Believing that the translator started
out with the intention of being concise, Graf
accuses him of having utterly disregarded the
prophet's style, and of having left out terms at
pleasure whenever he failed to understand, or
happened to mistranslate, a word or phrase. Un-
righteous as this accusation seems, even Hitzig,
who is often favourable in his judgments of the

1^ " Es ist sclion deslialb durcliaus luiwahrscheinlicli, class der oder
die Uebersetzer selbst sicli anderswo und an so vielen Stellen solcbe
willkurliche Aenderungen und besonders Auslassungeu sollten
erlaubt haben, als der Fall miisste gewesen sein, -vvenn von ilmen
alle die Aenderungen berriibrten, welcbe ihr Text gegen den
bebraisch - masoretbiscben darbietet. Ebenso wenig ist irgend
wabrscheinlicb, dass dieselben im AUgemeinen auf Recbnung
spaterer Abscbreiber der Sept. komnien sollten. Denn. da wiirden
in den Handscbriften der Sept. selbst grossere Abweicbungen und
theilweise grosseres Zusammentreffen mit dem hebraischen Texte
stattfinden, als der Fall ist und als scbon zu Origenes Zeit der
Fall war." EinUitung in das Alte Testament, Funfte Auflage, pp.
.320, 321.

22 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAIT.

Septuagint, admits a frequent tendency on the part
of the translator to curtail his text, and also to
omit important matter from a verse or passage, if
the remainder only seemed to furnish a tolerably
complete sense. The admission of the one critic is
as unworthy as the allegation of the other.

The constant and unimportant repetitions that
characterize the writings of Jeremiah have given a
certain measure of plausibility to this h}^othesis,
because they are so much more numerous in the
Hebrew than in the Greek ; but the theory is no
more reasonable or satisfactory on that account.
If the translator had a S3'stem of omission, he
certainly did not adhere to it, for he frequently
leaves in his text the very class of words he is
accused of systematically leaving out of it. Quite
often, too, this is the case, even when the equivalent
expression is wanting in the Massoretic text. Such
inconsistencies are incompatible with the supposi-
tion of a system. The omissions really indicate
neither system nor design. The charge of syste-
matic abridgment, moreover, implies stupidity, as
well as dishonesty, on the part of the translator,
and can be easily refuted. It is only reasonable
to believe that he endeavoured in every case to
give, so far as possible, an accurate rendering of
the orisrinal which he used.

As Graf is the ablest and most distinguished

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 23

advocate of tlie theory of design, and as his defence
of it is both the fullest and the strongest that
exists, there appears to be a great propriety, as
well as a 2:reat advantao-e, in makino; his discussion
the basis, in a general sense of the term, of the
present investigation of the different kinds of varia-
tion. If the falsity of his view can be demon-
strated, then the truth of the h}'pothesis of a
special text-recension, which formed the Hebrew
original of the Alexandrian version, must follow as
a necessary and inevitable conclusion.

It is not easy accurately to classify the great
variety of divergences which Graf discusses some-
what unmethodically in the Introduction to his
commentary, but at least nine species of omission
may be indicated as characterizing the system of
abridgment which he believes the Greek translator
adopted and observed. Each class recpiires a
special examination, and will be considered in the
order most convenient for discussion. An effort
will be made to answer Graf's objections respecting
each and every class.

1. The translator has omitted certain set phrases
and fixed forms, which are peculiar to Jeremiah,
and which are repeated with exceeding frequency
in the Massoretic text, because he considered
them unimportant and unnecessary. For instance,
for the constantly recurring formulae, " Jehovah

24 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Sabaotli," and "Jehovah Sabaoth the God of
Israel," ''Jehovah" only, as a rule, occurs in the
Septuagint, and the word " Sabaoth," according to
Grafs estimate, is wanting fifty-six times. The
phrase, " thus says Jehovah," fails equally often
with this latter term, and the form, " declares
Jehovah," is omitted sixty-four times in the Greek.
The continual repetition of these formulae in the
Hebrew, though a remarka1)le peculiarity of the
prophet's style, is entirely unnecessary. In not a
single case where they are absent from the Greek
is their presence needed by the context. The sense
is always good, and the style is generally better,
without them. Sometimes one of them, perhaps,
would be appropriate where it is wanting in
the Septuagint, but such instances are very rare.
Hitzig, for example, thinks that "declares Jehovah,"
in chap. xxv. 7, improves the construction of the
sentence ; but he cannot claim that the phrase is
really essential. Its presence or absence is chiefly,
if not entirely, a matter of taste. Scholz's explana-
tion of the constant recurrence of these words in
Hebrew is worth considering. He says, " Not
fewer than one hundred and seventy-seven times
is the phrase, N'um Adonai, repeated, and, indeed,
in numerous places where it can only have the
meaning that it is repeated, in order to insure that
the thing said is certainly true, because it is the

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 25

word of God, somewhat as a preacher appeals to
Bible passages as to the word of God." ^

Had it been the purpose of the translator
arbitrarily to abridge his text by omitting every
unimportant or unnecessary expression, he might
have much more frequently omitted such formulae.
He surely would have omitted them, too, in
harmony with some rule. Instead of this being
the case, these forms are found in many places
where, according to Graf, they should not appear,
if systematic omission had been the translator's
aim. This species of omission is further proved
to have been unintentional on his part by the
important fact, apparently overlooked by Graf,
that the Greek often has some one or other of
these forms where the Hebrew has them not.
Without noticino: the numerous instances in which
a similar formula occurs in each text, it may be
sufficient here to o;ive some illustrations of the
foreofoino; statement.

It should be mentioned, before pointing out the
passages, that they are not confined to any
particular part of the translation, but are widely

^ "Nicht wenigcr als Imndertsiebenundsiebzigmal wircl im ma-
sorethischcn Texte die Phrase Ne'um Adunai wiederholt,. imd zwar
in zalilreichcn Stellen, wo sie fast nur den .Sinn haben kann
wiederliolt zu versicliern, dass das Gesagte gewiss wahr sei, weil
Gottes Wort, etwa wie ein Prediger sicli auf Biliclstellen als auf
Gottes Wort beruft." Der masoret. Text und die LXX- Uebersdramg,
etc., p. 101.

26 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

scattered throughout the whole work. In chap,
ii. 2, "says Jehovah;" in chap. v. 1, "declares
Jehovah ; " in chap. xvi. 2, " says Jehovah the God
of Israel ;" in chap, xxxii. 28, " the God of Israel ;"
in chap. xlix. 18, " Sabaoth ;" in chap. 1. 21, "de-
clares Jehovah," are present only in the Septuagint.
In chap, xxiii. 29, " declares Jehovah" occurs twice
in the Greek, but only once in the Hebrew ; and
in chap, xxiii. 30, for "declares Jehovah" in the
Hebrew, " declares the Lord God " is given in
the Greek. In vers. 37, 38 of this latter chapter,
instead of " says Jehovah," the Septuagint has, in
each verse, " says Jehovah our God." In chap,
li. G2 the Greek also presents the two words
"Lord Jehovah" for the single word "Jehovah."
Even the phrase, " thus says Jehovah," which
often serves to introduce a new or sudden turn
of thought, is not in this sense uniformly found
in either text. It, too, is w\anting in Hebrew
once, at least, namely, chap. ii. 31, where it
appears in Greek.

2. The translator has omitted synonymous
words and pleonastic expressions, which seem to
have been used in Hebrew, either to strengthen
a clause or to intensify a thought, because he
considered all such terms superfluous. When
several terms of this kind came together he is
supposed to have regarded one or two of them,

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 27"

at most, as quite enough, and, for tliis reason,
to have purposely determined not to reproduce
them all in his translation.

This supposition might possess some plausibility,
at least, if such omissions could 1)6 regularly or
systematically traced, though even then it would
be most improbaljle. No regularity, however, can
be discovered. In the Hebrew^ text, for instance,
chap. i. 10, there are four verbs of destruction,
while in the Septuagint there are only three. In
each text the verbs of destruction are followed by
tw^o verbs of restoration. If the variation had
been due to design, the translator w^ould un-
doubtedly have omitted two words instead of one.
The parallelism then would have been perfect;
while, as the verse now stands, it is imperfect.
It should be observed, moreover, that the com-
bination here in Greek is identical with that in
Hebrew, 'chap, xviii. 7. In this latter place,
though, the Septuagint has only two of the fore-
going verbs. It should be noted further that in
chap. xxxi. 28, where five verbs of destruction
appear in Hebrew, only the first and the last
appear in Greek. Had these omissions been the
outcome of a system, such irregularities could not
have occurred.

Again, in Hebrew, chaps, vii. 4 ; xxii. 29, for
the sake of emphasis, it is supposed, there is a

28 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

threefold occurrence of the phrase, " the temple
of Jehovah," in the first passage, and also of the
word " earth " in the second passage ; while, in
Greek, there is but a twofold occurrence of the
corresponding term in each particular verse. For
the reason indicated, the increased emphasis, the
Hebrew is regarded as superior to the Greek.
As an analogy in favour of the former, " Holy,
holy, holy," Isa. vi. 3, has been cited. The cases,
though, are scarcely parallel, and the analogy
suggested is not by any means conclusive, either
for the Hebrew or against the Greek. There is
no <xood o-round for holding; that suflicient force
is not expressed in each of these two passages in
the Septuagint, nor is there any reason to believe
that the absent words were left out by design.
If desire for brevity had been the cause of these
divergences, no repetition needed to have been made
at all. A sino;le use of each term would have been
enough.

Another example of a similar sort is found in
chap. xlvi. 20, where the verb "come" occurs
twice in the Hebrew and only once in the Greek.
But, in this latter verse, as Hitzig rightly holds,
the Septuagint gives a vastly better meaning than
that which the Hebrew gives ; and the reading,
"comes upon her," which the Greek presents, is
not only the one supported by many ancient

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 29

authorities, but also is the one acknowledged by
Graf to be the simpler of the two. The reading
of the Septuagint is evidently correct. Although
superfluous expressions are not so frequent in the
Greek as in the Hebrew, yet more or less un-
necessary words and phrases are sometimes found
in the former when they are wanting in the latter,
as, for example, "land," chap. i. 15; "from all
the countries," chap. iii. 18, etc. In every instance
of this species of divergence there must have been
a corresponding deviation in the ancient manu-
scripts. At all events the Greek translator, doubt-
less, reproduced the reading which he found before
him in his text.

3. The translator has omitted short sentences
and half- verses which are not necessary to the
meaning of a verse, but which are essential to the
parallelism of its members, because he regarded
them as redundant. In this way, by his constant
striving after brevity, he not only has impaired
the prophet's composition, but also has ignored a
prominent peculiarity of Hebrew style, especially
in poetry.

In this, as well as in the foregoing, species of
omission, Graf argues that the variations must
have arisen from the arbitrariness of the trans-
lator, because of the incredibility of any reviser or
any editor having supplemented them, when the

30 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

style of Jeremiah was already too diffuse. Having,
in a previous section, sliown tlie unfairness and
unreasonableness of this argument, it is sufficient
here to add that it is more conceivable that an
editor should have inserted harmless terms occa-
sionally for the sake of balancing a sentence, or
of perfecting a parallelism, than that the trans-
lator should have mutilated the prophet's style
by capriciously abridging his Hebrew text. It is
not necessary, however, to assume either of these
alternatives in order to explain the deviations,
except in certain passages w^hich really bear traces
of revision, and which will be indicated in the
proper place. By whom or when revised, of
course, is quite unknown. The passages thus ex-
panded and interpolated appear in their revised
f«jrm in the Massoretic text.

In the majority of instances in Greek where
variations of this kind occur, the parallelism is not
at all disturl^ed, much less destroyed, by the
omission. Even in those cases where the Hebrew
parallelism is thought to be superior to the Greek,
the sense in Greek is almost invariably unimpaired
1)y the divergence. The form of chap. xii. 3 is
more pregnant and, it may be, more poetical in
Hebrew than in Greek, but it cannot be justly
claimed that the style of the Septuagint is imper-
fect, or that the text is incomplete. In some of

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 31

Graf's examples, as, for instance, chaps, xx. 5 ;
xxi. 4 ; xxix. 12 ; xlvi. 14, not only is the parallel-
ism of the Septuagint unaffected by the various
divergences, but also the symmetry of the verse-
members is excellent in every case. Could it be
shown that the parallelism of the Greek was
frequently inferior to that of the Hebrew, it would
afford no proof of arbitrary omission on the part
of the translator. It would simply indicate the
character of the manuscript he used.

In many places, perhaps, it may be admitted
that the parallelism of the Hebrew is somewhat
better than that of the Septuagint, but this is far
from being universally, or even commonly, the
case. Quite frequently the two texts agree ; but,
when they disagree, the one is often practically
as symmetrical as the other. In a number of
important passages, though, the parallelism is
decidedly^ improved l^y the reading given in the
Greek. Examples of this kind are found in
chaps, ii. 20, 24; iv. 15, 19; v. 20; xviii_Z;
XXV. 9 ; xxxix. 17. So far as this species of
omission is concerned, unless it can be believed
that the translator sometimes changed a readinsr
with reference to the parallelism, and at other
times without reference to it, it must be naturally
assumed that he always tried to give a true trans-
lation of the text he had. This charge of over-

32 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

lookiug a marked peculiarity of Hel)rew style
cannot he sustained. In view of all the circum-
stances of the case, it seems surprising that it
should ever have been seriously made.

4. The translator has omitted minor explana-
tions and detailed descriptions, where he could not
leave out entire verses, because he looked upon
them as irrelevant. By so doing, he has destroyed
the rhythm of the sentences. Omissions of this
kind, it is maintained, abound throughout the
Septuagint, particularly in the narrative portions
of the book.

This charge implies that the translator mutilated
his ancient text, because he had not a proper
acquaintance with one of the most conspicuous
features of the Hebrew lano-uacfe. Like the fore-
going charge, it really carries its own refutation
with it. Without being influenced by a powerful
prejudice, it is impossible for a moment to suppose
that the rhythm was either disregarded or over-
looked. A cultured Alexandrian scholar, who was
born and bred, perhaps, in Judaism, as well as
taught and trained in classic literature, cannot
have been deficient in linguistic feeling, or wanting
in literary appreciation of the peculiar genius of the
ancient Jewish tono;ue. The English and German
translators of the Old Testament did not overlook
such manifest peculiarities of style as the Hebrew

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 33

idiom presents, some sixteen or seventeen centuries
later, when, as critics all acknowledge, tlie gram-
matical niceties of the language were most imper-
fectly understood. Want of rhythmical perception
or appreciation would not have led the Septuagint
translator to mutilate his sacred text. The charge
implies the grossest ignorance, as well as the
greatest inconsistency and dishonesty.

Some of Grafs examples in support of his
assertion are exceedingly unfortunate, to say the
least. Chap. xxii. 30 has been selected as a
specimen of a mutilated sentence, but the missing
member, " he shall not prosper in his days," is
not really required. The rhythm of the verse in
Greek is good, and the meaning given is complete.
Indeed, the sense in which the additional w^ords in
Hebrew should be understood can only be deter-
mined by the latter portion of the verse, which
is also differently rendered in each text. Chap.
XXV. 3 has been adduced as another illustration of
a dismembered verse, but the lacking clause, " the
word of Jehovah was to me," was not left out by
design. If the conjunction kuI, as Graf asserts,
shows that the absent w^ords must have been
present in the original of the Septuagint, it does
not prove that the translator omitted them. Tliey
may have been overlooked by a subsequent tran-
scriber. The translator surely would not leave out

34 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

words essential to the construction of tlie verse in
Greek. He must, at least, have understood the
ofenius of his mother ton2;ue.

In discussing this species of omission, Graf again
resorts to his favourite practice of maintaining that,
in one passage after another, the sentences and
clauses wanting must have been omitted by the
translator, because there was not the least occasion
for a later writer to insert them. The first sen-
tence of chap, xxiii. 10, " For the land is full of
adulterers," was left out, he says, because of its
apparent inappropriateness. Its nature quite ex-
cludes the supposition of its subsequent insertion,
he believes. The words appear to be most inap-
propriate, it is true, but their absence is in favour
of the Septuagint, to the original of which they
certainly did not belong. Several of Grafs illustra-
tions argue nothing for or against either of the texts.
They simply indicate that the original of the one
was shorter than that of the other. The text of the
one is generally just as good as the text of the
other, though the Greek is much conciser in chaps.

^^ xxxiv. 10, 11; xxxv. 8; xxxvi. 17, 32; xxxviii. 12;

xlii. 20, 21 ; xliv. 29. In chap, xxxvi. 6 the sen-
tence, "which thou hast written from my mouth,
the words of Jehovah," is probably a gloss taken
from ver. 4, as Hitzig thinks ; and in chap.

■ jjJ'f' xl. 4 the whole second half of the verse is

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 35

possibly an interpolation, as Movers and Ilitzig
both believe.

That the rhythm of the Hebrew is sometimes
superior to the rhythm of the Greek is, doubt-
less, true ; but this fact furnishes no fair reason
to assert that the difference was due to the
caprice of the translator, or to his ignorance of
style. To be convinced of the injustice of this
allegation, it is only necessary to observe the
accuracy and fidelity with which he everywhere
has done his work, having reproduced the original
Hebrew with a literalness which extends, wherever
practicable, to the order of the words as they must
have stood in his ancient Hebrew manuscript.
Respecting this class of variations also, it is more
reasonable to suppose that certain clauses, here and
there, were, at some time, inserted in the Massoretic
text by Jewish sticklers for style, who were too
regardful of the rhythm, than that they were omitted
from the Septuagint by the Greek translator, who,
according to Graf's theory, was quite regardless of
it. The latter both observed it and preserved it
with the utmost care. If the Greek text is less
rhythmical than the Hebrew, and to some extent,
perhaps, it is, he cannot be held responsible" for the
deficiency. It is possible that an occasional word
or clause may have been overlooked in the trans-
lation or in the transcription, but this, as well as

36 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH.

the foregoing, species of omission can only be
explained by the hypothesis of a special text-
recension.

5. The translator has omitted proper names
and personal or official titles, which appear with
frec[uency, and with some degree of regularity, in
the historical parts particularly of the Massoretic
text, because he thought them entirely un-
necessary.

Wichelhaus attaches great importance to the
annexino' of the father's name to the names of
persons, and indicates the rule by which, in
Hebrew, he supposes they occur. He says, " If,
therefore, in any passage, the name receives a
special stress, if, as it were, the whole personality
appears on the scene, the surnames are annexed
according to the same law, by which it is, at one
time, uttered with a lighter, at another time, ex-
pressed with a heavier, emphasis." ^ These titles,
though, are not nearly so important as he believes,
nor does their repetition in Hebrew seem to have
been governed by any regular rule. Although
Graf apparently adopts the extreme view of
Wichelhaus, he grants that these appended names
and titles are not essential to a right understanding

1 " Quaie si quo loco vis qusedani inest nomini, si tota quasi
persona in scenam prodit, apponuntur cognomina eadem lege, qua
modo leviore pronuntiatur sono, modo altiore voce effertur." De
Jercmice Versione Alexandrina, pp. 70, 71.

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 37

of the context, and that tlieir presence or absence
is a matter of indifference, so far as they concern
the subject-matter of the book.

Graf's assumption, that these admittedly unim-
portant appendages must have been intentionally
omitted by the translator, because it is incredible
that a later editor should have given himself the
vsuperfluous troul)le of introducing such a number
of unnecessary names and titles, had they not
stood originally in the Massoretic text, is again
iXratuitous and unreasonable. While some of these
variations possibly indicate recensional divergences,
others of them very probably were made l)y a
ater hand. Hitzig admits this probability in
chap. xl. 9, in reference to "the son of Ahikam,
the son of Shaphan," which is in apposition to the
name of Gedaliah. At the first mention of Gedaliah
in the preceding chapter, ver. 14, and also in the
present chapter, ver. 5, as well in the Greek as in
the Hebrew, the full form of the name is given,
and its repetition here is entirely superfluous.
Whether many of these differences were due to
subsequent insertion or not, some of them very
likely were ; and it is unreasonable to suppose that
they were the outcome of purpose or caprice on the
part of the translator.

Some of this species of omission appear to
indicate the primitive character of the Hebrew

38 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

manuscript which formed the original of the
Septuagint translation. In ancient times such
formulae seem not to have been repeated with so
much frequency as they were in modern times.
The name " Pashhur," in chap. xx. 6, which Graf
suggests could very well be spared after the
pronoun " thou," may not have stood in the
earliest Hebrew texts, and surely did not stand in
the original of the Greek. In chap. xl. and
following chaj)ters, the addition to the Hebrew
of " the son of Nethaniah " after the name of
Ishmael, of "the son of Kareah" after the name
of Johanan, and of " the son of Ahikam," or
" the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan," after
the name of Gedaliah, is almost invariably un-
necessary, wherever it is wanting in the Septuagint.
Indeed, after an individual has once, in any given
paragraph or chapter, been, definitely indicated or
described, the repetition of the full form of the
name in that particular paragraph or chapter
becomes practically superfluous in every case. At
the beginning of an entirely new section, there is
an appropriateness in expressing a person's name
in full, with the surname attached. This is the
rule apparently adopted in the other Hebrew books,
as Movers very properly has observed.^

^ " Regula enim de cognominibus vel titiUis cum nominibus con-
iunctis lisec est, ut in oratione vulgari historica nomen cum

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 39

The frequent recurrence, moreover, of the titles,
" the priest " and " the prophet," which character-
izes the Massoretic text, is also a species of re-
dundancy. These titles are altogether unnecessary
wherever they are wanting in the Septuagint, and
their absence is in favour of the originality of the
version. In every instance, too, the meaning is
just as explicit in the Greek as in the Hebrew.
Although, as Graf has stated, the name " Nebu-
chadnezzar" is wanting twenty-three times in the
Septuagint, in no case is the omission necessary to
the sense. The context always makes clear who is
meant. Instead of being a defect, its absence is
a great improvement. For Jeremiah's time the
repetition of this name was entirely superfluous.
For a later time it may have seemed desirable to a
teacher or transcriber. For this reason, IM overs
rightly regards these repetitions as later glosses.
After the death of Jeremiah, he supposes, when
Nebuchadnezzar had successors with whom he
might possibly be confused, his name was frequently
appended.

The charge of systematic omission is perfectly
disproved again by the important fact that some-
times such appendages do not appear in Hebrew

cognomine vel titulo tantum initio nova; narrationis coniungi soleat,
narratione autem progreJiente, nisi maior orationi vis concilianda
est, solum nomen admittatur." Be utriusque recensionis vaticinionim
Jeremice, etc., p. 4.

40

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

where thej^ do appear in Greek. This fact has
been observed by Scholz. He says, " That it did
not lie in the purpose of the Alexandrian translator,
or in his manuscript, to abridge such names or
surnames follows with evidence in abundance from
this, that the Septuagint itself in certain passages
has such appendages where they are wanting in the
Massoretic text." ^ A few examples are sufficient
for the purpose ; for instance, " the son of
Hananiah," chap. xxxv. 4 ; " the son of Neriah,"
chap, xxxvi. 14. There are also other appositional
repetitions in Greek where there are none in
Hebrew, such as " king of Judah," chaps, xxi. 3 ;
xxxvi. 2 ; " king," chap, xxxvi. 9 ; " king of
Babylon," chap, xxxii. 1 ; and also " Jeremiah,"
chap, xxxvi. 18.

G. The translator has omitted sometimes one
and sometimes two from the group of words,
"sword and famine and pestilence," which quite
frequently occurs in Hebrew, because he did not
carefully regard the context in which these words
were found.

In chap, xxviii. 8, where two of them are want-

^ " Dass es niclit in der Absicht des alexaudrinischen Uebersetzera
imd seiner Vorlage gelegen ist, solche Namen oder Beinamen
abzukiirzen, geht zum Ueberflusse noch daraus mit Evidenz liervor,
dass LXX. selbst an einigen Stellen solche Zusatze liaben, wo sie
im masorethischen Texte fehlen." Der masoreth. Text imd die LXX-
Uebersetzu7ig, etc., p. 100.

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 41

ing in the Septuagint, Graf tliinks that the latter
text seems to be mutilated by the omission, because
this portion of the verse is disproportionate in
length to the preceding part ; but the single term
expressed in Greek is amply sufficient, both for the
sense and for the rhythm, if the meaning of the
passage be observed. The introductory word in
this place is not "sword" but "war;" and the
Greek is really superior to the Hebrew, since there
is a special contrast in vers. 8, 9 between war and
peace. Although the union of the three words
now under consideration is common in the Hebrew,
their combination is by no means uniform. They
vary both in respect to number, and also in respect
to order of combination, in different portions of
the book. A few illustrations of this variety of
number and order may be given.

In chaps, xiv. 1 2 ; xxi. 9 ; xxiv. 1 0 ; xxvii.
8, 13; xxix. 17, 18; xxxii. 24, 36; xxxviii. 2;
xlii. 17, 22; xliv. 13, the order of the words in
Hebrew is "sword, famine and pestilence." Their
number and order in Greek are just the same in
chaps, xiv. 12 ; xxxii. 36. This order is changed
in both texts in chap, xxxiv. 17, where the
arrangement is " sword, pestilence and famine,"
and also in chap. xxiv. 10, in the Greek, where the
arrangement is "famine, pestilence and sword."
In chap. xxi. 7 again, the Hebrew has "pestilence,

42 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAU.

sword and famine," while the Greek has "pesti-
lence, famine and sword." In the first half of
xiv. 15, where only two of these terms occur, both
texts are in complete agreement. In chap. xiv. 16,
where two of these words also appear in each text,
the general order in the Hebrew is reversed, while
in the Greek it is retained. Thus the latter has
the advantage of arrangement, if it were of any
particular significance.

The difference between the Hebrew and the
Greek respecting this group of words is thus seen
to be only occasional. As examples of irregular
arrangement appear in each text, and as two instead
of three words also sometimes occur in each, no
real importance can be attached either to their
order or to their number, and no certain conclusion
can be drawn as to which form is the more original
or correct. When both of the texts agree, no ques-
tion of superiority can be raised, and when they
disaorree, no argument in favour of the one or of
the other can be established. In this particular,
the one text is practically as good as the other, A
diversity existed, doubtless, in the ancient manu-
scripts. In view of the foregoing facts, it is
manifestly foolish and unfair to suppose that the
translator sometimes omitted one of the three
words because he saw that only two occurred
occasionally in his Hebrew text. Everything

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 4S

indicates that lie tried to give a true translation
of the text he had.

7. The translator has omitted names and dates
and specifications of various kinds, which abound
in Hebrew, because he considered them meaning-
less or useless.

As Graf believes it impossible to regard such
variations in the Hebrew text as glosses, or as in
any sense the additions of a later hand, he asserts
again that all such terms, when wanting in the
Septuagint, must have been capriciously left out.
This alternative also is unnecessary and unfair.
His illustrations, too, do not support his charge.
He instances, first, the omissions, of which there
are several, in chap, xxviii. 3, 4 ; but the Septua-
gint here contains all that is essential to the sense,
and really presents a more concise and finished
reading than the Hebrew furnishes, as Hitzig
honestly admits. The latter also points out very
properly that the second half of ver. 3 in Hebrew,
on account of the date in ver. 1, was quite super-
fluous for the readers of Jeremiah's time, and that
the long repetition in ver. 4 was rendered desir-
able solely by reason of the additions to the
Massoretic text.

In the remaining examples of this sort adduced
by Graf, there is no more evidence of design in the
omissions than in the passage just considered.

44 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

The reading of tlie Septuagint in cliap. xxi. 7 is the
usual one tlirougiiout this book, and closely corre-
sponds to that of both the texts in chaps, xix. 7, 9 ;
xxxiv. 21 ; xliv. 30. Had the absent words, "into
the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon,"
been present in his text, the translator would
undoubtedly have reproduced it. The variation in
chap. XXX vi. 9, instead of indicating wilful omis-
sion and abridgment, as Graf and Hitzig claim,
rather affords a clear proof of a twofold reading of
this passage in the ancient manuscripts. For the
sentence, " all the people that came from the
cities of Judah unto Jerusalem," in the Hebrew,
there is only the clause, " the house of Judah," in
the Greek. But the one word "Judah" is common
to both the texts, so that they cannot have been
originally alike. The supposition is absurd. The
same may l)e asserted also of the supposed omis-
sions in chaps, xlii. 9 ; xliv. 24, The Septuagint
translation of these passages is terse and good, and
must have been made from a manuscript which was
different from the present Hebrew text in manifold
respects.

Again, the illustrations Graf has given of design
in the absence from the Septuagint of detailed
information respecting individuals, as in chap.
XX vi. 22, or in the absence of one from a succes-
sion of well-known names, as in chap, xxxvi. 25

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 45

2G, or ill the absence of definite clironologieal
data in some of the superscriptions, as in chaps.
XXV. 1 ; xlvii. 1, are really no more fortunate or
satisfiictory. In not a single example is there any
apparent or probable, much less certain, evidence
of intentional omission. The text of the Greek is
shorter than that of the Hebrew, but in every
instance it is excellent, so far as this class of
variation is concerned. The Septuagint appears
to represent as accurately as the process of transla-
tion and transmission rendered possible the Hebrew
text which the translator used.

8. The translator has omitted difficult words,
uncommon terms, and unfamiliar phrases, whose
meaning was, perhaps, obscure, or possibly un-
known, because he thought such terms unsuited
to the context in which they stood.

The expression "plundered," in chap. iv. 30,
is supposed to be an illustration of this kind ; but
the word is quite unnecessary, as well as difficult
with certainty to construe. Some critics consider
it in apposition with the preceding pronoun
" thou ; " but Hitzig, with whom Graf agrees,
holds that it is in apposition with the subject
of the succeeding; verb. Althouo-h the- form of
the word is admittedly irregular in its present
position, it cannot have been omitted through
ignorance, because it frec[uently occurs elsewhere

46 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

in Jeremiali, or bv intention, because the trans-
lator could have rendered it then as readily as we
are al)le to render it now.

The first half of chap. 1. 36, "A sword is upon
the boasters, and they shall l^ecome foolish," can-
not have been omitted because the words were
either difficult or unknown, as Graf seems to
suggest by citing it in this connection, inasmuch
as they are all simple words and easy to translate.
The same is also true of the phrase, " and all the
kings of Zimri," in chap. xxv. 25. The proper
name is a familiar one, but it is nowhere else in
Scripture used of a distinct body of people, and
its application here in that sense is somewhat
difficult to explain. At least, it is not known
what particular tribe is meant, as the race referred
to cannot be certainly identified. The translator
had no o-reater reason to omit the words than
we have, on account of the uncertainty of the
reference in this obscure clause.

There is nothing either inappropriate or ofi"ensive
in the use of the expression for "eunuch" in chap,
xxxviii. 7 that should have led to its intentional
omission, as Graf seems also to suggest. On the
contrary, by the first mention of a person, as in
the present case, the description is exceedingly
appropriate. Even though the term had seemed
unsuitable, which is incredible, that would have

THE VARIATIONS — OMISSIONS. 47

formed no justification for omitting it, had it stood
ill the orioinal text. The term " fatness " ao-aiii
in chap. xxxi. 14 was not omitted for either of the
reasons indicated, because it was a familiar word,
and is several times translated in other parts of
the Old Testament. A further proof of this
assertion is afforded by the circumstance that,
instead of this term, the expression, "the sons of
Levi," appears in the Septuagint. The translator
would not have ventured to omit one word and to
insert two words in its place. The original of the
Greek was evidently different from that of the
Hebrew, and the reading of the former in this
verse is similar to the readino; of the latter in
chap, xxxiii. 18.

The last word in chap, xxxvi. 18, Graf thinks,
was omitted because it was unknown to the trans-
lator. Hitzig also thinks that he skipped over it
on account of its obscurity. The Greek, though,
had a verb, which was very similar in form and
signification to the root of the noun here rendered
" ink." This fact must have been generally known,
as well as the fact that fluids of various colours
were used for writing by the ancient Jews. More-
over, had the word appeared in the Alexandrian
recension, its meaning would have been at once
apparent from the connection, even though to the
translator its derivation had appeared obscure.

48 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH,

which seems entirely improbable. Some inter-
preters regard the word in this place as superfluous,
because the meaning of the sentence is self-evident
without it. On this account, they claim, it must
have been omitted ; but it is much more reasonable
to suppose that it was wanting in the original of
the Septuagint. The word was altogether unneces-
sary for the people of the prophet's time ; and for
the princes, to whom it is addressed, the informa-
tion it contains was absolutely useless. As Scholz
observes, " They knew as well as Baruch that the
utterances were written ' with ink,' because they
had just had them read to them from the roll.
Thus the author of this remark has not understood
the point in question." ^

On close investigation, there seems to be no
evidence in the book that the translator ever left
out words because they were either difiicult or
unknown. If the derivation of a word was doubt-
ful, or if its meaning was obscure, he transcribed
it literally, as, for instance, aaiha in chap, viii. 7 ;
'Xavoyva'i in chaps, vii. 18; xliv. 19. Modern trans-
lators, it should be observed, have often done
the same thing. A similar transcription of the

1 " Dass die Aussprliclie ' mit Tinte ' gesclirieben waren, wussten
sie so gut Avie Baruch, denn sie liatten sicli ja aus der Eolle vorlesen
lassen. Der Urlieber dieser Bemerkung hat also den Fragepunkt
nicht verstanden." Der masoreth. Text mid die LXX-Uebersetzung,
etc., pp. 103, 104.

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 49

first word, it may be pointed out, is found in the
Alexandrian version of Job xxxix. 13, and of tlie
second word, in the English version of Amos v. 26.
Nothing could have justified a translator in leaving
out or passing over words because they were
obscure or difficult. He was l)0und either to trans-
late them or to reproduce them. Scholz's remark
on this point is very reasonable. He says, "A
translator cannot simply pass over unknown words.
The words, as they stand, should and must be
translated. In cases, therefore, where the ordinary
means for finding the meaning of a word foil, there
remains nothino; but either to seek to divine the
meaning, or to apply for advice to the kindred
Semitic lano-uao-es, or finallv to o-ive the Hebrew
word untranslated back again with Greek letters.
Our translator has pursued all these ways. This
observation is of high importance for the character-
istic of his work. It evidences the oToundlessness
of the assertion that he has left untranslated words
and passages, l)ecause they seemed to him particu-
larly difficult."^

9. The translator has omitted lengthy passages,

^ " Ein Uebersetzer kann nicht iiber unbekannte Worter einfacli
liinweggehen. Die Worter, die dastelien, sollen nnJ nuUsen iiber-
setzt werden. Es eriibrigt also in Fallon, ■\vo die gewolinliclien
Mittel, die Bedentung eines Wortes zu finden, versagen, nichts,
als entweder den Sinn zu errathen siichen, oder bei den verwandten
pemitischen Spraclion sich Eatlis zu erliolen, oder endlich das
liebraisclie "Wort unilbersetzt niit giiechischen Buchstaben wie-

D

50 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

wliicli are substantially the same as those occurring
in earlier chapters of the book, because he thought
their repetition undesirable, and thus endeavoured
to avoid it.

Repetition, both on a large and small scale, is
peculiarly characteristic of the writings of Jeremiah,
particularly in the prophetic portions of his work.
Quite frequently whole paragraphs, some of them
significantly long, from the earlier prophecies, are
nearly word for word repeated in the later ones.
In many instances, they seem to suit the context
in the second place almost as well as in the first.
Not always, though, by any means, can this be said
to be the case. Sometimes the repetition is mani-
festly inappropriate. Many of these repeated
passages appear to be interpolations. Some of
them should possibly be so regarded even when
they are found in both the texts. When they
occur in Hebrew only, their want of genuineness is
scarcely at all questionable.

Approximately thirtyji^ven of these longer
passages are repeated in the Hel)rew Bible. Thirty
of them, or thereabouts, are correspondingly re-

(lerzugebeu. Alle diese "Wege ])at unser Uebersetzer betieten.
Diese Beobachtung ist von holier Bedeutuiig fur die Charakteristik
seiuer Arbeit: sie zeigt zur Evidenz die Gruudlosigkeit der Beliaup-
tung, dass er Worter iind Stellen, weil sie ihiii besonders schwierig
vorkanien, unlibersetzt gelassen liabe." Der masoreth. Text U7id die
LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 24.

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 51

peated in the Alexandrian version. The seven
passages that are wanting in the Septnagint are
apparently, in every instance, in the Heljrew out
of place. Their insertion in tlie latter cannot he
accounted for with certainty. Whether they were
incorporated in some Hebrew manuscripts, at a
very ancient date, or were added to the Massoretic
text, at a period later than the Septuagint, are
(Questions to which no positive answer can be given.
They probably belong, however, to more modern
times. Klihl's suggestion is worthy of considera-
tion. He supposes that these additions came into
the Massoretic text at a later time, and that they
did not belono; to the orig;inal of the Greek trans-
lator, or, if they did, that they simply appeared in
the margin of his text as glosses which he naturally
did not adopt. ^ In any case, they seem to be
interpolations for reasons that will now be fully
pointed out.

Taking these seven omitted passages in the order
in which they are repeated in the Hel)rew, it will
be observed, first, that chap. viii. 10-12 is almost
identical with chap. vi. 12-15. The idea in each is
just the same, and the language is very slightly
different. The repetition is not merely superfluous,
but, as Hitzig indicates, it is disturbing to the
sense. Yer. 13, which is united in thought to the

^ Das Verhiiltniss der Massora zur Septuayinta, p. 56.

52 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

clause, " their fields to them that shall possess
them," in that part of ver. 10 which is common
to iDoth texts, beg-ins hadlv and awkwardlv, as it
stands in Hebrew, ha vino- no natural connection
with Avhat immediately precedes. In chap. vi.
12-15, on the other hand, the passage is appro-
priate and in place. There no valid objection to it
can be urged. Its absence from the Septuagint in
this chapter is significant. Even Graf acknowledges
that its presence does not suit the context in the
latter so well as in the former place. Whether
it be a o'loss or not, it certainlv lies under the
suspicion, pointed out and emphasized by Hitzig,
of having been sometime supplementarily inter-
polated in the Hebrew text.

With the exception of the last few words, " Init
they did them not," chap. xi. 7, 8 is wanting in the
Septuagint. The omitted verses somewhat corre-
spond to chap. vii. 24-26. The first part of ver. 8
in the former chapter is almost exactly the same as
ver. 24 in the latter chapter. Since Graf refers to
it in this connection, the passage claims attention
for that reason. In the first place, it should be
observed that the passages, though similar, are not
sufficiently alike to have suggested the omission of
one of them in order to avoid the repetition, even
though it were probable that the translator ever
left out words and verses on that ground. In the

THE VArJATIOXS OMISSIONS. 53

second place, the three words expressed in the
Greek do not prove, as Graf asserts, the presence
in the original of the Septuagint of the omitted
portions of the passage. According to the Hebrew
text, these three Avords are to he understood as
referrino- to the forefathers mentioned in ver, 7 ;
but there is also a logical connection between them
and ver. G, to which they directly refer in the
Greek, and to which they may also properly refer
in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The repetition
here is quite unnecessary, and Hitzig is in error
when he says that without it vers. 9, 10 would be
ungrounded and unintelligible. In the third place,
the repeated passage may have been, as Movers is
inclined to view it, a simple gloss taken from chap,
vii. 24-26. .

A similar explanation must be given of chap,
xvii. 3, 4, which coincides in Hebrew pretty nearly
with chap. xv. 13, 14. The modifications in the
two passages are slight, or, at least, unimportant.
Both Graf and Hitzig regard the passage in the
former place as the original of the passage in the
latter place. Both also regard the two verses as
destroying all connection where they stand in chap,
xvii. 3, 4. Their reasoning, though, in each respect,
is altogether inconclusive. To believe with them
respecting the origin of chap. xv. 13, 14, is to
suppose that a portion of an earlier chapter was

54 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

taken from a later one, and was inserted where it
would disturb the sense. The supposition is utterly
unreasonable. It is also inconsistent with the
principle of omitting parallel passages which Graf
unworthily ascribes to the translator. Ver. 10 of
this latter chapter is evidently connected in sense
with ver. 15, but the continuation of thought does
not require the leaving out of vers. 11-14, as Graf
gratuitously asserts. Whether the passage in ques-
tion is more appropriate in chap. xvii. than in chap.
XV., as the critics mentioned claim, is open to
discussion. The fact that it appears in chap, xv.,
both in Hebrew and in Greek, affords conclusive
evidence of its great age, if not of its absolute
genuineness ; and the fact that it does not appear
in chap. xvii. of the Septuagint renders its repeti-
tion there suspicious, to say the least. Besides,
chap. xvii. 1-4 is all omitted in the Greek, and the
whole paragraph may be dropped out without any
detriment whatever to the context. For this
reason, in addition to the reasons that have been
already indicated, it is practically certain that the
first part of this chapter did not belong to the
translator's manuscript.

An examination of chap. xxx. 10, 11 leads to a
very similar result. The passage occurs in sub-
stance in chap. xlvi. 27, 28, and is, in the one
place or the other, undoubtedly a gloss. Perhaps,

THE VAEIATIOXS — OMISSIONS. 55

in eacli place, it should be regarded as an interpola-
tion. If so, it must be very old, since, in tliis
latter chapter, it is found in both the texts. De
AVette, Hitzig, Movers, on account of some diver-
gences from the prophet's usual style, which seem
to characterize them, consider these two verses
spurious, and ascribe them to the so-called Deutero-
Isaiah. With the exception of the phrase, " my
servant Jacob," which is frequent in the second
part of Isaiah, Graf answers their objections as to
authorship with considerable success. While there
is nothing in the language absolutely incompatible
with Jeremiah's style, there is something peculiar
in a few of the expressions used. Graf and Hitzig,
however, both consider the passage more appro-
priate in chap. xxx. 10, 11 than in chap. xlvi.
27, 28, and they suppose it was omitted from the
former chapter by the translator, because it succeeds
the latter chapter in the Septuagint. Whether the
j^assage suits the one place better than the other,
or whether it is genuine in either place, where it is
omitted in the Greek, it was, doubtless, wanting in
the original of the Septuagint, a possible alternative
which even Hitzig honestly suggests.

The long paragraph, chap, xxxiii. 14-26, is a
very significant omission, the partial occasion for
which, Graf believes, was the consideration that it
was composed, for the most part, of literal or sub-

56 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

stantial repetitions of preceding passages. Vers.
15, 16 almost coincide with chap, xxiii. 5, G ; vers.
17, 18 sound a little like xxxv. 19 ; vers. 20, 22,
25, 26 somewhat resemble chap. xxxi. 35-37. The
chief occasion, though, he thinks, was the non-fulfil-
ment of the prophecy concerning David, and respect-
ing the promised increase of the Levites and of
the Davidic dynasty. He also attributes some-
what to the translator's supposed constant habit
of abridgment. But the genuineness of this para-
graph is held in doubt by Michaelis, Jahn, and
Hitzig, the latter of whom regards the whole
section as a succession of single sentences taken
from various sources. Bleek, de Wette, and
Movers share substantiallv the same doubt. From
the style, as well as from the subject-matter of
the prophecy, a strong argument for the spurious-
ness of the passage has been presented by the last
four critics. The question of its genuineness,
however, does not reallv concern this brief discus-
sion. The special purpose of the present investiga-
tion is to show the great injustice of asserting that
it was intentionally omitted by the Greek trans-
lator. It is much more easy, as Bleek has justly
said, to conceive how a later writer might have
added the whole prophecy than to imagine w^hy
any person should have left it out. It may possibly
have belonged to the original of the Massoretic

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS, 57

text, but certainly did not belong to tlie original of
the Septuagint translation.

A still more positive result is obtained by the
examination of chap, xxxix. 4-13. The narrative
coincides in general, though not in detail, with the
historic account in chap, lii., and also in 2 Kings
XXV. The genuineness of the greater portion of
this chapter has long been questioned by inter-
preters. The absent passage, whether spurious in
this place or not, can with no more propriety l)e
ascribed to Jeremiah than can the fifty-second chapter
of this book, or the corresponding passage of the
Second Book of Kino-s. The verses w^antino- do not
properly belong in this connection. They not only
interrupt the narrative, but also they disturl) the
order of the thought. The account which they
contain, too, does not agree with that in chap. lii.
In that chapter, the ninth day of the fourth month
is mentioned as that on which provisions in the
city failed ; in this chapter, it is mentioned as the
day on which the city was taken by storm. The
connection, moreover, between ver. 3 and ver. 14,
as in the Septuagint, is easy and natural ; whereas
ver. 13, which is a repetition of ver. 3, seems to
have been inserted in the Hebrew for the -purpose
of unitino- ver. 12 to ver. 14. Bv omitting vers.
4-13, the narration from chap, xxxviii. 28 proceeds
logically and connectedly to the end. This fact,

58 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

though, furnishes no reason to suppose with Graf
that the whole passage was omitted, because it
seemed unnecessary to the translator. He did not
find it in his text. Its absence from the Septuagint
affords important evidence of the critical value of
this ancient version. Its testimony respecting this
very dubious paragraph is weighty, and also worthy
of the fullest consideration.

The remaining passage, chap, xlviii. 40, 41,
which is substantially the same as chap. xlix. 22,
admits of treatment similar to that which the
foregoing passages have received. It is entirely
unnecessary, where it is absent from the Greek, and
any plausible reason for its repetition has never yet
been given. Graf supposes that this passage was
omitted from the Septuagint, because chap, xlviii.
40, 41 in the Hebrew comes after chap. xlix. 22 in
the Greek. But it cannot have been omitted on
that ground, as Hitzig properly contends. Both
he and Movers consider it an extraneous, if not
a spurious, addition. Owing to the divergences
between the two passages in the Hebrew, the
adding of a predicate and the changing of a
preposition, the former critic holds that Jeremiah
hardly would himself have used, and in the later
passage, chap. xlix. 22, have corrected, his own
words. No intentional omission on the ground of
repetition can in fairness be supposed. The absent

THE VARIATIONS — OMISSIONS. 59

verses did not belong to the original of tlie Septua-
gint translation, or else they would have been
carefully reproduced.

Each of these seven passages, where wanting in
the Septuagint, is, when critically and impartially
considered, apparently out of place. That they
were in every instance glosses by a later hand, as
some interpreters suppose, seems altogether pro-
Imble ; l^ut that they were not present in the
translator's manuscript seems absolutely certain.
It is incredible that the translator should have
found these passages in his text, and then have
left them out, because he thought them spurious
or inappropriate. It is also inconceivable that he
should have wilfully omitted them, because he
tried, as much as possible, to avoid unnecessary
repetitions, inasmuch as thirty times or more he
has repeated passages quite as unnecessary to the
context as these appear to be. If he found the
whole thirty-seven before him, why did he omit
just these seven passages ? AVhy should they, and
they alone, have been left out and all the others
have been left in ? The only reasonable answer to
this question seems to be that they did not belong
to his original, and that they are, in every case,
interpolations by a later hand. It is significant
that each of these omitted passages, apart from its
inappropriateness where it is absent from the

GO THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Greek, is of doubtful origin and of suspicious
character.

If one supposes tliat these passages really did
l)elong to his original, one must believe that the
translator left them out because of their apparent
spuriousness or inappropriateiiess. He cannot have
omitted them without first considering whether
they were genuine or not. If, after consideration,
he decided not to reproduce them, as Graf sup-
poses, then very little value can be attached to
his translation. It is merely an arbitrary and
untrustworthy piece of literary work without any
critical worth whatever. After showing the mechani-
c.al and unreliable character of the translation, if
such an unworthy opinion of the translator be
entertained, Klihl pertinently says, " Why then
did he do it only in these seven passages and not
in every place, where — sometimes at no very great
intervals — repetitions occur ? and wherefore did he,
in spite of his former lack of critical acumen, in his
omissions which, by this supposition, would still be
a product of his arbitrariness, hit upon exactly the
seven passages, whose originality, indeed, is doubt-
ful in the very highest degree ? AVith that view,
these questions ever remain unanswered, and they
elicit from every impartial observer the acknowledg-
ment that here, and if here, then, of course, in
other passages as well, the Septuagint is wholly in

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 61

the riglit. At all events, tliougii, too depreeiative
is the judgment of Graf, who will attribute to it no
authority whatever." ^

Graf's theory respecting the seven passages just
considered apparently rests on the assumption that
they are always wanting in the Septuagint where,
according to the order of the prophecies in that
version, they, if repeated, would appear a second
time. This supposition, though, is incorrect. One
exception to this rule exists, and that is quite
sufficient for the purpose of disproof. Chap,
xxxix. 4-13 is absent from the Greek, while it is
present in chap, lii., notwithstanding the fact that
the latter chapter ends the book in both the He])rew
and the Greek. Althouoii each of these seven
repeated passages appears to be of very dubious
character, and, although each one, if not entirely
inappropriate where it is wanting in the Septuagint,
might be, at least, omitted without at all disturb-

^ ""Waruin that er es denn bios an diesen siebeii Stelleii und uiclit
iiberall, avo (manchinal in niclit allzugrossen Zwisclieniaumen)
Wiederholnngen statttinden 1 und weshalb trift't er bei seinen Ans-
lassungen (trotz seines sonstipen Mani:jf]s an scliarfsinniger Kritik),
die bei dieser Annalinie doch ein Produkt seiner "Willkiir wiiren,
gerade die sieben Stellen, deren Urspiiingliclikeit in der Tluit im
bochsten Grade zweifelhaft ist? Diese Fragen bleiben bei jener
Ansicht imuier unbeantwortet, und sie notbigen jedem unparteiiscben
Beobacbter das Zugestandniss ab, da?s bier, und wenn liier, dann
jedenfalls audi an anderen Stellen, die LXX. in A'ollem Recbt ist,
jedenfalls aber das Urtbeil Grafs zu abscliatzig ist, der ibr gar
keine Autoritat zuscbreiben will." Das Verlialiniss der Massora zvr
Sejitvjtijinta, p. 60.

62 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

ing tlie connection or injuring the sense, it is
remarkable that Graf attributes the omission in
each case to the self- same arbitrary practice by
which he persistently endeavours to account for
the various species of omission that have already
been discussed. When it suits his purpose, he
accuses the translator of the o-rossest io-norance,
and, when such a supposition is clearly contradicted
by the facts, he accuses him of the greatest arbi-
trariness. This kind of reasoning is inconsistent
and confutes itself. His theory is altogether too
accommodating. It maintains that the translator
systematically abridged his text, and then it holds
him responsible for numl3erless omissions which no
sort of system can explain.

It should be also noted here that many other
passages are repeated in the Septuagint, not where
thev occur the first time in the Hebrew, but where
they occur the second time. This is a most
significant fact, and it affords additional disproof
of Graf's unjustifiable and unjust assumption.
Scholz has an important observation on this point.
" If, however," he says, " there was need of a still
further proof, the supposition of intentional
omission is excluded by this, that the Greek trans-
lation, in a number of passages, does not express
repeating and like -meaning verses, while it has
them in a second place. How would that be

THE VAKIATIOXS OMISSIONS. 63

conceivable with a translator who translates with-
out consideration ■? " ^ Such a supposition is Ijoth
unreasonable and absurd. The translator had
neither reason nor desire to abridge his text. Had
the repetition of unnecessary matter been his aim,
he might have left out many times as much as he
has been accused of leaving out. An unprejudiced
investigator, who carefully considers all the facts,
must grant at once the unreasonableness of Graf's
accusation. He must also admit with Kiihl, not
only respecting the seven long repeated passages
in particular, but also respecting the numberless
unnecessary omissions in general, that the ground
of their omission was not a subjective l)ut an
objective one ; that is, it lay not in the arbitrary
j)rocedure of the translator, but in the peculiar
form of his original.'^

It is still more remarkable, if possil)le, that in
each of the other cases in which a parallel passage
is repeated in the Septuagint of this book, Graf

^ " Volli'r aber ausifesclilossen ist, Avenn es nocli eines Aveitercn
Beweises liedurfte, die Annahme von dem absiclitliclien Auslassen
dadurch, dass die griechische Uebersetzung in eiuer Aiizalil von
Stellen sich wiederholende, gleiclilautende Verse das erste Mai nicht
ausdriickt, wahrend sie dieselbe an zweiter Stelle hat. Wie wave
das bei eineiu Uebersetzer, der leiditfertig iibersetzt, denkbar ? "
Ber masoreth. Text und die LA'A'- UeheractzurKj, etc., ]). 26.

^ "Der Grund der Auslassung int kein subjektiver, d. li. er liegt
nicht in dem eigeninaclitigen Yerf'ahien des Uebei'setzeis, sondern
oin objektiver (iiusserer), d. h. er liegt in der Gestaltiing seines
Originals." iJas Vcrhaltniss der Massoru zur SejHuagiuta, p. 56.

64 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

supposes that the translator had forgotten that he
had once already rendered it. Otherwise, he seems
to think, all such passages would have been
omitted. In his opinion, the translator must have
been not only incompetent and inconsistent, but
also endowed with a very treacherous memory,
which frequently forgot to apply the principles of
his own most imperfect scheme. Such ingenuity
of explanation in a Biblical scholar is exceedingly
unusual, to say the least, and certainly was worthy
of a better cause. How such a monstrous supposi-
tion could have been deliberately suggested seems
itself almost inexplicable. The assumption that
the translator had a system, and then forgot to
ap23ly it in some thirty out of thirty-seven length}'
passages, is so ridiculous that it scarcely claims a
formal answer ; and yet, since Graf has made the
accusation, it must not be 23assed l)y without some
attention, notwithstandino; its absurdity.

Apart from the utter improbability that a definite
rule of translation could be forgotten four times, at
least, as often as it was remembered l)y one who
is supposed to have made it specially for his
personal guidance, it seems sufficient further to
observe that some of the passages repeated in the
Septuagint stand so near to each other as to render
the idea of forgetfulness wholly inconceiya1)le to a
person who takes into account all the facts of the

THE VAKIATIOXS OMISSIONS. 65

case. Scliolz has answered Grafs suggestion on
this point aptly and completely. He says, " If it
is a principle of the translator to pass over passages
and expressions, which repeat themselves, as super-
fluous in a second place, how could he so neglect
this his own principle that he applied it in only a
comparatively small number of cases, whereas, in
by far the great majority of places, he likewise
translates the recurring passages, and, indeed, not
merely in cases where an oversight was possiljle, —
although that from the first is improbable in the
highest degree, as certainly not the next best into
whose hands the book fell devoted himself to the
translation. We have rather, with the greatest
likelihood, to suppose that it is the work of a
' Teacher in Israel,' who by frequent reading had
made himself familiar with the book in all of its
details.'"

^ "Wenn es Grundsatz des Uebersetzers ist, Stellen mid Aus-
i^prliclie, die sich wiederliolen, als libertiiissij,' an zweiter Stelle zu
iiljergehen, wie kounte er diesen seinen Grundsatz so ausser Acht
lassen, dass er ilm nur in einer verhaltnissmassig kleineu Anzalil
von Fallen anwandte, in den weitans nieisten Stellen dagegen die
wiederkehrenden Stellen ebenfalls iibersetzt, und zwar nielit l^los
in Fallen, wo ein Vergessen nibglicli war — obgleicli das von
vonielierein ini liochsten Grade unwahrscheinlich ist, da siclierlich
nicht der Xacli.stbeste, dem das Buck in die Hand fiel, sich an die
Uebersetzung machte. Wir liabon vielnielir niit lioclister Walir-
^<elleinlicllkeit anzuneknien, dass es die Ailieit eines 'Lelirers in
Israel' ist, der niit dem Buclie in alien seinen Einzelnlieiten dnrch
vielmaliges Lesen sich vertrant geniacht hat." Der masordh. Text
unci die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 26.

E

G6 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

The examination of a great variety of minor
omissions, which Graf does not attempt to classify,
as well as a considerable number of longer ones,
which have, as yet, not been discussed in this
investigation, affords still further proof that the
translator used another and a different text from
that transmitted to us bv the Massorites. Both
their nature and their number are too significant
to l)e overlooked. Not simply do they supply
important evidence for the hypothesis of a special
text-recension, l)ut they furnish useful material for
the history of the whole Old Testament Scriptures.
They also shed a flood of light upon the present
character and condition of the Massoretic text.
On the ground of being either unnecessary, or
superfluous, or inappropriate, or interpolated, some
(jf them have been rejected by Graf himself. On
tlie same ground many of them have been rejected
by Hitzig or l)y Movers, or ])y both. On a similar
ofround, moreover, others of them must be reo-arded
either as spurious or as suspicious, to say the
very least.

The great majority of the omissions may be
characterized generally as unnecessary ; that is,
neither are they requisite for the complete gramma-
tical construction of the text, nor are they essential
for a proper understanding of it. This is true
especially of all or nearly all of those belonging to

THE VARIATIONS OMISSIONS. 67

each of tlie nine species of omission tliat liave
already been investigated. It is also just as true
of all or nearly all of those remainino; undiscussed.
Their presence or absence is practically immaterial,
although, in several instances, the reading in the
Hebrew may be considered preferable to the read-
ing in the Greek, By characterizing the omissions
in general as unnecessary, it is not meant that they
are generally spurious, although unc|uestionably
they sometimes are ; nor is it meant that many
of them did not l)elono- to the orioinal of the
Massoretic text, although undoubtedly some of them
did not. They are thus characterized principally
against Graf and others who assert that the omissions
from the Septuagint indicate a mutilated text.

A considerable number of omissions may be
characterized appropriately as superfluous. They
are not only unnecessary, but also redundant.
This redundancy, in many places, doubtless, points
to textual divergences. These may have generally
belonged to the Palestinean recension. Whether
this can alwa}s be claimed to l)e the case, however,
is very Cjuestionable. The question, too, is one
that cannot easily be answered. Such omissions
are descriljed in this connection as superfluous,
some of them on his own admission, especially
again against Graf and his arbitrary theory of
intentional omission on the part of the translator.

68 . THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH.

A sio'iiificant number of omissions must be
characterized properly as inappropriate. They
are not only unnecessary and superfluous, but
also out of place. In many passages, they either
interrupt the progress of the narrative, or disturb
the harmony of the thought. For various and
manifest reasons they do not properly belong
where thev are wantino- in the Greek. It is not
always easy to account for their existence, although
a possible explanation may, in some instances, be
pretty safely suggested. Their origin was, doubt-
less, due to a variety of causes, which extended
over a long period of time.

A still more sionificant number of omissions
can only be characterized correctly as interpolated.
They cannot be truthfully described by any other
term. They are not only unnecessary and super-
fluous and inappropriate, but also spurious as well.
They cannot have been uttered by the prophet,
nor can they have belonged to any authorized
edition of his writings. That some of them are
ancient appears probable ; but how old, of course,
it is impossible to tell. That many, if not most,
of them arose after the making of the Septuagint
translation seems practically certain ; but when or
by whom they arose can never be determined. It
may be possible, however, to account for some of
them conjecturally.

THE VAMATIOXS OMISSIONS. 09

The omissions of letters, of wliicli there are
several, are also worthy of some consideratioii
here. This species of omission is of special inte-
rest, because it shows how a number of important
variations may be naturally explained. Some of
these divergences may have been recensional ;
others of them may have been transcriptional.
Except in so far as the context pronounces the
one form or the other to be preferable, it is
difficult to decide which reading is the more
primitive. By placing the examples together,
their comparative excellence may the more easily
be estimated. The instances are as follows : —

nnsn-nen, i. i4 ; ^^c^r^^-Ts^^' ii- 34 ; "^11^5-

l-|i>5, iii. 2 ; ^i»5?2^1-^:^')l (?) D^lin-D^i"l, "i- ^ ;

^2Br2-v^^, iv. 1 ; n;i2r^n"i-ni^:n^ (?) vi. 2 ; nh^—
h^, vi. 6; )^«^-)^5> vi. 14; Dniii?:n??-D™ir^,
vi. 19; tr^«-tr«, vi. 23; 1. 42; nn^ntr::-nn^ir:,

T • : — T • T

xi. 19; D^^b^-i-D^S, xv. 16; ^rnilt^^TO-^rnil^^rp,
xviii. 12 ; D''"^T— QiT, xviii. 14 ; n:2irS— "^^XS xxiii. 15 ;

ni^:i^n:;i-ni^i!a, xxxvii. ii; ^rri'^«-^r^«, xliii. 2;

tr?p515^-tlW54l, xlvi. 2; 'rj;i^p-'!]^p, xlvi. 12;
"li^inVS-lTOS^ xlviii. 6; a^n^n-a^nb"^, xlviii. 22;
^rT^nipn-^n^tpn, xlix. 9 ; a^?p^«l^-D^';«l1, 1. 38 ;

^i^tp^"}— Q^'f:::^!!"! 01' T:r«i, li. 27 ; nm:*;:-;!!!:^,

li. 59.

CHAPTER III.

THE VARIATIONS — ADDITIONS.

CoNVixciXG as is the evidence obtainal)le from
the Omissions of a twofold text-recension of this
l)ook, the evidence derivaljle from the Additions is,
if possible, more conclusive still. Their number,
as ^Yell as their importance, has not as yet been
properly appreciated. Even Bleek, who is a great
admirer of the Alexandrian version and a vio-orous
advocate of different text-recensions, has failed to
point out their significance. He says, " The
Septuagint only seldom has additions, and these
consisting simply of single words or members."^
This statement, however, is scarcelv accurate.
Though small compared with that of the omis-
sions, it is true, their number, notwithstanding,
is considerable. Thev reallv amount to several
hundred words. Significant as their number is,
their nature is much more sio-nificant. Instead
of being confined exclusively to " single words

^ " Xur selten hat die Septuaginta Zusatze, unci nur in einzelnen
"Worten oder Gliedem bestehende." Einleitung in das Alte Teda-
ment, p. 318.

70

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. / 1

or members," as he says, they are composed
occasionally of sentences, and frequently of groups
of words, which sometimes modify the meaning of
a passage, at other times explain a difficulty in the
Massoretic text, at other times again exhibit a
reading, not only different from but also superior
to the one which the Hebrew gives.

Respecting the additions, Graf is almost as un-
reasonable and inconsistent in his allegations as
he is in reference to the omissions. He says, for
instance, " Of the additions to the Massoretic text,
which, on the other side, occur in the Septuagint,
only a few are to be found which can prompt the
supposition that they exhiljit genuine text, that
might have been omitted from the present Hebrew
through the fault of copyists."^ This bare assertion,
of course, is true ; but the implication is false. There
is no ground whatever to suppose that variations
of this kind were often due to oversight or omis-
sion on the part of those w^ho anciently transcribed
the Massoretic text, although it may not be improb-
able that here and there a word or two may have
l)een overlooked. The additions are too numerous
and significant to be explained on any rational

1 " Unter (k-n Zusatzen zu Jem niasoretischen Texte, die anclrer-
seits in LXX. vorkomraen, finden sich nur wenige, die zu der
Annalime veranlassen konnen, dass sic acliten Text darstellen, der
in dem jetzigen liebrjiischen diirch Scliuld der ALschreiber wesge-
falleii wiire." Der Prophet Jeremia, Eiiileitung, p. xlix.

72 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

liypotliesis otlier than the one suggested and illus-
trated by the examples of omission that have
already been discussed. They afford conclusive
evidence of a special text-recension. They repre-
sent, undoubtedly, a very ancient text, and bear
invaluable testimony to its general excellence
throughout.

The theories of explanation held by Graf are not
merely incorrect but contradictory. He claims that
the translator systematically abridged his text, and
contends that the omissions from the Septuagint
were due to his persistent striving after brevity,
because of the impossibility of believing that they
were left out by a later writer or transcriber from
the Hebrew text. He then suggests that every-
where a later hand is recomizable in the additions
as well as in the omissions of the Septuagint. If
it is incredible, when discussing the omissions, to
suppose that such variations were due to a later
hand, it is certainly just as incredible when dis-
cussing the additions. According to this hypothesis,
to be consistent, he should attribute all the varia-
tions to the Greek translator. When it suits his
convenience, though, he ascribes them to the trans-
lator, and when it does not, he ascribes them to a
later editor or reviser. Graf seems to be driven
to this desperate alternative respecting the origin
of the additions by perceiving that, although he

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 73

believes that tlie translator systematically abridged
his text, no one could Ijelieve that he abridged it
and enlarged it at the same time.

As the omissions prove the improbability of
Graf's hypothesis, so also the additions prove
its impossibility. They demonstrate not only
the unfairness of asserting that the translator
was always striving after brevity, but also the
unreasonableness of supposing that lie either added
to or took away from the ancient Hebrew text
which he employed. It is useless to suppose
that he neglected his own principle of systematic
omission, or that he forgot in all such cases to
apply it. Even Graf himself sees the preposterous-
ness of such a supposition. Hence he regards the
additions, in almost every case, as spurious, and
endeavours to account for them by alleging that
they belong to a later time. Having given a brief
discussion of their character, he says, "After the
explanation, there can be no longer a doubt that
the text-form presented by the Greek translator is
a mutilated and corrupted one, that arose, in a.
much later time, out of the Hebrew text which
has been preserved to us." ^ How far this state-

1 "Naclidem Dargelegten kanii es keinem ZAveifel melir iinter-
worfen sein, class die von dem griechisclien. Uebersetzer dargebotene
Textgestalt eine aus dem uns hebiaiscli erlialtenen Texte in viel
spaterer Zeit entstandeiie verstuiunielte uiid verdeibte ist." Ein-
leitung, p. li.

74 THE TEXT OF JEREMLVH.

meiit is from harmonizing with the facts will be
evinced by carefully examining the additions.
That they were not taken from the air, to render
literally a German phrase, is very evident ; and
that thev were due neither to translator nor
transcriber can be very clearly shown. As a
rule, they bear the marks of age and genuineness
upon them, and thus proclaim their own origin-
ality or primitive character. As Graf ascribes
them now to one cause and then to another, it is
l3y no means easy to arrange his objections to
their genuineness systematically. It seems better,
though, so far as practicable, to attempt to classify
them. For convenience' sake, they may be gene-
rally grouped in five distinct classes.

1. Many additions prove themselves to be
spurious, because they violate the sense of the
verses or the parallelism of the verse -members.
This is a somewhat serious accusation. Graf
indicates only a few instances of this kind, and
none of those are really to the point.

In chap. iv. 29, for example, where the Hebrew
has " they go into the thickets," the Greek has
" they go into the caves and hide themselves in
the thickets." It is unfair to say that the parallel-
ism of the verse in Greek is violated. There may
just as properly be three predicates as two. If
one supposes with Schleusner that the Hebrew

THE VAKIATIOXS ADDITIONS. 75

word translated " thicket " was repeated in the
Septuagint, one has still to account for the addi-
tional verb " to hide." The latter clearly indicates
an ancient reading, a similar form of which occurs
in other parts of the Old Testament, as, for
instance, in 1 Kings xviii. 13. The two texts in
the present verse seem never to have been the
same. Besides the additions in the Greek the
minor variations are important, and in favour of
the Septuagint. Instead of going up " into the
rocks," the Greek has going up " upon the rocks ; "
instead of "the wdiole city," it has "the whole
country." This latter reading is superior to the
one in Hebrew, inasmuch as " country " forms a
natural contrast to " city " in the following member
of the verse, as Hitzig freely admits. In this
same member the absence of the article from the
word for "city" is also favourable to the Septua-
gint. The people would naturally flee from every
citv in the whole land, and not merely from the
whole city of Jerusalem.

The added words, " and your olive -yards," in
chap. V. 17, cannot be fairly said to violate the
parallelism. There may as well be three as two
particulars. The fact that a similar addition is
found in the Septuagint translation of Ps. iv. 8
affords a further proof that the text employed
by the translator presented in each passage a

hr

6 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

reading different from the ]\Iassoretic text. If
the parallelism of the Greek were inferior to that
of the Hel^rew, which is not really the case, it
would not disprove the genuineness of the Septua-
gint, nor would it prove that the words were
added either l)v the translator or bv a later
hand. It would rather indicate their originality,
because, to an impartial mind, it is incredible
that any person should have intentionally injured
the Hebrew style by adding to the text of
Scripture. The words in Greek are surely

genuine.

In chap, xxxii. 19, the peculiar clause, "the
great God Sabaoth, and Jehovah of great name,"
was neither added bv a later hand, as Graf
assumes, nor arbitrarily inserted in its present
place, as Hitzig says. The variation seems to
have been due, partly to an accidental repetition,
and partly to an imperfect condition of the
original Hebrew text. The w^ords, " the great
God," were apparently repeated by mistake, either
in transcribino- the Hebrew original or the Greek
translation. The remaining words evidently arose
from imperfection in the ancient manuscript, as
they contain exactly the letters, but in a dif-
ferent order, of the last three words of the 18tli
and the first word of the 19th verse. In the
Massoretic text, we have ^1:1 : 'i>2"l!> nib^l!! XT\TV ; in

THE VAEIATIOKS ADDITIONS, 77

the Septuagint, we have nin'' hlT\ D^ n"lb^ni* oi'
mn'' Dt!? hiTi m^^ll*- Thus, by means of the Hebrew
letters, the variation may be explained. The ex-
planation is rendered the more probable, inasmuch
as the last three words of A^er. 18 are w^anting in
the Septuagint, but are found, as indicated, in the
19th verse. The case affords an illustration either
of textual imperfection, or of transcriptional care-
lessness, or, perhaps, of both.

In chap. xiv. 15, for the words, "by the sword,"
in Hebrew, the Greek has " of grievous death thev
shall die." This cannot have been an arbitrary
variation, as Graf suggests. The translator would
not, and a later writer could not, consistently
with reason, so have changed the sacred text.
The words in the Hebrew are very simple, and
evidently belonged to the Palestinean recension.
The sentence in the Septuagint is most unusual,
and must have belono-ed to the Alexandrian recen-
sion. It occurs but once in the Hebrew Bible,
and that is in chap. xvi. 4 of this book ; whereas
it occurs twice in the Greek translation, once in
this latter chaj)ter, and once in the passage under
consideration. The expression, therefore, is peculiar
to the prophet Jeremiah. In each passage" of the
Septuagint the words in Greek are identical ; and
they are just as appropriate in the one as in the
other. The very peculiarity of the language is a

78 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH.

proof of its genuineness, or, at least, of recensional
differences in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts.

There may be, now and then, a passage in the
Greek where, owing to the presence of an addi-
tional word or clause, the parallelism is less perfect
than in the Hebrew, but such instances, if such
there be, are really very rare. In the great
majority of cases the additions either affect the
parallelism favourably, or they affect it not at all.
In none of these places, though, is tliere the
slightest reason to suppose that the improvement
is due either to translator or reviser. Examples
of superior parallelism due to the additions in
the Septuagint may be found by comparing the
Hebrew with the Greek in chap. i. 17, where the
latter has " fear not before them and be not dis-
mayed before them " instead of '' Ije not dismayed
at them, lest I dismay thee before them ; " v. 20,
wdiere it has " the house of Judali " instead of
''Judah;" ix. 25, where it has "the sons of
Moab" instead of "Moab."

2. Many additions, inconsistently with the
former system of abridgment, are taken from
other passages, and inserted where they do not
properly belong, or where they are altogether out
of place. This assertion can be shown to be
entirely incorrect by carefully examining the pas-
sages which Graf has cited by way of illustration.

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 70

The added phrase, "because they shall not profit
you at all," chap. vii. 4, Graf says, is taken from
ver. 8. But the form of the expression in the
latter verse is not the same as that which is given
here. The one is not a repetition of the other,
nor can the one be fairly claimed to have been
taken from the other. The language in each verse
is different, and the number of words used also
varies. Even had the phrases been identical, no
reason for supposing that the one was repeated
from the other would have been apparent. At all
events, as they are now found, each one is most
appropriate in the form, as well as in the place, in
which it stands.

In like manner, the added clause, " to 3^our own
hurt," chap. vii. 9, Graf considers, is taken from
ver. 6. His supposition here again is just as 4 '^'
incorrect as in the preceding case. The Sej)tua-
gint renders the clause in ver. 6 literally, and,
moreover, exactly as it also stands in Hebrew,
chap. XXV. 7. In this latter passage, on the other
hand, the words are wanting in the Septuagint.
Why should a translator be accused, for no con-
ceivable reason whatever, of omitting words because
they were unnecessary in one place, and of insert-
ing them in another place where they w^ere quite
as unnecessary ? Only a foolish theory would
admit such an absurdity. The words were neither

80 THE TEXT OF JEItEMIAJI.

arbitrarily added in chap, vii. 9 nor arbitrarily
omitted in chap. xxv. 7. The first two verses of
this present chapter are wanting in the Greek ;
there are also several other omissions, of more or
less imjiortance, in other parts of the chapter.
The sig-nificant additions which likewise characterize
it, as well as the omisfsions, point to a special text-
recension.

The addition, "and those who are going in at
these gates," chap. xix. 3, Graf regards as a repeti-
tion from chap. xvii. 20. The suggestion, though,
is quite gratuitous. The words are just as appro-
priate in the one place as in the other. The
combination is a somewhat common one. It occurs
in chaps, xvii, 20 ; xxii. 2, of both the Hebrew and
the Greek, and also in chap, vii. 2, of the Hebrew\
In this latter verse, however, it is w^anting in the
Greek. It is unreasonable to suppose that the
words were purposely omitted in chap, vii. 2 and
purposely added in chap, xix. 3. The long addi-
tional expression, " and I wrote the deed and sealed
it and called witnesses," chap, xxxii. 25, Graf says,
is taken from ver, 10, As the transaction was
important, and as its bearing on the future of the
nation was likely to be permanent, it is natural
that the prophet should have spoken as the passage
reads in the Septuagint. The translator surely
had no reason to repeat the sentence in the present

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 81

verse, if he did not find it in liis manuscript.
A further proof that the original of each text was
different is furnished by the important fact that,
while the two sentences in cjuestion are added to
the Greek in this member, the sentence, " and call
witnesses," is omitted from it in the preceding-
member, of the verse.

Graf also supposes that the addition, " more
than their fathers," chap. xvii. 23, is taken from
chap. vii. 26, to which it bears a close resemblance.
Hitzio; considers the whole verse wantinfr in
originality, as well as in appropriateness. Whether
right or not, his supposition is much more plausible
than that of Graf. It is far more likely that the
whole verse was interpolated at some time, than
that the additional clause in Greek was inserted by
the translator. If chap. xvii. 23 be an interpola-
tion, it must have been added prior to the exist-
ence of the Alexandrian version. In any case, the
rendering of the verse in Greek points to recen-
sional differences, and indicates that the translator
reproduced the text he had before him,

3. Other additions are inserted in a manner
that is altogether improper and inappropriate.
An examination of the instances cited by Graf
will show this alleo;ation also to be false.

The sentence, "great is the distress uj^on thee,"
chap. xi. 16, cannot have been intentionally added

82 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

by any one at any time. Even if the hypothesis
of arbitrary insertion on the part of the translator
were probable, which is not the case, he would not
have ventured to insert words inappropriately, or
in a way to render the construction difficult. The
presence of the sentence here is certainly not easy
to explain. Either it was found in the translator's
manuscript, as the Greek text is very plain, and
gives a tolerable sense ; or it was accidentally
added by an ancient copyist, as the variation may
be partially explained by means of the Hebrew
letters. This latter alternative seems not unreason-
able or improbable, inasmuch as the word for
"great" occurs in one part of the verse in Hebrew
and in another part of it in Greek. Possibly,
therefore, it was overlooked at first, and afterwards
inserted with the other words which may have
been repeated by mistake. The words in Greek
might easily have been derived from the words in
Hebrew, especially if the original text were indis-
tinct, in the following manner : — i^''^^ n*^!*?! Tlhl^

yh:? (u^^) f<Ji' r^'h:; xiy^ n^i^n n^i:i- There is a

similarity in the sound, as well as in the form, of
the Hebrew words in each case.

The added words, " to their meeting," chap,
xxvii. 3, did not arise from arbitrary insertion,
as Graf assumes ; nor did they arise from careless
repetition of similar consonants, as Hitzig asserts.

THE VARIATIONS — ADDITIONS. S3

There is no real resemblance between D^ti^'ii'i and
Cil^^npbj as the latter critic claims. The words
make excellent sense in the connection in which
they stand. There is nothing improper or inappro-
priate about them. The phrase is quite uncommoii
in Jeremiah, but the idea expressed is good. It
unquestionably belonged to the Alexandrian recen-
sion at the time that the Septuagint translation
was made. The addition of the word, " waters,"
at the 1)eginning of chap. xlvi. 8, was also not due
to intention. As the same word ends the preced-
ing verse in Greek, it may have been repeated by
accident. It is, perhaps, more probable, however,
that it belonged to the translator's text. The
reference here is to the troops of soldiers sweeping
over the country like the rushing billow- s of an
overflowing river. The repetition , of the word,
moreover, makes the reading correspond exactly
to the figure used for an army in Isa. viii. 7.
The waters symbolize the advancing host of the
Egyptians, whose mighty army is likened to the
nimual inundation of the Nile, just as in this
latter chapter the Assyrian army is likened to
the periodical floods of the Euphrates. The added
word is not unfavourable to the Septuagint.

The clause, " and of all the land," chap. li. 28,
was also not added to the Septuagint, as Graf
suggests. It simply occupies another place in the

84 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

same sentence. In Greek it stands in tlie first
half, in Hebrew it stands in the second half, of the
verse. Althouo'h the order of the words in the
former is different from the order in the latter, the
rhythm of the verse-members in the Septuagint is
excellent. The rendering of the verse in Greek is,
in several respects, superior to that of the verse in
Hebrew, it also should be pointed out. The singu-
lar " king " is better than the plural " kings," which
appears to be incorrect. All the pronouns in
the Septuagint, moreover, refer consistently and
properly to the monarch, " the king," whereas
in the Hebrew two of them refer to the people,
" the Medes," and only one refers to the ruler of
the country. It is significant that this one has
the same form that each one has in Greek. This
fact indicates that the readino- " kino- of the
Medes," is more accurate than " kings of the
Medes." It also seems to show that the words,
" of his dominion," which are wanting in the
Septuagint, may have been added by a later hand
to the Massoretic text.

The ejaculation, " so may it l)e, 0 Jehovah,"
chap. iii. 19, is not inappropriate where it stands
in Greek, nor can one fairly claim that it did not
lielono- to the translator's text. The words were
naturally interjected by the prophet, and they
correspond with a similar form of expression in

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 85

chap. xi. 5. As the appended words, " falsehoods
falsely," chap, xxvii. 15, are simply regarded l)y
Graf as " very useless at least," it may be quite
sufficient to reply that this ol)jection does not
prove them to be spurious, nor does it prove them
to have been intentionally inserted by any one.
The same objection merely is urged against the
reading, " the sword of Jehovah," instead of
"sword," chap. xlvi. 10. In neither of these two
cases is the addition absolutely useless. On the con-
trary, it increases the significance of the statement
in each verse. In the latter example, moreover, the
definite form in Greek is a classical one, as may be
seen at once by a reference to 1 Chron. xxi. 12.

4. Other additions again are explanatory glosses
or circumlocutions, wdiich are frequently incorrect.
This charge can be as easily refuted as the foregoing-
ones by studying the examples which Graf adduces
in support of his assertion.

The exclamation, " 0 Jerusalem ! " chap. xiii. 20,
cannot be shown to be a gloss. It probably repre-
sents the only true reading in this place. It
belongs as naturally and as properly here as in
ver. 27, where it appears in both the Hebrew and
the Greek. Even the form of the verse in the
Massoretic text indicates that some such word
was understood, and possibly, at some time, was
expressed. The Hebrew verb is feminine and

86 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

singular, while tlie possessive pronoun which
qualifies its subject is plural. " This shows," as
Streane has observed, " that the subject is a noun
of multitude, viz., Jerusalem personified as the
daug-hter of Zion. This thoug;ht harmonizes with
the words, ' the flock that was given thee,' the
inhabitants of the land in general." ^
' Neither can the additional clause, " a letterjto^he
[f^ settlement (captivity) at Babylon," chap. xxix. 1, be

proved to be a gloss. The addition does not really
interrupt the connection of thought in the sentence,
as Hitzig asserts. It rather properly ex^^lains ex-
actly what seems to have taken place. Consistently
with the rest of the verse, the relative pronoun
" which," in the Septuagint, is plural, and refers
to "the ivords of the writing" that was sent by
Jeremiah as a letter from Jerusalem to Babylon.
The whole verse, which is quite as complete in
the Greek as in the Hebrew, indicates the exist-
ence of a special text - recension. In the first
member of the verse in Greek there are two short
omissions, " the prophet " and " the residue ; " and
in the second member there is the important
addition just discussed, and there is also a long
omission, " whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried
away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon." Hitzig

1 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Jeremiah aiul
Lamentations, p. 107.

THE VAEIATIONS ADDITIONS. 87

admits that this latter sentence is rightly wanting
in the Septuagint, inasmuch as it is rendered
superfluous by the succeeding verse.

The added clause, "upon him," chap. xvii. 5,
is not an explanatory note. The sentence is an
exceedingly easy one. No explanation whatever
was needed to make its meaning plain. Instead
of simplifying the verse, the addition renders it,
if anything, somewhat more ditticult. Neither a
translator nor a later writer would have attempted
after this fashion to explain the sacred text. In
Hebrew the verse reads, " Cursed is the man that
trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm ; " in
Greek the latter sentence reads, " and places the
flesh of his arm upon him." The language in the
original of each text was just the same, with the
exception of the two additional words, " upon him."
The pronoun evidently refers to the second word
for man, in the first of the two sentences, as its
antecedent. The reading in the Septuagint, though
peculiar, is perfectly intelligible, and appears to
reproduce an ancient form of the Hebrew text
which the translator used.

The added sentence, " and tliev have concealed
their cause of stumbling (punishment) from me,"
chap, xviii. 20, is neither a paraphrase nor a gloss.
It is rather a genuine piece of ancient text. It
affords a most convincing proof of the hypothesis of

88 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

a special text-recension which formed the original
of the Alexandrian version. There is no reason
whatever to regard it as a gloss with Graf, nor to
consider it with Hitzio- an excess or a redundance
in one verse. Instead of appearing to be an inter-
polation, it rather bears the appearance of genuine-
ness ; and instead of injuring the parallelism of the
verse-meml)ers, it rather gives them a rhythmical
balance. Thus both objections to it are unjust, and
the latter, that the words should be rejected l)ecause
they overload the verse, is really absurd. Hitzig
also foolishly supposes that the translator wrongly
inserted the sentence after the analogy of ver. 22,
because of having incorrectly interpreted it. The
sentence is most appropriate where it stands, and
sives an increased sionificance to the verse. There
seems to be a happy contrast in the Septuagint
between ver. 20 and ver. 23. In the former,
addressing Jehovah, the prophet says, " they have
concealed their cause of stumbling from me ; " in
the latter, he savs, " let their cause of stumbling; be
before thee."

The addition in chap. xxii. 17 is also neither a
paraphrase nor a gloss. It is another certain proof
of a twofold readino- in the ancient Hebrew manu-
scripts. Moreover, the rendering of the Septuagint
is capital. In the Hebrew, the first half of the
verse reads, " But thine eyes and thine heart are

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 89

not but for thy covetousness:" in tlie Greek it reads,
" Behold, neither are thine eyes nor is thy heart
good, luit for thy covetousness." Instead of
" But," the Septuagint has " BehoLl ; " instead of
one copuLa with a negative, it has two negatives of
the verb to he; and, instead of no adjective qualify-
ing either noun, it has the adjective, "good,"
(jualifying each of the substantives, the very term
the verse requires to make the sense complete.
The differences between the two texts in this verse
are so peculiar and important that they must have
been recensional. They cannot have been the
outcome of intention on the part of the translator,
or on the part of any writer of a later time. There
is no unfitness in any of the added words. The
variations in the Greek are all appropriate, and
represent a classic form of Hel)rew text.

5. Some additions are due to ignorance, or to
want of understanding, in translating the original
Hebrew text. The charge that the translator
omitted portions of his manuscript through ignorance
appears entirely improbal)le, but the charge that he
or a transcriber added to the text through ignorance
seems utterly unreasonable. In not a single instance
does Graf establish the probability of this charge.

The addition at the end of chap. i. 17, " because
I am with thee to deliver thee, declares Jehovah,"
does not rest upon an erroneous understanding of

00 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the text, as Graf asserts, nor did it arise from a
false interpretation of the preceding clause, as
Hitzig says. It affords another striking evidence
of a special text-recension. It, moreover, harmo-
nizes perfectly with the context in the Septuagint,
which contains encouragement and comfort for the
prophet. Neither is the addition taken from ver. 8,
as Graf believes. This assurance of the divine
presence and deliverance occurs in the Hebrew of
this chapter twice, namely, vers. 8, 19 ; whereas, in
the Greek, it occurs thrice, namely, vers. 8, 17, 19.
It belongs as naturally and as appropriately in the
present place in Greek as in either of the other
places in both the Hebrew and the Greek. The
Septuagint rendering of the latter half of the verse
is almost wholly different from the Massoretic
rendering, but it is entirely consistent with itself,
as well as with the context.

The added clause, " and concerning this man,"
chap. xxii. 18, was not inserted, because the trans-
lator misunderstood the meaning of vers. 14-17 of
this chapter. Between the two texts, throughout
these latter five verses, there are minor variations
of different kinds and of considerable siprnificance
in every verse. The discrepancies, indeed, point
clearly to a special manuscript in each case. The
present addition is another example of recensional
divergences. In Tischendorf's edition of the

THE VAPxIATIOXS ADDITIONS. 91

Septuagint, the clause is printed as if it were in
apposition to " Jehoiakim " in the preceding chiuse.
This construction seems not to be correct. The
added words appear more properly to refer to
" Shallum the son of Josiah," whose fate the
prophet has described in vers. 11, 12. In perfect
consistency with this supposition, as Hitzig grants,
a plural verb, " they shall be buried," follows in
ver. 19 of the Septuagint. The plural verbs in
Greek, moreover, in ver. 15 and also in ver. 16,
fully confirm this supposition.

The added word " earth," chap, xxxiii. 2, does
not seem to have arisen either from intentional
insertion or from imperfect understanding. Neither
does it necessarily appear so incorrect as Graf
assumes. It rather appears exceedingly appro-
priate where it stands, and seems unquestionably
to have belonged to the translator's text. It also 7
gives a necessary completeness to the verse.
Properly speaking, it is really another word, and
not an additional word in the sentence, inasmuch
as it simply takes the place of the second word,
" Jehovah," which is wanting in the Septuagint.
The repetition of this latter term in Hebrew^ is
somewhat peculiar, if not, indeed, altogether super-
fluous ; whereas, the rendering of the verse in
Greek is admirable, Grafs objection to the con-
trary notwithstanding. To an unprejudiced critic

92 THE TEXT OF JEBEMIAH,

it seems to be superior, for tlie reason that it makes
much more natural sense, and corresponds much
more nearly with the parallel passage, Isa. xlv. 18,
which it very closely resembles. The order of the
words is slightly different, but the language is
almost identical.

The addition of " Jehovah" at the end of chap,
xxxviii. 27, Graf characterizes as " quite thought-
less " or unmeaning, but it is by no means certain
that his criticism is correct. The verse has a very
significant meaning in the Septuagint, and the
closing words are quite consistent with the context
in the Greek. In ver. 20 of this latter text,
instead of urging Zedekiah to obey " the voice
of Jehovah," Jeremiah is described as urging him
to obey " the ivord of Jehovah." In the three
succeeding verses in the Hebrew, with some slight
verbal variations, the prophet is represented as
declarino; to the king; " the word " wdiich Jehovah
had shown him. In the next two verses, the king
is represented as requesting the prophet to " let no
man know of these words," and to mention but
one of the subjects of their conversation, if " the
princes " should hear of their private meeting, and
should inquire of him the nature of their confer-
ence. Shortly afterwards, as seems to have been
expected, "the princes" came to Jeremiah, and
interviewed him, when he answered them accord-

THE VARIATIONS ADDITIONS. 9

f>

iiig to the commandment of the king. " Then,"
continues the record in the Septuagint, " they (the
princes) left off speaking, because the word of
Jehovah was not reported." Instead of beinoj
meaningless, the reading in the Greek seems to be
the ancient and correct one, and it seems also to
explain how the reading in the Hebrew should be
understood, inasmuch as in its present form it is
somewhat incomplete.

Thus a close examination of the various species
of addition, as classified for this investiaation,
shows how unfounded and unfair are Grafs objec-
tions to their genuineness. In not a single instance
is his allegation strictly true. In some cases, it is
difficult to account Avith certainty for the additional
word or words, but these are very few indeed.
They probably were due in part, if not in whole, to
the imperfect condition of the ancient manuscri|)ts.
The great majority of them, however, were due to
recensional divero-ences. Instead of belonmnor to
a later date than the time of the Septuagint trans-
lation, they belong to a much earlier date. Instead
of having arisen out of the received Hebrew text,
they arose out of a widely different text. Instead
of being generally spurious, they are generally, if
not always, genuine. If they do not, in every
case, exhibit the original text, they do, at least,
exhil)it a verv ancient form of it — a much more

94 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

ancient form, perhaps, than that exhibited by the
Massoretic text. In numerous passages Graf, as
well as Hitzig and Movers, recognizes the superi-
ority of the Septuagint reading, and also the
probable primitive character of the additions. In
the remaining passages, as a rule, if the Greek does
not represent a more primitive reading than the
Hebrew, it represents, at all events, the reading of
a different recension — the Alexandrian recension.

The additions of letters, of which there are a
few, are interesting, inasmuch as they explain
the orio;in of a number of variations. Like the
(jmissions of letters, it is difficult to determine
which of them were recensional and which tran-
scriptional, as some of them were evidently due to
one cause and some of them to another. The
following are the chief examj^les : —

i::^-^:— ^:^2si:, vii. lo ; b^tr^n— ^sstrn (?) vii. 16 ; xi. 14 ;

aiDtp-D'^riDi??, iii- '21; vii. 29; j^i—jv^-f, viii. 2;
ix. 21 ; xvi. 4 ; u:«— ^tTi^ (?) xi. 16 ; D^lliirn— a-).;t^rT1.,

xviii. 21 ; inpii— ^n;^)'2n^ (?) xix. 7 ; ;p^n:— nn:s!:,

xxii. 23; ^i^^l^— ^^n^"; (?) xxx. 16; H^^^— n^lSJ,

xxxi. 21; anirn— annir^, xxxii. 12 ; ^n'^^^—
^n^^i;i^, xxxvi. 25; nn^!;!— nn:?^!, xli. 17 ; ^^i>:i—

^'^;::.}^p xliv. 6; 1^— -[;^>^?i, xlix. 1 ; D^*)!:— Q''-)^!?, 1- 39 ;

CHAPTER IV.

THE VARIATIONS — TEAXSPOSITIOXS.

The character of the Transpositions in the Septiia-
gint is remarkable, and the evidence they furnish
of recensional divergences is significant. They
comprise letters, words, verses and chapters. Of
these four species, some one or other kind occurs
in nearly every chapter of the book. The trans-
position of chapters, being the most manifest and
striking, has always attracted much attention. On
account of its interest and importance, this species
of transposition should be considered first.

From about the middle of chap. xxv. to the
beginning of chap. lii. the numbering of the
(•hapters is entirely difterent. This diff"erenee is
(;hiefiy due to the position occupied by the nine
prophecies against foreign nations. In each text,
this group of prophecies stands together ; but, in
the Greek, it is found near the middle, in the
Hebrew, near the end, of the book. In the former,
it follows immediately after chap. xxv. 13 ; in the
latter, it begins with chap. xlvi. Not only docs

96 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH,

the general arrangement of these prophecies differ
widely, but also their particular order of sequence
amongst themselves differs considerably. Their
order in the Greek is Elam, Egypt, Baljylon,
Philistia, Edom, Amnion, Kedar, Damascus, Moab ;
their order in the Hebrew is Egypt, Philistia,
Moa1), Amnion, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam,
Babylon,

Although it is not the special purpose of this
investio'ation to discuss exhaustivelv either the
aiTangement or the order of these prophecies,
being chiefly concerned with the arguments for
a different text-recension, yet the subject is too
interesting in itself to be entirely left alone, and
too important for the present hypothesis to be
very slightly touched. It, therefore, claims a fair
and full consideration. The discussion involves
two questions — the position and the grouping of
these nine prophecies. Eespecting eacli it can be
shown that the Alexandrian version exhibits the
more ancient as well as the more natural form of
this prophetic book.

The first question is of particularly great im-
portance, because of the logical relation between
the different parts of the book. It admits, more-
over, of a thoroughly critical treatment and of a
tolerably certain settlement. The second question
is of comparatively small importance, because the

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 97

grouping of the individual prophecies is practically
immateri^,l, so long as the subject-matter in each
case is substantially the same. This question,
further, does not admit of a decisive answer. At
least, while the one may seem more original than
the other, it, perhaps, can never be determined
with absolute certainty which grouping is the
more correct. Much may be said, as much already
has been said, in favour of the combination in each
text. It may, however, be pretty positively settled
which one the translator had before him in the
manuscript he used.

Taking these questions in the order of their
importance, it is necessary to consider, first, the
correctness, and, secondly, the originality, of the
position of the prophecies in each case. Their
position, it should be observed, must be considered
independently of the position of similar prophecies
in any other book of Scripture. In some of the
other books, the prophecies against the heathen
do not stand at the end of the work, l)ut occupy
a position analogous to that here occupied by the
present group in Greek, The analogy, though
interesting and significant, is in no way conclusive.
The indirect evidence it furnishes, wdiile ftivourable
to the Septuagint, is not sufficient of itself to
decide the matter with perfect certainty. The
position of this group has nothing whatever to do

G

98 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH.

with that of either of the other groups. The
question, therefore, must be considered simply on
its own merits ; and it must be determined, if at
all, by the relation of these nine prophecies to the
general contents of the book. In endeavourino* to
determine it, reference must be made particularly
to the relation between the two parts into which
chap. XXV. is divided by their insertion immedi-
ately after ver. 13 in the Septuagint, or rather by
their removal to the beginning^ of chaj^. xlvi. in
the Massoretic text.

A careful reading of chap. xxv. in the Hebrew
will show that there is really something wanting
after ver. 13 to connect it log;ically with the
section which begins with ver. 15. In this latter
section there is an enumeration of the nations to
which the prophet is said to have been directed
by Jehovah to offer, figuratively, of course, the
wine-cup of the divine fury ; or, in other words,
to foreshadow the ruin of those nations whose
overthrow should be involved in the general
destruction which is described in ver. 11. In the
main, the names of these nations correspond with
the names of those against whom the nine pro-
phecies in question were proclaimed. For this
reason, one would naturally expect them to appear
in close connection with the enumeration mentioned.
This expectation is realized in the Septuagint.

THE VARIATIONS TKANSPOSITIONS. 90

Here the group of prophecies begins directly after
ver. 13, apd the section commencing with ver. 15
follows at once as chap, xxxii. In this position,
the prophecies stand connected with kindred
matter ; whereas, in the position which they occupy
in the Hebrew, they stand unconnected with any
thing whatever of a kindred character. Having,
therefore, in this latter text no loo;ical connection
with the preceding chapters, they are manifestly
out of place.

Moreover, as chap. xxv. 13 in the Hebrew reads,
it has no leg-itimate connection either with that
which o;oes before or with that which follows. In
its present form it is altogether inappropriate,
"because," as Bleek observes, "in the foregoina;
part of the book there are no threatening discourses
whatever as^ainst heathen nations." ^ In the
Septuagint, on the other hand, ver. 13 ends witli
the clause, "in this book." This term here, as
elsewdiere in Jeremiah, seems to be equivalent to
a volume, or a collection of prophetic writings,
<jf which the prophet wrote, or rather dictated,
several ; and it refers both to what immediately
precedes and to what immediately succeeds. It
is to be understood of the "book," or roll, which

' " Da ill! vorher^chcnJeii Tlieile ties Baches sicli nocli gar keine
Drohreden wider frenide Yolkor Jimlen." Einlcitnng in das Alte
Testament, p. 326.

100 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

contained tlie prophecies against the '"nations"
mentioned in the section ah-eady discussed. In
the Massoretic text, these prophecies are not
included in this " book," but in another " book,"
or, perhaps, in what might have been a separate
roll or volume.

Again, the section beginning with ver. 15 in-
dicates that the proj^hecies properly belong where
they stand in Greek. They form the natural
connection between the two parts of this chapter,
vers. 8-13 constituting a suitable introduction,
and vers. 15-30 a suitable supplement. Their
presence, too, is required here, not only by the
general enumeration given in this latter section,
but also by the special description it contains, that
is, of the w^ine-cup of the divine fury. In the
prophecy respecting Edom, chap. xlix. 12, wdiere
this same .term occurs, the words are not an
"echo" from ver. 28 of this section, as Hitzig
suggests ; but, with the prophecies in their right
position, they form a faint outline in the former
verse of a picture which in the latter verse appears
in full. In the one case the figure is partially, in
the other case completely, developed. From these
considerations, it is evident that, in the Septuagint,
these prophecies occupy their proper place.

Not only is this earlier position the one which,
from their relation to the context, they would

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 101

naturally occupy, but also it is the one wliicli tliey
must have, originally occupied in each text. That
is, this is where they evidently stood in the
oriojinals of both the Hebrew and the Greek. That
their position in the former was once the same as
their position in the latter, is rendered practically
certain by a critical comparison of the two texts.
These prophecies at one time must have stood in
the middle of the book, following immediately
after chap. xxv. 13, because the sentence, "which
Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations,"
occupies the same place in each text. In the
Hebrew, though, it stands as the conclusion of
ver. 13, while, in the Greek, it stands as the intro-
duction to these nine prophecies. The sentence is
not an appositional expression, as the Hebrew
implies, but an introductory title, and has no direct
relation to ver. 13. It simply connects the two
parts of this " book," or roll. It should, moreover,
be translated, " What (the things which) Jeremiah
prophesied against the nations," and should be
placed as a superscription to the prophecies, as it is
found in the Septuagint translation. It, of course,
as critics all agree, was not inserted here by
Jeremiah, but by his secretary Barucli, or l)y an
early editor, just as many, if not all, of the other
superscriptions to chapters and paragraphs and
prophecies were inserted.

102 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

This opinion receives the strongest possible
support from Bleek, who regards the sentence in
question as undoubtedly intended for a superscrip-
tion in each text, and considers it appropriate
where it stands only when, as in the Septuagint, it
is followed by a series of utterances concerning
foreiofn nations. After showing; its unsuitableness
as a title to the list of nations given in vers.
15-38, he says, "The maker of the Massoretic
recension, however, wdio transplanted those other
oracles against individual nations from here to the
end of the book, has, as Movers also properly
observes, misunderstandingly drawn the doubtful
words to the context of the prophecy, together
with the insertion of ^^, and then also, for the
purpose of connecting it with the foregoing, lias
placed at the beginning of ver. 14 a i;^, which like-
wise did not originally stand there, and which the
Septuagint does not express." ^ This explanation,
thouo'h orood so far as it o-oes, does not go far
enouo'h. As the whole of ver. 14 is wantino; in
the Septuagint, it, too, may have been inserted by

^ " Der Urheber tier masoretliisclien Eecension aber, tier jene
ancTeren Orakel wider einzelne Volker von liier an tien Scliluss des
Buches verpflanzte, hat (wie riclitig audi Mt)vers benierkt) die
fraglichen Worte raissverstandlich mit ziun Contexte der Weissagung

gezogen — mit Einschaltung von ^^ untl dann audi v. 14 (am
Anfange) zur Anknupfung an das Vorliergdiende ein ''13 gesetzt, was
nrspriinglidi ebenfalls nit-ht dastand, und was die Septuaginta audi
nidit ausdrlickt." Einleitung in da^s Alte Testament, p. 326.

THE VARIATIONS TEANSPOSITIOXS. 10

o

an ancient copyist or editor, iu order to connect
ver. 13 \Yith ver. 15, after the prophecies, which the
words in question originally introduced, had been
removed. At any rate, the fact that the intro-
ductory sentence occupies exactly the same place
in each text seems to prove that it is an ancient
title, and not a "gloss," as Orelli^ surprisingly
asserts ; and the additions mentioned by Bleek
appear to indicate that ver. 13 in Hebrew was
changed, and ver. 14 inserted, not through mis-
understanding, but through intelligent design.

A further comparison of the two texts corro-
borates the probability of this conjecture. The
omissions from the Septuagint in vers. 8-14 indi-
cate that this section was once substantially the
same in each text. The absence of "all," in the
first member of ver. 9, Hitzig admits to be a better
reading because of the singular, "that nation," in
ver. 12, and "that land," in ver. 13. The clause,
" and unto Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon,
my servant," in ver. 9, Graf himself regards as
the addition of a later hand, as well as the clauses,
" the kin<x of Babylon . . . and the land of the
Chaldeans," in ver. 12. The absence of the whole
of ver. 14, which is unsuited to the context, is also
in fevour of the reading in the Septuagint. It
appears unquestionably to have been either a gloss

1 Kurzfjefasster Kommentar, etc., Vierte Abteilung, p. 217.

104 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

or a maro-inal note. A literal rendering: of vers.
11-13, as they now stand in the Greek, and as
they once seem to have stood in the Hebrew, will
illustrate the superiority of the Septuagint trans-
lation of the section under consideration. It will
also show how appropriately this passage intro-
duces the prophecies in question, and how admir-
ably the reading of the version corresponds with
the probabilities, so far as they can be estimated,
and also with the facts, so far as they can be
ascertained. The verses read, " And all the land
(Juclah) shall be a desolation, and they (the Jews)
shall serve amongst the nations seventy years ; and
when the seventy years are accomplished (com-
pare chap. xxix. 10), I will punish that nation
(Babylonia), and I will make them (the Baby-
lonians) a perpetual desolation ; and I will bring
upon that land (Babylonia) all my words which I
have pronounced against it, even all that is written
in this book."

Having shown that the position of these pro-
phecies in the Septuagint is not only the proper
one, but also the original one, even in the Masso-
retic text itself, it is worth observing that this
2:)osition corresponds to that of similar prophecies
in other Old Testament books. The analogy, as
has already been admitted, possesses no special
argumentative importance, but it is interesting, to

THE VARIATIONS TEANSPOSITIONS. 105

say the least. Concerning the different positions
and the respective claims of each to originality,
Klihl significantly says, " In the other great
prophets, Ezekiel and Isaiah, the prophecies against
the heathen stand in the middle, between penal
and expostulatory discourses to the particular
people and Messianic predictions of the future. In
like manner, we could, with perfect right, expect
them here also in the middle. Now we even actu-
ally find in chap. xxv. an enumeration of the
nations, to whom the prophet, at the command of
Jehovah, should reach forth the wine-cuj^ of the
divine fury ; and the number and names of these
nations substantially correspond with the nations
against which the prophecies in chaps, xlvi.-xlix.
(li.) are direct-ed. If one reads chap, xxv., there
really remains something missing ; one seeks even
here the presentation of the prophecies, such as
chaps, xlvi.-xlix. (li.)." ^

1 " 111 den andern gropsen Proplieten, Ezecliiel und Jesaja, stelien
die Weissagungeii gegen die Heiden in derMitte zwisclien Straf- und
Malinreden an das eigene Volk und messianisehen Zukunftsweissa-
gungen. Wir konnten sie also mit Fug und Eecht liier auch in der
Mitte erwarten. Nun finden -wir audi wirklicli in Krip. xxv. eine
Aufziihlung der Vcilker, denen der Prophet auf Jalnves Geheiss den
Becher des Gotteszornes reichen soil ; und die Anzahl und Namen
dieser Vcilker stimmen im Wesentliclien liberein mit den Ytilkern,
gegen die sich die Weissagungen in Kap. xlvi.-xlix. (li.) liL-hten.
Liest man Kap. xxv., so bleibt wirklich etwas felilen ; man suclit
<lie Ausfiihrung der Weissagungen, also Kap. xlvi.-xlix. (li.),
.^chon hier." Das Verhdltniss der Massora zur Septuacjinta, p. 15.

106 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

As this collection of prophecies forms in each
text a connected whole, it is evident that the
entire group has been, at some time, we know not
when, by some one, we know not who, for some
reason, we know not why, bodily transferred from
one part to another part of the book. Their
removal, moreover, was clearly intentional, and not
accidental. The reason may have been to give
precedence to the prophecies respecting the Jews,
and thus to keep them separate, deeming " the end
of the book the fitting place for them," as Streane
suggests, " and by this position leaving the pro-
phecies which had to do with the Jews themselves
distinct and preceding them." ^ At all events, their
arbitrary transposition was not the work of the
Alexandrian translator, inasmuch as both the
Hebrew and the Greek prove that, in the Septua-
gint, these prophecies occupy their proper and
original place. The change was evidently made by
a later editor or copyist in the Massoretic recension
or text itself.

On this point, Scliolz, in discussing the differ-
ence of arrangement which he with Bleek attributes
to a subsequent reviser, forcefully observes, "That
the alterations do not proceed from the translator
appears from the character of his translation incon-

1 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Jeremiah and
Lamentations, Introduction, p. xxxvi.

THE YAKIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 107

testable. It is unthinkable that he should have
made such great changes, while he not merely, with
tolerable accuracy, translates from word to word,
but even renders sentences in which he can find no
sense, writes Hebrew words, whose meaning he
does not know, with Greek letters, without trans-
lating them, and so forth. The words, ' And I
will bring upon that land all my words which I
have pronounced against it, even all that is written
in this hook,' ver. 13, also speak decidedly for this,
that the prophecies against the nations formerly
stood here, and, indeed, so much the more, as the
words, ' and the king of Sheshach shall drink after
them,' etc., ver. 26, are certainly spurious ; so that,
thus, in the prophecy, xxv. 14-38, respecting the
land concerning which, according to ver. 13, the
discourse must chiefly be, not a syllable stood in
' this hook.' Hence it follows that the arrange-
ment of the book in six great divisions (Dekaden)
is in the Septuagint alone correct.

» 1

^ " Dass die Aendennigc'ii niclit voni Uebersetzer lierriiliren, gclit
aus deni Cliarakter seiner Uebersetzung iiinwiderspreclilicli hervor.
Es ist ixndenkbar, dass derselbe, -wahreiid er nicht nur init zieiiilicher
(icnauigkeit von "Wort zu Wort iibersutzt, pelbst Satze, in denen
er keinen Sinn finden kann, widergibt, liebriiische Worter, dereu
Bedeiitung er nicht kennt, mit griechiscben Bucbstaben, obne sie zu
iibersetzen, scbreibt u. s. w., so grosse Aen<:lernngen sollte gemacht
haben. Aucb sprechen die Worte, v. 13, 'Et addueam snpor terrain
illam omnia Yerl)a mea, qwx locutus sum contra eam, omne, quod
scriptum est in lihro isto,' entschieden dafiir, dass die Weissa-
gungen gegeu die Yolker ebemals bier standen, und zwar um so

108 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Notwithstandins^ the convincino; character of the
evidence respecting the ancient position of these
prophecies, it is remarkable that in the Latest com-
mentary on this book of any critical importance,
Orelli asserts, not only that the place they occupy
in the Septuagint is not the more correct, but also
that it is not their primitive position. He con-
siders that their insertion after chap. xxv. 13
awkwardly cuts this chapter into two pieces. He
admits, though, that their position in the Masso-
retic text is not the original one. " In the earliest
editions of the book," he says, " most of the
declarations respecting foreigners, which now stand
at the end of it, must have stood in the immediate
neighbourhood of chap, xxv." ^ He is disposed to
believe that they formerly followed immediately
after this chapter. Kuenen, who has long advo-
cated this latter position, also admits that " with
chap. XXV., particularly with vers. 15-2G, the first
group of prophecies against the heathen is certainly

mehr, als die Woite, v. 26, ' et rex Sesacli bibet post eos,' u. s. w.
sicher unaiclit sind, so dass also in der Weissagung, xxv. 14-38,
von deni Lande, von dem nach v. 13 liauptsachlich die Rede sein
miisste, in dem libro isto keine Sjdbe stiinde. Hiezu kommt,
dass die Einrichtung des Biidies in 6 Dekaden nur bei LXX.
ricbtig ist." Der nmsoreth. Text unci die LXX-Uebersetzung, etc.,
p. 156,

^ " In den friibesten Ausgaben des Bucbes die meisten jetzt an
seinera Scliluss befindlichen Sprliclie iiber die Auswartigen sicb in
unmittelbarer Xabe von c. 25 befunden baben nilissen." Kurzge-
fasster Kommentar, etc., Yierte Abteilung, p. 217.

THE VArJATIONS — TEANSrOSITIOXS. 109

connected."^ Ewald and Kiilil, it is worth notins;
further in this connection, both make the same
admission respecting their position in the Hebrew,
but the former supposes that they stood originally
just before chap, xxv., because he thinks the words,
" these nations," ver. 9, indicate this place, while
the latter supposes that they once stood just after
ver. 29, because he thinks the rest of the chapter con-
stitutes a kind of recapitulation of the entire group.
In answer to Kiihl, it should be pointed out that
vers. 30-38 form a natural conclusion to chap, xxv.,
as it now stands, but that they would not follow
naturally after the group of prophecies, as he
suggests. It would be neither natural nor appro-
priate to say, " Therefore prophesy thou against
them all these words," etc., just after the proj)hecies
had already been delivered. In answer to Ewald,
it should be remarked that the two words, " these
nations," imply no such position of these prophecies
as he proposes, even though they both were
genuine. The pronoun, " these," however, is not
only superfluous, as Hitzig says, but is also wanting
in the Septuagint, in which the reading, '* all the
nations round about it," is, as Hitzig likewise says,
indisputably preferable.

1 " Met H. xxv., bepaaklelijk iiiel vs. lo-'IG, liaiigt de eerste groep
der profetiiin tegen de heidenen stellig zameii." Historisch-Kritisch
Onderzoek, etc., Tweede Deel, 1863, p. 218.

110 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Ill reply to all of these four critics, each of whom
suggests for these nine prophecies a position other
than that which they now occupy in either of the
texts, it is sufficient to observe that, whereas the
prophecies might stand tolerably well, perhaps, just
after chap, xxv., as Ewald and Orelli both believe,
there are only two positions legitimately under
consideration in the discussion of this subject.
We are concerned at present with two, and only
two, textual authorities. The question is. Which
one of these preserves the original position in the
ancient text-recensions by means of which they
have been individually handed down to us ? From
this investigation, it is manifest that the position
in the Septuagint is the earlier and the more
(original of the two ; that is, it is the most original
of which there is at present any record. There is
not a vestige of evidence to show that the pro-
phecies ever occupied other than one of two
positions in either the Palestinean or the Alex-
andrian recension ; and the form of chap, xxv., and
of ver. 13 especially, clearly indicates that they
now should stand in the middle of that chapter,
and that they once did stand there in each recen-
sion. If the position in the Septuagint, therefore,
does not represent the prophet's own arrangement,
it certainly indicates the form in which his writings
were originally arranged.

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. Ill

Coming now to tlie discussion of the second
question, it is also necessary to consider the correct-
ness and the originality of the order of sequence of
these prophecies amongst themselves. Judging
the matter from circumstantial considerations, Graf
maintains that the order in the Hebrew text is the
more natural. He says, " The succession in which
these nations are mentioned is such as most natur-
ally follows from the situation and the circum-
stances. Egypt appears first, because from the
defeat of her forces, described in chap. xlvi. 3-12,
the disaster, indeed, proceeded to the other nations;
then comes Philistia, which bordered alike on
Egypt and on Judah ; and the three countries
which lay immediately on the other side, ]\Ioab and
Amnion, the ever - united kindred nations, and
Edom, the kindred nation of Judah ; then Syria,
which bordered on Israel, and which once stood in
such manifold relations to it ; finally, the Arabian
tribes which dwelt away as far as the Euphrates." ^

^ "Die Keihenfolge, in welcher diese yolker aufi;efii]iit werdeii,
ist so wie sie sich aus Lage und Uuistiinden am natiiiliclisten ergab :
Aegypten erscheint zuerst, denn von dor xlvi. 3-12 gescliilderten
Niederlage seiner Kriegsinaclit ging ja das Uiigliick iiljer die andern
ydlker aus, dann kommt Pliili.sttia, -Welches zugleicli an Aegypten
nnd an Juda grenzte, und die drei Lander, wekhe auf der andern
Seite zimachst lagen, Moal) und Aininon, die stets A'crl)undenen
Brudervolker, und Edom, das Brudervolk Juda's, dann das an Israel
grenzende und mit diesem einst in so vielfaclien Bezielnmgen
stehende Syrien, endlich die bis nach dem Euphrat bin wolmenden
arabischen Stamme." I)er Frofhd Jeremia^ p. 506.

112 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

There is sometliino; interestino-, it must he ad-
mitted, in the order of these prophecies in the
Hebrew, j^roceeding, as it does, to some extent,
from the countries near to Palestine to those which
are more distant from' it ; but this principle is not,
by any means, consistently observed, A certain
geographical arrangement, too, is traceable, though
it is not very definite or distinct. In general, its
course is from the south toward the north and
east, but this direction is not followed with sufficient
accuracy to possess any very great significance.
Indeed, the principle which underlies the grouping
in either text is far from obvious, and cannot be
with certainty determined. When Graf asserts,
however, that the order in the Hebrew follows most
naturally from all the circumstances, his assertion
is too sweeping by a good deal. After the pro-
phecies had been fulfilled, • the order might be
regarded as more natural, perhaps ; but, from chap.
XXV. 13, one might most naturally expect the
prophecy against Babylon to come first. It does
not occupy this position, though, in either of the
texts. In the Greek, it stands in the third place
of the group, coming immediately after the pro-
phecy against Egypt ; in the Hebrew, it stands at
the very end of the group. Streane considers that
it is more natural to begin with Egypt, because
this was " the nation whose overthrow by Nebu-

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 113

cliaduezzar would be the sio;nal to the rest of a
smiihar fate."^ This propliecy, however, would not
necessarily be so understood until after the events
predicted had transpired.

Graf also considers that the order of these pro-
phecies in Hebrew is suited both to their subject-
matter and to their time of composition." The
first assertion is possibly correct ; the second asser-
tion is probably incorrect. While the order in
chaps, xlvi.-li. agrees in general with the enume-
ration which is given in chap. xxv. 15-26, the
succession of the prophecies against Moab, Ammoii
and Edom in this latter chajoter is inverted. This
enumeration of nations, how^ever, does not in each
text exactly correspond. The Septuagint, besides
omittino- " and all the kinors of the land of Uz,"
ver. 20 ; " the isle," ver. 22 ; " and all tlie kings of
Arabia," ver. 24 ; " and all the kings of Zimri,"
ver. 25 ; " and the king of Sheshach shall drink
after them," ver. 26, reads " Eoz " for " Buz,"
ver. 23; "Persians" for "Medes," and "all the
kings of the East" for "all the kino-s of the
North," ver. 26. Thus, while the Hebrew order
fairly suits the subject-matter in the Massoretic
text, it does not specially suit the subject-matter in

^ 77ie Camhridye Bible for Scliools and Colleges, Jeremiah ami
Lamentations, p. 284.

2 Der Prophet Jeremia, Einleitung, p. li.

H

11-i THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

tlie iVlexandrian text. That this order agrees with
the time of the composition of these prophecies is
neither certain nor probable. It is not certain,
inasmuch as there are no historic data avaihible for
purposes of proof; it is not probable, inasmuch as
the prophecy against Babylon can hardly have
been spoken at a later period than any of the rest.
Instead of having been composed last, one would
naturally expect from chap. xxv. 8-12 that it would
have been composed first. The exact time, how-
ever, of the composition of the respective prophecies
cannot be absolutely shown.

The prophecies in the Greek, Graf further says,
have been quite arbitrarily transposed by an
application to them of later circumstances. This
assertion is even more groundless than either of
the two preceding ones. There is not the slightest
reason for supposing that the ancient order in the
Greek was ever intentionally changed. That a
prophecy may have been accidentally misplaced is
possible, perhaps, although there is no conclusive
evidence that this is really the case. In the
Hebrew, on the other hand, not only is there con-
siderable reason for supposing that the order has
been changed, but also there is substantial evidence
of such a change. The Hebrew order has the
appearance of having been altered, partly with refer-
ence to the enumeration of nations in chap. xxv.

THE VAKIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 115

15-26, and partly with reference to the supposed
order of fulfilment of the prophecies. The position
of the prophecy against Babylon is an indication that
it must have been inserted purposely in this place
l)y some one after the events predicted had already
taken place. Further evidence of this assertion is
furnished by the fact that the statement, " and the
king of Sheshach shall drink after them," chap.
XXV. 2G, is unquestionably spurious. It is plainly
an interpolation having no legitimate connection
where it stands. It seems, as Bleek believes, and
as Graf himself admits, to have been added by a
later hand with reference to the position of the
prophecy respecting Babylon, which appears in
Hebrew as chaps. 1., li. The whole sentence is
wanting in the Septuagint, as well as the word
" Sheshach " also in chap. li. 41. This latter term,
moreover, cannot have proceeded from Jeremiah,
as Hitzig says, because, as he justly adds, the
prophet had no reason whatever to employ such a
form of cabalistic writing.

While there is no probability that the order in
the Greek has been " arbitrarily transposed," as
Graf asserts, and while there is great probability
that the order in the Hebrew has been purposely
arranged according to a principle, partly geogra-
phical, partly chronological, the absolute correctness
of the one or of the other is difficult, if not impos-

1 1 G THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

sible, to determine. Inasmuch as the Hebrew has
been evidently altered, there is good reason to
regard the order in the Greek as the more correct.
What the principle underlying the order in the
Septuagint may have been, however, is by no
means clear. Scholz, thouoh offers a suo-aestion
which, if not convincing, is at least ingenious. He
says, " Why does the short utterance respecting
Elam, which certainly had long since ceased to
play an important part, stand at the very begin-
ning ? Possibly, because the first exploit of the
ancestor of Israel was performed against an Elamite
(Gen. xiv.). The second World-wide Power with
which Israel came into hostile relations is Egypt, and
the third is Babylon — the last as the inheritress of
Nineveh. Thus were the utterances respecting the
three great nations first broug-ht into chronolooical

o o o

order." ^

The question of the priority of the order of
sequence in each text is also difficult to decide
with certainty. As the succession in the Septua-

1 "Warum stelit tier kleine A'usspruch liber Aelam, das ziideni
liingst aufgeliiJrt liatte, eine entscheidende Rolle zu spielen, voran ?
Etwa, ■Nveil die erste That des Stammvaters Israels gegen einen
Alamiten gerichtet ist Gen. xiv. % Die zweite Weltmacht, mit der
Israel feindlich zusammentraf, ist Aegypten, die dritte Babel,
letzteres zngleicli als Erbin Ninive's. So wurden zuerst die Aus-
spriiclie liber die grossen Volker in clironologischer Ordnung
gebraclit." Dcr viasoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc.,
p. 157.

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 117

giiit appears to be the more correct, so also, with
greater reason, it appears to be the more primitive.
Whether this arrangement indicates the order of
the composition of each particular prophecy or not,
it seems to indicate the original order of its publi-
cation in manuscript form. The exact period of
the composition of each, however, is not definitely
known and cannot be definitely determined. The
small amount of accurate historical information
which w^e possess respecting these ancient times
renders the determination of the date of many, if
not most, of them absolutely impossible. Accord-
ing to the list of nations, chap. xxv. 15-26, one
w^ould naturally expect, if the order in this section
had any real significance, that the prophecy against
Egypt should stand first in the collection, and that
aa;ainst Elam last. Instead of this beino; the case,
Elam begins the group. Hence it is evident that
the arrano-ement in the Greek was not determined
with reference to this enumeration. It is reason-
able, therefore, to believe that this was its original
place in the collection. The translator gave, one
must assume, the order which obtained in the
ancient manuscript which he used. Had he found
the succession in chap. xxv. 15-2G reproduced,
he surely would have followed it. The great age
of the Septuagint, and the circumstances under
which the translation was made, all point to the

118 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

conclusion that it presents, as nearly as can be
known, the primitive order of sequence of these
prophecies amongst themselves.

It is significant, though, that at the end of the
prophecy against Elam and at the commencement
of chap. xxvi. in the Septuagint, it is stated that
this prophecy was composed in the beginning of
the reig-n of Zedekiah. This statement shows that
the order of the prophecies in the Alexandrian
version was not made to harmonize with the time
of their respective composition, inasmuch as one
of them, at least, must have been composed
earlier than the reign of Zedekiah, if the date of
the prophecy against Egypt be correct. As both
the Hebrew and the Greek ao;ree in reference to
this date, there is reason to regard it as authentic.
This latter prophecy was probably read to king
Jehoiakim, and was certainly delivered before the
time of Pharaoh-Necho's disastrous overthrow at
Carchemish. Disregarding this date, Scholz, who
defends the Alexandrian order, supposes that the
j)rophecy against Elam was " composed earlier
than any other ; " and Kiihl, who defends the
Massoretic order, asserts that it was " written
later than the rest." The record of the first date
seems to l)e an explanatory note which formerly
stood in the margin of the ancient manuscripts.
In that case it was probably, at a time prior to

THE YARIATIOXS TEANSrOSITIOXS. 119

the translation of the Septuagint, inserted in the
text as a chronological subscription, because of
the unexpected place which this prophecy occupied
in the ancient collection.

If this supposition be correct, the marginal
note, or the chronological subscription, whichever
it may be, affords important evidence of the
originality of the order in the Septuagint. How-
ever the historic statement may be explained, it
apparently indicates the primitive position of this
particular prophecy. Scholz's discussion of this
question is worthy of consideration. " That the
prophecy against Elam stands in the original place
appears, in the highest degree, probable," he says,
" through this, that the Greek text here displays
an indubitably primitive peculiarity. The pro-
phecy against Elam has in connection with it, and,
indeed, alone in the. ivliole hook, a suhscription :
' In the beginning of the reigning of king Zedekiah
was this word concerning Elam.' It is quite in-
credible that a reviser of the present Massoretic
text, for instance, should have hit upon the
thought of converting here for the only time,
ao-ainst the usage of the entire book, as well as
against his own custom, a superscription into a
subscription ; while, on the contrary, it is per-
fectly explicable how a reviser may have
held it in order to remove this peculiarity by

120 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAII.

placing tlie subscription at the beginning of a
section." ^

Moreover, as the name of Babylon does not
appear in the list of nations given in chap.
XXV. 15-26, being rightly wanting, as has been
pointed out, the transposition of three of the pro-
phecies, namely, those respecting Elam, Moab and
Damascus, leaving the prophecy respecting Babylon
where it stands in Greek, would make the order of
sequence of the prophecies amongst themselves
harmonize in general with the above-mentioned
enumeration. The chang;e mio;ht have been made
easily and with very little trouble, if the translator
had been disposed to tamper with his text. For
the reason that he did not make this chano-e, it is
quite improbable that the divergent order of the
prophecies was due, in any sense, to intention on
his part. The originality of the arrangement in
the Septuagint is further indicated by the fact

^ " Dass die Weissagung gegen Aelaiu bci LXX. an iirspiiinglicher
Stelle stelit, wird liochst walirscheinlicli dadurch, dass der griechisclie
Text hier eine iinzweifelliaft urspriingliche Eigentliumlichkeit zeigt.
Die Weissagung gegen Aelam hat bei ihnen und zwar allein imganzen
Buche eine Unterschrift: 'Ey a.o-/0 t^a.at'Kivo'jTo;1ihix.iov(ix<Ti'hii'c syii/iro 6
Tvoyo; cvto; 'T^spi AiT^x/ic. Es ist ganz unglanblicli,da.ss z. B. ein Bearbeiter
des jetzigen masoretliisclien Textes auf den Einfall soUte gekommen
sein, gegen den Gebrauch des ganzen Buches und seinen eigenen hier
das einzige Mai eine Ueberschrift in eine Unterschrift zu verwandeln,
wahrend es umgekehrt voUkommen erklarlich ist, Avie ein Diaskeuast
es fiir in Ordnung gehalten habe, diese Unregelmassigkeit dadurcli
zu beseitigen, dass er die Unterschrift an den Anfang des Stiickes
stellte." Ber masoreth. Text und die LXX-Uehersetziing^ etc., p. 157.

THE VAEIATIOXS TEANSPOSITIONS. 121

that it is entirely independent of any principle
either of geographical position or of prophetical ful-
filment. On this point Scholz again significantly
observes, " Finally, there speaks directly for the
Septuagint the circumstance, that the regulating
principle in the ]\Iassoretic text, which is plainly
conformable to chap. xxv. 14 seq., is manifest, while
in the Septuagint it is, at least, obscure. But now
how could it happen that any one should set aside
what was clear and also, on superficial reading, easy
to understand, and put in its place what even to
himself was nnintelli2;ible ? ! So much the more,
as to put the separate pieces in another place,
instead of following the simple copy, could not
be done without trouble. Whereas, how easily,
especially if the translator had been ' inconsiderate
and superficial,' could, in some way, a short pro-
phecy, for instance, against Damascus have fallen
out ! Likewise, moreover, do preponderating
reasons also speak for the originality of the order
of the prophecies in the Septuagint.'"' ^

Thus the investigation of the position, and also

1 "EnJlich spriclit fiir LXX. gerade der Umstand, dass das onl-
nende Princip bei dem masoretliisclien Texte siclitlicli dein cap.
xxv. 14 fF. conform, klar, hei LXX. aber mindestens unklar ist.
"Wie kiime nun aber Jeniand dazu, Klares und audi bei oberflacli-
licliein Lesen leiclit Erkennbares bei Seite zu legen, und ihni selb.st
Unverstandliclies an die Stelle zu setzen 1 ! Um so melir, als es
nicht niiihelos sein konnte, statt der einfachen Absclirift die einzelneii
Stiicke an anderer Stelle unterzubringen. Wie leiclit konnte da,

122 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

of the order of the prophecies, leads to a simihir
conclusion. In each respect the Septuagint trans-
lation possesses the superiority. Of the correct-
ness and originality of the position in the version,
there can be no reasonable doubt; and, if the order
in the latter be not the absolutely correct and
original one, it is apparently and with great proba-
bility, the earlier one of the two. The order,
moreover, is most likely the one which the Greek
translator found before him in the manuscript he
used. The justice of this conclusion appears to be
unquestionable. Its reasonableness, it is believed,
will be admitted by every unprejudiced investi-
gator. Kuenen even, though he is generally
against the Septuagint, honestly acknowledges
the probability that the position in the Hebrew
has been intentionally changed, as well as the
improbability that either the position or the order
in the Greek was changed by the translator.
AVhile believino; that neither text exhibits the
primitive form of the book in respect to these nine
prophecies, he frankly says, " It does not follow
from this that they have always stood, as in the
Massoretic text, at the end of the entire collection;"

zumal wenn der Uebersetzer 'leiclitfertig und oberflaclilich ' gewesen
ware, ehva eine kleine Weissagung z. B. gegen Damaskus ausfallen !
So spreclien also auch iiberwiegende Griinde fiir die Ursprting-
lichkeit der Reihenfolge der Weissagungen bei LXX." Der masoreth.
Text und die LXX-Uebersetzung, etc., p. 158.

THE VAEIATIOXS TRANSPOSITIONS. 123

and he justly adds, " neither has it been proved
that the Greek transLitor took the liberty of trans-
posing and transplanting these prophecies." ^

There is the clearest evidence that both the
ancient position and the ancient order in the
Massoretic text have been, at some time, arbitrarily
changed. The transposition in each case was
evidently made by a later editor or reviser after
the events predicted had transpired. An impartial
consideration of all the circumstances renders this
conclusion practically certain. The reason for the
change in each respect has been so clearly and
forcibly stated by Bleek, that it is important in
concluding this discussion to Cjuote in full his very
reasonable explanation. " AVere the Massoretic
recension," he says, " the more original, then it
would be absolutely impossible to conceive how a
later Alexandrian redactor, even if he gave the
oracles in the book in general a position other than
that in which he found them, should have happened
also so to transpose the individual ones against each
other, as they present themselves in the Septuagint,
that he placed as the very first the oracle respecting
Elam (which in the Massoretic text is the last but

1 " Daaruit volgt echter nog niet, dat zij altijd, gelijk in de
Masora, aan Let einde der gansclie verzameling bebben gestaan ; . . .
ook is het onbeAvezen, dat de Grieksclie vertalcr zicli veroorloofd
heeft, die godspraken om te zetten en te verplaatsen." Historisch-
Kritisch Onderzoek, etc., Tweede Deel, p. 240.

124 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

one), aud as tlie tliird the one respecting Babylon
(wliich in the Massoretie text is the last of all),
and so forth. Much sooner, on the contrary, can
one imao-ine, if these oracles fonnerlv had the
position and the order which they have in the
Septuagint, how the later redactor, who transferred
them from that place to the end of the whole
collection, could happen also to change their order
of secjuence amongst themselves. For as, a little
while before, the immigration of the Jews with the
prophet into Egypt was related, together with the
projDhecies respecting the destruction which would
meet them there, such as those referring to the con-
quest of the country by Nebuchadnezzar aud the
fall of Pharaoh- Hophra, he (the redactor) might
easily feel occasioned to place at the head of the
group of prophecies respecting the individual
heathen nations the two respecting Egypt, which
at first stood after the one respecting Elam ; and
likewise he might find it suitable to place quite
at the end the great oracle concerning the chief
adversary of the covenant - people, namely, the
Chaldeans, which follow^ed immediately after those
concerning Egypt. By this means, though, no doubt,
the displacement of the position of the w^hole of these
prophecies was naturally and easily brought about

>5 1

1 "Ware die masorethisclie' Eecension die urspriinglichere, so
wiirde sich durcliaus niclit begreifen lassen, wie ein spaterer Alexan-

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 125

The transposition of chapters, which was owing
to the bodily removal of the proj)hecies against the
heathen nations from the middle to the end of the
book, as shown by the foregoing investigation,
furnishes no real evidence of diflerent text-recen-
sions. The transposition of verses, owing to the
arbitrary rearrangement of these prophecies amongst
themselves, also affords no certain evidence of a
special text-recension. The two texts, so far as the
general position and arrangement of these prophecies
are concerned, were probably at one time substanti-
ally, if not identically, the same. There are, how-

drinisclier Eeclactor, wenn er audi diesen Orakeln im Allgemeinen
ill! Buche eine andere Stellung gab, als worin er sie vorfand, sollte
dazu gekommen sein, audi die einzelnen gegen eiiiander so umzu-
f^telleii, wie sie in der Sept. sidi finden, dass erdas Orakel iiber Elam
(iin masoretliisdien Texte das vorletzte) zuvorderst stellte, das liber
Babel (im masorethisdien Texte das letzte) als das dritte, u. s. w.
Weit elier kaiin man sidi dagegen denken, wenn diese Orakel fiulier
die Stellung und Reilienfolge yvie in der Sept. liatten, -vvie der
spatere Redactor, der sie von dort an das Ende der ganzen Samni-
lung stellte, dazu konimen konnte, audi ilire Aufeinanderfolge zu
andern. Denn da kurz vorlier die Eimvanderung der Juden
mit deni Proi)lieten in Aegypten erziililt war, mit Weissagungen
iiber das Verderben, welclies sie dort treffen werde, sowie liber
die Eroberung des Landes durcli Nebukadnezar und den Unter-
gang des Pharao Hoplira, so konnte er leiclit A'eranlasst werden,
von der Sammlung der Orakel iiber die einzelnen freniden Yolkor
die beiden liber Aegypten, Avelclie erst liinter dem iiber Elain standen,
an die Spitze zu stellen ; und ebenso konnte er es angeniessen finden,
das grosse Orakel liber den Hauptwidersadier des Bundesvolkes, liber
die Cbaldaer, welches unmittelbar anf die iiber Aegypten folgte, ganz
an den Scliluss zu stellen. Dadurcli sclion aber wurde von selbst und
leiclit eine Yerrlickung der Stellung dieser samnitliclien Orakel
lierbeigefiibrt." Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 325.

126 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

ever, a few instances of verse-transposition, namely,
chaps. X. 5-9 ; xxiii. 7, 8 ; xxxi. 35-37, which
apparently indicate recensional divergences. In
the latter example, the order of the verses is 37,
35, 36. The transposition, though unimportant in
itself, appears to be recensional, because of a number
of minor but significant variations in these verses.
In each of the former examples, the transposition
is so important that it requires a more complete
discussion.

In the Alexandrian version, chap, x., ver. 5
follows ver. 9, which, vers. 6,7,8 being omitted from
the Greek, comes immediately after ver. 4. Ver. 9
has really no legitimate connection with ver. 8,
but is grammatically connected with ver. 4, Ijeing
manifestly the continuation from this latter verse
of the detailed description of an idol, begun in ver.
3 and completed in ver. 5. A close comparison of
the two texts shows that, in this passage, the con-
struction of the Greek is much more natural than
that of the Hebrew, which seems to have been
considerably glossed, vers. 6, 7, 8 being probably
interpolations. A careful study of the section also
shows that the description in vers. 3, 4 is violently
interrupted by the insertion of the interpolated
verses ; that ver. 9 should stand directly after ver.
4, and that ver. 5 should follow ver. 9, because it
forms a logical conclusion to the whole account.

THE VARIATIONS TKANSPOSITIOXS. 127

Its position in tlie Septuagint is not simply the
preferable one, it is the only proper one. The trans-
position of this verse, if not actually due to textual
divergency, was likely due either to interpolation
or to displacement in the Massoretic text.

In chap, xxiii. again, vers. 7, 8 stand in the
Septuagint at the very end of it, immediately after
ver. 40. These verses are a sul)stantial repetition
of chap. xvi. 14, 15; and it will be observed that
in this latter place in each text they follow words
of threatening or warning, just as they follow such
words in the present place in Greek. It was
customary with the prophet, in delivering his
solemn messages, to mingle encouragement with
reproof, as may be seen by referring to chaps, iv.
27; V. 10, 18; xxvii. 22. For this reason, their
later position here in Greek is perfectly appropriate.
Their earlier position here in Hebrew may have
been due to their arbitrary insertion by some one
in order to connect the promise of a national
restoration with that of a national deliverer, and
thereby to foster Messianic hopes and expectations.
Either these verses were removed from the end of
the chapter, and inserted after ver. 6, as suggested,
or the difference of arrangement was recensional.
In any case, as Graf and Hitzig both admit, because
of the peculiar connection between ver. 6 and ver. 9
in Greek, their changed position was not due to

128 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

tlie translator. He did not find them ^Ylle^e tliev
now appear in Hebrew in his manuscript.

The transposition of words, on the other hand,
of which there are examples scattered throughout
the entire book, evidently indicates a twofold text-
recension. Transpositions of this kind occur in
nearly every chapter, from one to four and five
examples in a single chapter being sometimes
found. Their nature, as well as their number,
shows that they belonged to the translator's
text. The most, if not the whole, of them must
have been recensional. They cannot have been
either accidental or intentional. In some cases,
the frequency, in other cases, the nature, of the
transpositions is a proof of their recensional
character. Such instances are, " saitli the Lord,"
chaps, i. 19; iii. 16; v. 11; xiii. 14; xix. 12;
xxxi. 37; xlviii. 38; "from the Lord," chaps,
xi. 1 ; xviii. 1 ; xxi. 1 ; xxxii. 1 ; xl. 1 ; " the
priest" and " the prophet," chaps, vi. 13 ; xiv. 18 :
xxiii. 11, 33; "sword," chaps, xiv. 16; xxi. 7;
xxiv. 10 ; " the j)i'i6sts," chaps, xxvii. 16 ;
xxviii. 5 ; "evil," chaps, vi. 19 ; xix. 3 ; "behold,"
chaps, vii. 11; xxiii. 30; "the beasts of the
earth," chaps, xv. 3 ; xvi. 4 ; " gladness " and
"mirth," chaps, xvi. 9; xxv. 10; "the Lord,"
chap. li. 12, 56; "to a stock," chap. ii. 27; "I
have purposed it," chap. iv. 28 ; " murder,"

THE VARIATIONS — TRANSPOSITIONS. 129

" commit adultery " and " steal," chap. vii. 9 ;
" tlie herbs," chap. xii. 4 ; " I will cause them to
know," chap. xvi. 21; "far" and "near," chap.
XXV. 26.

There are many cases in which it is impos3il)le
to tell which order of the words transposed is the
earlier or the more original. The one is practically
as good as the other, and the one is just as likely
as the other to be correct : as, for instance, "back-
sliding" and "wickedness," chap. ii. 19; "seed,"
chap. ii. 21; "saying," chap. ii. 27; "if," chap,
ii. 28; "no more," chap. ii. 31; "bride" and
"maid," chap. ii. 32; "stocks" and "stones,"
chap. iii. 9 ; " the prophets," chap. iv. 9 ; " not at
all," chap. vi. 15; "bride" and "bridegroom,"
chap. vii. 34 ; " they shall be," chap. viii. 2
" summer " and " harvest," chap. viii. 20
" hammers," chap. x. 4 ; " any more," chap, x. 20
"day," chap. xiv. 17; "0 Lord," chap. xiv. 22;
" this people," chap. xv. 1 ; " brazen," chap.
XV. 20 ; " out of the womb," chap. xx. 18 ; "unto
them," chap. xxi. 3 ; "great," chap. xxii. 8 ; "well
with thee," chap. xxii. 15 ; " the smiths," chap,
xxix. 2 ; " peace," chap. xxix. 7 ; " words," chap,
xxix. 23; "that maketli himself a prophet" and
" is mad," chap. xxix. 26 ; " the Lord," chap,
xxxi. 3; "flock," chap. xxxi. 12; "to Babylon,"
chap, xxxii. 5 ; " that is in Anathoth," chap.

130 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

xxxii. 8; "fields," chap, xxxii. 15; "Wcay" and
"heart," chap, xxxii. 39; "honey," chap. xli. 8;
" unto Jeremiah the prophet," chap. xlii. 2 ; " to
deliver " and " to save," chap. xlii. 11;" there,"
chap. xlii. 15; "an astonishment and a curse,"
chap. xliv. 12; "daughter," chap, xlviii. 18; "the
snare," chap, xlviii. 43 ; "a fear," chap. xlix. 5 ;
" evil tidings," chap. xlix. 23 ; " in the land,"
<:hap. 1. 22 ; " and thou art also taken," chap. 1. 24 ;
" habitation," chap. 1. 45 ; " the trumpet," chap,
li. 27; "and all the land," chap. li. 28; "Nebu-
chadnezzar the king of Babylon," chap. li. 34 ;
"Babylon," chap. li. 41; "five cubits," chap. lii.
22; "continually," chap. lii. 33.

It is unreasonable to suppose that all these
transpositions of words, amounting to nearly ninety
cases, were arbitrarily made l)y the translator.
They were most likely textual peculiarities. This
likelihood amounts to a certainty where several
examples of the same sort occur. The one order
of words belonged to the original of the Greek, the
other to the original of the Hebrew. An occasional
example may, of course, in each text have been
accidental. The position, though, of " saitli the
Lord," chap. i. 19, in the Septuagint is the proper
one, and is the same as that in the Hebrew, chap.
XV. 20, and also as that in both the Hebrew and
the Greek, chap. i. 8. The order of the transposed

THE VARIATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 1 ."U

words ill the Greek, cliaps. ii. 27 ; xii. 4, is more
poetical than the order in tlie Hebrew. While the
words "priest" and "prophet" are transposed in
several passages, the order " prophet " and " priest"
occurs in Greek, chap, xxiii. 34. The parellelism
is improved by the transposition in the Septuagint,
chaps, iv. 28 ; xvi, 21.

The Greek order, it will Ije seen, of " murder,"
" commit adultery," and " steal," chap. vii. 9,
corresponds with the order of the commandments
in the Decalogue, Exod, xx. 13, 14, 15 ; Deut. v. 17,
18, 19. The Greek position of "the priests,"
chaps, xxvii. 16 ; xxviii. 5, is evidently recensional,
as the two passages are so similar and stand so
near to each other. The Greek order of " the beasts
<jf the earth," chaps, xv. 3 ; xvi. 4, is shown to
l)e recensional, partly for the same reason, and
partly for the reason that the Greek and the
Hebrew order of these words, chap. vii. 33, is just
the same. The Greek order of the transposed
words, chap. xxv. 26, is exactly like the Hel)rew
order, chap, xlviii. 24. The frequent occurrence
of " from the Lord," always in a superscription,
and also of " the priest " and " the prophet,"
always in a similar construction, proves these
transpositions to have l)een recensional. Certain
verbal combinations, though common, are not
uniform in either text, as has been shown by

132 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the discussion of tlie group of words, " sword,
famine, and pestilence."

The transpositions of letters are also worthy of
consideration. Some of them are significant, as
possibly indicating recensional divergences ; others
of them are important, as probably representing
superior readings in the Septuagint ; all of them
are interesting, as plainly showing the origin of a
considerable number of variations. While this
species of transposition cannot be employed to
prove the present hypothesis, it is not at all im-
probalile that some examples were due to different
text-recensions, although, of course, it is impossible
to point out instances with certainty. Some of
these divergences apparently arose from transcrip-
tion, others of them from dictation. As the
transposition may as easily and as likely have
taken place in copying or dictating the original of
the Hebrew as in copying or dictating the original
of the Greek, it cannot be determined now in which
recension the variation first occurred, except in so
far as the context proves the reading in the one
case or the other to be right.

In certain cases, it ought to be observed, the
transposition does not seriously affect the sense,
the rendering in each text being equally admissible ;
in many cases, the reading in the Hebrew is
superior ; in other cases, the reading in the Greek

o o

THE VAPJATIONS TRANSPOSITIONS. 1 3

is not simply preferable but correct. Such examples
in the Septuagint are "destroyed" for "burned
up," chap. ii. 15, which better suits the context ;
"burned" for "broken down," chap, iv. 20, which
corresponds ^dtli chaps, xlix. 2; li. 58 ; "be con-
sumed " for "shall die," chaps, xi. 22 ; xlii. 17, 22,
which corresponds with chaps, xiv. 15 ; xliv. 12 ;
"in his forest" for "in his cities," chap. 1. 32,
which agrees with chap. xxi. 14, and which, as
Hitzig says, is required by the sense.

As their number is considerable, it is unnecessary
to examine each of them in detail. Scholars can
make the examination for themselves. Their chief
significance consists, partly in showing how many
divergences arose, and partly in showing how the
Septuagint translation may be used for j)urposes of
text-criticism. The following examples occur : — ■

nr^^;—rir^2, ii- 15; trip^??— trpi^^, iii. 3; r21^2—
^n^:, iv. 26 ; ^^b^i:— ^«^:, v. 4 ; msn— n^n:, vi. 2 ;
□n'Titrn— Q^nntr^, ^'i- 28 ; p]^-^i*— p]-^^i% vi. 29 ;
□^m«— ]i"^nis^, ix. 1 ; ^n^i—r^r^i, ix. 9 ; s^n^^—
b^ii^, X. 9 ; ^n!2^— ^T2n% xi. 22 ; ^:n"^-inb^— ^mmi^,

xii. 4; ^b^i^r^:— ^i>b^2':>, xv. 16; 2p:^—ptVi xvii. 9

^Vc:3")— ^sirn"}, xx. ii ; nprnv-cmm, xx. 17

ptp1V-"iptp:in xxi. 12 ; p1tr:i»— ipipiN xxii. 3

n:n2— nn:«2, xxii. 23 ; ^itr— i^u.% xxiii. i4 ; ^in—

134 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

n^n, XXX. 7; ir^:^^— ^nb^ir:, xxx. 12 ; ^3^^— ^^^i^^^C^),

T T X • T T ......

XXX. 16; ^•773''— ^^1^. (•), ^l)7n'^.'l— pm;'> ^xxi. 37
12^t^^— ^12D% xxxiv. 5; -i!^i«n— V^i^fH), xxxviii. 11

: : • : : • ■> t I v t v t ^

^ni^"'— 'l^n^ xlii. i7 ; ^n^^^n— ^!2nn, xlii. 22

T - • T T •

n^i>trin— n^irr^, xliii. 2; n^nS— i^-^n^, xliv. 27

t:- t-*-:— tt: — t:

*?i:i^p— "TJ^ip, xlvi. 12; n^^i^— H'l'^y, xlviii. 15
TT^^^n— T"^^'^' xlviii. 32; Q^l— QT, xlix. 9; -^ncrn—
^Dtint' or ^ninD, xlix. 10; CtT^!— DSitir: (?), 1. 7;

• : — T • : — T T : V •• t •

a^?:}*ii>— n^X^?2, 1. 26 ; vii>^— i-^^r^-i, 1. 32 ; ^^n— ^"in.

•'-I tt; T T I —',"1 T

H. 2 ; n'lnii^^— nni*^, Hi. 8.

CHAPTEE y.

THE VAEIATIOXS — ALTER ATIOXS.

The nature of the Alterations, wliicli are very
numerous, is of the greatest possible importance.
The evidence they furnish is really sufficient of
itself to establish the present hypothesis. No
other kind of evidence can be more sio;nificant for
proving the existence of special text - recensions.
This class of variation cannot have been due either
to accident or to desio;n. It is more reasonable to
suppose that the translator arbitrarily abridged his
text by leaving out unnecessary and unimportant
matter, although this latter supposition is founda-
tionless, than to suppose that he arbitrarily altered
the grammatical forms he found before him, and
that to an extent which, more or less, in multitudes
of cases, affects the understanding of the text.
A certain license of translation he undoubtedly
possessed. When the construction of the Greek
required, or properly permitted, a slight change of
form that would not affect the meaning of a
passage, then a change, of course, would be quite

136 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

justifiable ; but when the genius of the language
in no way called for such a change, then it would
be altogether unjustifiable.

In nearly every case, however, the alterations
that occur are entirely unnecessary on linguistic
grounds. The translator could just as easily have
reproduced the form in Hebrew as he could give
the form in Greek. Besides, the renderino- in the
Greek in general is good, and represents an excel-
lent Hebrew text. This would not have been the
case had the translator been dishonest or incom-
petent. The supposed arbitrary character of this
class of variation has not even the amount of
plausibility that so many scholars seem to think
belongs to the divergences that have already been
discussed. For most of the alterations, which
appear in all parts of the book, there was not the
least necessity on any ground ; and, consequently,
for making them there was not the slightest excuse.
The charge of arbitrariness res23ecting them, there-
fore, is as unreasonable as the practice of it would
have been inexcusable.

Incredible as the supposition seems, it is remark-
able, notwithstanding, that Graf attributes the
alterations to the same unworthy cause as that to
which he ascribes the omissions, the additions, and
the transpositions. He deliberately asserts, " Of
the arbitrariness of the translator, nearly CA^ery

THE VAEIATIONS ALTERATIONS. 137

verse bears witness ; it is sufficient, therefore, to
cite only some of the most striking examples of the
different ways in which it manifests itself. "With-
out regard to the grammatical forms of the text,
and often quite contrary to sense and connection,
person or number is changed." ^ He then indicates
a number of illustrations, as he believes, of the
translator's arbitrariness in each of these respects.
Before presenting a complete classification of the
different species of alteration that occur, it will be
interesting to examine some of his examples.

Beginning with the instances he gives of change
of person, it should be observed that the third
person instead of the first in the second member of
chap. ii. 25 does not at all affect the meaning of
the verse. The Greek expresses the sense as accu-
rately as the Hebrew expresses it ; and, if Ijoth
readings are not equally good, both, at least, are
equally admissible. The second person instead of
the third in the second sentence of ver. 30 of this
same chapter is really required by the sense, inas-
much as the smiting of the children was designed,
in the opinion of the prophet, to teach the parents

^ " Yon der Willkur des Uebersetzers legt fast jeder Vers Zeugniss
ab, es geniigt daber von den verscbiedenen Weisen, in welcben sicb
dieselbe zeigt, nur einige der scblagendsten Beispiele anznfiibren.
Obne Rlicksicbt auf die gramniatiscben Formen des Textes und oft
ganz gegen Sinn und Zusanimenliang wird Person oder Xunierus
geiindert." Einleitung, p. lii.

138 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

wisdom, Tlie second person of the pronouns in
the succeedino; sentence harmonizes with the second
person of the verb in this sentence. A translation
of it shows that the whole verse, as it stands in
Greek, is admirable. The latter reads, " In vain
have I smitten your children ; ye have not received
instruction : the sword hath devoured your prophets,
like a destroying lion, and ye have feared not."
The added sentence, the change of person, and the
omission of "your" before "sword," all afford
convincing proof that the translator had another
and a special text before him.

The second person instead of the first in the
opening sentence of chap. viii. 6 is perfectly con-
sistent with the context, as will appear from a
literal translation of the first half of the verse in
Greek. It should be rendered, "Hearken ye, now,
and hear ; not thus do (w^ill) they speak, there is
not a man repenting him of his wickedness, saying,
What have I done ? " The meaning given here is
good, and the addition of the word " now," as w^ell as
the change of person and number, proves that the
original of the Greek in this verse, too, was different
from the orig-inal of the Hebrew. The second
person instead of the first in the first member of
chap. xxii. 14 is perfectly in harmony with the
context in the Septuagint. In the latter, the
w^ords, " that saith," are wanting ; and the verse

THE VARIATIOXS ALTERATIONS. 139

commences with a direct reference to Jelioiakim,
the subject of the passage, " Tliou hast built for
thyself a wide (sjanmetrical) house," etc. The
second person, moreover, as in Greek, agrees exactly
with the beginning of the next verse in both Greek
and Hebrew, which reads, " Shalt thou reign ? " etc.
The whole section, vers. 13-23, presents a number
of divergences that point clearly to a special text-
recension. The third person instead of the first in
the last member of chap. xvi. 13 is not contrary to
the meanino- of the verse as it stands in Greek, the
latter half of which may be correctly rendered,
" and there shall 3'e serve other gods, which shall
show you no favour." The adverbial clause, " day
and night," is wanting in the Septuagint, but the
sense expressed in Greek is excellent. This differ-
ence of reading is undoubtedly recensional.

Besides these alleged examples of wilful change
of person, Graf gives some illustrations of what he
believes to be a special kind of arbitrary alteration
of person. In the Massoretic text, Jeremiah some-
times represents himself as suffering with the
people concerning whom he prophesies, or as
mourning in the person of that people. In the
Alexandrian text, these personal lamentations, as a
rule, do not appear. An examination of a number
of such passages will prove that they did not
appear in the translator's manuscript. The second

140 THE TEXT OF JEPvEMIAH.

person instead of tlie first in both members of cliap.
X. 19 is shown to be a recensional divergence by
the omission of "me" from this verse, by the
continuation of the second person through the first
member of ver. 20, by the addition of "it is
destroyed" to the same member, and by the
resumption of the first person in the second member
of this latter verse. The simihar changes of person
in chaps, xiii. 17; xiv. 17; xlviii. 31, are all
evidences of the same fact. In each of these three
examples the rendering in the Septuagint suits the
context. In the second example, the formula with
which the verse begins properly introduces a divine
address, and not a human lamentation, as is well
illustrated by chap. xiii. 12. The Greek is thus
superior to the Hebrew. That the two texts in
chaps, xiv. 17 ; xlviii. 31, were originally different
is further shown by the additions and omissions
that occur in each of these two passages.

Grafs charges of wilful change of number on the
part of the translator are no more reasonable than
are those of wailful change of person. When his
examples are subjected to a critical investigation,
they illustrate the existence of another text in
nearly every case. The plural for the singular in
the second half of chap. iii. 6 is neither incorrect
nor contrary to the sense. Although " Israel " is
spoken of in the singular in the first member of

THE VARIATIONS ALTERATIONS. 141

this verse, the collective plural is perfectly admis-
sible in speaking of the conduct of the people
individually. The word for " she " here is wantino;
in the Septuagint, and the word " backsliding,"
having been derived from another Hebrew root, is
rendered "colony." In the Greek the verse reads,
" Hast thou seen what the colony of Israel hath
done to me ? they are gone up upon every high
mountain and under every green tree, and there
have played the harlot." The sense expressed in
Greek is quite as good as that expressed in Hebrew,
but the original texts were slightly different. It
is incredible that the translator should have added
the words " to me," and have omitted the pronoun
" she," and have changed the number of two
principal verbs in a single member of one verse.

Neither is the singular for the plural in the first
half of chap. xxii. 7 incorrect or contrary to the
sense. The construction of the Greek is just as
allowable as that of the Hebrew. The reading, " I
will l)ring against thee a destroying man and his
iceapon," harmonizes perfectly with the context.
The substitution of " bring " for '"' prepare," as
well as the change of number, proves the existence
of another text. The singular for the plural in the
middle of ver. 26 of this same chapter is not merely
not improper, but is even superior to the form in
Hebrew. The verse in Greek reads, " And I will

142 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

cast tliee out, and thy motlier that bare thee, into
a country, where thou ivast not l)orn, and there
shall ye (thou and thy mother) die." The meaning
expressed is preferable in the Septuagint, and the
translator, doubtless, reproduced the text he had
before him. He would not gratuitously have
changed the number of a principal verb, and have
omitted the word " another," which is possibly,
as Hitzig thinks, a gloss, and which, at all events,
is quite unnecessary.

The plural for the singular in the first half of
chap. xxvi. 19 is quite as correct, and quite as
consistent with the context, as the form in the
Hebrew is. Indeed, the plural might most naturally
be expected in this place. The reference is not
confined to " Hezekiah " alone, but to the " kino;
of Judah and all Judah," as the rendering of the
Septuagint shows. The latter reads, "Did Heze-
kiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all
to death ? did they not fear the Lord ? " etc. The
singular for the plural in the first half of chap,
xxxii. 36 is perfectly appropriate. The reference
in the Septuagint here is to the prophet, and the
form, " whereof thou myest," is just the same as
that in the corresponding part of ver. 43 in Greek.
A further evidence that these divergences are
recensional is furnished liy the fact that, in a
similar account, chap, xxxiii. 10, the plural form,

THE VARIATIONS — ALTERATIONS. 143

" whereof ye say," is found in both the Hebrew
and the Greek.

The singuLir for the plural in the first half of
chaj). 1. 42 is another illustration of recensional
divergency. Instead of the verb "hold" here, the
Septuagint has the participle " having ; " and the
reference in the sentences criticized by Graf is very
properly to " nation " in the preceding verse.
Consistently with this explanation, vers. 41, 42 in
Greek read, "Behold, a people cometh from the
north ; and a great nation and many kings shall
be stirred up from the uttermost parts of the earth,
having bow and spear : it is cruel, and has no
mercy." Not only is the text of the Septuagint
different from that of the Hebrew, but also it makes
excellent sense. The singular for the plural in the
first half of chap. li. 28 is altogether the preferable
reading. Indeed, it seems to be the only reading
that harmonizes with the context. The plural
•' kings " in Hebrew is probably incorrect, as indi-
cated by the singular pronoun " his " in the last
sentence of the verse.

Thus a fair consideration of Graf's principal
examples shows that there is not a particle of
evidence of arbitrary alteration on the part of the
translator. The charge, therefore, of wilful change
of person and number is not only not sustained,
l)ut also shown to be foundationless. In none of

144 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the foregoing examples is either the sense or the
connection injured by the alteration, as Graf asserts.
In some passages, the reading in the Hebrew is
preferable to the reading in the Greek ; but from
this it does not follow that the translator was in
any way to l)lame for the inferiority of the Alex-
andrian rendering. He was not responsible for the
nature or condition of the ancient manuscript he
used. It may have been, and, doubtless, w\as quite
frequently imperfect. The Hebrew, too, in many
places may have been, and, doubtless, was improved
by later hands. Moreover, the original of the
Hebrew was probably, in some instances, superior
to that of the Greek, just as the original of the
Greek was certainly, in other instances, superior to
that of the Hebrew. There was not the least occa-
sion for the translator to make the alterations that
occur, and there is not the slightest reason to
suppose that he did make them.

In his brief and partial discussion of the altera-
tions, which occur almost as frequently as he
asserts, but which do not testify as he alleges, Graf
neither pretends to treat them thoroughly, nor
attempts to classify them systematically. He
simply gives a few examples of the two kinds just
considered. They comprise, though, changes of
species or conjugation (voice and mood), tense,
gender, person, number, and case. Of certain

THE VARIATIONS ALTERATIONS. 145

kinds of alteration, there are numerous examples;
of others, there are not so many ; of some, there is
only one or two. As they all appear together in
the Conspectus of the variations elsewhere, a few
examples of each kind will be sufficient for the
purposes of systematic classification. In some
instances, the form in Hebrew is superior ; in other
instances, the form in Greek is preferal^le. The
comparative merit of each reading will be left to
the judicial consideration of each critic. Some of
these alterations, it will be ol^served, were due to
difference of punctuation ; but none of them were
due to arbitrariness on the part of the translator.

Except in cases wdiere the letters were originally
the same, the alterations indicate a special text-
recension in nearly eveiy instance. An exception,
of course, must be made in the case of divergences
which were required by the genius of the language
in wdiich the work of translation was done. An
active for a passive, or a singular for a plural, and
vice versa, are examples of this kind. Even then,
as is frequently the case, where the form in Greek
represents an excellent form in Hebrew, the original
texts were probably difierent.

The instances of change of number, it should
be observed, are very numerous. The plural
for the singular in a great many passages, while,
doubtless, sometimes due to different punctuation,

14C THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

at other times to textual divergency, may have
been due in general to the well-known fact that
the plural is often used in Greek where the singular
is used in Hebrew. The singular for the plural,
on the other hand, seems almost always to indicate
a textual difference. As both the singular and the
plural occur occasionally in a single verse, it is
possible that these forms w^ere not so definitely
fixed at one time as they are to-day, and as they
have been since the Massoretic system Ijecame
estal)lished.

The following classification furnishes illustrations
of the chief kinds of alteration that occur : —

Species or Conjugation.

«

Kal for Nlphcd. — i^t^"" — ^"^?2b^"^ ("it shall be
said" — "they shall say"), chaps, iv. 11 ; vii. 32;
xvi. 14; ■^nii— ^in!l("it shall be chosen" — "they
shall choose"), chap. viii. 3.

Kal for Fiel. — niStlJ^— n'i-tp'p ("to change" —
" to repeat "), chap, ii, 36.

Kal for HiphiJ. — '':n''i^"l.rT — •'rT'b^l ("thou
shewedst me" — "I saw"), chap. xi. 18; ^nsiiri—
i^il"' (" cause it to come " — "it may or shall
come"), chap, xiii. 1; TfiT'^mr^^ — i^ntpn ("I will
cause thee to hear" — "thou shalt hear"), chap.

THE VARIATIOXS ALTERATIONS. 147

xviii. 2 ; D^W^^'^'i— ^^tr^^l (" tliev have caused them
to stumble" — "they shall stuml)le"), chap, xviii. 15;
^ir^?ptr^_1— ili^ptp^T (" they had caused to hear " —
" they had heard "), chap, xxiii. 22.

Kal for Hophal—r^p}^)^—^np^^ ("shall l)e taken
up"— "they shall take up"), chap. xxix. 22.

Niphal for Kal. liatyt— -^lu;^ (" breaketh "—

: • •• T •

"is broken"), chap. xix. 11; Tj^ ^b^-ip - n«-ip2

' T :'t ••': •

(" they have called thee " — " thou hast been
called"), chap. xxx. 17; f]hipj^— f^T^L-'ri ("thou shalt
burn" — "shall be burned"), chap, xxxviii. 23.

Niphal for ^i^^/^Y.— j^^rptr^)— y^U.^"' ("pul)lish-
eth" — "is heard"), chap. iv. 15; ^i^^j^trn— i^r^tZ?*"
("publish ye" — "let it be published"), chaps,
iv. 5 ; V. 20. ,

Hiphilfor Kal. — 'i^ij;^— '^^ij^i ("'is passed away"
— "have taken away"), chap. xi. 15.

Hiphil for Hophal. — ap^rr — ^'^'^\)T} ("is per-
formed"— "have performed"), chap. xxxv. 14.

Hophal for Kal. — itpv— DtT^*" (" inhabiting " —
"being inhabited"), chap. ix. 10.

Hophal for Hiphil.— uTynx^^^—^'^pn'^ ("they
deal corruptly" — "they are corrupted"), chap,
vi. 28; an''"^n— ^nin ("he had driven them" —

T • • : ■-.

"they had been driven"), chap. xvi. 15.

148 the text of jeremiah.

Tense.

Perfect for Imperfect. — ^i^n""— Vn (" sliall be-
come"— "were"), chap. v. 13; n^n^— n^n ("shall
l)e" — "was"), chap. xxxv. 9.

Imperfect for Perfect. — ^:j^?2ty— ^jr?2trn ("we
have heard " — " ye shall hear "), chap. xxx. 5.

Perfect for Infinitive. — nnit'i*— nntpv (" to do "
— "has doue"), chap. xi. 15 ; n^"|::n^— n^"}5S!'l ("to
cut off"" — " I will cut off""), chap, xlvii. 4.

Infinitive for Perfect. — n:nn^— "'^niS. ("mayest
try"— "to try"), chap. vi. 27; nt?;^— Hto^ ("did
do" — "to do"), chap. xxii. 15.

Imp)erative for Perfect. — i>?:>tr^^1 TlltTpn—
^V^IT^ b^r^l'^lTpn ("I hearkened and heard " —

T : T . I; —

"hearken now and hear"), chap. viii. 6 ; T\':>'n, ^V'^f

t't : T

—■ri-^^^p, ^i^'^'T ("they have sown, they have reaped"
— "sow, reap"), chap. xii. 13.

Imperative for Imperfect. — ^b^iri— ^^SiiT ("they
shall glean " — " glean "), chap. vi. 9.

Imp>erfect for Infinitive. — :^niz?ni ^ib^:"! nin yiyn

--^^!iirrii ^n:;>rii ^2i^;^l ^n-^1^1 ("to steal, to

murder, and to commit adultery, and to swear,"
etc. — "ye murder, and commit adultery, and
steal, and swear," etc.), chap. vii. 9 ; "^iDrri.— ^3p^T
("to pour out" — "they pour out"), chaji. vii. 18.

THE VARIATIONS ALTERATIONS. 149

Perject for Participle. — liij— irin: (" gi"^'iiig "
— "I liave given"), cliap. v. 14; '^^^ — •^^^
("travailing" — "liatli travailed"), chap. xxx. G.

Participle for Infnitive. — ^t!i>^^— □''")'2i«^ (" to
say" — "saying"), chaps, vi. 14; vii. 4; xi. 21;
lai^ — 11^ (" to speak " — " speaking "), chap,
xxxviii. 4.

Imperfect for Participle. — 'Tj^|-y_«^^<i ("walking"

— " shall walk "), chap. x. 23.

Gender.

Masculine for Feminine. — ntTC- — "itTET- (" her-
self"— himself"), chap. iii. 11.

Feminine for Masculine. — n^i^i^ 2Vi^'^n — litrn
V^^^ l^trn ("shall he return unto her?" — "shall

T " T

she verily return unto him ? "), chap. iii. 1.

Person.

First for Second. — TItrC2— ''tr22 ("' ^liy life" —
"my life"), chap. xi. 21 ; ri'^t/V— "'H'^tri^ ("thou .shalt
make" — "I will make"), chap, xxviii. 13.

First for Third. — nlni ?0!— ""rin: (" the Lord
hath given " — " I have given "), chap. xxv. 5.

Second for First.— ^n^ni, '•mitr— "'npn:, ^rny^

("I have broken, I have burst" — "thou hast

150 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

broken, thou hast burst "), chap. ii. 20 ; i^.^ — 3-5.^
("my heart" — "your heart"), chap. viii. 18;
^:]Ty, ^r^i^— a^TJ^, Q^'h^^ ("for us, our eyes" —
"for you, your eyes"), chap. ix. 17; ''JiS^, ''lltp —
Tfil^l^, Tf^ltp (" niy hurt, my wound " — " thy hurt,
thy wound"), chap. x. 19; ^^^^, itp02— 05^:''^, D^ITD:
("my soul, my eye" — "your soul, your eyes"),
chap. xiii. 17.

Second for Tliird. — '^Hp^— DfinpS ("they re-
ceived"— "ye received"), chap. ii. 30; rin"^!2 — rci^^

TXT • T

(" she hath been rebellious " — " thou hast been
rebellious"), chap. iv. 17; ri''nnn"!n— 1j';mmi
("in her streets " — " in thy streets "), chap,
xlix. 26.

Tliird for First. — '^25"^^— rT^^Q'Vj^ ("before me"

— T — T V T —

— " before her "), chap. vi. 7 ; ''n'i;irn_n— Dr\''i^"l^
("my pasture" — " their pasture "), chap, xxiii. 1;
□"^rirTirT— DPf'^n ("I had driven them" — "he had
driven them "), chap, xxiii. 8 ; Tl^ir"l— at?''T ("I will
set" — "he shall set"), chap, xliii. 10; •'ri5trn—
n''!ini (" I wiU kindle" — " he shall kindle "), chap,
xliii. 12.

Third for Second. — a:p'^nilSt— Dn''n'ili:? ("your
fathers" — " their fathers"), chaps, iii. 18; vii. 25;
xliv. 10; arn^l — TT\yiL {''y^ have dealt treacher-

V : — : T : T *^

ously " — " she has dealt treacherously "), chap.

THE VARIATIONS ALTERATIONS. 151

iii. 20; TTl^^Vi — an«VJ ("thy ueck" — "their

' V T - T T - *■

neck "), chap. xxx. 8 ; arij?^tr— '^i^^tlj (" ye have
obeyed" — "they have obeyed"), chap. xxxv. 18;
Q^n^^— Dilii^ ("you" — "them"), chap, xxxviii. 5 ;
^2^ — iip (" thy nest " — " his nest "), chap,
xlix. 16.

Number.

Singular for Plural (Noun). — r\in2tr?2 — nn2tr!2
("families" — "family"), chap. ii. 4; D-i^i^in—
hviiri (" Baalim "— " Baal "), chap. ii. 23 ; 'rj^ni::;^^,
ari^— ^V, *Tjn*t^ll^!l ("thy confidences, in them" —
"thy confidence, in it"), chap. ii. 37; Qi22i^5 —
XlVZ ("as clouds" — "as a cloud"), chap. iv. 13;
□''pn'^'2— prr^p (" distances " — " distance "), chap,
viii. 19.

Singular for Plural (Verb). — □rij^?:jtr— Hi^T^tl^
("ye have obeyed" — "thou hast obeyed"), chap.
iii. 13; ^-r:i!i— -r:ia ("have dealt treacherously" —

: T - T ^

"has dealt treacherously"), chap. v. 11 ; ^^»?ptr^i—
i*'2\r''1 ("they may hear" — "he may hear"), chap,
vi. 10; an^^.'T— rini^ ("speak ye" — "speak
thou"), chap. xi. 2; ^fi^ — H'^tTi^ ("they have

T T • T

done " — " thou hast done "), chap, xxxviii. 9.

Singular for Plural (Adjective). — a''?2n^: ~

152 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

nrh^ ("fighting" — "fighting"), chap, xxxiv. 7;

an^trsn— ^t^tran ("left"— "left"), chap. xl. 6;

•^trpl?? — trj^ir^ (" seeking " — " seeking "), chap.

xliv. 30.

Singular for Plural (Pronoun). — DTip— iSip

("their voice" — "his voice"), chap. vi. 23;
ar\^10 — iil^ltp (" their captivity " — " his cap-
tivity"), chap. xxxi. 23; nnm — "inm ("put
them" — "put it"), chap, xxxii. 14; Q^^rpb^ ^^'^—
'yd'i^ nnb^ ("ye are saying" — " thou art saying"),
chap, xxxii. 36, 43; DH^^ir— V^i^ ("upon them" —
"upon him"), chap, xxxvi. 31; Dn^^i!— H^^!^
("to them" — "to it"), chap, xxxvi. 32.

Plural for Singular (Noun). — nni — n^^lHi
("river" — "rivers"), chap. ii. 18; 'ij^n^— T?"^
("thy way" — "thy ways"), chaps, ii. 33 ; iv. 18 ;
>i-i|r^_Q*c^?^ ("nation" — "nations"), chaps, ii. 11;

vi. 22; *^ni^^— '^"^Jlli^'^ ("thy wickedness" — "thy
wickednesses "), chap. iii. 2 ; ^I'l— niT (" word " —
"words"), chap. xxxi. 10.

Plural for Singular (Verb). — "l^^'inrT— '^^"^??'^nr7
("hath changed" — "have changed"), chap. ii. 11 ;
Hl^Sn— ^^Sn (" she has gone " — " they have gone "),
chap. iii. 6; "rpD^— ^ipp'' ("he shall set" — "they

shall set"), chap. xiii. 21 ; nt?i^— '^toi^ ("it does" —

THE VARIATIONS — ALTERATIONS. 153

'•'they do"), chap, xviii. 10; n")i^:i— □ri');iU ("thou
Iiast rebuked" — "ye have rebuked"), chap,
xxix. 27 ; nn"^ni— ^Tll (" it shall become" — " they
shall become "), chap. xlix. 2.

Plural for Singular (Adjective). — i^^^iiTl —
D"'i^!J'i''n ("going out" — "going out"), chap. v. G;
p"}^ — r\"ip11? (" righteous " — " righteous "), chap,
xi. 20.

Plural for Singular (Pronoun). — into^p—
DniTi^^ ("to perform it" — "to perform them"),
chap. i. 12; ^j^^^, ^IT^ip— a^^?^^^, QD^'^P ('' thy
harvest, thy bread" — "your harvest, your bread"),
chap. V. 17; ij,*r:)ir'— aj^^tr (''its fame" — "their
fame"), chap. vi. 24; nS— a::3.^ ("his heart" —
" your heart "), chap. xvi. 12; 'iri^^— Qrih^ ("it" —
"them"), chap. xxv. 12; n^ip— D^p ("her
sound" — " their sound "), chap. xlvi. 22.

Plural for Dual. — D''21^^n— a'':n^^n (" the two
stones" — "the stones"), chap, xviii. 3.

Case.

Nominative for Ohjective. — a2t^^T\t^ T^Tl —
n^fi^ ni'^tTitrr ("they inclined their ear" — "their
ear hearkened "), chap. vii. 24, 26 ; ^2^y n:inn
71)^^21— n'\y^^ n^^l^vhv ^T-^in ("let mine eyes

lo-i THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

run down with tears " — " let tears run down from
your eyes "), chap. xiv. 17.

Ohjective for Nominative. — Tii? Tl'h^ I^IL^TT—
"TiV vS^ y\^D litrn (" shall he return unto her
again ? " — " shall she verily return unto him
again ? "), chap. iii. 1.

CHAPTER VL

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS.

The Substitutions also are very numerous and
noteworthy. They present, moreover, a great
variety of species. Taken together with the
other kinds of variation, they greatly increase the
evidence for the existence of special text-recensions.
While they are all equally interesting, they are not
all equally important in support of this hypothesis,
for the reason that some of them were due to
difference of punctuation. Many of them, how-
ever, bear the clearest witness to the existence of
recensional divergences.

Not only is their number great, but also their
nature is significant. They are, indeed, of such a
character that they could not possibly have been
due to wilful change on the part of the translator
or transcriber. As the same general arguments, in
answer to Grafs charge of arbitrariness, that were
applied to the preceding class are also applicable to
the present class of variations, it is superfluous to
repeat them here. It is scarcely more than neces-

165

156 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH.

sary to indicate their nature and significance.
Before proceeding to classify them for this purpose,
though, it will be proper to examine some of the
examples of supposed arbitrariness that he adduces,
by way of once more showing his unfairness and
unreasonableness.

Graf refers particularly to but one species of
substitution, namely, that of pronouns for sub-
stantives. Of this species, he gives only a few
examples ; but each one helps to establish the
hypothesis to which he is so bitterly and so
uncompromisingly opposed. The substitution of
"toward them" for "toward this people" in the
first member of chap. xv. 1 exhibits an admirable
reading. In the Septuagint, the latter words,
" this people," appear in the second member of the
verse, and the words " of my sight " are absent
altogether. The verse in Greek reads, " Then said
Jehovah unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood
before me, yet my mind could not be toward
them: cast this2?eople out, and let them go forth."
The variations in this verse aff"ord an interest-
ino- illustration of recensional divero-ences. The
original of the Alexandrian was evidently diff'erent
from that of the Massoretic text.

The substitution of "you" for "this people,"
and of "to you" for "to my people," in the middle
of chap. xxix. 32, together with the other variations

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 157

in this verse, also affords a beautiful illustration of
textual differences. A translation of tlie verse in
Greek will fully demonstrate this statement, as well
as advantageously exhibit the divergences. It
Teads, " Therefore, thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I
will punish Shemaiah and his seed ; and they shall
not have a man among you to behold the good that
I will do unto you ; they shcdl not see it." Here is
conclusive evidence of a special text - recension.
The verse in Greek has a peculiarly rhetorical
Hebrew ending. The supposition that in one verse
the translator arbitrarily made two substitutions,
chanired an indicative into an infinitive and a
singular into a plural, added a conjunction and a
sentence, and omitted an adjective and two
sentences, is really too absurd to merit any further
discussion. It is merely worth remarking, in this
connection, that the simple assemblage of words,
" because he hath spoken rebellion against the
Lord," which occurs twice in the Hebrew text, here
and in ver. 16 of the preceding chapter, does not
, occur at all in the Septuagint translation of this
book. Hitzig supposes properly that in each of
these two passages it is a gloss.

The substitution of " them " for " Elam," in the
first member of chap. xlix. 37, is another excellent
illustration of recensional divergency. The one
word was as easy to reproduce in the translation as

158 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the other was. No conceivable reason can be
suggested for the substitution, unless it be that
the pronoun was the more natural reading. The
reference here is to " the outcasts of Elam," in
the concluding sentence of the preceding verse.
Instead of repeating the proper name, it is really
preferable to supply a plural pronoun, as in the
Septuagint. Not only is the Greek construction
more natural, but also more in harmony with the
<3ther plural pronouns that occur throughout the
verse. The Greek reads, " And I will cause them
(the outcasts) to be dismayed before their enemies
that seek their life : and I will bring upon them
according to the heat of my anger; and I will send
my sword after them to their destruction^ One
has only to compare the two texts to perceive that
several other variations (one of them, " to their
destruction," being idiomatic) prove a different
original to have been the certain cause of such
divergences.

As Graf has given only these few illustrations ot
this kind of substitution, it is unnecessary to
examine any others in detail. His charge of arbi-
trariness is just as unsuccessful respecting this class
of variations as respecting the preceding class. In
every instance it is shown to be without foundation.
Each one of his examples not only proves his alle-
gation to be false, but also proves the hypothesis

THE VAEIATIONS SUBSTITUTIOXS. 159

of a special text-recension to be true. A multitude
of other instances might be indicated that furnish
evidence just as conclusive as those considered
furnish. Their general nature and importance will
appear in classifying and illustrating their several
species. The different kinds may be arranged in
five distinctive groups, — parts of speech, rhetorical
expressions, syntactical forms, proper names, and
letters.

Before exemplifying each class, it should be
stated that, in the case of synonyms, \Yhere an
article occurs for a noun, as " the princes " for
" the princes of Judah," chap. xxiv. 1 ; or a noun
for a pronoun, as " after the Holy One of Israel "
for " after me," chap. ii. 2 ; or one proper noun for
another, as " Jehovah the God of Israel " for
" Jehovah," chap, xxxii. 28 ; or one common noun
for another, as " inhabitants " for "men," chap. xi.
23; "land" for "men," chap, xxxvi. 31; "the
city" for "the people," chap, xxxvii. 4; "in the
land " for " in the cities," chap. xl. 5, etc., there is no
reason whatever to suspect the translator of having
made the changes. The character of his transla-
tion proves the suspicion to be groundless. He
had no need to make such alterations, and without
necessity he certainly would not have made them.

AVhile, in the great majority of cases, the syn-
onymous words and expressions are practically

160 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

equivalent, as well for the subject-matter as for
the sense, there are places where the Greek presents
the more difficult, and, for this reason, the prefer-
able reading ; for example, '•' the inhabitants of
Chaldea " for " the land of the Chaldeans," chap.
1. 45, to which Scholz has directed attention. " In
the Greek text," as he rightly says, " according to
Hebrew custom, the name of the people is placed
as the name of the country ; and the words must
be translated ' the inhabitants of Chaldea.' It is
absolutely inconceivable that the translator, if his
Hebrew text had had ' land,' should have aban-
doned this perfectly proper and corresponding
designation, and should have made the useless
difficulty for his Greek readers," ^

Parts of Speech.

Substitutions belonsfino; to this class, it will be
seen at once, w^ere often due to punctuation, or
rather to the utter absence of punctuation. In
cases where the consonants were alike, the varia-

^ " Im griecliisclien Texte ist cler Vblkername nacli hebraisclier
Weise als Landername gesetzt ; unci die "Worte raiissen iibersetzt
werden : ' Bewohner Clialdiia's.' Es ist geradezu undenkbar, dass
der Uebersetzer, -wenii sein hebraiischer Text ' terra ' gehabt hatte,
diese ganz richtige und entsprecliende Bezeichnung verlassen, und
fieinen griecliiscben Lesern die unnlitze Sdiwierigkeit sollte gemacht
haben."" Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uehersetzung, etc., j^p. 107,
108.

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. IGl

tion naturally explains itself; but in cases where
the consonants were not alike, the orioinal manu-
scripts were evidently different. Such cases
certainly indicate recensional divergences, and
possibly indicate archaic readings in the ancient
Hebrew texts. The following examples of the
principal species may be given : —

Noun for Adjective. — t2?^t<^ — t2?;h^ ("sick" —
"man"), chap. xvii. 9; tT^ih^— tyi:^^ ("woeful" — •
"man"), chap. xvii. 16; nDQ— HpS ("lame" — ■
"passover"), chap. xxxi. 8.

Adjective for Noun. — d:— Di (" standard " —

T

"fleeing "), chap. iv. 21 ; nV"l— (Q^'i^h) Jli^n (" know-
ledge " — "feeding"), chap. iii. 15.

Noun for Article. i^^n — 'n^TV ^yi (" the

word" — "word of Jehovah "), chap. v. 13.

Article for Noun. — r^1'^'n"' '^"^t?— D'''^tr'n ("the
princes of Judah" — " the princes"), chap. xxiv. 1.

Noun for Adverh. — QtiJ— Dli? ("there" — name"),
chap. xlvi. 17.

Adverh for Noun. — ntSi^— n^Dt;? (" measure " —
"truly"), chap. li. 13.

Noun for PreiJosition. — ^i<|_^^ (" against " —
" God "), chap. 1. 29.

Preposition for Noun. — ai^— a;i> (" people " —
" with "), chap. xxxi. 2.

1G2 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Noun for Pronoun. — nn«— ^i^'itp'; IL^ilp ''int^
("after me "—" after the Holy One of Israel"),
chap. ii. 2 ; nV^— H^^ (" these " — " oak "), chap,
ii. 34; Dn^^«— n-fn Dl^rrSb^ ("udod them" — "upon
this people"), chap. xi. 11; ri'iDSr^— m^rT' ^:h'^
(" her kings" — " kings of Judah "), chap. xxv. 18 ;
t^inn nv^— nin^ a^l^^ ("at that day"— "at the
day of Jehovah"), chap. xxv. 33; rTin^— ni^n*' njT
("her cities" — "the cities of Judah"), chap.
xxxiv. 1.

Pronoun for Noun. — rrirT^ ri^D— ''OrH ("t^^®
fury of the Lord" — "my fury"), chap. vi. 11;
7^'^;-ji^_'^^ (" to Jehovah " — " to him "), chaps, viii.

14; xl. 3; -^Tptp ]y?pS — TJ^I?^^ ("for thy name's
sake" — "for thine own sake"), chap. xiv. 7;
i^^-,^_*i^ ("for my feet" — "for me"), chap.

xviii. 22; n^^ — nW ("swearing" — "these"),
chap, xxiii. 10 ; nirT^ ]ri:3— ''nni (" the Lord hath
given " — "I have given "), chap. xxv. 5 ;

in^2rn«, ^nn^«-n^^— ini«, ini^^ (" Uriah, his

T : • V T •

dead body " — " him, him "), chap. xxvi. 23 ; ^y^'^y
^l!L"Ty^?2— V;:''^ ("the eyes of the king of Babylon"
— "his eyes"), chap, xxxiv. 3; ^TOT-n«— ini«
("Jeremiah" — "him"), chap, xxxviii. 6, 13.

Noun for Verb. — "iSlI— "^H"! ("hath spoken" —

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 163

"word"), chaps, ix. 11; xxiii. 17; "li^l^Qn — "^I'cn
('* I delight " — " my delight "), chap. ix. 23 ;
^-^n — nnn (" slay " — " sword "), chap. 1. 21 ;
;i"'m)"2S— ^H'^pG ("I will visit thee "— " thy visita-
tion "), chap. L 31.

Verb for Noun. — ntlJl— ^t!)!!** (" confusion " —
"may be confused"), chap, vii. 19 ; rr^rij^ — '^r\''t?i^1
("abundance" — "I will execute"), chap, xxxiii. 6 ;
D":\'l — a^ll. ("haughtiness" — "is lifted up"), chap,
xlviii. 29 ; ri^QH^S— Tyions ("as the overthrowing"
— -" as he overthrew "), chap. 1. 40 ; ^^02 — '^^02
(" his molten image" — " they melt "), chap. li. 17.

Verb for Adjective. — n^ftL^— nuj ("laying waste "
■ — "hath laid waste"), chap. xxv. 36; "tV"^— 1^
("travailing" — "hath travailed"), chap. xxx. 6;
^^!i'*i1 ^^!L— «!^^1 «!l ("coming in and g;oino; out" —
"came in and went out"), chap, xxxvii. 4 ; 1J;2i^—
^tJh* ("saying" — " to say"), chap. xliv. 26; ni^Ji—
rr^^n (" proud " — " has exalted "), chap, xlviii. 29.

Adjective for Verb. — ni^i— nipil (" turneth aside"
— " turning aside "), chap. xiv. 8 ; 'jt2^ — 1*2))
("stood" — "standing"), chap. lii. 12.

Verb for Adverb. — ^^}2 — ^^h72 (" aloud " —

•■ T T T

"were collected"), chap. xii. 6; iin""— ^"in"! ("to-
gether"— " shall be glad"), chap. xxxi. 13.

164 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAIT.

Adverb for Verb. — n^to — HtStL^ ("make it" —

ITT T IT *■

"there"), chap. xiii. 16; n^t^n— n3^?2 ("refusetli"
— "whence"), chap. xv. 18 ; IttJ— Itp ("sit down"
— "again"), chap, xxxvi. 15,

Fer6 for Interjection. — i^n — Tl^Tl (" alas I " —
"is"), chap. XXX. 7.

Interjection for Verb. — vn— *'in (" shall be " —
" alas ! "), chap. li. 2.

Vei^bfor Pronoun. — Tih^—Tlh^ ("every one" —
"ceased"), chaps, viii. 6; xv. 10; xx. 7.

Pronoun ivith Preposition for Verb. — ^i — ni

("it is come" — "upon her"), chap. xlvi. 20.

Pronoun for Article. — tro^n— DIL''D3 ("the soul "

V T •" X : —

— "their soul"), chap. iv. 10; Tyi.^H— ''51^ ("the
way " — " my ways "), chap. vii. 23 ; DVn— '^72i^
(" the people " — " my people "), chap. viii. 5 ;
Q^rr— "iJSJ^ (" the people " — " his people "), chaps,
xxvi. 23; xL 6; nri^n^tun— lin^^n^n ("the war"
— "thy war"), chap. xlix. 26.

Article for Pronoun.— ^^^^, ^'T\;i^—U"nVT\, ^"^.^^11
("thy land, thy cities" — "the land, the cities"),
chap. iv. 7 ; y^'yia — n^li^n (" its cities " — " the

•*- T T "TV

cities "), chap. iv. 26 ; 1^30— D*'i?t;;n (" my neigh-
bours"— "the neighbours"), chap, xii. 14; n^n"!
— Dn";in (" her womb " — " the womb "), chap. xx. 17.

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. 165

Conjwiction for Article. — D"^?2trrT— DV:iU^3 (" tlie
lieaven" — "as heaven"), chap. li. 53.

Conjunctionfor Pronoim. — Di^tLp— ntP)'25 (" their
bow" — "as a bow"), chap. ix. 2; -^trSt— ^3 ("which"
— "because"), chap. xi. 17; "i^^Si— ntpi^S ("what"
— "as"), chap, xxxii. 24.

Conjunction for Preposition. — -^n^— *in5 (" to
a mountain" — "as a mountain"), chap. li. 25;
Qi^^^S— D*^tr!:3 (" to women " — " as women"), chap,
li. 30.

Conjunction for Interjection. — nstl — Di>^"^3
(" behold"— "but if"), chap. vii. 8.

Interjection for Pronowi. — HTisrT— n2n (" these "
—"behold"), chap. v. 5.

Adverb for Pronoun with Prejwsition. — nil— Dt2?

T T

("in it "—" there "), chap. xlix. 18, 33.

Pronoun tvith Preposition for Adverb. — Qtjj —

T

(ni) rr^i^V C' there" — "in it"), chap. xxxv. 7.
Adverb for Noun with Preposition. — a^tr'^'^"'^,

• T T

— Dtr (" at Jerusalem " — " there "), chap. xxxv. 11.

Rhetorical Expressions. .

This species of substitution is very frequent. It
occurs in nearly every chapter of the book. In
some instances, the variations probably arose from

1 G 6 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

similarity between tlie forms of the words ; in
other instances, they certainly arose from textual
diflferences in the ancient manuscripts. In by far
the greater number of instances, this latter will be
found on close examination to be the case. They
are all exceedingly interesting, but the following
examples of the more important of them will
suffice to show their nature and sig;nificance : —

Similar Text — ntinn^.— nunns. ("in her month"
— "in her humiliation"), chap. ii. 24; D'';^n— D^^n
("lovers" — "shepherds"), chap. iii. 2; 'il-iirs—
lii^5 (" ^^ ^'^ Arabian " — " as a raven"), chap. iii. 2;
Qi-^^3_(a*i-^^) Q*i-^*i2 (" watchers " — " companies "),
chap. iv. 16 ; tl^i^^S— tr«5 (" as a man " — " as fire "),
chap. vi. 23 ; a^Vs— D^^^l ("heaps" — "captivity"),
chap. ix. 10; n^^TDn— n^itDH ("tumult" — "her
circumcision"), chap. xi. 16; Jic^ir:)— pS!^?D ("from
the north" — " overlaid"), chap. xv. 12; Q''n'intrm
— D^niltrm. ("I will bring them again" — "I will
cause them to dwell "), chap. xvi. 15; n^:!^— ^^:i^
("a terror" — "a settlement"), chap. xx. 4; p—
Dh ("grace" — "heat"), chap. xxxi. 2; nD5— np£)
("lame" — "passover"), chap. xxxi. 8; n^i'^n—
(n^i'^in) n^l'^n ("oppressing" — "Grecian"), chaps,
xlvi. 16; 1. 16; np?2— m,';'? (" tlie hope"— "the

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 167

collector"), chap. 1. 7; n''"13— rT''"\S (" lier bullocks"
— "her fruit"), chap. L 27; m^l''1— ^tl'l'''! ("they
shall be dried up " — " they shall be ashamed "),
chap. I. 38; n^np— (y-^St^) 2"lhp ("from the
sword" — "from the land"), chap. li. 50.

Different Text. — ^"ib^n— HU^b^n (" the land " —
" the woman "), chap. iii. 1 ; r\^n"itp— n'i!ii?i!2
("stubbornness" — "devices"), chap. iii. 17;
□5'^rii^tr??— D3"^'l2tl? (" your backslidings " — " your
wounds"), chap. iii. 22; lit^n n^p— Ji?22p ("sweet
cane" — "cinnamon"), chap. vi. 20; Q^t!)'^'^— ai-^^m
(" whom they have sought " — " to whom they have
cleaved "), chap. viii. 2; r\'l"l"^_ip— mt^n ("stubborn-
ness"— "desire"), chaps, ix. 13; xvi. 12; xviii. 12;
n^fc^iini— n::''2i^m (" they may come " — " they may

T t:tv-:— :^ "^

speak"), chap. ix. 16; n^-^ — "^ih^ ("wind" —
"light"), chaps, x. 13; li. 16; n"^2n — D'':2;"'.
("jackals" — "ostriches"), chap. x. 22; "^OL'^ii^—
••lipv (" nien " — " inhabitants "), chap. xi. 23 ;
«);3^>i_^-flp>^ ("they grow" — "they bring forth"),
chap. xii. 2; ^^n'lini^— '?i::''r\n'^^ ("our latter end"
— " our ways"), chap. xii. 4 ; *j''V— ri"^i^O (" ^'^'^^ ^^
prey" — "cave"), chap. xii. 9 ; nilTJ— "^UtTi ("is taken
captive" — "is destroyed"), chap. xiii. 17; Dn:in—
D^^Sin (" give them over " — " collect them "), chap.

168 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

xviii. 21 ; li^Tptpri— ^toi^n ("ye will liear" — ''ye
will do "), chap. xxii. 5 ; ■it!)"T|'; ^^l^— llil? "^in
(" his holy words " — " his glorious majesty "), chap,
xxiii. 9; Hi^ity — nt^:t} ("a taunt" — "a hatred"),
chap. xxiv. 9; a"^n"l S"ip— "^1^ n^"} ("the sound of
the millstones " — " the perfume of myrrh "), chap.
XXV. 10; •^i;!^n—Y")«n ("the city" — "the country"),

chap. xxix. 7 ; nn ]^5— ""^SS ^^5 ("a watered
garden" — "a fruitful tree"), chap. xxxi. 12;
^-f^^ry — nii?"\ (" sorrowful " — " hungry "), chap,
xxxi. 25 ; tT'^h^— ^"1^^ (" men " — " land "), chap.
XXX vi. 31 ; Dvn— ■^'^i^n (" the people " — " the

XT • T XX

city "), chap, xxxvii. 4 ; D't^nni— nii^ (" with
cords " — " into the pit "), chap, xxxviii. 6 ; qv —
r\^ ("the day" — "the time"), chap, xxxviii. 28;
n--j^>^_Y-^^5_ ("in the cities" — "in the land"),
chap. xl. 5 ; Vii^^.— i'^ir'^^. ("in his cities" — "in his
forest"), chap. 1. 32.

SYNTACTICAL FORMS.

This class of substitution, of which there are
many examples, possesses a remarkable significance.
Its number, too, is nearly as important as its
nature. Comprising idiomatic expressions, which
are peculiar to the Hebrew language, the cases

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 1G9

prove conclusively recensional divergences. The
only variety necessary to note in tliis connection
is that kind of Hebraism which consists in the
joining of an infinite absolute to the finite form of
a verb to give emphasis or intensity to the idea
expressed. The following are illustrations of such
hebraisms : —

Emphatic for Unemphatic Form. — l^u?""— i^tlSl

litl? ("return" — "verily return"), chap, iii. 1;

rr^n''— H'^n'' i'^n (" were " — " really were "), chap.

xxii. 24; ^nni— ]n« ]in; ("I will put"— "verily

I will put "), chap. xxxi. 33 ; 1D21— I'^ID 1D21

— t: -t— t:

("shall turn about" — "shall verily turn about"),
chap. xxxi. 39 ; jnj ''::rT— ]n|n ]n|n (" behold, I
will give " — " verily it shall be given "), chaps,
xxxii, 28 ; xxxi v. 2 ; ^rr^strrn.— "^'^Str^ ^2U;i ("I will
make drunk " — " I will verily make drunk "), chap,
li. 57.

Unemphatic for Emphatic Form. — •^Hih^'i

i;iTl ny^r^ D3^^^^— as^^^i^ "^^"I^"! (" I ^pake unto
you, rising up early and speaking" — "I spake
unto you"), chap. vii. 13.

Peoper Names,

Of this class of substitution there are several
varieties, such as one proper noun for another, a

170 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

proper noun for a common noun, and vice versa.
In some cases, the original texts were just tlie
same ; in other cases, they were different. The
following examj^les of each variety may be given
by way of illustration : —

Proper Noun for Proper Noun. — "ji^N^— y^-n^
("Anion" — "Amoz"), chaps, i. 2; xxv. 3; nVr
ni^ni^-'^^rtV^ ("Lord of hosts"— "thy God"),
chap. ii. 19; nin^— ^^ir*" tri"Tp ("the Lord" —
"the Holy One of Israel"), chap. iii. 16 ; an^n'^St
— Dtri-rp ^rh^ ("their God"— "their Holy God"),
chap. iii. 21 : nin^^— DS'^H^i^S ("to the Lord"--
"to your God"), chap. iv. 4; nin;! ^i^lSi — mrr.
("the Lord God " — " the Lord"), chaps, vii. 20;
xiv. 13; xxxii. 17; nib^l!? HiH"'— HiH'' (" Lord of

T : T : T :

hosts"— "Lord"), chaps, vi. 9; ix. 16; xi. 20; xx. 12;
xlix. 26 ; 1. 33 ; li. 58 ; ^^H^^^ nini-D^n^^n
(" Lord our God "— " God"), chap. viii. 14 ; r^'V\r^^.
— CTpili^ ("Judah" — "Idumea"), chap. ix. 25
•jQ*!^ — fQ^i^?p ("Uphaz" — "Mophaz"), chap. x. 9
pj'in*'— D^ri^b^n ("Lord" — "God"), chaps, xiv. 10

T : • v: T

1. 15; ^y^rht^ nin"" — nin"" ("Lord our God" —

T : T : ^

"Lord"), chap. xiv. 22; ni^ll* ^n^« Hin^— HiH^

' -^ T : •• v: T ; T :

nib^ll* ("Lord God of hosts" — "Lord of hosts"),
chap. XV. 16; ^rT"':2— ^rT*';:;^'' (" Coniah" — "Jecon-

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. l7l

iah"), chap. xxii. 24, 28; mn^ — ^i^riV« nin''
("Lord" — "Lord our God"), chap, xxiii. 38; tn
— fi-^ (" Buz "— " Eoz "), chap. xxv. 23 ; "^"ra— D"IQ

T T T T

("Medes" — "Persians"), chap. xxv. 25; niJl''—
^«ntpi ^rh^ nin^ (" Lord " — " Lord God of
Israel "), chap, xxxii. 28; n*'^^^^''— n^:!3W" Jaazan-

T : — : - T : T : ^

iah" — "Jeconiah"), chap. xxxv. 3; D^i^ — "i^iL^^i
("Syrians" — "Assyrians"), chap. xxxv. 11 ; ^^}-it?>
— n^ti^^ll ("Israel " — "Jerusalem "), chap, xxxvi. 2 ;
jni^^l ^n^^i^jptp — jn^in^l ^np^iy (" Shemaiah and
Elnathan" — " Shelemiah and Jonathan"), chap,
xxxvi. 12; ^nW'^-Tl^^a (" Jeremiah"—" Baruch"),
chap, xxxvi. 32; n^^i^-|^ — n^tl? (" Iriiah " —
"Seraiah"), chap, xxxvii. 13, 14; i^^tl?''^^^— l^t^i^h^

T T • v: T • v:

(" Elishama " — " Elisha "), chap. xli. 1; n^:r
n'li^iyin-n— n^trr^l^ nmir ("Jezaniah the son of
Hoshaiah " — " Azariah the son of Maaseiah "), chap,
xlii. 1 ; rrin^ — D^nV« n'\n'' {" Lord " — " Lord

T : • v: T : ^

God"), chaiDS. xlii. 4; li. 62; !^^rlSt^ HiH^— niH''

' V v: T : T :

(" Lord thy God "—" Lord "), chap. xlii. 5; nin*;
i:^rl^«— nin"; ("Lord our God" — "Lord"), chap,
xlii. 20; rr^i^tljin — n"^t?l?rD (" Hoshaiah " — " Maa-
seiah "), chap, xliii. 2 ; nlb^l!^ Hin^ ^:i« — nin""

T : • v: T -: x ;

'irrf^St ("Lord, the Lord of hosts" — "Lord our

172 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

God"), cliap. xlvi. 10; rTS:i>V«-aj7« (" Elealeli "
— " Etham "), chap, xlviii. 34 ; D''l?p: — Q'^ni:]
("Nimrim" — "Nivrim"), chap, xlviii. 34; ^\^71\
— nit^ll* nin"' (" Lord " — " Lord of hosts "),

T : T :

chap. xlix. 18; Wini — D^'p'^iH"! (" Jehoiachin" —
" Jehoiakim"), chap. lii. 31.

Proper Noun for Common Noun. — "^^^^^ — i"iij
(" rock " — " Zor "), chap. xxi. 13 ; n« — tn^
("cedar" — "Ahaz"), chap. xxii. 15; Q''-'';^ — 1^!?
("waymarks" — " Zioii "), chap. xxxi. 21 ; l^t??^n —
n*2n ("the citadel" — " Hamath"), chap, xlviii. 1;
n"^"^11^!i — nii^i!^ (" her little ones " — " Zoar "),

TV-: T — :

chap, xlviii. 4; as^^p — (S) 03^^ ("their king" —
"Milcom"), chap. xlix. 1, 3.

Proper Noun for Adjective. — '^tp'^^trn— 7''tp''^tJ:;n
(" third " — " Salathiel "), chap, xxxviii. 14 ; ]n''i^—
Cn^'i^ ("strong" — "Etham"), chap. xlix. 19;
•jj-^-il^—sj-l^ilj^ j^«i^ ('' strong " — " Gaithan "), chap.
L 44.

Proper Noun for Verb. i^'l^H — (n)''!3.irrT

("pass by" — " Hishbi "), chap. xlvi. 17; nrin —
(n:»n)nil (" broken down " — " Hagath "), chap.
;xlviii. 1.

Common Noun for Proper Noun. — Yn''""TJ^ —

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. 173

CrT'''^V (" unto Jahaz " — " their cities "), chap,
xlviii. 34.

Common Koun for Common Noun. — n^'^— *iii^
("wind" — "light"), chaps, x. 13; li. 16; u^ii>^—
Vl^ ("men" — "Land"), xxxvi. 31.

Verb for Proper Noun. — it?ir— (n)^iri^ (" Esau "
— " have done "), chap), xlix. 8 ; lipg (" Pekod " —
"punish"), chap. L 21.

Adverb for Projyer Noun. — D*^ri"i^ — H^'^''")^
("Merathaim" — "sharply"), chap. 1. 21.

Letters.

The number of substitutions of letters is very
large. Some of them were, doubtless, due to im-
perfection or corruption in the ancient manuscripts ;
others of them evidently arose from similarity of
consonants in the early Hebrew and Aramaic
alphabets. The resemblance between many of the
letters in the earlier alphabets was much greater
than it is now in our Hebrew Bibles. A com-
parison of the old Semitic characters will show at
once how easy it must have been to be misled in
transcribing them, especially if they happened to
be written indistinctly. In the transitional stages
from the primitive cursive form to the present

17-4 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

rectangular form of writing, it is quite natural that
such substitutions should have often taken place.
It is not always possible in retranslating to deter-
mine with certainty the nature of each substitution.
For this reason, while most of the examples
collected should be regarded as tolerably probable,
a few of them must be regarded as purely con-
jectural but reasonably possible.

In some passages, it will be readily observed,
the Hebrew, in other passages, the Greek exhibits
the primitive as well as the superior form of text.
Both their number and their nature are so interest-
ing!: that the whole list of substitutions of letters
is here appended for the critical examination and
consideration of Hebrew scholars, each of whom
may compare the merits of each reading for him-
self. For this reason, it is not necessary to direct
attention in this connection to examples of superior
reading in either text. Owing to the possible con-
fusion of so many letters in the ancient alphabets,
because of the irregularity and indistinctness of the
characters, it has been thought advisable to submit
the complete collection for the inspection especially
of those particularly interested and skilled in
Semitic palaeography. The more doubtful in-
stances of supposed substitution, it will be seen,
are indicated by an interrogation point. The
following is the list : —

XnE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. l75

S = n (^■:N-i=^— ^"intl (?), li. 35). =1 (rhi^lMj—

n'l-^n, xxxii. 8). = n (i]bi:5— n;bn, ii. 25; «z—
nz, xlvi. 20; K'r:— n;n, xlvi. 25; b^y^j;— ^yb-n,

p:-TJ^— ^p-'-ri, xlviii. 31; D^^'li^5— DT-iin, li. 40).

= n (n£si;i— riinc, ii. 24; ^ib^sti]— ^bni3(?), v. 4;
D'lini^r!— n-^nn, li. 12). = V (rns— nr-^s, ii. 24;

nr^ii-n"!— nr^-nriT ix. 16; n2^^-;b— nn^^b, xxxi. 12;

T t: t:--:' ' t-:-: t-:-;' '

r;35<"n— nijn, xxxi. 25; ^n-nsni— "mn:?ni, xlix.
38). = n (&<^n— nsin, xxi. 12 ; s^irn ^^sd— n-sn nss,

xlviii. 9; TIJ?— n:?, xh^i. 16).

n = ; (-rib:3— ^nb^s (?), xxxi. 32). = T (n^n::n—
(n)-iz?i, xiv. 4; ^"[^^yn— ^";^:in, xlviii. 28). = D
(i-iz?— ^^-?(?), xxiii. 9; ?|^Z-2p— ^j^riD, xM. 14;

^nnr— ^r^r; (?), li. 11). = b (y^sn^— (irnb'i, xxii.

20). =12 (□^•:i'nn— n^":2T^, xxxviii. 24; y^SJ^—

Y^sr, xl\d. jX)j. = 3 (D^n'^r;— n-r»^(?), xi. 15).
= D (QD^ns-aFi-;— n]rr,'iNSpa(?), xii. 13; nncb—
rntib, XV. 3; ninnnbq— nsnnb^, xxv. 9; ^"-tz^—

si^Ti^(?), ]. 37). = 2 {'r2^—^W(?), xxiii. 9). = p

(ip:^-— pr^", x^di. 9). = n (n^nyn — D^nnn, iv. 29;
^-m— n"^\r2i, xxx. 16; rrzz'^—mit or n*^-;:?,

•:- tt:' ' t;- T"! t-;-'

xhdii. 32).

A == 1 (^r^:^— T':'^;:(?), xlv. 3).

1 = ^ (-^b— ""^b, ii. 24). = b (i?— b?, xxv. 31).

= p (-:i?^^n— p::^-i^ or prc^(?), x. 3). = n (*n^n?

— ^rnnn, ii. 19; m— r;':?n, iii. 15; IT.r^—^^T,

iv. 1; ^--i:.n^— ^nni-in\ v. 7; ^n"".:^— r;-:"^n, vi. 2;

7 t;» t;-' ' ••T ttt' '

npsn— ^pisn,- vi. 6; ^y-;^— ^nr vi. 18; n-i:i—

176 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAII.

n^^;\ ^312^11— ^ir^^n, viii. 14; 'n^'n52— tl"^":, xiii.
25; Cn-:— n^^D, xiv. 9; ^TJ— ^nr, xx. 8; Tni^—
nn.sn, xxiv. 2; nzi^-b— M-rt, xxxi. 12; TO^'^
— ni:?!, xxxi. 25; l-S— nns (bis), xxxii. 39; Tn

— nin, xli. 9; nrinn:— nnr^D, xlvii. 5; ^53T—

^13f^1, xlvii. 6; T'T—PT'S^, xlvii. 7; "!>'— T!?, xlviii.

•t' ' tt: t • % ' ' ~

32; y-:"!?— Cn-i;;?, xlviii. 34; n^V— Hi^^, xlix.
22; ^'B'n^— ^■jn\ xlLx. 26; 1. 30; nn— mn, xlix.

27; "nnnsri'i— 'r}':^?rj-;, xlix. 38; ^la-in— ^-jnn,

li. 6; ^7"— Tj'^r;, U. 14; "CSi-^-n— -i-His, li. 58).
= n (l?:n— Jn>:n, xi. 14; T^—T0_, xlviii. 16).
n = :j^ (n^pM— D^PS, xi. 5; &<£'nn— ij^l-^i"?, xv. 18;
nrr.1— T^kSI, xxxii. 25; n^irni— n^"i=5<1, xlii. 12;

•• T : • TT ' ' • •• : • T T ' '

n^-^rrjb— n"^-]5si, xlvii. 4). = n (n'n^in— nn2?n (?),

ii. 23; D'i:»n— D^isn, XXV. 11; D^n— D^^, xxxi.

35; b:^-)?-— b'^iSS; 15b:5ni— l^'bsn^, 1. 19). =T
(or^D— D'n-iD, xiv. 9). =1 (n'li;:!— wri , ix. 4;
r;""2ir— ^n:.2ii: , xxxi. 7). = n (onb— nnb, x^d. 7;
n::™r;— i^^l^u, xxii. 17). = D (nm— om, v. 17;

n^^-Sbl— 0*^1^2 -ibV xiii. 18; f^'^'n— D^^n, xxix. 7;

nbip— nbip, xlvi. 22). = D (n-.2hi— cjhi, iv. 29).
= >' (nbnn— nb^n, xlviii. 2). = n (m:;— Di^y,
vi. 18; nn-Ji']— nn-::], xiii. 17; n^.3rn— ^"^rn, XXV.

7 t : • - : • ' ' T " - - t V '

15), = n (nns — nP5<, i. 6; xiv. 13; xxxii. 17;

^■^D^-in— ^nD^n, -A. 8; nni2— n5b'i(?), x^di. 16; niD
— niD, xxxiii. 12).

1 = n (b^sirn'i— bs'-fflrin, iii. 15). = 1 (-p^ri— D^r::,
XXX. 17). = n (!Q"n— n:a-in, ii. 12; sinns— M^zs,

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 177

ix. 2; TOb— ni'rb, ix. 4; n2%^—T.ZtTj, xxxi. 8;
W—rrrj{?), xlix. 8). = ^ (nii-r— n:n-i:?, v. 6;
n^-n— M~:, vi. 2; ^sr^]— -:ix:>2, xv. ic; te—

^523, XV. 18; nnilTi:— rrr^, xviii. 20, 22; m'mI —

n^n'^; T2tr\—S-2^\ xx. 1G; D^^n^— Dr-, xxiii. 4;

ilZ-d-l— ^2ir^1, xxxi. 24). = " (ib— Tjbjxxii. 15).

= b (bE:"]— bSDb , xxi. 9; n?D1— n?Cb, xxiii. 19;

r::.i:52^— nip-:b , 1.7). = 1 (nJi-b— r;:^-]Tb (?),

xxxiv. 17).
"11 = f] (xr^2-^-!:r2, xii. 13). = ^ (li-^J-V^^j,

i. 2 ; XXV. 3).
] = 1 (Ti<— is, xi. 15). = :i(pn>^— prj"iS<(?), XX. 8).

= Y ('^'^i^—'p<,^., XV. 17). - n (^■•Ti^— ^nc^ or

^n-Ti^, 1. 37). = 'u (p?uV5— pn-i-S(?), XX. 8).

n = 1 (Tr:;— T-;(?), vi. 2G). = n (^---— r::^*^n, ii.
12; H-:;-rn— M-i-ra, ii. 24; n^r-D— n^ri'n or n^n3,
viii. 16; bi--.:n— bripn, xxxi. 4, 13; Jibbni— ^bbr;"!,
xxxi. 5). = D (^C-^-D— ^C-.:;? (?), xiii. 22; Onbd-I
— D^b'^:^^ xxxviii. 11). = " (nbd*;— tV^"-, xvii, 8).
= 12 (n-Tdl— n^'rl(?), ii, 6; Z'z:—rp2(:2) z:, xlvi.
15). = ^' (-ri^^^-rr-; (?), ii. 25). =l{inz)-

v,T9b(?),xv.3).

■J = b (rrxizt—rr.t'ii or n^rr.:, xxxviii. i).

^ = n (□-■ii— D~5j, xviii. 17). =1 pb:N-— ^b^si,
V. 17; ^bbir- bbi:?— ^bbi>" ^bbr, vi. 9; ^-3^"— i^ni,
vi. 23; D^b:b— n^b:b(?),ix. lO; ":^J5:I■;— ":.si:i; n^p-;:^
— nip'j, X. 20; "D^s^— ?irs-; "xr:'zv\—rM'2izT\,

I;' ' ... .— ., .— 7 ....._ .. ..-.7

XO/l* ^"■^'''"•' K'-«'^..;. K^^'...' ha.><«a» ,^,, 1A. •^"■■•"1

. .i-i, '-•'i^ — i—^u^, 7.Cl- — ~- J, XX. v\). ^i n —

M

ITS THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

ilS^in; ^h'iv—bi^rr, XX. 11; i-inr^— ^n'i\ xxi. 6;
^«ni5— i—^rb , xxvii. G; "^Tnir— ^"^rd, xxxi. 2; ^b
— ib, xxxi. 3; ^lari— ^^'tsn, xxxi. 5; TS— nis,
xli. 9; ^;:-)''n— ^in'n, xM. 9; b:nn— bins, xlvi. 22).
= n {^T\-}7^^—nTfb^ , ix. 15; '^n-?-;^— cn^r;^,
xxiii. 1; "2iin-=-;\rn, xxx. IG). = t ("^ST—

n;7^', xxxvii. 13, 14)'. = Ti (D-^-JI— DP^-';, vi. 29;
^■^ip— n^Zp, xxvi. 23).
T = " (nv— n>-(?), xxxviii. 28).

D^= " (D"::p^";— ^"Zp^n, xlviii. 33).

:n = ^^ (nrrib— -S±b, xxiv. 9).

D = 3 (niri<;3— ^-^Nn, v. 19; nis-i"— 'n^nt:, xxiii. 9;
nipbpbra— nipbpb-n, xxiii. 12). = "I (^'^):—^i):,
xii. 2). = ^ (b5b5-b-b3 (?), XX. 9). = 12 (H^mS-
n^n-J, xxxvi. 32). = 2 (CD^bi5<— D.rbiJ^, xxxi. 9).

= V (n:::4--3, ii. 23). = p (nnrs-npii (?),
n^nir^a— npTiir, ii. 23; ^ni— ^i<-;p, xviii. 20).
-J = T (?;^?-to, xxxi. 7). =b (:ib:-bb;, xlvi. 22).

= n (Tj::— DV, xxxi. 19). = D^ (T]p-9>-DT<=?:
xlix. 4). = 1 (T^— 15< or "i?, xxxvi. 17).
b = 2 (crib— DmS, viii. 9; D^b— D^n, xiv. 13; bbb
-bbn, xix. 13'; xxix. 22; D-Jinfb— D^^rtn, xxiii. 9;
r^b— T^n, xlvi. 11; J^inb— ^^"113, xlvi. 13; b^^-'^-b

— b5<'i'i2':n, xlix. 1). = T (nbn^— n'lZiJt^ = -p-nz^?,

xii. 11; br^-^?— -i-"S, xiii. 14; b:?— T?, xxxi. 39).

= 1 (n^^;rjb'-n-':^Ni ," xlvii. 4). = 12 (^b•4':-n■^2^
xxii. 30: 'bb'-iib-Dt'ojV xlix. 32). = T (:n;>--^2,

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 179

xxxix. 3). ="1 (fbrsi— -p^'i^^xv. 17; ^b^S— ".;5,
XXV. 34). = n ('r]:b^^— T]rs, ii. 19).

12 = 2 {]rT2—]r-^2, ix._18; nnn^j— DTO, XX. 17;
n"irr^— n^'iryn, xxi. l; €^t"C2 = irbir*^— irb-cn,
XXV. 3; NSr— mn, xlvi. 25; n^n|:r;_!ri"'2):^n, xlviii.
33; D^-^rD—D-^r:, xlviii. 34; t:C— Tn3(?), li. 27;

b^n-;— b^in; y-;^^■2— ynsn, li^54). =n (nterj
— ni-nsn, iii. 23; Drir-S— nnizs, xli. 17). ='Q

(^rp-12b— i^l2t:b(?), ii. 33). = :: (^212:22— Dr;, iv. 8;
^^n-j— ^rn?, xlviii. 32). = b (c|b'^— biDb"^ , xlix.
1).* = : (|n-^--n; or -r:, xxxviii. i; Di^-^y-D-p:^,

xlvii. 5; 1^j:":J— D-p;?, xlix. 4). = j: (r^'pn—

^irpn, Ii. 12). = p (bi--^n— bni^n, xxxi. 4, 13).
= n (n:2"— n-7(?), xiii. 27). = n (ii."i— n^:n, vi.

25; DV— m;, xxxviii. 28).

D = u (D^o— ?ir'a;>', xxvi. 19). = n" (err;— T:'ri,
xxxvii. 4). = " (D^br^b— n^b3b(?), ix. 10).

2 = ; (-;-,:n_n;i:,-.^ iv. i). ^ - (n"^";— n:r;ri(?), viii.
IG). = n (bn:n— bn-n, xiv. 21). = 2 (n"]—

-n|(?), vi. 29). = ^ (b:P:— -(^TJ, xxxix. 3; Cp —
r52, xlvi. 14; r\'rzz^—rix!^z^ , xlix. 2). = "1
(rii"rrj — ri"^"!!, xxxvii. ig).

"= D (^rr-:— Cr;, iv. 8; ^-r^?— K\v5, xxxi. 15;

^•r-iwy— aii^^s, xlix. 19).

1 = "(7x1— nrsil?), vi. 14). = L:()r:— en, xxxi. 2).

D = -^ (ihcb-rnt2b(?), XV. 3). = 2 (T2C-Tn3(?),
li. 27). = 12 (":^D "b— T2b, ii. 21). = t ^rcr—

180 THE TEXT OF JEllEMIAH. •

sn\s:"i:r!(?), v. 10). = t (rjz}]—'^i^-c:), xxxi. 24).
= n (^Tcri— ^n^nin (?), v. 10).

V = ^ 0:?cr,— ^J^U5D%xxxi. 24; nbr^— ^sV:, xlviii.

5). = ] (i^'-rn— 7:n(?), xxxi. 35). = n (D-n^n—

n^yiji, iv. 29; pyT5<— prj::i< or prim, xx. 8; T'^":a
— •nbns(?), xxxL 32). = " (n::>"— !):;(?), xx.'o).
= D (n>;h53— nji'^ (?), xvii. 16). = D {^y:^.:^—

^yz-J:, 1.'45). = :^ {-^zy^—'yi^{?), xlviii. 28).

= ^ (nh— •i=:P(?), xxxi. 35).

D = n ("in-i-2— Tnnn, ii. 19). = D (j^bs';— i^br,

xxxii. 17, 27). = l^ (-p£M— ^p^^H, ^^. C).

f] = 7 (r,n9D-^^C:)D;(?);xivi. 15).

:: = :i (nv^::::^^— -ii^jb^i, ii. 6). = n (n::r::— ^nn"j,
vi. 27). = 12 {r\y^:i—r\:'j-2:i, li. 13). = o (^sr^^isn
-TrDn(?),li.34J. = p (n::':^'-nr^:(?), XX. 9). = '^
(-:y-iri-nri2n(?),li. 34).

7 = n ("-:"?— nri^n:^, xMii. 34). = ] (y>^^—

■,to, xliii. 13). = "p (-p::— "j^^:!, xlviii. 9).

p = ;( (nipnTizn— ni3bT:£n, Hi. 18). = "i ("npi!:—
"r}-i3, xxxi. 19). = n (^bpbpnr;— ^br;bnrn, iv. 24).
= b (^pn?— n;p:, vi. 29). = 12 (np>'— pa^, xvii. 9).
=- 2 (2?bip— ^biis, X. 18). =1 (pr-?r:— nmr;,

xxix. 26).
I =-^(r;^r;y—rf^-jT, ii. 16; r\'\zy—T\-;3rrJ, V. 6;

-,ri2— nn3(?), vi. 29; in^n:^;— ^rni'y or ^in-n?, vii.
29; ^D^niD^-^isin— nr-n'^-NZ, ix. 20; n^z^n— (n)jiz:;^,

xiv. 4; nr^^n— nr^-;r)(?), xiv. 14; xxiii. 26; yyn

— :?Tn, XV. 12; ^nnzir.i— "rn-i"n\ xv. 14; D^"p

THE VARIATIONS SUBSTITUTIONS. 181

— D^-]^, xviii. 14; ^2^— 1]:^ (?), xx. 9; n^ron—
T^T^in, xxxi. 8; ^27^3^— ^lEC: , xxxiv. 5; ^5in^3—
"liTO, xlviii. 6; ^P'l;:— ^p""^ xlviii. 12; innn^—
inn:^;, xlviii. 30; \r^n-Tp— ui^rn^p, xlviii. 31, 36;
M^nn D-'^T— n^-T] D^-IT, li. 2; p^":— p'n, li. 34; ^")S"£^
— ^-b'-K?), li. 35; nnbz"]— nnbn^, Hi. 9, 10, 2G).
= 1 (-■];— m% xxxi. 19; ynxn— -psin, xliii. 13).

= n (nsz— Tri<3, xxii. 15). = ^ (in-]i<— inr5< or
nn-xr;, ix. 7). = r (rrn— ^rrr!(?), li. ii). =D
(mjb— risTb (?) , iv. li). ^b^iripz—r^zi?),
xvii. 16; i^ip'^i^n— m^bj'/ari, lii- 18). =2 (i^j^n—^^?

— 12I^<ranD, xlvi. 2). = 1 (t:^^— -(/^ij, XV. 11)'.
= n (IB^C— rs-:?, xxxix. 3).
t = b (riiSi^Tr— t^sniri = '"^I^C, ii. 24; >*4b5<^—

;nbs\ V. 7; m'-rj— r^:-"2b, v. 24; nn^ir— nn^b,

xviii. 20, 22; ^birr— b!;Tr?j1, xx. 11; i^b^— U^bb,
xxiii. 39; nr:bb— Hi^rjb, xxiv. 9; "C^rjj— -n^^'j::,
XXX. 12; ^lU^tJn— ^SbP, xxxvii. 9; Vb:— Drs^ir:,
xLLv. 9.
3 = u (r^^2—T(pzi2, ii. 23; i^bn— bN-iP(?), vii.
16; xi. 14; ri-b^— r;t:b1, xiii. 16; ""ib— D'-b,

' tt: tt:' ' -T '-T'

xviii. 14; ^T^b— ^l^T»r,xxxi. 2; ^"n-Tp— "d-n-Tp,
xlviii. 31, 36). = VJ {r'2ZW— n-.:"jT?, xlviii. 32).
n = S (^n-^b— 5^^t:b,ii. 33). = "I (rr±-i'i—'r2':^^,
ii. 6). =r;(n-bi^']— ri-b^-i, xxxi. 8). = "J (bn2:—
br:;:, xxxi. 40). = " (ri:r— n^:^% iv. 1; t]n:^'";— T]::^'"),

xxii. 22; ^Dfinrn— ^r.izr:, xxiii. 20). = "T (D-3n—
n':"_], X. 22; xiix. 33). = 2 (mF?-;— TOJ?, iii. 4).

CHAPTER VII.

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS.

Ha VINCI accounted in general for the variations,
it next becomes expedient fully to explain them
in detail. Important as it is to know their nature,
to understand their origin is still more imj^ortant.
Had they all a similar origin ? Were they all due
to the same cause ? If they were due to different
causes, why and how was this the case ? So far
as practicable, it is particularly desirable to obtain
a definite answer to these questions, not only for
the sake of solving the problem of their origin,
but also for the sake of understanding how to deal
with the divergences in comparing the Hebrew
with the Greek. When the variations have
received an adequate explanation, then we shall
be in position to see what conclusions the devia-
tions of the version warrant respecting the
contemporary Hebrew of the Bible. Not till this
has been accomplished shall we be able rightly to
estimate the valuable help the Septuagint is
adapted to afford, as well in reconstructing as in
correcting the present Massoretic text.

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 183

Several causes of divergency have been already
indicated. In order to ascertain tliem all, it will
be necessary, to analyze somewhat more closely the
enormous mass of simple and complex variations
that occur. In this way only can one properly
expect to discover the fundamental principles that
underlie them. The method here adopted of
translatino- the Greek back into the Hebrew
enables one to deduce these primary principles to
the best possible advantage. Before a deviation
has been retranslated, it often seems arbitrary and
capricious. It is partly, if not wholly, because of
this fact that the chars^e of arbitrariness against
the Greek translator has been received with favour
in such unexpected quarters and by such divergent
schools. By the method of literal retranslation,
which is purely philological and not by any means
mechanical, a large number of remarkal)le diver-
gences, which otherwise would appear inexplicable,
can be readily and reasonably explained. By this
method, moreover, the underlying principles can
be traced with almost mathematical precision and
with almost scientific certainty. The process of
accounting for the variations thus becomes a
matter, not of theory but of principle, not of
hypothesis but of proof.

Such a scientific explanation has a further pur-
pose. A complete account of the causes of textual

184 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

variation will liel23 lis to determine the laws of
textual transmission. By showing how the diver-
gences arose in this prophetic book, w'e may also
show how they arose in the other prophetic books.
Indeed, the principles of explanation which apply
to the variations in Jeremiah npply, to a greater
or a lesser extent, to those in all the Jewish Scrip-
tures. An illustration of some one or other of
them appears in every Hebrew writing of the
Bible. It may not be, perhaps, too much to say
that in most, if not all, of the books of the Old
Testament, illustrations, on a larger or a smaller
scale, of every principle deducible from this in-
vestigation may be somewhere found. The ques-
tion of the origin of the variations, therefore, is of
paramount importance, and demands a thorough
and impartial consideration.

The origin of the variations cannot, of course,
in every case, be certainly explained. Each text
has had its own particular history. Each, too, has
shared a very different fate. The fortunes and
misfortunes of ancient manuscrijDts, like those of
nations and of individuals, are very varied and
very difficult to determine. Much of their history
always has been, and ever will be, wrapped in
complete obscurity. In the nature of things,
without miraculous intervention such as the Scrip-
ture writings neither claim nor warrant, it could

THE OEIGIX OF THE VARIATIONS. 185

not possibly be otlierwise. This fact is too well
known to need discussion, as well as too irrelevant
to tlie present subject to call for further treatment
here. Although it is impossible to account for
every single variation with absolute certainty, yet
the most of them may be explained with tolerable
23robability.

Before attempting to explain the origin of the
variations, and to point out the principles to be
applied in systematically accounting for them, it
will be proper to observe that the question is a
complicated one. The divergences had not a
common orig-in. Some were due to one cause,
some to another cause, and some to a combination
of causes. The principles deduced and demon-
strated in the subsequent discussion, though, will
show that there was a worthy reason for the devia-
tion of the version in almost every instance, as
well as indicate a possible explanation of the varia-
tion in nearly every case. They will also prove
that the translator of the Septuagint, as unworthily
insinuated, was not a dishonest an^l ignorant pre-
tender, who arbitrarily tampered with the sacred
text ; but an Lonest and efficient scholar, who
faithfully reproduced the original Hebrew, so far
as the imperfect and corrupt condition of his
manuscript allowed.

The first cause of variation was text-recension.

186 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

This was the fundamental ground of the devia-
tions. In the foregoing investigation, it has
been shown that a prodigious number of them
was due directly to recensional divergences in
the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. The originals,
however, of the Greek and Hebrew texts respec-
tively w^ere not entirely unlike. Though different,
they were not altogether different. At one time,
too, they were a great deal more alike than they
are now. Their agreement at the present time,
moreover, is much more complete than has been
commonly supposed. That is, the divergences in
the ancient text-recensions were not so frequent as
the deviations in the Alexandrian version seem to
indicate. In many places, where the divergences
appear considerable, when scientifically analyzed,
they point to a very similar original. In manj^
other places, wdiere the divergences appear remark-
able, wdien literally retranslated, they exhibit an
identical Hebrew text. In addition to the ex-
amples given in the preceding chapters of this
work, others will be given in illustration of other
principles of deviation still to be discussed.

A second cause of variation was interpolation.
This was a very fruitful source of deviation. As
has been pointed out repeatedly in discussing the
omissions, there is abundant evidence, admitted,
not merely by Movers and Hitzig, but even by

THE OEIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 187

Graf Iiimself, that the Massoretic text has been
materially amplified by glosses. The hand of an
interpolator is often manifest, especially in certain
portions of the book. The number of probable
interpolations is very large. A considerable pro-
portion of the omissions appear to owe their origin
exclusively to this cause. Such glosses may have
been due, partly to the introduction of kindred
matter from other books of Scripture, and partly
to the transference of explanatory matter from the
margin to the body of the text. Many examples
of interpolation have been already indicated.
Hence, it is unnecessary to repeat them or to
multiply them here.

A third cause of variation was revision. This
was, perhaps, a more prolific source of deviation
than that of simple interpolation, inasmuch as it
seems to have been systematically practised by
editors or redactors appointed for the purpose.
Graf finds it convenient, for the most part, to pass
over this manifest peculiarity of the Hebrew\
Other scholars, though, like Movers, Hitzig, Bleek,
and Kiihl, have justly indicated its significance.
Scholz, too, has collected and discussed a number
of important passages which furnish striking illus-
trations of revisional diveroences. One of the
most remarkable is chap. x. 2-16. As some
features of the variations in this section have

188 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

already been described, it is sufficient here to add
that tlie absent verses in this section were easy
both to translate and to interpret ; and that, there-
fore, there is, not only the less reason to believe
that they were intentionally omitted, but also the
more reason to believe that they were arbitrarily
inserted. Other interesting passages, particularly
pointed out by Scholz, are chaps, xxvii. 16-22 ;
xxix. 11; xxxi. 17; xl. 4. He supposes very
plausibly that at first and for a time the apparent
insertions in these passages possessed the form of
marginal observations or remarks. " By degrees,"
he says, " these observations, here and there,
swelled to such a multitude that it became neces-
sary to put order into these additions which had
l)een arranged amongst themselves in rows ; that
is, these passages underwent a revision. This was
evidently not performed by one who was unac-
(juainted with the sacred Scripture, but by a
teacher, and certainly, too, by one of the most
illustrious of teachers." ^

A fourth cause of variation was transcriptio7h.
It is probable that a number of divergences were

^ " Nach und nacli scliwollen diese Bemerkungen stellenweise zii
soldier Menge an, dass es notliwendig wurde, Ordnung in diese an
einander gereihten Zusatze zu bringen, d. h. diese Stellen erfuhren
eine Ueberarbeitung. Diese ist selbstverstiindlicb niclit von eineni
der heiligen Schrift Unkundigen ausgegangen, sondern von einem
Lehrer und audi unter diesen gewiss von einem der angeseliensten."
Der rnasoreth. Text und die LXX-Uebersetzu7ig, etc., p. 104.

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 189

clue to this cause. Errors on the part of copyists
occur, to a greater or a lesser extent, in nearly
every ancient manuscript. It is also probable that
mistakes of this kind in some degree belong to
both the texts. A few examples of variation
which seem to have been owing to so-called
Homoeoteleuton, or like-ending clauses, are, perhaps,
most easily and naturally explained in this way.
Graf and Ilitzig both endeavour to account for some
of the omissions on this ground. The latter, for
example, needlessly suggests that the sentence,
" the man and the beast that are upon the face of
the earth," chap, xxvii. 5, has fallen out of the
Septuagint, as indicated, through oversight. He
also nnnecessarily supposes that the omissions from
the middle of ver. 12 to the end of ver. 14 of the
same chapter, were due to a similar cause ; but the
supposition has very little probability. The eye of
a transcriber would hardly overlook so many words
at once ; and besides, as Hitzig himself admits,
ver. 13 interrupts the connection between admoni-
tion and dissuasion in this passage, and was most
likely wanting in the original of the Greek. It
seems probable that additions rather than omissions
arose from Homceoteleuton,and that, when the one or
the other was due to this cause, only a few words
at most would be added or omitted at a time. In
transcribino; letters and words of like form, or

190 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

letters and words of similar sound, a copyist might
easily make a mistake. Indeed, an occasional error
of this sort was almost inevitable. For this reason,
therefore, some of the additions, omissions, trans-
positions, alterations, and substitutions of letters
may have been, and, doubtless, were due to this
cause. As sometimes the one and sometimes the
other exhibits the better reading, it is often im-
possil)le to tell in which recension the error of
transcription arose. This can only be conjecturally
determined by the sense required by the context in
each case.

A fifth cause of variation was corruption. Many
deviations unquestionably arose because of an im-
perfect text. There is conclusive evidence that the
originals, both of the Hebrew and the Greek, were
more or less corrupt. Old writings cannot be
transmitted free from imperfection. From various
causes, and in many ways, they suffer from corrup-
tion, owing; to the wear and tear of time. This
<;orruption may be due partly to great age, partly
to careless penmanship, and partly to imperfect
preservation. Besides, illegible, indistinct, or
mutilated parchment rolls have been occasionally
rendered more imperfect, it is sujjposed, by efforts
to restore them. Thus difficulties of trans-
lation are materially increased by the uncertainty
often experienced in deciphering obscurely written.

THE ORIGIN OF THE VAKIATIONS. 191

badly worn, or poorly preserved manuscripts.
Where a variation was most likely due to corrup-
tion arisino; from transmission, it is often difficult
to decide with certainty which recension was the
more imperfect. In some places, the imperfection
w^as manifestly in the Massoretic recension, as, for
instance, chaps, iv. 1 ; xi. 15 ; xxxi. 2 ; xl. 5. In
other places, the fault w\as clearly in the Alexan-
drian recension, as, for instance, chaps, xxvii. 18-22;
xxxi. 22. In a few places, there may have been
corruptions in each text, as, for example, chaps,
ii. 23, 24, 31 ; iii. 3, where the two texts seem
originally to have been substantially the same.

A sixth cause of variation was abbreviation.
Although there are not many examples of divergent
readings that have arisen from this cause, yet there
appear to be a few. It has often been conjectured
that discrepancies of numbers in different parts of
the Old Testament may be explained by assuming
the existence at one time of a system of symbolical
notation. But, inasmuch as no such symbols of
notation occur in the present text of the
Hebrew Bible, this conjecture has been regarded
as ingenious but improbable. The modern Jews,
though, made frequent use of abbreviations, and
the numerical employment of letters was once com-
mon alike to the Hebrews and the Greeks. Hence,
it is highly probable that similar signs of number,

192 ■ THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

and similar symbols of abbreviation, may have
been employed either by the original authors of
Scripture, or by the later copyists and scribes. In
several cases of difference of dates in this book,
abbreviation seems to be the most natural as well as
the most probable explanation, and it may possibly
explain numerical divergences in other books. The
"eighth" instead of the "fifth" year of Jehoia-
kim, chap, xxxvi. 9, is an example of this kind.
The symbol for the number 5 = n might be easily
mistaken for that of the number 8 = n, a species of
substitution that very frequently occurs, as the list
of resembling letters in the preceding chapter indi-
cates. Movers and Hitzig suppose Ty'^i^, chap. iii.

19, is an abbreviation for 15 7l^T^^ Tr>^- '^^^^
example is interesting, and the explanation is
possible. Again, according to Movers, t^^^i^i, chap.

V. 1, which is wanting in the Septuagint, has come
into the Hebrew^ text, partly through abbreviation,
and partly -through repetition of the similar con-
sonants tri-Qb^. Whether prol^able or not, the
suggestion is worthy of consideration. " My fury,"
for " the fury of the Lord," chap. vi. 11, may have
possibly arisen from the translator regarding **, the
abbreviation for T1^7^'^^ as a suffix of the first person
singular. " My anger," for " the anger of the
Lord," chap. xxv. 37, Hitzig and Movers think.

THE OKIGIX OF THE VAIUATIOXS. 19

o

arose from his reading this letter again as a pro-
nominal suffix. An example of an exactly opposite
kind occurs in Jonah i. 9, where the letter was
read as an abbreviation for nin''- " An Hebrew "
("^■^1^*) ill the Massoretic text, is rendered " a ser-
vant of Jehovah " in tlie Alexandrian version.
Here, besides the abbreviation, the letter i was
also read by the Greek translator for the letter i.
In this way the variation is easily and naturally
explained. Moreover, " the four and twentieth
day " for " the jive and twentieth day," in chap,
lii. 31, may most likely have arisen from the
confusion of -y with n, the numerical signs for four
and five respectively, as Hitzig also has suggested.
A seventh cause of variation was punctuation.
The number of deviations due directly to this cause
is very great. In this book alone it amounts to a
few hundred. Examples, moreover, occur in every
book of the Old Testament. The reason, of course,
suggests itself at once. In its original form the
Hebrew, as is well known, had no vowel-points, the
consonants onlv havino- been written in the ancient
manuscripts. Thus the mode of writing greatly
increased the difficulties of translation. As the
lanouaq-e had long ceased to be a livino-" one, and
as the version was made from an unpointed or
unpunctuated text, it was inevitable that variations
should occasionally occur. Without the help of

X

194 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

punctuation, it was impossible to decide witli cer-
tainty the meaning of a word in every case.
Ambiguity would necessarily arise, not only from
the double signification of individual words, Ijut
also from their doubtful relation to each other. As
the context often admitted of more than one ren-
dering, the translator, without a definite notation
of vowel-points, was perfectly excusable for making
many divergences. The Massoretic system of
punctuation, which is additional to the letters, and
auxiliary both to the proper pronunciation and to the
true interpretation of the language, almost wholly
obviates the ancient difiiculties of translation, by
removing the cause of ambiguity. But even the
Massorites, with all their trained acquaintance with
the language, and with all their practised skill in
punctuation, did not entirely avoid mistakes. A
careful examination of the appended list will prove
the correctness of this statement. Sometimes the
one, sometimes the other, reading is superior ;
sometimes each one is alike good, as scholars will
observe from the following examples : —

n'h:^—r\^h^, i- 3; ^-ii^— ^-^i^, i. 12; ^-^ns!_^-,rj^^
ii. 2; ^hT—^hT, ii- 13; WltT— ^;p-)itp ; "^i^ipji:—
^W!^^^ ii- 20; rh;) — rhp, ii. 23; nwrrn^^ —

; I : — • X ' — T I T T V

ni^nn n«, ii- 33 ; n^iiinriii— riinn^a ; n^t^—
n^«, ii. 34 ; ni2tr^, ^^tn -ni:tr^, ^k)n, ii- 36 ;

THE OEIGIN OF THE VAKIATIONS. 19o

Q«i;^-,_a«ij^--^, iii. 1 ; h'p^—hpr2, iii. 9 ; ^:d50^—

^:p3ril, iii. 25 ; ni^l^— n^^l^l>, iv. 4 ; Di — D2,
iv. 21; a^:3-)n^— a^;")n^, iv. -31; ^Hi— ^a^_, V. 6;

:i»!itr«i— :i>!iir«i, v. 7 ; n^niitra— n"^niitr:i, v. lo ;

^- • : - T - • ; - T TV T : t v ■•. :

Y"j.^^^— n^a. V. 19; r\irntp— ni^i^tp, v. 24; ^^irn—

1-trn, vi. 1 ; n^ir— ni^y, vi. 6 ; ^^:^>!i— "i^vi^ vi. 27 ;

'»«1'^— ^«ip.» vi- '^O; Yl^^.— '^n«4i» vii- ''; riV^—

n^2, viii. 6 ; xv. 10 ; xx. 7 ; □Q'^Di^ — aCD^,

XX .. . -; T • -: J

viii. 13; i^nitt? — r^nitlS ix. 7; a^^A — a^^A ;
lirv— 1U:^% ix. 10; 111— ^1^, ix. 11; xxiii. 17;

rh^2 — ri^5!, ix. 21 ; ^■^:|ii,n — ^inir\ xi. 15 ;
nc — nc^; n^?2n — n^ir^n, xi. 16; >.^;^n-f^n —

•• : V X X -: X • . 1. .

•"^Iv^nin, xi. 18; t^V"] — ^^^^, xi. 21; ;i!jn_ji<,n;

rh:2^h — rh^^h, xii. 9 ; n^t? — ntDC ; n^^^u? —

X : X : T : X : x x x •. x •• :

n'^r^tr, xii. 11 ; ^i^-iT ^Vl^; ^TJp— ^"lip, xii. 13; ^^^72^

X X : : X :• x'x ': •• x

— ^j^'itr, xiii. 11; n^iri— ntstri, xiii. iG; rh^—rh^;

:t tt;tt; t*. tt

rh:^n—rh^'n, xiii. 19; i?nn— r^in, xiii. 23; ^in«—

X : X ■•. X - - ■• X XX ..-; _

n^^«i, xiii. 27 ; n*^:— nt?], xiv. 8 ; pf:-^*p— pri>p^
XV. 12; -in^-i—^n^i, XV. 16; n:«r2— r7:b^!2, xv. 18;

n^nntr— n"i"i"ii;S xvi. 12 ; xviii. 12 ; n^nintp^Tl—
□""nir^^ni, xvi. 15 ; nSin— n'^:;n, xvi. 18 ; itoa—

-liri, xvii. 5; b^-^^ — b^n% xvii. 8; tr:t<T — tr:«\

- : V ; • X !• ■■. X : v: v'

xvii. 9 ; tr^:«— tin:^^, xvii. IG ; Q-izni^n— D^n^Pr,

T • T ; T T • T -: T '

xviii. 3 ; ii^i — ^Tl, xviii. G ; a^^^t^ — a^^-^hJ

1 9 G THE TEXT OF JERE.MIAH.

xviii. 17; ]itr^ — )itr^^, xviii. 18; "il»V — 121"',

xix. 1 ; nn^n — nnsr^, xix. 8 ; prj^2^ -yrir^'^. —

TV- T T - ' T : T :

pr2^2^ -^i^^Q -1, xix. 9 ; nitr^— -11:2;% xix. 1 1 ; -ii:i?2^

't- t- :'"t- t:

—^^^iT^h ; D^:ini— a^:im ; asm— D2ni, xx. 4 ; ri^^^y^

~0r^> XX. 5 ; :iir^— :}j;^, XX. 7 ; ^i^— ^nn, XX. 12 ;

n^t?— npt?, XX. 15; Dsrn— D^ni' ^-"^i- ^5 -^^i*— ^"i^i,

xxi. 13 ; vbsi— V^S") (?)' xxii. 7 ; aip?2i— Dipti-l,
xxii. 12; ntry— HtT^^, xxii. 15; -^Strm— TyW^HT

TT -: '••:-: '-:t:'

xxii. 19; nbb^ — n^^^, xxiii. 10; -^3.^ ^Il^ir^h —

It t V !■■ V • : - : •

xxiii. 32; U?''b^S — tT^i^^, xxiii. 36; lltlj — "ntr

• : • T •• - T '

XXV. 36 ; ''n-^^in^ — ^nhini, xxvi. 4 ; ^rtr^nrj —
^nn^n, xxvi. 19 ; n-Qin— rfmiri^i-Q^n, xxvii. 11 ;

T • v: T r -: - T -: - t -: -

nh^—nh^, xxx. 6 ; ::^—nv, xxxi. 2 ; ^:;>i:5:— ^i?i22,

xxxi. 5 ; nDS— np2, xxxi. 8 ; l^n^— ^"rn% xxxi. 13;
"^-! -l"! — ^"ll"I, xxxi. 20; ^niin — ^ri^in, xxxi. 33;

n^n— rij^n, xxxii. 32 ; rrtrir— nirs?, xxxiii. 2 ; ^^^n:-)

- T T TV T :

— ^^"1121, XXXV. 11 ; Itr— itr, xxxvi. 15 ; t^l»-"^v «!J'''l

T- •• ■•. •• : TT :'

xxxvii. 4; "hv^^—^hv^X xxxvii. 5; ^«U?n — ^b^iZJn
xxxvii. 9; rihirri — ?T;iirri, xxxviii. 23; ^2^y—^y^^^

xl. 4 ; n«t:^— n«tp^, xl. 5 ; ^tr'ii— itr'n ; liii^l?—

'y;iyh, xli. 10; a^")!^ — D^"i>?, xli. 16; xliii. G;
xliv. 20; «2^— «!^^ xliv. 17; -^^t^— ^b«, xliv. 26;

XT"" " T

^ccn— "^tron, xlvi. 9 ; n:i^n— nri'^n, xlvi. 16 ; 1. I6;

THE ORIGIX OF THE VARIATIONS. 197

DtLM^^np — DlLM^^p, xlvi. 17; l^StrrsS — t^GlT^^,

T :It •• :'• T : • - t : • : '

xlvi. 28; r^^^ — r^^^' xlviii. 9; nin^ — n*^nD,

I .. .. I . - .. T-: • T • : >

xlviii. 16; 'in^ir — ^nty; ^iStri. — 'liptpi, xlviii. 28;

n«n— n«:i; dii— an, xlviii. 29; vi-i— im (?),

V • • T X '*. : T : T - - :

xlviii. 30 ; n^hr2—D'ihr2, xlix. 3 ; liri?— ^t::i», xlix. 8 ;

T : — ; • T " T

ni:?^— n>^^, xlix. 22 ; npp— n^.[2^, 1. 7 ; ^n^^n—
in^in, 1. 17; ihn~2in, 1. 21 ; ^«ii— ^«i, 1. 26;
nnD— nns, 1. 27 ; nt^-^^s— ni2''^5 (?) ; tr1i,r^«—

T V T T : • T •• : T • : ' : v

t^ip h^, I 29 ; m^i'^i— ^trn^i ; ^^^nn^-^^^nn\

1. 38; n?3^f^ — nt?«, li- 13; i2p;i — ^3p:, li. 17;
•'^ir.p— '•i-Ti^n, li. 34; ^-li^:— ^li>:, li. 38; I'lnp —

2ryh^, li- 50 ; Tn:— in:, li- 55 ; nnn^n— ramn,

V" l-'l-T tt:t t::t'

li. 58 ; 1^^— i^i^, lii. 12.

— T **

All eio-lith cause of variation was dictation. A
considerable number of divergences appears to
have arisen from this cause. That dictation was
anciently practised in making or in transcribing
manuscripts is well known. Indeed, the prophet
Jeremiah practised it himself. In the beginning
of chap, xxxvi., he is described as dictating his
prophecies to his secretary, Baruch, who wrote
them upon ''a roll of a book." In like manner, it
is probable that, in multiplying copies of the
Scriptures, one person dictated, while another,
perhaps, while several others, transcribed the

198 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

language after liim. In consequence of imperfect
hearing, or of indistinct pronunciation, or possibly
of both, divergences would naturally occur. In
the articulation of gutturals and sibilants and
liquids mistakes might easily arise. ]\Ioreover, as
Jeremiah's prophecies were delivered to a number
of different communities, and attracted much
attention at the time, many of them may have
been learned by heart and afterwards orally trans-
mitted. Recensional differences, not only of words,
but also of phrases, may have arisen in this latter
way. Certain classical and idiomatic expressions
seem to point to oral transmission as their probable
cause ; for instance, such divergences as " Holy
One of Israel" for "Lord," "Lord God of Hosts"
for " Lord God," etc. The number of verbal
variations that may be explained by dictation or
by oral transmission is prett}^ large. In some cases,
dictation seems to be the possible, in other cases,
the probable, in other cases again, the unquestion-
able, explanation of the deviations in the version.
The following examples are submitted for careful
consideration : —

^^— ^^' i- ^^ ®^^'- ' ^iin— ninn, ii- 12 ; nrii*:—

^!J]-i:, ii. 15; ix. 9; nn'v'^—^i'^T^'^' "• 23; ^«—

h^_, ii. 27, etc. ; Q^^n ri:«^— ^pV^ri x^^' "^- ^ '
^^p^pnn — ^^n^nnn, iv. 24 ; Tjn: — ^ni*:, iv. 26 ;

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 199

iV«i: — nVni:, v. 4 ; i-^^pn — i^^nin or ^i^i^ii^n,
V. 10; Dmtrn':^ — cniir^, vi. 19 ; ^pn: — n^n:,

t::— TT-. ; 't* tt-

vi. 29; ^i:'?-^:— ^::^^S!^ vii. 10 ; ^jmtp— Tjn : nt^S i^. 5;
D^pn— av«, xi. 5 ; -r:Lr-L— rcj;-!, xi. 14 ; ^V^arn—
n^^n (•)' xi. 15 ; nn^ntr: — nn^tr:, xi. 19 ;
D''nr trni — DTOi?:in-!, xii. 15 ; xvi. 15; mtr: —
i:itr:, xiii. 17 ; iDpn:— ^c*??: (?), xiii. 22; Dni:—
a-7-,^, xiv. 9; i^s-in n:i^?D— ^^c"it^ n:«^, xv. 18;

xviii. 12; 1trn2^ — ^^122% xviii. 14; ^-^^ — ^«"lp,

: T • : T • T :'t'

xviii. 20; D'linn'l — ai:?^ini, xviii. 21; -inpi^ _

n:!i "^in — nrin, xxii. 13 ; ni^i — tn^-i, xxii. 15 ;

V — V T T T T ;

□«: ^rjN:')i — D^: ^'^li^i, xxiii. 31 ; rii2"!n^ —
ns'^nS^, XXV. 9 ; npnn— n^nn, xxv. 15 ; j-i^^i^i—
ti'^nni, XXX. 18; ^^^ni— ^bVm, xxxi. 5; :^n!:t!?—

I T V : •• • : •• • : - t

n:inr2tlS xxxi. 18; ''npiTD— \1-ri:D, xxxi. 19; ^^0:1
— ^«C:i, xxxi. 24; ^rh^ll ~ ^rhxTl, xxxi. 32;

^«::n— ^^5^::n, xxxi. 38 ; ris^i— trt^^i, xxxvi. 22 ;

^-THE — ^"IpS (0' xxxvi. 24 ; DIlVtr^T — Dr^tl^^^^,
xxxviii. 11 ; iv^pni_;2''tri;^^ xiii. 12 ; ^rn'f?^?— ^r^Si,
xliii. 2; H'^::"! — ^I2:i (?), xliii. 10; ni:^'! — Hlli^l ;

tt: -t:' tt: tt;

!^'^^'!— n-Ti?\ xliii. 12 ; «3.— ni, xlvi. 20 ; n^nn—
n^rri, xlviii. 2; n^V^— n«V^, xlviii. 5; 'rj'jr::^!!—

200 THE TEXT OF JERExMIAH.

— n^nbl^, xlix. 2 ; ^Di — ^D3 or «tc»^ xlix. 8 ;

T V T ••. - • T •

r\Shx(i, lii. 19.

T : •

A nintli cause of variation was derivation.
Numerous striking divergences are readily explained
in this way. The combination of consonants often
permitted or rendered possible a twofold etymology
of a word. The Massorites derived it from one
root ; the translator derived it from another.
AVithout the vow^el- points, the proper root could
not be known with certainty, except in so far as
the context determined the sense required to be
expressed. The connection, though, sometimes left
room for ambio-uitv. Hence deviations would
naturally arise for wdiich the Greek translator w\is
not justly responsible. Whether he was well or ill
acquainted with the classic Hebrew, there is reason
to believe that he was well acquainted with the
kindred Aramaic. With this latter he mav have
l)een almost as familiar as with his mother tonii;ue.
That the derivation of Hebrew words at the time of
the translation of the Septuagint was more doubtful
than during the days of the Massorites is question-
able ; that it was more difficult before the punctua-
tion was fixed by the insertion of the diacritic

THE OEIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 201

points tluiri afterwards is unquestionable. Tliis
latter fact shoiikl be borne in mind, not so much
to palliate tlie translator's errors, as to extenuate
the fliults of his translation, by showing that he
was neither culpably nor carelessly to blame for
them. Not only w^as his derivation in every case
permissible, but also it was in several cases prefer-
able. From the following list it w411 be seen that,
in a few instances, a variation arose from a sub-
stitution of letters in connection with a difierent
derivation of a word : —

nnD-TOi, i. 14; ^:]-S^^ ii. 13; '^«-i-xr>tr»«, ii. 25
xviii. 12; ^T«-^^^ ii. 36; nn*»I^-l\I?\ iii. 6
viii. 12; h^p-hhp, iii. 0; DDi-Di:, iv. 6, 21
n!J3--l^lS iv. 16; jr or p"p-n:t, v. 8; -piy-ni^
vi. 1 ; h^:}-rh^, vi. ll ; ^!J:]-^!J«, Tii. 10 ; nCD or
^Di-riDt^, vii. 21; pl-nm, viii. 2; ix. 21 ; xvi. 4
niUr— nnt^, viii. 4 ; hhD-rh:2, viii. 6 ; XV. 10; XX. 7

^^:i-n^:i, ix. lO; hr2T^-h^r2, xi. 16; n^n-^n:

xii. 13; lit^ — iti:''', xii. 15; xvi. 15; xxiii. 3
yci — yiQ, xiii. 14; Ii. 20 seq. ; ]«n — n:«, xv. 18

non-Din, xvii. i7 ; mir-n-'ir, xviii. 20, 22
-r:i:--ri:j or -n:i, xx. 10 ; «!j-'-n!i% xxi. 12 ; fin:-
nnn, xxi. 13; :t>vi-niri, xxii. 22; nt?^— mt.*,

xxiii. 8; Qi^i-DIi, xxiii. 31 ; ntr:— t^to:, xxiii. 39;

rhv—bT, XXX. 13; -Tiri— -TU^, xxx. 20; "rn^— nin,

xxxi. 13; on^-m:, xxxi. 15; xlii. 10; «i^— n^^n,

202 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

xxxii. 21 ; t^tlJi— i<f:, xxxvii. 9; mii*— llti!', xli. 10;
pT-D!DT, xlviii. 2; tr>n*'-t?'a, 1- 38; 'y^>--^^:>,

li. 38; m:-n:?2, li- 59.

A tenth cause of variation was ivord- division.
Tlie illustrations of this kind of deviation are
exceedingly interesting. Here again the discrep-
ancy was partl}^ due to absence of punctuation. It
w^as also partly due to the ancient custom of
writing Hebrew words without any divisions
between them, either in the form of spaces or of
points. Had the consonants been punctuated, or
had the words been separated, variations of this
sort might have been avoided ; but, as the letters
were unpunctuated, and written close together
without any marks or signs to separate between
them, it is only natural that divergences should
have arisen from this cause. It is no wonder,
therefore, that the translator, with nothing to guide
him but the connection in which they stood, should
have divided some words differently from the way
in which they were divided by the Massorites.
Even the latter have not always hit upon the
best division which the construction of a passage
properly and logically required. It seems very
probable that, in every endeavour to translate an
ancient unpointed manuscript, some divergences
would inevitably arise ; so that, after the Hebrew

THE OPvIGIN OF THE VAFJATIONS. 203

ceased to l)e a spoken language, no t^vo renderings
of an entire book would be in all respects alike.
Some of the variations due to word-division in tliis
book afford excellent sense. In certain instances,
as the following list will show, the reading in the
Greek is better than the reading in the Hebrew :—

nrl! ijiS! — n:;^i*™=ni;*^i*st, ii. 20 ; nn^ ■^iirr —

□nb^-^"' ^^1, ii. 31; p^ — p-t^^, ii. 33; C'ni^ —

nin-^v^ — D^'i-Tj, V. 6 ; ^m'h:^72 — rir^ph'^Tp (?),

viii. 18; ;]]p:;ir — Tjn : Itp, ix. 5; f]^^ J'i'^DP —

?T;in^, xii. 13 ; b^^-i ntrv — ^^ i^trin xvii. ii ;
p;*;! — nir?^ \i:ii 0), xx. 2 ; ri:!i "^in — n:"!:!,
xxii. 13; annr^— a^n2j^^, xxii. 20; 2hp?2 ^n^^^n

xxiii. 33 ; ii>^;i"!n^— ^:iin ^h\ xxxi. 2 ; -i^;^> d^—

■irim, x-^xi- 8 ; ^n^S-r:i— (n^n) «^n Vi:i, xli. 9 ;
nnp2 — ^^(^)d:, xlvi. 15 ; -^^^^ q*- -rir — •rrv''^ ^-^^y,

xlviii. 32 ; yny-ri.^ — L:nn3.% xlviii. 34 ; IT^^-^ni —
tr^n^, Ii. 58.

T

An eleventh cause of variation was word-com-
20ositio7i. A surprising number of deviations may
be explained by difference of spelling. The vowel-
letters 1 and 1, which, before the Massoretic system
of notation was invented, to some extent supplied

204 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the place of the vowels l and e, b and u, were not
employed so frequently in ancient as in modern
times. The truth of this statement is illustrated
by the marked tendency to their more frequent
employment, which is manifest in the later books
of the Old Testament. Even in the earlier books,
the usage is by no means uniform. The writing of
some words was almost invariable ; the writing of
others was very variable. In the same book, too,
the usage fluctuates. Had these letters been
always written in the translator's manuscript where
they are now written in the Hebrew text, many
significant deviations could not have occurred.
The absence of the one or the other of these letters,
and sometimes of both of them, as in chaps, xlix.
20; 1. 13, explains such variations perfectly. An
examination of each list of illustrations given will
show that the Greek again, in many places, presents
the preferable reading.

The following passages are sul:>mitted as examples
of cases where Waw was wanting; in the ancient
manuscripts : —

T n'inn^^ = nbnbi— rah^^, i. 18; ^^p^— ^^5:* =
^^5^% ii. 13; n^j;_n^p = n^ip, ii. 23; n^nrrrsi
— n'^nnai = ni"inn^!i, ii. 34 ; ni^^v = rh-w—

t:-— t;— — :t ix

rh-yv^ iv. 4 ; D>-^D3 = ^D^:, iv. G ; nipH = npn
— npn, V. 24; nit2-i = nm — nD!L, vii. 31 ;

THE OEIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 205

= ni^n:, ix. 21.^ nnitoir = rrntoi?— nntoi^, xi. 15;

; • T -: T — ; T : T

n:in — ii^n = nvn, xii. 9 ; xxvii. 6 ; ni'^^1 =
ni-^i— m^*i or rr^, xiv. i; ri^^^jsj — n'^'^«=
ni^:;«, xiv. 5 ; m^^-j = n^.'i^? — (") ^ t) nnt^s,
xiv. 8; i'in^5 = "in;5— nn^5, xiv. 9; D^:?rn.—
nh:\7l^ = a^^^ni ; Dsni — D^ni = a^sni, xx. 4 ;
n"iQp = n?3^D — n^p, xxiii. 20 ; ninstrp =
nhsirrp— nnstrn, xxv. 9; xxx. 25; ninpiy^ =
nbptr^— TOpip^, XXV. 12; "^n-^^im— ^nhim =
^ni-^in^i, xxvi. 4; niniiTO = mipnr2— mtrn^,
xxix. 11 ; li. 29 ; n^i>n— n^^^n = nbi^in, xxx. 13 ;

T T : T T XT

^inpia = Shm— ^npH (?), xxxi. 4, 13 ; ^n-jin—
^nhin = ^ni-iin, xxxi. 33 ; -j^^^ = -yj^ _ -r;^, xxxi.

39 ; T|Sv = 'TlV'^— '^^^ xxxii. 5 ; i^iir^l^ = ^nbn^—
Q^^-^tDl^, xxxii. 21 ; nv*^— Jli^-^^n'ilin, xxxii. 32 ;

; — : ~ T T T

ntr — nir = nm\ xxxvi. 1 5 ; -nini^n = -i!i«n —

•• '•. T T T T

M vi«n, xxxviii. 11 ; n«c^— ™t'"':j = nis^tT^
xl. 5 ; ^n^^^=in?:)^ {^) ^an^ xlii. 17; ^n^^n=^n^n

— (co) ^r2jnn,xlii. 22 ; ni^^ = "fitr— "flip, xlviii. 18 ;

m^ir = rh^ — rh)r, xlix. 14 ; vnintrn^^^ =

-T-\ T -T x;: —

imirn'2^ — irinirn'^^, xlix. 20 ; iii'n = nijn —

T : : - : - : - t t

Tjn, xlix. 28, 30, 33; ^'tr^cn = m^cn— (^) \Ttn,
1. 11 ; rrTiiSTD = nn2?2— nnsn, 1. 13 ; init = ^nt

206 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

— i^-ij, 1. 16; ^-ii?2-^iii.>: = ^nu^:, li- 38; ni?2n =
ntjh— n'rjh, li. 58 ; nm:?2 = nn;?^— nran, li. 59.

— T I T •. ; T , "

The following are examples of cases where Yod
was absent from the ancient manuscripts :—

^- ^l-\ir3 = l"^y!)— n^i^^S, iii. 2; O'lCtr = DCtlJ— DCt?

. T-: - T-:- "T -t: -t: tt

(a":nct:), iii. 21 ; vii. 29 ; psii = js^i— -ji^^"!, vi. 14 ;

a^^Din = a^Q3:i— D^c::a, vi. 15; tr^b<2 = trb^5—

•:- •:— x:t: •• ••

tr«5, vi. 23; 1. 42; DH^ntr?? = D^nntr?D— D^nntp^,
vi. 28 ; nni^in = n-ririr2— niip?^, viii. 7 ; c^Ti-i^

□i^"r = a-^^— a-it, xviii. 14; D"'btr:Dn = D^trsn—
□Sir2!2, xviii. 23; nTy'—'nT^'' = 'n^Ty>^^- 5;
p^^;i = pi;4 — pyj, xx. 12 ; ^^nn^ = ^^i^--!-)!^,

xxviii. 6; l^i^^b^ — ITIt^ = V^^^«, xxx. 21;
r:D"n3 = 13"^"r2— iS'll^, xxxii. 19; iTl^ — ITl^ =

T X : • T X : • : - : t . ix .

VT^l^ xxxiv. 3 ; Tj^S! = •rjt>i (^co])— ]S>, xxxvi. 17;

-^^nin = -^nin — -^n^n, xliv, 7 ; vn"'« = ii^« —

•• X • ' T : X :

^^V^, xliv. 30 ; n"in?2— nin?^=ni^n'2, xlviii. I6 ;

: X-: • T • ; x • :

n'2h\ xlix. 11 ; rniitrnr^^ = imtrn?:^^— iniirn?^^;
□itL^^ = aip^ — Dtp^ xlix. 20; amiiT = Diniu? —
□niitr, 1. 6; n^nisr^ -= nni!^ — nns^, 1- 13 ;
i'2!i^— i^i*jr = vr2!^:ir, 1. 17; n^i^i:^— n^rc3 =

: • T T -: T T— : ' t t: t ; t v t: t ;

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 207

(or Tympe), 1- 3i ; Y?^— yen = yep, li. 20.

A twelfth cause of variation was ivord-signifi-
cation. There are many passages that furnish
apparent evidence of this kind. Several words or
expressions, whose ordinary meaning the translator
must have known, seem once to have possessed a
signification that has disappeared ; or, at least, that
has not been retained in translating the Massoretic
text. It is not unreasonable to suppose that many
words had meanings formerly which do not appear
in modern Hebrew lexicons. It is also not improb-
able that the translators of the Septuagint may
have been acquainted with ancient significations
with which the Massorites were unacquainted.
Some indications also occur of Aramaic influence.
As Knobel^ has discussed the Chaldaisms or
Aramaisms in the Massoretic text, it is unnecessary
to refer to them in this discussion. It should be
observed, however, that a still greater Aramaic
colouring is apparent in the Alexandrian text. In
chap. XV. 18, for instance, where the verb to^

is rendered "overcome" in Greek, the meaning
expressed is rather Aramaic than Hel>rew. In
chap. 1. 42, where the verb p';r\ is translated
" having " in the Septuagint, either the texts were

^ Jeremias Chaldaizans, mdcccxxxi.

208 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

different, or tins verb was then given its ordinar}^
Aramaic meaning of having or possessing. A few
other instances naturally suggest either Aramaic
meanincrs, or meanins^s of words in earlier times
that in later times were either overlooked or lost.
The following may be given as examples of possible
Aramaic significations : —

]n — abt^ (]rT), iii. i; ^^i;. — ^^np*-. i^iy), y- 3i ;

X. 13; li. 16; n^^— liliT ("T^HV)' ^iv. 4; rh^—

nh^^ {n^h^), xxxi. 21 ; nti?— it^> (n^n), xxxvi. 15.

A thirteenth cause of variation was Greeh-
trajismission. Some deviations were undoubtedly
due to errors in copying the Greek manuscripts.
Examples of such mistakes in copying the ancient
Hebrew manuscripts have been already noted.
Although this is a similar cause of variation, the
principle has a particular application, and, there-
fore, claims a separate consideration. In order to
determine accurately how much the manuscripts of
the Septuagint have suff'ered by transmission in
this way, in addition to examining them carefully,
it is necessary to compare the ancient and modern
characters in which they have been written. Such
an undertaking involves a special investigation of
itself, and does not belong directly to the present

THE ORIGIN OF THE VAEIATIONS. 209

discussion. In tlie work of retranslation, tliouoh,
u number of instances have been met that prove
that many variations may be adequately explained
by applying this principle, as well to the Greek as
to the Hebrew manuscripts. An application of the
principle to all the books of the Old Testament
would l)e interesting ; and, if not fruitful, the
results, at least, would be important. A few of
the more probable examples occurring in this
book, some of which were long ago suggested by
Schleusner in his Tliesauriis, may be given here.
The following possible cases will be sufficient for
the present purpose : —

avaarpo<pr]<i for d7roaTpo(f)r]<i, vi. 19 ; KareuOrjvovrcov for
KarevdvvovToov, XV, 11 ; jxavaa for ixcivva, xvii. 26 ;
P'TTjT'qp for MTpr]^ XX. 17 ; vao<; for Xao9, XXX. 18 ;
inrl fxepov for e</)' Tjfxepa<;, xxxi. 1 9 ; ol'fiov<; for a)fiov<i,
xxxi. 21 ; w d8(ov for eco? aSov, xxxiv. 5 ; %ei/e^ for
X^P^O, xxxvii. IG ; 7% for t/}?, xlvi, 27 ; v 'TrroTjro'i

for 1) dirr6r]T0<i, 1. 2 ; ev aol for e/c crov, li. 20 ; cr/ceOo?
for cr/coro9, li. 34.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION.

It lias been frequently asserted, and is at present
commonly believed, that the Alexandrian version
of the Old Testament has been very unequally
translated. The translation of the Pentateuch and
of the historic books has been considered tolerably
accurate and trustworthy, but the translation of
the poetic and prophetic books has been considered
utterly inaccurate and untrustworthy. Owing to
the number and the nature of the deviations, in
these latter books particularly, the translators of
them are believed to have allowed themselves to
take all sorts of liberties with their text. They
are supposed, as has been shown, to have abridged
it, amplified it, modified it, and, in many ways and
places, falsified it. In short, by implication, they
have been accredited with having done everything
but honest work, and with having been anything
but honourable men.

Because of its alleged inaccuracy and incorrect-
ness, a poor opinion of the Septuagint has hitherto
prevailed. It still prevails, too, as a deeply-rooted

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 211

prejudice. This prejudice is chiefly, if not wholly,
due to the acceptance of a false hypothesis respect-
ing; the character and the causes of the manifold
divergences. It has been almost universally
believed that both the Greek and Hebrew must
and could be traced back to the same orisfinal
manuscripts. This fact affords the reason why so
many and such inconsistent theories have been
suggested for the purpose of accounting for the
enormous number of deviations in this book. On
no other supposition, could the charge of arbitrari-
ness have been received with so much favour in
such numerous and unexpected quarters. Had the
true nature and origin of the variations been
adequately understood, the unworthy views, so
widely prevalent, would long ago have been rejected.
Indeed, they would never have been seriously
entertained.

The general character of the translation of this
particular book has been already noticed in dealing
wdth the various classes of divergency that every-
where abound. Some of its chief features also
have been briefly indicated. These, however, need
to be more thoroughly discussed. It is particularly
necessary to ascertain, as accurately as possible, the
exact character of the translation, for the sake of
showing its real importance for purposes of text-
criticism. We have nothing to do at present with

212 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

tlie condition of the Alexandrian text itself. That
is a separate subject of investigation. Apart from
the condition of this text, the critical value of the
Septuagint depends essentially upon two things —
the nature of the Greek translation, and the nature
of the Hebrew manuscript from which it has been
made. If the translation bears indications of
fidelity and care, and if the manuscript shows
evidences of purity and age, the testimony of
the version is entitled to the greatest possible
regard.

The first important feature of the translation is its
literalness. This feature applies in general to the
wdiole work. The narrative portions, though, it will
be found, have been more accurately rendered than
have the poetic portions, of the book. The difi'erence,
which is very perceptible, is significant. It admits,
however, of a rational explanation, AVhile partly
due to imperfection or corruption in the ancient
manuscripts, it was largely, if not chiefly, due to
the greater perplexity that was experienced in
translating poetry than was experienced in trans-
lating prose, from an unpointed text. The absence
of punctuation would naturally render the work
of reproducing the striking figures peculiar to the
Hebrew particularly difficult. Competent critics
will readily appreciate this statement. Unpreju-
diced observers, too, on carefully examining the

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 213

Hebrew text itself, will find that the same difficulty
was also experienced by the Massorites.

Whatever may be thought or shown by scholars
to be the case with reference to the other prophetic
books, this book has been translated with the
utmost carefulness. As a rule, wherever the ori-
ginals of the two texts were the same, the Greek
exactly reproduces the present Hebrew text ; and
wherever the orioinal of the one was different from
that of the other, the Greek accurately represents a
classic Hebrew text. The whole book indicates
that this text originally was very carefully trans-
lated. So far as the condition of the ancient
manuscript admitted, the work was unquestionably
well done. Not merely is the translation literal,
but the literalness extends to the order of the
words, often of the smallest particles, in the sen-
tences. Of page after page, and chapter after
chapter, this is true. The most peculiar construc-
tions, moreover, are scrupulously reproduced. No
modern English or German version of the book, it
is not too much to say, is nearl}'' so literal in all
respects as is the Alexandrian version.

Indeed, so slavishly literal is the translation, and
so accurately does it represent the Hebrew idiom,
that the Greek, when retranslated into the original,
takes at once the Hebrew form. Even the legitimate
license of translation has been most sparingly em-

214 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

ployed. The translator very often did not use it
when the genius of his language warranted its use.
In short, the work is Hebraized, the Greek style
having been sacrificed to the Hebrew style. Were
it necessary, innumerable examples might be given.
One needs, however, only to examine the transla-
tion to observe that it frequently adheres too closely
to the original to be tolerable Greek. The almost
exact correspondence of the Greek to the Hebrew
form may be proved by practical experiment. The
greater portion of the version can be literally
translated back into classic Hebrew, with scarcely
any change whatever in the present order of the
words. From these considerations, one may say
with Scholz, " A translation which follows the
original from word to word, even where the lan-
guage in which it is translated is opposed, must be
regarded as a translation in the strictest sense of
the term."^

The second feature of the translation is ii^ faith-
fulness. This characteristic is s|)ecially illustrated
in the case of Hebraisms, a few examples of which
have been given in another place. An instance
now and then occurs in which an idiom of this kind

^ " Eine Uebersetzung, die von Wort zu Wort, selbst wo die
Sprache, in welche iibersetzt wird, widerstrebt, dem Originale
nachgeht, muss als eine Uebersetzung im strengsten Sinne des
Wortes angesehen werden." Der musoreth. Text und die LXX-
Uebersetzung, etc., p. 22.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION, 215

is wanting in the Septuagint. Whenever this is
the case, then either the original manuscript did
not contain it, or it has accidentally disappeared in
the process of transmission. The translator was in
no respect responsible for the omission, — firstly,
because of the simplicity of the construction ;
secondly, because of the fact that such idioms are
frequently translated by him ; and, thirdly, because
of the still more significant fact, that such idioms
are sometimes present in the Alexandrian, where
they are absent from the Massoretic, text. For
these reasons it is evident, not only that he under
stood such peculiarly idiomatic Hebrew forms, but
also that he faithfully reproduced them whenever
he found them.

In his acute but incomplete discussion of the
relation between the Greek and Hebrew of this
book. Movers long since directed attention to this
feature of the translation. Although he has made
some observations upon its significance, he has
pointed out but one passage where a Hebraism of
this kind occurs only in the Septuagint. As has
been shown, however, it occurs in several passages,
A single instance, perhaps, would not be thought
sufficient to estal^lish with certainty the character
of such a variation. Were there not more than one
example, it might with reason be suggested that
the idiom had accidentally disappeared from the

216 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Massoretic text. The number, though, renders
the suggestion worthless. In nearly every case,
moreover, the examples occur along with other
deviations which indicate their nature past all
peradventure. They can be nothing other than
recensional divergences. It is inconceivable that
the translator invented them, or that he at any
time introduced expressions foreign to the Greek
language, where his original gave him no occasion
for it. These Hebraisms in themselves furnish
incontrovertible proof of a special text-recension.
In no other way is it possible adequately to account
for them. In addition to the direct testimony they
bear in support of this hypothesis, they also prove
conclusively the great fidelity with which the
translator did his work.

Besides the repeated occurrence of this special
kind of idiom in the Alexandrian, where it is want-
ing in the Massoretic, text, other idiomatic expres-
sions peculiar to the Hebrew also frequently occur.
One of the most remarkable idioms of the Jewish
language is the employment of a Waw Conversive
or Consecutive to modify the meaning of a primary
tense. Notwithstanding the apparently arbitrary
character of this idiom, which was not only foreign
to the Greek, but also incapable of being adequately
transferred to that or to any other language, it,
nevertheless, was reproduced with almost painful

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 217

accuracy. So faithfully was the work performed,
that this idiom appears in many places only in the
Septuagint. The version often has it where the
Hebrew has it not. But one explanation can be
given of this fact. The idiom belonged to the trans-
lator's manuscript, and was conscientiously retained.
On this point, again, Scholz's observation is pertinent
and important. After showing fully how the Greek
sentences generally bear unmistakably the type of
the Hebrew language, he says, " To this it may be
added, that a number of short w^ords which stand
only in the Greek text are Hebraisms. On Greek
ground these cannot have come into the text. On
the contrary, a translator, whose only aim was to
make his readers acquainted with the contents of
the book, would have had every reason to omit, for
instance, the i as sign of the apodosis or consequent
clause. That he does not do it, is to us a further
proof of the scrupulous exactness of his work." ^

The third feature of the translation is its purity.
This feature refers to the orio-inal of the Greek.

o

1 " Hiezu konimt noch, class eine Anzalil der im griecliischen
Texte luehr stehenden ^Yol•tclleu Hebraisineu siud. Auf liellenisti-
schera Boden konnen diese nicht in deu Text gekoinmen sein. Iiu
Gegentlieil liatte ein Uebersetzer, dem es nur darum zu tlum ■war,
seine Leser mit dem Inhalte des Biiches bekannt zu niachen, alien
Grand geliabt, z. B. i aLs Zeichen des Nachsatzes wegzulassen.
Dass er es nicbt thut, ist nns ein wciterer Beweis der scrupulbsen
Genauigkeit seines Werkes." Der niasoreth. Text und die LXX-
Uebersetzuny, etc., p. 109.

218 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

As elsewhere indicated, there are frequent traces in
the Massoretic text of a systematic revision of this
book. In certain parts, the indications are not
simply striking but decisive, the original text
seeming to have been extensively enlarged or
amplified. As illustrations of this influence have
been given in another place, it is superfluous either
to repeat them or to multipl}^ them. Bleek's judg-
ment on this point, though, is so important and so
just, that it deserves to be quoted here in full.
" When we impartially consider the individual
variations of both texts," he says, " it can be
determined from internal grounds, in many cases,
with the greatest degree of probability, that, in
these cases, the Alexandrian recension gives us
still the original text, the Massoretic recension one
somewhat revised. This is primarily the case
respecting rather longer passages which the Masso-
retic text has, but which the Septuagint has not,
where, throughout, it is much more likely that the
same are later additions, than that, belonging
originally to the text, they should have been omitted
by later transcribers or compilers.

" 1

1 "Wenn wir die einzelnen Abweiclmngen beider Texte unbe-
fangen betrachten, so lasst sicb nach inneren Griinden in vielen Fallen
mit dem grbssten Grade von Wahrscbeinlichkeit urtlieilen, dass hier die
Alexandrinische Recension uns noch den urspriingliclien Text liefert,
die masoretbische einen etwas uberarbeiteten. Dies gilt zuvtirderst
in Bezug auf etwas grossere Stellen, welclie der masoretbisclie Text
hat, niclit aber die Sept., wo liberall viel wahrscbeinliclier ist, dass

THE CHAKACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 219

As the custom of text - revision was long and
widely practised, this book may have been repeat-
edly revised. For such a custom there is ample
authority, and for such a probability there is
abundant evidence. The habit of re-editing and
recasting Scripture, which may have begun, perhaps,
with Ezra or Nehemiah, appears to have survived
till tolerably modern times. Eeferring to this
practice of revising ancient Hebrew writings, which,
whenever it commenced, prevailed for many cen-
turies amongst Jewish scholars or literati. Dr.
Edersheim observes, " There are scarcely any
ancient Rabbinical documents which have not been
interpolated by later writers, or, as we might
euphemistically call it, been recast and re-edited." ^
The activity and influence of these later Scripture
revisers are becoming more universally acknow-
ledged every year. Even Ryssel, in his recent able
but conservative work on the text of Micah, admits
the remarkable progress of this opinion amongst im-
partial critics, particularly since the time of Hitzig.^
Moreover, he quotes, with apparent approbation,
the words of Cheyne in his valuable commentary

clieselben spiitere Zusatze sind, als class sie, clem Text urspriinglicli
augehorend, sollten durcli spjitere Absclireiber oder Sammler ausge-
lasseu sein." Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 321.

^ Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 131. (Quoted from Cheyne on
Isaiah.)

^ Untcrsuchungen iiber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches
Micha, p. 223.

220 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

on the book of Isaiah, where the hitter of the
Massoretic text significantly asserts, " It is becom-
ing more and more certain that the present form,
especially of the prophetic Scriptures, is due to a
literary class (the so-called Soferim, ' scribes ' pr
' scripturists '), whose principal function was col-
lecting and supplementing the scattered records of
prophetic revelation." ^

The fourth feature of the translation is its
priority. This feature, like the preceding one,
applies particularly to the manuscript from which
the version was translated. By the priority of the
translation, therefore, is meant the priority of the
text from wdiich it was made, as compared with the
present Massoretic text. In general, the Greek
presents the earlier and the more original form of
the book. Paragraph after paragraph might be
indicated in support of this assertion. The priority
of many passages is admitted by Hitzig ; the
originality of a few is admitted even by Graf
himself. While it is not advisable to multiply
examples, there is one group of chapters, namely,
xxvii.-xxix., which claims, in this connection, some
consideration. The difi"erences between the two
texts in these chapters are remarkable, as well as
manifold. Graf evidently either did not see, or did
not want to see, that, in these chapters, the devia-

^ The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. ii., third edition, p. 228.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 221

tions are, in some respects, more striking than
they are in any other portion of the book. The
peculiarities appear, not only in the frequency, but
also in the form of the divergences. Movers,
Bleek, and Hitzig have so thoroughly discussed
them, that it is scarcely more than necessary
here to indicate some of the more sino-ular of
them. The style is manifestly more than usually
diffuse, even for Jeremiah, and differs very con-
siderably from the prophet's ordinary mode of
speech.

On examination, it will be observed that the
title, " the prophet," occurs continually in connec-
tion with the name of the person of that office
mentioned, and is in nearly every place superfluous.
The spelling also, as well as the language, is
peculiar. This is the case especially with proper
names, compounded with Jehovah, which have
both a lonojer and a shorter ending;. As a rule,
throughout this book the longer form prevails ; in
this group of chapters, though, the shorter form
generally occurs. With only four exceptions,
chaps, xxviii. 12; xxix. 27, 29, 30, the name of
"Jeremiah" here has the shorter ending, whereas
it elsewhere always has the longer ending. The
same exceptional ending also here appears in other
proper names ; as, for instance, " Zedekiah," chaps,
xxvii. 12; xxviii. 1; xxix. 3; " Jeconiah," chaps.

222 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

xxvii. 20 ; xxviii. 4 ; xxix. 2 ; " Haiiauiali," chap,
xxviii. 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17. A striking
difference, too, appears in the spelling of the name
of " Nebuchadnezzar." In the book of Jeremiah,
it is generally written with the letter r; but,
in these three chapters, it is frequently written
with the letter n. Such peculiar features, taken
together with the numerous unnecessary additions
to the Hebrew, consisting of words, phrases, half-
verses, whole verses, and an entire paragraph,
naturally point to only one conclusion — a con-
clusion which Kuhl has the candour to admit. His
admission is the more significant, inasmuch as he,
in general, has adopted and defended Graf's
hypothesis. After pointing out the chief peculiari-
ties here, which clearly indicate a later redaction or
revision, he observes, " The text of the Septuagint,
in these chapters, is, if not exactly like the original
text, yet much more nearly like it than the
Massoretic text is." ^

The fifth feature of the translation is its
superiority. This feature again applies, of course,
to the original of the version. The Septuagint
presents not only a purer and an earlier, but also a
superior, form of the book. The Greek generally

^ "Der Text tier LXX. steht also dem nrspriingliclien Texte in
diesen Kapiteln, wenn auch niclit ganz gleich, so doch bedeutend
naher als der niassoretisclie Text." Das Verhdltniss der Massora zur
Septuagintay etc., p. 63.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 22

o

exhibits a shorter and, in many respects, a better
text than the Hebrew exhibits. The original of
the version was tolerably, if not entirely, free from
glosses. Hitzig believes that it was a text, as yet,
not amplified or glossed at all. Whether, as he
supposes, the process of interpolation had not
commenced at the time of the translation has not
been definitely determined. One thing, at least, is
certain, the interpolations in the Hebrew are vastly
greater than they are in the Greek. The Masso-
retic text, moreover, as has been frequently and
fully evinced, abounds in superfluities, redund-
ances, and useless or unnecessary repetitions of
various kinds. The text which the Septuagint
represents, on the other hand, is concise and
admirable. In contrast to the former, which is
remarkalily verbose and pleonastic, the latter is
exceedingly brief and terse. These differences
were unquestionably recensional. AVliile it is
improper to suppose, with some, that all that the
Massoretic text has more than the Alexandrian is
pure interpolation, it is proper to suppose that
much of it is. The characteristic brevity and
conciseness of the Septuagint are so manifestly
textual, and so clearly indicative of age and
originality, that their significance in these respects
can scarcely be overestimated. "The translator,"
as another has said, " has had before him a more

224 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

concise and excellent text, and, therefore, in all
difficult critical questions of dispute, one must take
the final verdict of the Septuagint." ^ Should this
last statement seem too strong, it is safe, at
least, to say that the Greek should everywhere
be consulted in translating the Heljrew of this
prophetic book.

Besides these excellences of the Septuagint in
respect to style, its superiority of text in many
passages has been admitted by several distinguished
critics. Even Graf sometimes makes such an
admission. Movers, Michaelis, and de Wette,
though, give a decided preference to the Alex-
andrian version. Hitzig also frequently acknowl-
edges the originality or superiority of the reading
in the Septuagint. In some cases, the Greek
exhibits a more complete, in some cases, a more
classic, in some cases, a more suitable reading
than the Hebrew. In other cases, the form in
Greek is preferable to the form in Hebrew,
because it is the more natural. In other cases,
again, the superiority of the former to the latter
is proved by parallel passages. By a critical
comparison, the reason for the preference in each
case, it is thought, will be at once apparent. A

1 "Der Uebersetzer habe eineii kurzorn, vortrefflicheren Text
vor sicb gehabt, und man miisse demnadi in alien gcliwierigen
kritisclien Streitfragen den letzten Entscheid von der Septuaginta
liolen." (Quoted from Kiilil's Monograpli.)

THE CIIAKACTEIl OF THE TRANSLATION. 225

few interesting and striking examples of superior
text, wliicli all impartial scholars must admit, may
now be pointed out. These are taken simply from
the first feW' chapters. As the complete list with
references and parallel passages appears in the
Conspectus at the end of the book, the following-
only need be given here : — " The word of Jehovah
which was to Jeremiah " for " The words of
Jeremiah," chap. i. 1 ; " fear not jjefore them and
be not dismayed at them, for I am with thee to
deliver thee, declares Jehovah," for " be not dis-
mayed at them, lest I dismay thee before them,"
chap. i. 17 ; " thou hast broken thy yoke, and
burst thy bands," for " I have broken thy yoke,
and burst thy bands," chap. ii. 20 ; " wdierefore do
ye speak to me ? " for " wherefore will ye plead
with me ? " chap. ii. 29 ; " thou hast not obeyed "
for "ye have not obeyed," chap. iii. 13 ; "the ark
of the covenant of the Holv One of Israel" for
"the ark of the covenant of the Lord," chap,
iii. IG ; " from the north country and from all the
countries" for " from the land of the north," chap,
iii. 18; "if he will put away his abominations
from his mouth " for " if thou wilt put away thine
abominations out of my sight," chap. iv. 1 ; "in
him shall they praise God at Jerusalem " for " in
him shall they glory," chap. iv. 2 ; " behold, they

are coming" for "behold," chap. iv. IG; "the

p

226 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

cities were burned with fire " for " the cities
thereof were broken down," chap. iv. 26 ; " leave
under her foundations, because they are Jehovah's"
for " take away her branches, for they are not the
Lord's," chap. v. 10, etc.

Thus, in these five respects, the translation is
shown to possess the highest possible merit. Each
feature indicated is favourable to the Septuagint,
or rather to the Alexandrian recension from which
it was translated. A further proof of its excellence
is furnished by the evidence of other translations
of the book, namely, the Latin, the Syriac, and the
Aramaic versions. This evidence is so important
that it must not be neglected, although it is not
expedient to discuss it fully, because the subject
does not l^elono- to this investio-ation. In a con-
siderable number of passages, both the Latin and
the Syriac versions, or the Vulgate and the
Peshitto, as they are called respectively, agree with
the Septuagint against the Massoretic text. As
Scholz has pointed out these passages, it is
unnecessary to indicate them here. The testimony
of the Vulgate is most significant, l^ecause, as it
is supposed, with the exception of the book of
Psalms, it was translated independently of the
Septuagint from a Hebrew text. The testimony of
the Peshitto is very interesting, because, as it is
believed, it was translated partly from the Hebrew

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION". 227

and partly from the Greek. Whenever the Syriac
agrees with the Greek and Latin against the
Hebrew, the translator must have thought the
readino- of these versions better than the readino;
of the Hebrew text.

The superiority of the Septuagint is still further
shown by the evidence afforded by the Aramaic
version. Although this version is a Targum, or a
free interpretation, and not a literal translation, yet
its testimony indicates how very many divergent
passages w^ere understood at the time that it was
made. As in the case of the other versions, a full
consideration of the evidence does not belong to
this discussion. In comparing the Greek and
Hebrew, though, it has been thought important
also to compare both of them with the Aramaic ;
and, as the results are very valuable, to indicate
them in the Conspectus of the variations at the
end of the work. On examining the results of the
comparison, the examples will show that, in some
passages, by the words given, in other passages, by
the sense expressed, the Aramaic agrees with the
Greek against the Hebrew. By comparing these
results, moreover, with those of Scholz, or l)y
comparing the individual texts themselves, it will
be seen that sometimes one, sometimes two, and
sometimes three of these ancient versions ao-ree
with the Greek, and disagree with the Hebrew.

228 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

This fact speaks for itself. Where the Latin, the
Greek, the Syriac, and the Aramaic correspond,
their corn1)ined testimony becomes practically
indisputable, and furnishes an overwhelmina; argu-
ment in favour of the Septuagint.

CHAPTER IX.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.

After having discussed tlie nature and origin of
the variations, and after having considered the
character of the Greek translation, it is necessary
now to indicate the practical results of the investiga-
tion. These are not only of the greatest interest,
but also of the highest value. In addition to their
grammatical and lexical significance, they will be
found important, some for the history, some for the
interpretation, some for the correction, and some
for the reconstruction of the present Massoretic
text. Before indicating them, it will be proper to
point out a further inconsistency which characterizes
the arguments of a conservative critic, such as Graf,
in dealing with the Alexandrian version.

In his extraordinary allegation, as was shown in
the early part of this discussion, Graf attributes to
the Septuagint nothing l)ut caprice and imper-
fection. The foregoing investigation proves the
charges that he brings against the translator to be
unjust, and the arguments that he adduces in sup-
port of them to be untrue. His opinion of the

230 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

version is l)iassed and one-sided, and liis treatment
of the divergences is based upon a false hypothesis.
It is no wonder, therefore, that some of his conclu-
sions should be strangely inconsistent. Proceeding
on a wrong assumption, he utterly misrepresents
the character of the translation, and practically
contradicts himself in discussino; its nature and
importance.

Graf first asserts, for instance, that the work (he
refuses to call it a translation) possesses no critical
authority whatever, and afterwards admits that his
sweeping assertion is not strictly true. " When
w^e, therefore, deny to the Alexandrian version any
critical value," he says, " it must not by this be
understood that in it the traces of a l)etter reading
than that of the Massoretic text may not here and
there have been retained." ^ In making this
admission he partially corrects himself, as well as
wholly negatives his former statement. If the
Greek preserves some readings that are better than
the corresponding readings in the Hebrew, it must
be taken into account in every case of textual
comparison ; and, if any superiority should be con-
ceded to the Septuagint, it must, at least, possess
some critical authority. That it is an authority

1 " Wenn wir sonacli der alexandrinisclien Uebersetzung jeden
kritischen Werth absprechen, so soil damit niclit gesagt sein, dass
sich niclit darin hie und da die Spuren einer bessern Lesart als dex"
niasoretbischen erlialten baben kbimen." Einleitung, p. Ivii.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 231

of the first rank can be proved l)y rational and
convincing evidence. Had Graf devoted more
attention to ascertainino; the true nature of the
variations, he must inevitably have modified, as
well his later as his earlier judgment.

Firstly, the results are important for the history
of the Old Testament text. This investi(2;ation
proves conclusively that the Septuagint was trans-
lated from a special manuscript. This manuscript,
though difi'ering widely from the original of the
existing Hebrew manuscripts, was not, as has been
shown, entirely different. In certain parts, the
manuscripts were identical ; in other parts, they
were substantially alike ; in other parts again, they
were exceedingly unlike, though not so much
unlike, for the reasons already indicated, as would
at first appear. The narrative and historic por-
tions, as a rule, are very similar ; yet even here
the differences, though often slight, are manifestly
textual. The poetic and prophetic portions, though,
are so divergent that, after the fullest allowance
has been made for glosses and for imperfections,
nothing but the hypothesis of a special manuscript
can explain the differences. After all the other
probable causes of variation are pointed out, there
still remains the fundamental cause of different
text-recensions.

Owing to the absence of definite information on

232 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the subject, it is difficult to treat the history of the
text of the Old Testament thoroughly or scientif-
ically. For the present purpose, however, it may
be roughly but conveniently divided into three
general periods. For the history of the Hebrew-
text alone four periods might appropriately be made,
but for the history of the Greek and Hel^rew texts
combined three only appear to be sufficient. The
interval between the official composition and the
official collection of the books of ancient Scripture
may constitute the first period ; the interval
between the formation of the canon and the trans-
lation of the Septuagint may constitute the second
period ; the interval between the time of the
translation and the present time may constitute
the third period. The practical advantage of this
division, it is thought, will be promptly admitted
and appreciated.

Of the first period, extending to the time of
Ezra, and Nehemiah, very little now is known with
certainty. The nature and condition of the ancient
text are wrapt in much obscurity. So fiir as has
been ascertained, various durable materials appear
to have been used for manuscripts, and archaic
Hebrew characters, akin to the old Phoenician
alphabet, appear to have been employed in writing.
In the well-known Siloam inscription the words
are separated by dots ; but this custom was rather

THE EESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 233

exceptional, perhaps, than universal. Commonly,
it is supposed, the characters were written close
together, without any marks of division between
the words, and without any vowel signs to indicate
their true pronunciation or interpretation. Hence
errors in translating, as well as in transcribing,
Hebrew manuscripts would easily arise, partly
because of the irregularity of the characters, and
partly because of the practice of writing them.
From one or other of these causes, too, divergences
would naturally creep into the Scripture text.

Of the second period, extending to the time of
the Septuagint translation, somewhat more is
known. During this period the different recen-
sions, or families of manuscripts, may possibly have
arisen. But, perhaps, the most important informa-
tion furnished respecting the history of the text
throughout this period concerns the Hebrew alpha-
l:)et. Apparently, there was a gradual change from
the archaic to the cursive, and from the cursive to
the Aramaic or rectangular form of writino-. This
investigation, it is believed, will throw some light
upon the kind of characters from which the Greek
translation of this book was made. The frequent
and unexpected substitution of letters, quite
similar in the earlier, but cpiite dissimilar in the
later, alphabets, seems to indicate that the Alex-
andrian recension was written in the Aramaic-

234 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Egyptian or Palmyrian characters. In many places,
where the ancient manuscripts were evidently alike,
the variations may be most reasonably explained by
reference to the one or the other of these irres-ular
alphabets. This investigation also shows that the
translation of this l30ok was made from a totally
unpointed text ; that is, a text in which there were
neither signs of separation nor points of punctua-
tion. The nature of the divergences proves con-
clusively that this must have been the case. Owing
to the similarity of letters, to the absence of word-
signs, and to the non-existence of vowel-points,
more or less confusion was inevitable. Had the
characters been distinct, or the words divided, or
the vowels indicated, such deviations as frequently
appear could not possibly have occurred.

Of the third period, extending to the present
time, the information respecting the Old Testament
text is tolerably full and definite. We are now
concerned, however, only with such data as belong
alike to both the Hebrew and the Greek. Since the
time of the translation, each text has had its own
distinctive history. While the manuscripts of each
have suffered somewhat by transmission, the text
of the Greek may have remained substantially the
same. With the Hebrew, on the other hand, the
reverse of this has been the case. Whether or
not the process of Scripture interpolation began

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 23 O

before the time of tlie Septuagint, it seems after-
wards, as lias been shown, to have been practised
extensively in the Hebrew manuscripts until the
days of the Massorites. The relation of the two
texts practically establishes beyond a doubt that,
during this period, the Palestinean recension suf-
fered considerably by revision and interpolation,
liberties having been taken, not only with the
language, but also with the subject-matter, of the
text. The extraordinary care of the Jews for the
protection of their Scriptures from corruption can be
traced back only for a certain distance in the past.
It merely extends to the time when the Massoretic
system was invented or completed, in the early
centuries of the Christian era. While this system,
therefore, guarantees the purity of the Hebrew
since the time that it was adopted, it affords no
guarantee whatever for its uncorrupted preservation
at a period previous to that date. " The popular
notion as to the absolutely sacred guardianship
of the Hebrew text by the Jews is only partially
founded on fact. It is true as regards the post-
Massoretic, not the pre -Massoretic, text." ^ The
truth of this observation is undenial)le. It is
also significant as showing that the process of
fixing the Hebrew text was gradual, and may have
extended over many centuries. In all probability,

^ Edinhur(jh Review, October, 1885, p. 457.

236 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

it was fixed at first for public and oflicial purposes.
Afterwards, fixedness would be required both for
safety and for uniformity.

The preceding paragraph assumes with students
of the Septuagint generally that, apart from
occasional imperfections and corruptions arising
from transmission, the Greek text actually repro-
duces the Hebrew original employed by the
Alexandrian translator. Corn ill, for instance, in the
exhaustive Prolegomena to his new and scholarly
discussion of Ezekiel, asserts emphatically that,
" in the Septuagint, we have reason to welcome a
perfectly trustworthy witness to the Hebrew text
of Ezekiel, as used at Alexandria in the third
century before Christ." ^ This position may appear,
perhaps, extreme, if not untenable. It may be
held by some that the version, as it now exists,
simply represents the form in which it circulated
amongst the Jews previous to the days of Origen,
or the shape it had assumed in the centuries inter-
veninoj between the time of the translation and the
date of the earliest Greek manuscripts. This
question must, of course, be settled before the
absolute critical value of the version can be
definitely determined. It will, undoubtedly, be
admitted by all scholars that, in the Septuagint,
we have an authoritative version of a Hebrew

^ Das Buck des Prophden Ezechiel, p. 102,

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 237

manuscript belonging to the third century l^efore
Christ, only when there are good grounds for
believing that the oldest and best Greek manu-
script that we possess substantially preserves the
orioinal translation.

Secondly, the results are important for the inter-
pretation of the Old Testament text. A number
of examples might be given where the Greek either
helps to explain a difficult passage, or serves to
show how a doubtful or disputed expression should
be understood. For instance, in the Revised
Version, the word ^21"^> in tbe latter half of chap,
ii. 31, is rendered " We are broken loose ; " whereas,
in the Authorized Version, it is rendered " We are
lords." The Septuagint translation proves that
the latter rendering is correct. The figure is not
that of an animal having broken loose, but of a
person having become master, or of one having
obtained power to carry out one's own will. In the
last part of ver. 34 also, the former version puts in
the text, " I have not found it at the place of
breaking in," and in the margin, " thou didst not
find them," etc. ; while the latter version translates,
" I have not found it by secret search." The
Septuagint indicates that the sentence should
be rendered, " I did not find them breaking in
(at house - breaking)." The words translated
"breakino; in" mean literally difririno; throuo-h or

238 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH.

under, for the purpose of entering or undermining
a house; and the same forms occur in Exod. xxii. 2,
in both the Hebrew and the Greek.

Again, in the Revised Version, the first half of
chap. V. 12 is rendered, "They have denied the
Lord, and said, It is not he ; " and, in the Author-
ized Version, it is rendered, " They have belied the
Lord, and said," etc. The words in the original
translated "It is not he " are commonly inter-
preted. It is not God who speaks, as if the prophet
were proclaiming his own inventions ; or, God is
not, as if the people were speaking after the analogy
of the impious man described in Ps. xiv. 1. But
the Hebrew words ^^^rri^ib ai^e translated in the
Septuagint by the phrase Ovk ecm ravra, which in
classic Greek often has the meaning, "it is not so,"
or, "these things are not true." Demosthenes
repeatedly uses the expression in this sense. The
parallelism of the verse-members, as well as the
nature of the context, proves that the Alexandrian
rendering is right. The people rejected the pro-
phet's message of warning, and refused to believe
that his prophecy was true. Hence the Hebrew
should be translated, " They have denied the
Lord, and said, tliat is not so." In this way, the
Septuagint shows how the verse was understood at
the time of the translation, and also how it should
be understood to-day. Hitherto, in modern times,

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 239

tliis passage has been mistranslated, and its meaning
has been misconceived.

For the interpretation or explanation of certain
expressions peculiar to this book, the Septuagint is
particularly important. One unusual expression
refers to Messianic prophecy. In the Hebrew,
there are two passages whose prophetic character
has always possessed a special interest, namely,
chaps, xxiii. 6 ; xxxiii. 16. In the Greek, the latter
verse, together with the whole latter half of the
chapter, is entirely wanting ; while the former
verse, with the exception of one word, is literally
reproduced. Instead of ^ip"!!? ("our righteous-
ness"), the Greek has p-r!i"in'' (" Jah or Jehovah is
righteous "), the term being a proper name, which
occurs in both texts. Hag. i. 1 ; Ezra iii. 2, and
elsewhere. As the corresponding words in Hebrew
may also be regarded as a proper name, and as the
order of the words in each text is identical, the
Septuagint shows, not only how the verse was once
interpreted, but also how it should be now trans-
lated. In the Authorized Version, the second
member of the verse is rendered, " and this is his
name wliereby he shall be called. The Lord our
RIGHTEOUSNESS ; " in the Revised Version, on the
other hand, the latter words are rendered, " The
Lord is our righteousness." In the one version,
the Messianic testimony is emphasized by typo-

240 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

graphical expedients ; in the other version, the
passage properly appears in ordinary type. In
neither version, though, is the rendering quite
correct. The word translated " shall be called " is
not a passive but an active verb, which is foUow^ed
by a pronominal suffix in the objective case. In
the translation, this pronoun is improperly omitted.
The Hebrew, therefore, may be literally translated,
"and this is his name which one shall call him,
The Lord is our rio-hteousness : " or, reg;ardino; the
latter w^ords in the original as a proper name,
after the analogy of " Jehovah- Jireh," Gen. xxii.
14; " Jehovah - Nissi," Exod. xvii. 15; " Jehovah-
Shammah," Ezek. xlviii. 35, it may be better trans-
lated, " and this is his name wdiich one shall call
him, Jehovah-Tsidkenu."

The Septuagint shows that this latter rendering
is preferable. It shows more. It also indicates the
proper subject of the verb " shall call." In the
Alexandrian version, the passage reads, *' and this
is his name wdiicli Jehovah shall call him, Jeho-
zadak." The order of the words in both texts is
exactly alike, the only difference in the readings
being M^y^ (" Tsidkenu "), in the one text, for
i7"l!^iiT' (" Jehozadak "), in the other text. As
"Jehovah" is the subject of the verb in Greek,
so also it may be in Hebrew. Indeed, the con-
struction of the Hebrew implies as much. Gram-

THE RESULTS OF THE IXYESTIGATIOX. 241

matically, " Jehovah " may be taken as the subject
of the verb, instead of being taken as in apposition
with its object; and the passage may be naturally
and properly translated, " and this is his name
which Jehovah shall call him, Tsidkenu." But for
the Messianic reference, it would probably have
been so translated by scholars from the first.
Even the Massoretic accentuation seems to show
clearly that " Jehovah " belongs to the word pre-
ceding and not to the word succeeding it, and,
therefore, should be construed, as just indicated.

As the word for Jehovah occurs twice in tliis
passage in Greek, once as the subject of the verb
and once as a portion of the proper name, it is
evident that the verse was understood, as thus
explained, at the time of the translation. It is also
evident that at that time there was no thought
in the minds of the readers of the Alexandrian
recension of characterizing the person mentioned
in this passage as other than a human being.
Interpreters of prophecy have commonly endeav-
oured to find here a belief, on the part of the ancient
Jews, in the divinity of the promised Messiah ; or,
at least, an expectation, on the part of the Hel^rew
prophet, that the coming king whom he foretold
should be a divine individual. The Septuagint
translation of this book plainly indicates that no
such notion was entertained by the translator, and

242 THE TEXT OF jeee:\iiah,

that lie never for a moment supposed that the
future ruler he both promised and described was to
be a Divine Beino-.

Moreover, the omission from the Septuagint of
the parallel passage, chap, xxxiii. 16, where the
term *' Jehovah-Tsidkenu " appears in the Hebrew
as the name of the restored Jerusalem, is also very
significant. The absence of the passage there, as
well as the form of the passage here, in the Greek, is
exceedingly important for the subject of Messianic
prophecy, the character of which differs in different
prophetic books. In Jeremiah, as compared with
Isa. ix. 2-7, for instance, where the idea first
appears, it is supposed by W. Eobertson Smith, ^
there is a perceptibly diminished emphasis on the
advent of a personal Messiah. The expectation of
a national deliverer, who should introduce a reign
of peace, is simply but emphatically expressed.
This deliverer, however, is spoken of as a temporal
prince. Nothing in the book, when studied in
connection with the Septuagint, or when interpreted
by the help of that translation, points to an eternal
" Prince of Peace." Thus the Alexandrian version
sheds some light upon the gradual growth and
modification of the Messianic idea in the Church,
and upon the historic development of the Messianic
doctrine in the Scripture. The idea of the expected

1 The Prophets of Israel, p. 277.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIOX. 243

Messiah grew and changed in each successive
century ; and in no other age, it is believed, was
its expression so minute and circumstantial, as in
the period extending from the close of the Old to
the opening of the New Testament.

Another unusual expression, peculiar to the
Massoretic text, has reference to the term, " the
servant of Jehovah," which is frequently found and
variously applied in Scripture. Properly speaking,
a servant of Jehovah was one who voluntarily gave
himself to the service of God, and earnestly
endeavoured to do his divine will. Spontaneity
and fidelity are two essential elements in the idea
of the term. With this signification, " the servant
of Jehovah " was a distinouished title of honour
under the old covenant. In this sense, it is applied
to Moses, in Deut. xxxiv. 5 ; to Joshua, in Judg.
ii. 8 ; to David, in Ps. xviii. 1. In the Hebrew,
chaps. XXV. 9; xxvii. 6; xliii. 10, the words "my
servant " are applied to Nebuchadnezzar. In each
of these three chapters, though, the expression is
significantly wanting in the Septuagint. This fact
renders the character of the words in Hebrew
suspicious, and their application questionable.
Elsewhere throughout the whole Old Testament,
they are applied only to a person or to a people of
righteous purpose. In this sense, they are used of
Abraham, in Gen. xxvi. 24 ; of Israel, as Jehovah's

244 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

people, in Isa. xli. 8 ; of Jacob, as a synonym for
Israel, in Isa. xliv. 1,2; xlv. 4 ; also in this book,
chaps. XXX. 10 ; xlvi. 27 of the Hebrew, and in the
latter chapter only of the Greek.

From these considerations, the words " my
servant," in the Hebrew, can scarcely have origi-
nated from Jeremiah. He would hardly have
applied them to a person like Nebuchadnezzar. The
king of Babylon was not a servant of Jehovah in
the ordinary acceptation of the term, nor can it be
appropriately used of him. After the Babylonian
captivity, however, some one, who regarded him as
a predetermined instrument of Jehovah for execut-
ing the divine purposes respecting his covenant
people, may have inserted the words where they
appear in the Massoretic text. This suggestion
seems the more probable, inasmuch as in Ezek.
xxix. 20, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have received
Egypt as the wages for himself and his army in
serving against Tyre, " because they wrought for
me, saith the Lord God." It is also worthy of note
in this connection, that the distinguished Jewish
commentator, Eashi, in his annotations on chap.
XXV. 9, says nothing whatever about the phrase
"my servant," as though he did not find it in his
text ; whereas, in chap, xxvii. 6, lie explains the
words to mean that Nebuchadnezzar w^as a servant
of Jehovah onlv in the sense of beino- a scouro-e.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIOX. 245

His comment on the expression reads, " he shouhl
do my pleasure to recompense my enemies."^

There is still another unusual species of expres-
sion, peculiar to the Hebrew text of Jeremiah, on
the nature of which the Septuagint also gives some
information. In the Hebrew, chaps, xxv. 26 ;
li. 41, the term " Sheshach " occurs as a synonym,
it is supposed, either for Babylon or for Babylonia,
according to a secret or cabalistic system of writing,
technically called Atbash, which was practised
amongst the ancient Jews, and which consisted in
substituting the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet
for the first, the last but one for the second, and so
on through the whole series. On this principle of
transposition, as the consonants only were formerly
written in Hebrew, the letters Sh Sh Ch which
compose the word Sheshach would correspond to
the letters B B L of which the word Bahel
(Babylon) is composed. This term is wanting
altogether in the Septuagint, being found there in
neither passage ; but its mystic meaning seems to
be confirmed by the latter passage, chap. li. 41,
where Sheshach and Babylon occur in the parallel
members of the Hebrew verse. In chap. li. 1, how-
ever, where another instance of this kind of cabal-
istic writing occurs, the Septuagint shows how the
mystical name should be translated. The expres-

246 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

sion '' Leb-kamai," which stands in the text of the
Revised Version, and is rendered in the margin,
" The heart of them that rise up against me,"
becomes, when transmuted according to the figure
of Atbash, Ca S D I M, which is ecjuivalent to
Chaklea or the Chaldeans. As this is the actual
rendering; of the Greek in this verse, the sinoular
term is proved to l^e a Jewish cipher, and its
significance is made very plain. Properly, there-
fore, the word Chaklea or Chaldeans should take
the place of " Leb-kamai " in the text.

Although a love for fancifully playing upon
words, and a liking for artificially dealing with
letters, were always characteristic of the Hebrew
writers, it has been doubted whether this peculiar
practice of writing words by substituting con-
sonants according to their position in the alphabet
is as old as Jeremiah. Let that be as it may, the
system dates from an unknown anticjuity, and may
be older than the prophet's time. The important
question is. Did Jeremiah himself invent or
authorize such ciphers ? Most probably he did
not. They seem to have, belonged only to the
Palestinean recension, having possibly been adopted
by the Jews during the period of the Babylonian
captivity. During the exile, there may have been
a purpose in their adopting such mystical names to
designate Babylonia or Chaklea, because of their

THE EESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION". 247

captive condition in tliat country. For the Jews
of Jeremiah's day, however, both in Palestine and
in Egypt, there was no need whatever either to
adopt or to employ such terms. For this reason,
as well as for the reason that the word " Sheshach,"
chap. li. 41, and the sentence, "and the king of
Sheshach shall drink after them," chap. xxv. 26,
are wanting in the Septuagint, they seem not to
have belono'ed to the Alexandrian recension.

Thirdly, the results are important for the correc-
tion of the Old Testament text. The number of
places where the Greek corrects the Hebrew is
somewhat large. It is not necessary, however, to
furnish a complete list of such passages. A few^ of
the more interesting or more important will suffice.
In chap. i. 17, for instance, God is represented in
the Hebrew as sending the prophet on his mission
of remonstrance to the people, with the menacing
words, " be not dismayed at them, lest I dismay
thee before them." The reading is apparently
incorrect, and may have arisen from some imperfec-
tion in the ancient manuscript. Such a menace
seems entirely out of place, as well as altogether
out of harmony with the character of God. The
context here leads one to expect words of encourage-
ment not threatening, of comfort not intimidation.
On account of his youth, the prophet would
naturally be timid in undertaking the duties of the

248 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

proplietic office, under the peculiar circumstances
of his time, and surely a degree of fear that was
inevitable would not cause him to forfeit his
rightful claim to God's protecting care. The
Septuagint renders the latter half of this verse,
" Fear not before them, and be not dismayed at
them ; because I am with thee to deliver thee,
declares Jehovah." The reading, which here corrects
the Hebrew, is a classic one, occurring several
times in this book, as well as many times in
the other books of the Old Testament. The
addition also improves the parallelism of the verse,
closely corresponds with the idea in vers. 8, 19,
and admirably harmonizes with the context.

Again, the latter part of chap. ii. 34 in the
Hebrew reads, " upon all these." In the margin of
the Revised Version, though, it is stated that some
ancient authorities have " every oak." This is the
rendering of the Septuagint, with which, moreover,
the Syriac closely corres2:)onds. The words, as
they are found in Hebrew, are exceedingly obscure
and difficidt to explain. The variant reading in
the version was due merely to a slight difference of
punctuation, the consonants having been exactly
alike ; l)ut the pointing of the Septuagint appears
to be correct. There is a contrast here expressed
between slaying a person who was caught in the
act of breaking into a house, which was permitted

THE KESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 249

by the ancient ]\Iosaic law, and slaying a person
who was caught, not in committing but in exposing
and denouncing crime, which was both cruel and
detestable. According to this passage, the victims
whom Israel slew were not criminals but innocents,
not persons guilty of house-breaking, but persons
guilty only of reproving her for her idolatr}'. She
had shed innocent blood under the trees, or in the
groves, where she had practised her idolatrous
worship, and where for which her victims had
reproved her. Thus the construction in the Greek
is clear, and shows how the Hebrew should be read.
The whole latter half of this verse may be rightly
rendered, " I did not find them breaking in (at
house-breaking), but upon every oak."

In chap. vi. 6, for the word " trees," which
stands in the text, the Eevisecl Version has in the
margin " her trees." This is the renderino-, not
only of the Greek, but also of the Latin and the
Syriac versions. The difference of reading, again,
was due to the insertion of a single dot or point.
The last letter of the word translated " trees "
should contain a small dot (Mappik), as in Deut.
XX. 19, and should be construed as a suffix of the
third person singular. Although, in besieging a
city, the Jews were commanded to spare, so far as
possible, the fruit-trees, partly because of their
innocence and j^a-i'tly because of their usefulness,

250 THE TEXT OF JEliEMIAH.

yet tliey were permitted to use the wood of other
trees for the purpose of carrying on a siege. The
foreign army mentioned in this passage would
probably cut down trees, both for building their
bulwarks against the city and for clearing away all
obstacles to their approach. Another example of a
similar kind, where the variation was due to the
insertion of the same point, occurs also in chap,
xii. 9. Instead of the reading, " to devour," the
Greek has "to devour her." This latter seems to
be the better reading of the two, and to represent
the proper punctuation.

In chap. xii. 2, the word translated " they grow "
means literally in Hebrew they go or proceed. In
the Septuagint, the word used means they bear or
produce ; and, apparently, may be just as properly
applied to trees as to men. The latter reading is
required by the parallelism of the verse, this clause
of which, according to the Greek, being translated,
"they produce, yea, they bring forth fruit." The
variation arose from the substitution of a single
letter, the Massorites having read "Jp*^, and the
Greek translator 171. As the former verb in
Hebrew does not mean " to grow," and is nowhere
else used in this sense, it is evidently incorrect.
Even Hitzig gives no reason why the latter verb
may not be used, as indicated. In chaps, xi. 23 ;
xxiii. 12, for " even the year of their visitation," one

THE EESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 251

should read "in the year," etc., as suggested in the
margin of the Kevised Version. In each verse, this
is the rendering of the Greek, and the Hebrew
should be rendered accordingly. The reference is
to a period of calamity during which the judgment
here foretold should be fulfilled.

Another place in which the Greek corrects the
Hebrew occurs in chap. xv. 14, where the latter is
rendered in the text of the Ee vised Version, " I
will make them to pass with thine enemies," etc.,
and in the margin, " I will make thine enemies to
pass," etc. According to some ancient authorities,
the Eevisers further state, the clause is rendered,
" I will make (cause) thee to serve thine enemies,"
etc. These authorities are specially the Alexan-
drian, Syriac, and Aramaic versions. Other manu-
scripts also exhibit the same reading, which is
unquestionably the correct one, as even Graf, along
with many other critics, honestly admits. This
rendering, moreover, agrees exactly with the
parallel passage in chap. xvii. 4, where the same
form is found in Hebrew, that is found here in
Greek. The variation between the two verbs in
this sentence arose from the simple substitution of
a "^ for a ^ in the ancient texts.

In chap, xxiii. 17, instead of the rendering,
" that despise me, the Lord hath said," the Revisers
place in the margin, " that despise the word of the

252 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Lord." This is the reading, not only of the Greek,
but also of the Svriac, version. The variation was
due again to punctuation, which in the versions is
evidently right. An utterance of Jehovah in the
broken form in which it here appears in Hebrew
nowhere else occurs, as Graf has pointed out. In
ver. 33 of this same chapter, instead of the ex-
clamatory question, " What burden ! " the Septua-
gint and Vulgate have, as the Revisers indicate,
" Ye are the burden." This latter readino- which
arose simply from a different division of the words
in the Hebrew, gives a vastly better meaning, and
undoubtedly expresses what the prophet meant to
say. The case affords a beautiful example of a
superior word-division on the part of the Greek
translator. In ver. 39 also, instead of "I will
utterly forget you " the Latin, Greek, and Syriac
versions have, " I will lift you up." This reading-
is required by the parallelism of the verse, which,
as it stands in Hebrew, makes no appropriate sense.
The figure is one of lifting up a burden, and of
casting it away. Punctuation here again explains
the variation.

Fourthly, the results are important for the recon-
struction of the Old Testament text. The instances
of correction just discussed furnish interesting
illustrations. In every case, apparently, the Greek
reading should take the place of the Hebrew

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 253

reading. In every case, too, notwithstanding the
great difficulty of translating an unpointed and
unpunctuated text, the superiority of the Septuagiut
was due to the translator having either divided or
punctuated the consonants more correctly than did
the Massorites. Such examples not only bear
witness to the fidelity w^ith which, under the most
disadvantao'eous circumstances, the Alexandrian
version was made, but also to its importance for
purposes of text-criticism. Some other examples
of superior readings, whose value for reconstructing
the present Massoretic text will be readily acknowl-
edged by scholars, it is believed, may now be
o-iven. These mav be arrano-ed in several classes,
as the passages are numerous.

The first class comprises whole verses. In
certain places, the Hebrew is so imperfect that it
is practically impossible to render it intelligibly.
Chap. xi. 15, for instance, is so obscure that, as
it stands, no clear or consistent meaning can be
obtained from it. The ancient manuscript was
evidently corrupt or indistinct. On the other
hand, the reading in the Greek is good, and makes
excellent and appropriate sense. The people, having
by their idolatry forsaken Jehovah, and having by
their hypocrisy forfeited all claims upon him or his
house, are here rebuked for their deceitful service
by the prophet, wdio asks if they suppose that

254: THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

prayers and sacrifices can rescue tliem or atone for
them. The entire verse is rendered in the Septua-
gint, " Why has the beloved wrought abomination
in my house ? Shall vows and holy flesh remove
from thee thy wickednesses, or by these shalt thou
escape ? "

Another verse of doubtful rendering in the
Hebrew occurs in chap. xvii. 11. In the Authorized
Version, the partridge is represented as sitting on
eggs and hatching them not. Both verbs are here
translated incorrectly. The Eevised Version gives
a more adequate rendering of them, as well as of
the remaining portions of the verse ; but, by its
marginal readings, it leaves, the reader still in doubt
about the true translation of the verse, which, in
the Greek is very plain, and may be rendered, "As
the partridge calleth (and) gathereth ivhat she hath
not brought forth, so is he that getteth his riches
not by right ; in the midst of his days they shall
leave him, and in his end (latter time) he shall be
a fool." The Greek shows that the subject of the
verb " shall leave " is the noun " riches," and not
the pronoun " he." The idea is not that the rich
man should suddenly die and leave his wealth, but
that his wealth should speedily leave him, ere he
had lived out half his days ; so that, during the
rest of his life, he should be regarded as an example
of wicked foll}^ The point of the prophet's illus-

THE KESULTS OF THE IXVESTIGATIOX, 255

tration thus appears to be that, as the partridge
was popularly supposed to call together the young
of other birds which would forsake her when they
heard the cry of their true parent, so ill-gotten
gains would prove but a short-lived possession to
the dishonest man. The Septuagint also shows
that originally the two texts in this verse, though
very similar, were not identical. As they now
appear respectively, one variation between them
was due to a different division of the Hebrew
consonants ; the other variations between them
were due to different reading's in the ancient
manuscripts.

Still another imperfect verse in Hebrew occurs
in chap. xxxi. 25, the construction of the words of
which is very simple, but the form of one of which,
at least, is very questionable. The verse in Greek,
on the contrary, is admirably rendered, and repro-
duces a superior text. It reads, "For I have
satiated every thirsty soul, and evely hungry soul
have I replenished." This rendering is much more
symmetrical than that in our English Bibles, and
presents a perfect contrast between the thirsty and
the hungry souls of whom the prophet speaks.
That the original of each text was slightly different,
is demonstrated l)y the presence of the additional
pronoun " every," as well as suggested by the form
of the words in Hebrew, respectively translated

256 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

"weary" and "sorrowful." Literally, the former
word means weak or faint, the latter languishing or
pining. If the words in each original were alike,
the one must have meant faint with thirst, the
other pining with hunger ; so that both should be
translated as they are in the Septuagint, the
rendering of which is corroborated by the connec-
tion of thought in this with that in the preceding
verse. AVhile it is barely possible that the former
word was written differently in each ancient manu-
script, it is very probable that the latter was.
Instead of niStl, the translator apparently read,
with Schlensner, mvi- ^^ ^^^^- 1 2 of this chapter
also, where the same root occurs, and where a
similar idea is expressed in the Greek, the render-
ing of the Alexandrian version is superior to
that of the English translation. The Septuagint
renders the last member of this verse, " and their
soul shall be as a fndtful tree, and they shall not
hunger any more."

The second class comprises verse-members. A
number of examples might be given, but a few will
be sufficient. For the sake of conciseness, the
words in Greek, which show how the Hebrew may
be reconstructed, will be indicated by italics. In
the second member of chap. ii. 19, the reading of
the Septuagint, " and / have not been-pieasBil-wftk
thee," gives a superior rendering of this portion of

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 257

the verse, and seems to show tliat the construction
in the Hebrew is not simply peculiar but imperfect.
In the first member of ver. 34 of this same chapter,
too, the Septuagint reading, " Also in thy hands is
found the blood (plu.) of the souls of the innocents,"
is preferable in each case. The word "hands"
instead of " skirts " is much more appropriate in
this place, and was evidently the original reading
in the early manuscripts. The variation possibly
arose from the Massorites havino- mistaken the
meaning of the Hebrew w^ord for wing or skirt,
which may have been written anciently without
the letter i, and may have had the same form as
the word for hand. It is significant that the Syriac
version also agrees here with the Alexandrian
version.

In the middle of chap. xi. 19, the Greek render-
ing, " come and let us _/9«^ wood into his food
(bread)," which is supported l)y the Aramaic
version, shows how the passage may be intelligibly
translated. As the sentence stands in Encjlish, it
does not accurately represent the original Hebrew.
The word translated " fruit " means literally bread
or food. It is nowhere in the Old Testament used
of vegetable fruit, and to give it such a peculiar
meaning here is to violate the usagje of the lano-uaixe.
Neither can the word ho, properly applied to
Jeremiah. His fruit could not reasonably mean

258 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH.

either his activity, or his posterity, or his words of
prophecy, all of which have been suggested by w\ay
of exposition. Neither can the whole expression
be appropriately applied to the prophet with the
force of a proverb, because of the reasons just
indicated. The Septuagint shows how the sentence
should be rationally translated, as well as how it
was unquestionably understood at the time of the
translation. It is significant that Jerome seems to
cite the rendering of the Septuagint with approval.
It is still more significant that the Aramaic trans-
lator also uses a verb meaning to put or to place,
and, instead of the word " wood," renders " deadly
poison." The idea intended to be expressed was
that of destroying the prophet by poisoning him ;
that is, by putting pulverized poisonous wood into
his food. The superior rendering of the version
was recensional, and was due to the presence of
the verb " come," and to the absence of the letter n,
in the original Hebrew manuscript. This latter
variation, it should be observed, may have arisen
from dictation.

In the second member of chap. xiii. 18, the
(irreek reading, "for the crown of your glory (your
glorious crown) has been taken down from your
headl^ again shows how the sentence should be
rendered. The Hebrew word, translated " j^rinci-
palities," in the Authorized Version, and " head-

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 250'

tires," ill the Revised Version, is not a noun in
apposition with crown, as indicated by the Masso-
retic punctuation, but a noun and preposition, as
shown by the Septuagint translation. The singuhir
verb in Hebrew, as well as the general construction
of the sentence, shows that the rendering of the
Alexandrian version is correct. On account of
their changed circumstances, the youthful monarch
and his royal mother were to sit in humiliation,
not because their head-dresses were come down,
but because their regal glory was gone.

Again, the first part of chap. xv. 16 is rendered
in the Septuagint, ''from those despising thy
words ; destroy them." This reading, which arose
from a slightly different combination of letters in
the original, seems to suit the context better than
the reading in the Hebrew, which is certainly
peculiar, and, in the present connection, apparently
inappropriate. The feeble figure of eating words
is scarcely analogous to the buld figure of eating a
parchment roll in Ezek. iii. 1-3. In ver. 15 of
each text, the prophet asks Jehovah to avenge him
of his persecutors; in ver. 16 of the Greek, he prays
for their destruction. Thus the parallelism in the
Greek is more complete than in the Hebrew. The
superiority of the Septuagint in this passage will
appear more clearly by translating, together with
the variant reading, the immediately preceding and.

260 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the immediately succeeding sentence. The passage
reads, " Know that for thy sake I have suffered
reproach from those despising thy words ; destroy
them, and let thy word be unto me for the joy and
rejoicing of my heart." '

Once more, the first part of chap. xvi. 7 is
rendered in the Septuagint, " neither shall bread
be broken at (in) their mourning," etc. This read-
ino- shows how the Hebrew should be reconstructed.
, The variation was due to the simple substitution
or alteration of a single letter, and is supported by
other ancient manuscripts. In the Eevised Version,
the words " for them " should be translated
'' bread," and the word " bread," which is printed
in italics, should be expunged. The verb " break "
here in the Hebrew does not of itself necessarily
mean to break bread. It only has this signification
when the word for bread, as in Isa. Iviii. 7, is
expressed as its object. Moreover, the words " for
them " are further shown to have arisen erroneously
from the word " bread," because, as Graf admits,
they do not harmonize with the singular Hebrew
suffix after the verb " to comfort," which is
improperly translated as a plural pronoun in the
English Bible.

Further, the second member of chap, xviii. 14
should be reconstructed by the help of the Sep-
tuagint. "While the general sense of the Heln-ew

TIIE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 2G1

words is clear, the combination of adjectives is
peculiar, and difficult to understand. The Revised
Version does not give an adequate translation of
them either in the margin or in the text. The
readinor in the Greek, which arose from a text
similar to that of the Hebrew, but more complete
than the latter is, gives an excellent rendering of
the sentence. Before translating the Septuagint
here, it should be observed that the form of the
first member in Hebrew is somewhat unusual ; and
that its form in Greek, which represents a very
similar text, is so interesting as to be worthy of
careful consideration. A translation, therefore, of
the whole Greek verse, because of its possible
correctness, if not probable superiority, may advan-
tageously be given. It reads, " Shall protuberances
depart from rocks, or the snow from Lebanon ? or,
shall w^aters home violently hy the ivind turn
aside ? "

Lastly, in the middle of chap. xli. 9, the Septua-
gint reading, " the same is the great ^>^V," appears
undoubtedly to be the true one. In the Authorized
Version, the rendering, " because of Gedaliah," is
absolutely false, as Graf affirms ; and, in the Revised
Version, the rendering, " by the side of Gedaliah,"
is essentially wrong, as he also asserts. The words
in the original do not properly admit of either
rendering, and cannot, as they stand, be grammati-

2G2 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

cally construed. The Hebrew reading here is
utterly indefensil)le, and was evidently due to
textual imperfection, or to erroneous transcription,
or, perhaps, to l)oth. The originals of the present
Greek and Hebrew texts are very similar ; and the
one, as scholars know, was easily derivable from
the other ])y a slight confusion of the letters. The
excellence of the construction in the Greek is worth
indicating by a translation of the context. The
whole verse reads, " Now the pit wherein Ishmael
cast all those whom he had slain (the same is the
great j^it which Asa the king had made for fear of
Baasha, king of Israel), this Ishmael filled with
them that were slain."

The third class comprises single words. A very
large number of places might be pointed out where
a suffix, or a verbal form, or a particle of some
kind represents a manifestly superior reading in
the Septuagint. As many such instances have
been already noticed Ijy Movers and Hitzig, as
well as by Graf himself, and as many others will
be at once observed by those who take the trouble
critically to compare the Hebrew with the Greek
throughout, brevity forbids the multiplying of
examples. For reasons that will plainly appear to
scholars, a small number of such places in the
Hebrew, which should be reconstructed by the
Greek, may here be briefly indicated. These are,

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 263

" shall blaze forth " for " shall break forth," chap,
i. 14 ; " wall " for " walls," chap. i. 18 ; " destroyed "
for "burned up," chap. ii. 15; "stained" for
" marked," chap. ii. 22 ; " burned " for " broken
down," chap. iv. 26 ; "a refiner " for " refining,"
chap. vi. 29 ; " shall be consumed " for " shall
die," chaps, xi. 22 ; xlii. 17, 22 ; " drought " for
" droughts," chap. xiv. 1 ; " tamarisk " for " heath,"
chap. xvii. 6 ; " deep " for " deceitful," chap. xvii. 9 ;
" shall be inhabited " for " shall remain," chap,
xvii. 25 ; " moulded " for " potter," chap. xix. 1 ;
"Ahaz" for "cedar," chap. xxii. 15 ; "these" for
"swearing," chap, xxiii. 10; "reproach" for
" desolations," chap. xxv. 9 ; " multitude " for
" mounts," chap, xxxii. 24 ; " earth " for " Jehovah,"
chap, xxxiii. 2; "your princes" for "his wives,"
chap. xliv. 9; " voice " for " shame," chap. xlvi. 12;
"the name" for "there," chap. xlvi. 17; "upon
her" for "it is come," chap. xlvi. 20 ; "wild ass"
for " heath," chap, xlviii. 6 ; " altars " for " daugh-
ters," chap. xlix. 2 ; "in her forest " for " in his
cities," chap. 1. 32 ; "around" for "hollow," chap,
lii. 21.

The fourth class comprises proper names. In
chap, xxxviii. 1, where the name " Shephatiah "
appears in Hebrew, the Septuagint has "Zephaniah."
The former word, as Graf remarks, nowhere else
occurs. For this reason, as the latter word occurs

264 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

in chaps, xxix. 25 ; xxxvii. 3, of both the Hebrew
and the Greek, it may be correct. In chap. xlii. 1,
instead of " Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah," the
Greek reads, " Azariah the son of Maaseiah." As
the name Azariah occurs in chap, xliii. 2 of both
texts, and as the name Maaseiah also occurs with
it in this latter chapter, the reading of the Septua-
gint seems to be the proper one. In other places
again, such as " Gihon " for " Shihor," chap. ii. 18;
"Assyrians" for "Syrians," chap. xxxv. 11;
"On" for "land of Egypt," chap, xliii. 13;
" Gilead " for "Gad," chap. xlix. 1, the version
preserves not only the more correct, but also the
more primitive reading, as Hitzig acknowledges
respecting the first three of these examples. In
each case, the name in Greek gives a more definite
designation of the place described.

In chap. xli. 5, " Salem " for " Shiloh " affords
another preferable reading. The former is supposed
to have been situated nearer to Shechem than the
latter was ; and, for this reason, Hitzig again admits
that the narrative in Greek furnishes the more
natural order of the neighbouring cities mentioned
in this passage. From the account given in
Gen. xxxiii. 18, where the word is rightly rendered
as a proper name in the Authorized Version, Salem
was evidently a city in the land of Canaan, and is
probably identical with the present Sdlim, a little

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 265

village lying somewhat east of Ndbliis, the modern
name of the ancient Shechem/ The latter seems
formerly to have been the designation of a town,
as well as of a tract of country. The occurrence of
Salem here in the Greek version of Jeremiah corrob-
orates the testimony of the Septuagint reading in
Gen. xxxiii. 18, according to which the word is in
apposition with the expression, " city of Shechem,"
which immediately follows. The Hebrew word DT^tT
seems not to be an adjective, as commonly assumed
by modern scholars, but a proper name, occurring
elsewhere only in Gen. xiv. 18. Having the same
form in each verse, it should be translated and
spelled each time in the same way, and not in a
different way, as in the English version.

The Septuagint seems, moreover, to present an
older and a superior form of the personal name in
chap. xlix. 27. Instead of " Ben-hadad," the Greek
here has vlov "ASep, as in 1 Kings xv. 18, 20 ; xx. 1 ;
2 Kings xiii. 3, 24 ; Amos i. 4. The latter for the
former term occurs so frequently and so uniformly
in the version that the recensional character of the
reading is unquestionable. The regularity of the
spelling indicates that the original of the Greek
expression w\as either "i^tH'^, or more })robably,
perhaps, i"ib^"l3.. This latter name or title denotes
" the son of Adar," which was apparently the

^ Smith's DicUonanj of the Bible, vol. iii., p. 1222.

266 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

designation of an ancient Syrian divinity, akin if
not ecjuivalent to the old Assyrian deit}^, an appel-
lation of wliicli appears in the word Adramnielech,
as found in 2 Kings xvii. 31 ; xix. 37. The method
of spelling the word " Nebuchadnezzar," in the
Septuagint, also indicates a more primitive pronun-
ciation of the name, and one in all probability more
like the Assyrian original, which, Schrader says, is
written Na-hi-uv-ku-du-ur-ri-u-su-ur in the cunei-
form inscriptions, but was pronounced Nahu-kudur-
ri-usur by the native Babylonians.^ Throughout
this book, the word in Greek is almost regularly
written Na^ov^oBovocrop, corresponding to '^■!i^>5:"T;:^15
in Hebrew. It is significant and noteworthy that
the Vulgate adopts the spelling of the Septuagint,
and writes the word " Nabuchodonosor," which is
an exact transliteration of tlie Greek.

There are also a few places where the Septuagint
shows a proper name in the Hebrew to be either
wrongly formed or wrongly punctuated. In chap,
xxxix. 3, for instance, the name " Samgar-Nebo "
is apparently incorrect. Such a form does not else-
where occur in the Bible,, and Schrader says that
it has not yet been found in the cuneiform inscrip-
tions.' According to all analogy, in the Scripture
spelling of Assyrian proper nouns compounded with

^ Die Keilinschriften nnd das Altc Testament, Zweite Auflage, p. 361.
2 lUd. p. 416.

TUK RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIOX. 207

''Nebo," the latter term should begin the name, as
in Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, and Nebushazban.
The fact that the corresponding word in Greek
is Ha/xarycod, and that the two succeeding words,
each of which begins with " Nebo," are Na^ovad-^ap
and Na^ovaap€i>i, seems to confirm this supposition.
In chap. xlix. 1, 3, again, the Revised Version has
in the text "Malcam," and in the margin "their
king." The word in Hebrew is incorrectly pointed.
As it stands, it should be translated as a common
noun with suffix, and not as a proper noun. With
its present punctuation, therefore, the rendering of
the margin is alone correct. The context shows,
however, that the word in each verse is a proper
name, and should be punctuated according to the
Septuagint " Milcom." This was the name of the
god of Amnion, and it seems never to have been
properly pointed otherwise.

A careful comparison of the proper names of
this book, as they occur respectively in each text,
possesses a still further significance. It proves
conclusively that the mode of spelling and jiro-
nouncing them, observed by the translator, was
very often not the same as that adopted by the
Massorites. It also seems to indicate that the
ancient pronunciation of proper names differed
greatly from that expressed at present in our
Hebrew Bibles. In translating into Greek, the

268 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

laws of euphony, doubtless, would sometimes for-
Ijid the precise reproduction of a peculiarly Semitic
sound, especially in the case of consonants. In
the case of vowels, little or no difficulty would be
felt. Whenever an exact equivalent of a consonant,
therefore, was wantino- in his lanfj'uao'e, the trans-
lator would be obliged, of course, to employ the
letter or the combination of letters, which most
nearly represented the Hebrew original. This
course, it will be seen, he has consistently pursued.
After making the fullest allowance, though, for
such euphonic or linguistic peculiarities, which
occur with almost systematic regularity, there still
remains a number of remarkable diverQ;ences that
can be explained only on the supposition that many
names were once spelled and pronounced differently
from the way in which they are to-day. The
information furnished by the Septuagint respecting
the ancient mode of spelling and pronouncing
Hebrew proper names, it will be found, is of the
greatest possible importance.

As the principal deviations of the version are
manifest to scholars, it is not necessary to give
many illustrations here. A few examples of the
divergent method of expressing vowel sounds
should be given, though, to show that the vowel
notation of the Massorites is not the same as was
that of the Alexandrian translator. When the

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 269

latter, for instance, writes an (i for an %, as TaXaal
for '^^^h^ (Gileatl) ; an e for an %, as 'Efifiijp for

T : '

■^ai^ (Immer) ; an d for an it, as FoSoXia^; for
r^n^^l^l (Gedaliali) ; an o for an u, as 'A^^p for
"^\tjr (Azziir), and TIaax<^p for ^^ntTQ (Paslihur) ;
an e for an It and an c for an u, as XeWvfj^ foi"
Q^t!J (Sliallum), it is unreasonable to suppose
that tlie cliang;e of vowel in each case was due to
arbitrariness on his part. Every time he could as
easily have given the one sound as he gave the
other. Ill corresponding cases, it wdll be found,
he has reproduced such vowels with scrupulous
fidelity, as an I in AaviZ for Tn (David), and a in
Ta[iapio<i for rr^-^r^^l (Gemariah), an a in 'Paxa^
for 22"!. (Rechab), an c in 'Pa%'?X for ^m (Rachel),
and an il in ^afiovr]\ for S«^?2l?? (Samuel). When,
in other books, moreover, the Septuagint w^rites an
it and an o in Sa/xylrwv for JitrptT (Samson), the
rational conclusion is that the name was so pro-
nounced at the time that the translation was made.
It is not just to assume that the pronunciation,
represented in the Septuagint, was simply that
which prevailed amongst the Jews of Egypt, and,
therefore, would naturally be less pure than that
which prevailed amongst the Jews of Palestine,
as some scholars have assumed. Nor is it fair to
assert with some, for reasons that need not be

270 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

now discussed, tliat the Massoretic pronunciation
of proper names is absolutely correct, or that it
infallibly represents the sound of every name as
it was originally pronounced. Both from its age
and character, it is quite reasonable to suppose
that the version generally reproduces the earlier
pronunciation. It is here sufficient, further, to
deserve that there are o-ood o-rounds for believino-
that changes were at some time arbitrarily made
in the form of certain Hebrew proper names.
" Many," as Nestle says, " seem to have first
arisen after the origin of the Septuagint." ^

The investigation also furnishes some new and
important suggestions for the Hebrew granmiar.
In chap. ii. 20, the rendering of which in Greek
is excellent, by a different division of the letters,
the Septuagint translates the two words pTi^ij /i^,
as though they were a verb of the Hithpael species,
n3;^l*nh^- According to the Massoretic system, this
latter form is not now properly permissible, the
law of euphony requiring n3.**J!ii;^. As the trans-
lator evidently had Ijefore him the same conso-
nants that the Hebrew has, and as he surely must
have been acquainted with all the grammatical
forms of the Hebrew language, he could hardly
have regarded the combination as he did, had the

^ " Manche sclaeinen erst nacli der Eutstehung tier LXX. entstan-
(len zu sein." Die Israelitischen Etgennamen, etc., p. 125.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 271

form not been legitimate. It is liiglily improbul)Ie
that he should have made such a mistake. The
case is especially interesting, because it suggests
the possibility, either that the present law of
euphony in such verbal forms was not then strictly
observed, or that it was not fully established
wlien his Hebrew manuscript was made. In ver.
33 of this same chapter, there occurs a group of
words, Q^ 13 ]T^^ (^^^^ only, but also), which is
peculiar in Hebrew at the present time, but which
at one time may possibly have existed in the
lano-uao;e.

In chap. iv. 5, the verb ^i^^^D, which is trans-
lated "aloud" in the Revised Version, is rendered
in the Septuagint by the adverb i^h}2, as though
the latter were formerly a synonym for li^p- Iii
chap. V. 12, the expression ^i^n"fc«^iS being ren-
dered by OuK eo-Tt ravTa (these things arc not so),
indicates that tlie word i^^rTj which is now used,
sometimes as a pronoun and sometimes as a verb,
was then used also as an adverb. This word is
supposed to have been originally a demon-
strative ; and, besides its frequent occurrence as
a personal pronoun and as a copula, it occasionally
occurs as a demonstrative adjective to indicate
an object already mentioned as well known,
somewhat after the manner of our remote demon-
strative that. The present passage shows that it

272 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

was likewise once employed as a demonstrative
adverb.

In chaps, iii. 21 ; vii. 29, the Septuagint has
"lips" for "bare heights." In each passage, the
rendering in Greek is tolerably appropriate ; but, in
the latter passage especially, it suits the context
exceedingly well. It is unlikely that the translator
had before him i:]*'nQt% the ordinary Hebrew word
for lips. He evidently found in his manuscript a
combination of letters similar to that in the
Massoretic text ; and instead of D"'DtLS undoubtedly
read DCt?. Hence this latter word seems clearly
to be an ancient dual form for the mouth or the
lips, as it is rendered in both the English and
Alexandrian versions of Ezek. xxiv. 17, 22.

In chap. xi. 21, the two words i^'^i are rendered
by the Septuagint el Be fiij. The translation is inter-
estino- inasmuch as it seems to indicate that the
ancient punctuation may have been ^^^, a form
that is equivalent to i^'^-Qi^"!, which occurs in
1 Sam. ii. 16, and which is substantially translated
there in Greek as the words under consideration
are translated here. Another interesting combi-
nation in Greek is found in chap. xiii. 27, where,
for the j)resent Hebrew expression lijr ""TO, the
Septuagint has ^jr ^r}r21^-

In a large number of passages, moreover, one

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 273

preposition in the Greek stands for another pre-
position in the Hebrew. Sometimes each species
of this sort of substitution is favourable to the
Septuagint. Indeed, the form in Greek often
corrects the form in Hebrew, as in chap. iii. 20, for
instance, where the preposition }2 (from) is rendered
in the Septuagint i (to). The variation evidently
arose from the similarity of these two letters in the
ancient alphabet, but the Greek preserves the
proper reading. In Hebrew lexicons, it is stated
that the verb -7:15, rarely occurs with the preposition
72 (from), and the present passage is cited as an
example. Besides being the only instance, this
verb appears not to have been rightly used with ^
(from). The verse, therefore, should be rendered,
" Surely as a wife proves faithless to her husband,
so ye have proved faithless to me, 0 house of Israel,
declares Jehovah." This case furnishes but one
example out of very many that might be given
of the way in which the Septuagint corrects
peculiar or exceptional uses of prepositions in the
present Hebrew text.

The testimony of the Septuagint is especially
significant respecting the use of "in" or "into"
and " on " or " upon," both of which in Hebrew are
very often incorrectly used. Example after example
might be given where the Greek presents, not only
the preferable, but also the proper, form of one or

274 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

other of these words. In the Hebrew, the pre-
positions ^^ and hy, which are rightly rendered in
the version by et? and eVi respectively, are constantly
and inconsistently interchanged, as though they
were substantially synonymous. Very often this
is the case where the sense, as well as the grammar,
requires a distinction to be made. In the Greek,
on the other hand, a distinction in harmony with
the most classic Hebrew usage almost uniformly
occurs. The version frequently has an 7St for an
^^ and vice versa, where the one or the other
wrongly stands in the Hebrew. The translator's
use of these two prepositions is so admirable, and so
agreeable to the genius of the Jewish language, that
apparently, in his manuscript, the true distinction
between them was more carefully observed than it
is in the present Massoretic text. The difference
between the texts in this respect, while probably
in part recensional, may possibly have been in part
transcriptional. The difference, too, is decidedly
in favour of the Septuagint.

For other unusual grammatical expressions, par-
ticularly for the so-called aira^ Xejofxeva, or words
that occur but once throuo-hout the Hebrew Bible,
the Septuagint will also be found to be of the
greatest value. Many such terms, in this book
especially, are of very doubtful significance, and of
very questionable correctness. In chap. xiv. 9, for

THE KESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 2/5

example, the word translated "astonied" is both
obscure and inappropriate. The corresponding
word in the version, on the other hand, affords an
excellent sense. The first member of this verse in
Greek is rendered, " Why shouldst thou be as a
man asleep, as a man that cannot save ? " The
parallelism here is perfect, and the meaning ex-
pressed is superior to that in the Hebrew. In the
former case, the divergency was due to the sub-
stitution of a "T for a "^ and of a n for a -r ; in the
latter case, it was due to the absence of the letter ■).
Each of these kinds of variation occurs with fre-
(juency. In this way, the version shows not only
how variations arose, but also how they may be
proved and estimated. The Hebrew of Jeremiah,
as is well known, is remarkable for its numerous
textual peculiarities. It displays a great many
words and forms which cannot have belonged to
the language in its purer state, but which may be
corrected or emended by the aid of the Septuagint
translation.

In addition to the examples given in the pre-
ceding paragraphs of the important results obtained
from this investio^ation for the grammar and the
lexicon, it might be much more fully shown, did
space permit, how the Septuagint helps to throw
light upon Hebrew forms of rare or single occur-
rence, as well as serves to furnish valuable sug-

276 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

gestions and correctious for future grammars and
lexicons. One more example may be given by
way of further illustration. In the last German
edition of Gesenius's Dictionary, it is stated that
the verb " to send," pf^tLS which is naturally fol-
lowed by the accusative of the person or the thing-
sent, is followed by the accusative of the person sent
with the letter ^ only in 2 Chron. xvii. 7. The
Septuagint shows that the same construction also
occurs in chap. xvi. 16 of this book. This verse is
rendered in the English Bible, as though the noun
following the verb "send" in each member was in
the dative, because of the preposition ^ (for) that
stands with it in each case ; whereas, the preposition
here appears to be as certainly the sign of the
accusative, as it is in the passage mentioned in
Chronicles, where the nouns following it are
correctly construed in the English version as
accusatives. According; to the Greek renderino; of
each passage under consideration, therefore, the
present verse should be translated, " Behold, I will
send many fishers, declares Jehovah, and they shall
fish them ; and, afterward, I will send many
hunters, and they shall hunt them from every
mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes
of the rocks."

There still remains to be considered another
textual peculiarity of some grammatical impor-

THE RESULTS OF TTIE INVESTIGATION. 2V7

tance. The use of the pronoun by the Septuagint,
in many passages, is exceedingly interesting, to say
the least. There are a few places where its absence
is significant, as "father" for "my father," chap,
iii. 19 ; "mother" for "my mother," chap. xv. 10;
"brother" for "my brother," chap. xxii. 18. The
simplicity of the expression in each instance seems
to indicate its antiquity. At all events, the form
in Greek points to a peculiarity of the translator's
text. The simpler reading is undoubtedly recen-
sional, and it is apparently ancient.

There are also a good many places where the
substitution of a pronoun for an article, or an article
for a pronoun, is significant. It is barely possible
that occasionally, owing to the genius of his lan-
guage, the translator may have substituted an
article for a pronoun, especially because a few
divergences of this kind may be conjecturally
explained in this way. It is hardly probable, how-
ever, that this was often if, indeed, ever the case.
The recensional character of this species of sub-
stitution is well illustrated by an instance that
occurs in chap, xxvii. 3, where the Greek has a
pronoun, but the Massoretic text has neither a
pronoun nor an article with the noun " messengers."
The construction of the Hebrew, though, absolutely
requires either the one or the other, as the accom-
panying adjective with article indicates ; and, since

278 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

the noun with article would have been a natural
reading, which could have been easily and legiti-
mately reproduced, had it appeared in the original of
the Alexandrian text, the presence of the pronoun
here in Greek warrants the conclusion that it
belonged to the translator's manuscript. The
following are the chief examples that occur of the
substitution of an article for a pronoun : —

T^ib^— \n«n ; t"^V— a''"i^*n, iv. 7 ; >i^n«— Vn«n,

' •• : - I V T X ' • - X • X V - X V X '

iv. 20 ; in:r— anvn, iv. 26 ; ^jn'^^'^r^—n'^^^nr^irf,
X. 21; ^25tp — a^:5tpn, xii. 14 ; nn?p« n^n —
□*'"irp«n, xiv. 15 ; Dnn^ni— an^mn, xviii. 21 ;

xxvii. 9.

The substitution of a pronoun for an article in
the Septuagint is much more frequent than that
of an article for a pronoun. As the Greek was
an article -loving as well as a participial -loving-
language, the greater frequency of the pronoun in
the version proves this peculiarity to be unquestion-
ably recensional. Wherever a pronoun in the
Greek stands for an article in the Hebrew, as a
rule, there is reason to believe that the translator
found the form before him in the text he used.
The fact, moreover, of its greater frequency in the
Hebrew original of the Greek translation suggests

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 279

the supposition that the pronoiui was much more
common in earlier times than was the article, the
more frequent use of which may probably have
belonged to a later development of the language.
If this supposition be correct, it indicates, not only
the primitive nature of the Hebrew pronoun, but
also the archaic character of the Alexandrian
recension. In any case, the textual peculiarity is
significant, and worthy of the carefullest considera-
tion. Of this kind of substitution the followinor
instances occur : —

trc3n — atrc2, iv. lo ; mn n'^^n — •-m, vii. ii ;
D^nn — nn^n ; nin«ni — on^nii^i ; D^trsm —
□rT^\r:^ vii. 18 ; n-rizrn— an-'itp, vii. 20 ; 'TT-i;7n—
^::^-T, vii. 23; Di^H — ^si^; n'^^'-in!i — Dn^^-^ns.,

— t: tt •- •:-- T-:-:

viii. 5 ; ni^mj^^n — "^rii^^iiiS xi. 5 ; a''-|^mrT —
cn^l^n^, xi. 22; n^nn— ^0^115^, xii. 14; n^;hrpTi
— Dn^5^^, xiii. 13; D^i^H"! nins5n"i — Dn^"}ini^l

nri^:y\, xiii. 14 ; a^N^l^n— Drr^S!^!^, xiv. 13 ; n;]^n
D^p^Dl^— DH^D^Dn^ an^'l?^^, xvii. 25 ; Di'irr— ''pv,
XX. 8 ; D^>n— nrsir, xxvi. 23 ; xl. 6 ; Q^^^lim—
D^'^^^n:^, xxvii. 15 ; ^^-i^ri — itt.n,'^, xxxi. 23 ;

nii^lnn— a^-imi^in, xliv. 22 ; ni:'^'-iDn— a^^ni^'^lp,
xlvi. 4 ; n?2n^tDn— "nrT^n^r^, xlix. 26.

Having indicated briefly a very few of the more

280 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

important practical results obtained from the in-
vestigation, it seems advisable, before presenting
the complete Conspectus of the variations, to sum
up concisely the general conclusions that have been
reached by the present inquiry. Partly by way
of recapitulation, therefore, and partly by way of
amplification, it will be seen, the following final
results are now submitted for careful considera-
tion : —

1. The book of Jeremiah, from the time of its
completion and publication, or shortly afterwards,
appears to have existed in a twofold form.

2. One edition of his prophecies was possibly
authorized in Egypt by the prophet himself, and,
therefore, may be called the Egyptian or Alexan-
drian recension ; another edition was probably
sanctioned in Babylonia or Palestine by the Jewish
Synagogue, and, therefore, may be called the
Babylonian or Palestinean recension.

3. The Alexandrian recension represented the
shape of the book as it was circulated in Egypt,
and as it may have been published by Jeremiah or
by Baruch ; the Palestinean recension represented
the shape of the book as it was circulated in Asia,
and as it may have been altered and expanded,
during the centuries intervening between the date
of the prophet's death and the time of the Septua-
gint translation, by Jewish copyists or scribes.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 281

4. The version reproduces in substance the
Alexandrian recension, and presents, as nearly as
can be determined, the norm, or the original form,
of the book, as it may have left the hands of the
prophet or of his secretary ; the Massoretic text
reproduces in modified form the Palestinean
recension, and presents the shape which that
recension had received by glosses and interpola-
tions from the times of Jeremiah to the days of
the Massorites.

5. The Septuagint was translated as faithfully
as the condition of the ancient Hebrew manuscript
would permit, and as literally as the genius of the
flexible GreeR languag-e would allow, the translator
or translators having in no way arbitrarily changed
the original Hebrew text, and having in no
instance been influenced either by personal scruple,
theological bias, or religious tendency.

6. From striking evidence furnished by numerous
passages, sometimes because of the different deriva-
tion of the same word, and sometimes because of
the peculiar use of a similar term, the version
seems to have been made by several persons, two
or three, at least, apparently having taken part in
the work of translation.

7. Although each text contains mistakes, as has
repeatedly been shown, yet the Gjeek translators
made mistakes more frequently than did the

282 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

Massorites, owing cliiefly to the difficulty of trans-
lating a badly worn or an indistinctly written
manuscript from an unpunctuated or an unpointed
text.

8. While both texts have suffered somewhat
from the process of transmission, the original of
each having, undoubtedly, been more or less
corrupt, the Hebrew text in general is in a better
condition at present than is the Greek text, owing
principally to careful and, perhaps, repeated redac-
tion or revision.

9. By applying the general principles of varia-
tion deduced and demonstrated in the foreo-oins;
discussion, corruptions and imperfections in both
texts may be discovered and explained, the one
text helping to correct the errors or to rectify the
mistakes in the other text,

10. After making due allowance for the various
causes of divergence, some of which are true of all
the books, and all of which are true of some of the
books, of the Old Testament, the Septuagint trans-
lation wdll be found to be of the utmost value for
the purposes of text-criticism.

CHAPTER X.

THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

CAPUT L

'^^^^2n^-b^ rr^n rnfs? rrjn^^-nn^

in^^"!'^ ''nn'^ i

— T

mns^n nt^i?

ntjs 2

T

nibr^i:?
nbi^b lbs 4

^(nnx nn) nrs

bD-bs

nns 6

T -:

b:-by 7
bD nsi

*^b55 i"i^-nK

l-^-rs !)

n^2bi2^-b^"i Qii^-b:?

mn DT^n to
rnDbi2")2n-b3?i Dii;;n-by .
^oinnbi

Desunt ■

^n^rn^ 11

T : : *

^nsh ""IS

inwb ■'-in^-by 1 2
n^3Ti3 -lbs 1 3

Deest

^ns'n vs

* ut Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Micali 1:1; Zeph. 1:1. '' Targ. VajTT
rrreonx. Mit Ezek. l : 2. '' Cf. 4:10; 14:13; 32: 17. «utEzek.2:9.
^utvs. 18. &utl8:7. *> ut 24 : 3. ' Targ. ''"2:-ra. ^ ut 24 : 3.

b

284 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [1:14-2:11

■jiEsz)? Y■?^^' tni3bi2T2-5D'5 n:iBr riisb^^ ninstjip-bib 15

n^n^3D nTainn bs b*J^ n^'ic n^n^in-bs b:?i

Deest DD^bx 17

'nnn-bxi ani^s^ xn^n-bx "nns-)E cn^;E^ nnn'-bx

Deest i:xi j s

■'obia-bsb ^nnisn tnisns ^nianbi nt'n: n'i'anbi bna ^^rrbi

mini n-nn*' "^^b^b ynxn-bs-by '
Deest rj^.:nbb

CAPUT 11.

''■"^' Desunt I ^ "^^^^ ^^« nin^nvn^n

^ *- T : " ; T ; T t't : ' T

nrx bsnir:" iri-ip: "^nnx ^nsb x'b y-nxn na^izn -^nns in^b
^□n^by s?inn nr-i nnibs j^inn n5>-i 3

'nnsoia-bDT ninEir^-bDi 4

"^— .nri'«v!> '

^ b^-isn b-Q^Dn ps 7

Deest • ''nin'^-DXD 9

T 1

2rpnbi« 'niir^ in-i^^nn n-^ribx •'la ■\iiQ''nn 1 1

* ut 15:4; 24:9 etc. '^ Cf. 23 :4j 30:10; 46:27 ; Deut. 1 : 21 etc *■• ut
vss. 8, 19. d ut Yg_ 10.— Targ. "pT N^-\ e rparg. nrirl. ^ Cf. 15: 20.
& Trtrg. Tin-?;.;, h Targ, ^^N. » Targ. n''yn_T. k ^jex. n^n'> "ipx. • Targ.

' T ; T T - ; -

2:12-23] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS.

28;

'"ixa nain

ni«^ ^nnn

12

ninxs nnb iisn'^i

nhiia mniii onb nsnb

13

*'D"'i3n b^Dnb ib-^-iib

■ T

•=i:n^1

o "*"

15

'^'isrnD i^"iyi

nrsiD n^iy

(?f'is^5''^i) ^^b 'ipnjf'^i 7i:'"j"|

^hl^ T2^1''.

10

T^nbi?' mni-nx2 ■risi lary

17

C'ns^ imbi

Q^ns^ in^ib

IS

pn^:; ^a

mmc 1)2

niTCi? nn-b^

niTSX Ti^rb

^ninn? I'a

in: I'D

T

THDin in:^^^ ^^ninii;^ Tio^n ^n^1r^ T^ninisin 7n:?i Tnc'^n

19

nmi-DijD ■'ns? ^nry n^ ^d

nin">-ns '^nry -i^n :>n-iD

T^ribx

Tnbi?

(tjni?) in ^nnnn xbi

T!^.^ ^r-nns sbi

' T^rf^x

^piprD . . . ^nnniu

iripD] . . . irnntJ

20

?jb ^inyx sb

ninys5 5?b

bD-b2> ?fbs -ID

bD-b:? •'D

^nhy i^y-bs

1??") P"^2

'h " '

n:T (nr^^s =) nyi^ns ms

n:T n;?2 nx

3j.l-^

(N^^STna tfSTTii)

/ .

n-QUi nbD (nnis ]E3) ynr pmtJ

nrx ynr nba pmts

21

■p^ntib) niab

in^D lb

1^ni:is'n i^'^i?^^

T3i:? DnsD

22

nin^

nin"^. i:ns

*b?3n

D^byan

23

T=ni

1?1^

■lynn

iy:i

Tr<

»utGen.l5:l; 41 : 49 etc. l* ut II. Chron. 7:7.— Targ.X-2^;^> 'P^S-; xb^
X^p. ' Targ. 'y\'2''T,. '^ Targ. ■j^'ia. e Targ.TjO?? ''it?']'!, ^'cf. Ps. 137 :'l!
S ut Ezek. 20 : 28 (Gk. & Heb.)/** Cf. Ezek. 16 : 15. ' Targ. n^ry.

286

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[2:24-33

Ui'-'

•• ! \ T T T t/ t : r

(mnn nsnc:) mn nsno

T

nnns?

T -:

nsbn

T T T

bssntJ"' ""Da
^ nnx ^ns ""S n>ni2X pb

T

11112 iri niB 24

manna
qn^r 25
iiib ©sis iniasm

^b«

bSTBJi IT^a 2G

DrT^nia nniDbi3
nni5 ia« pb n^ii2X 27
^Dmb-i

■r

lbs n;s

■ T

^l^^i'OT'-DS n^lp^ 28

^■iDp Dbr^-i'' nisn nscis'i nmn""

'b;?3b

^ (VnnniTin) n-innn in'^-in 29

•"S Dri"!.'\a D:b^i nn^^iTD nsbD ^n cnj^ius DDbs

nnnpb inpb 30

nnn nbDS as^inn nbDs

: ons'i'i sbi nirnr^ niiSD : ninii;^ n^nsD

n"]ni nrs ns mni-nnn ®iyrp nirr'-nni ^sn bns ninn 3 1

"fiy "jibs sinrsibi ^nn sibn i^bs "n:> sinD-sib mi

nb^nn n^^rj nbo nsiunn nbn rr^iy nbmn nirnn 32

n^-nrp n-iiiap

(V.?™) T.^V. ^^^■'^ "•'i^ '"^ - l?1ti ''^I'^^f^ n^ 33

s^-jb niynn rix-ns "^3 p-sb -ns "''ni^b my";n-ns oa-iDb

n

* Inc. vs. 24. ^ Targ. N^ri??b X-nsnrx!:-?, <■ Targ. ■pn-'QX. ^ Cf.
11 : 13. e Inc. vs. 31.— Targ. 'l'b''Sp. 'f^Targ. -^rnTixs.

2;3-i-3:Gj THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

287

Deest

ib in^bsrn

T^s:3a 34

n^

nnnrran-sb
nbs<-53-b:?

nr ns<^ n.^ 37

anb in^bin

CAPUT III.

(■n) as?

T

(in^TZJnn) in^tw

iEtj-bs

3^31- n-by

*-b Tr]:'i^b D^^n n^3?h (i^n^i) n:r!^i
n:iT mux (niiTa) '':3
b:("':2a)-^:£^ "''c^-ri T^i?^
r-bxn nsi. ib ni<np n::?^ i<ibn

nbsn rn:>nn

" T

lb nntcy
^^3bn

■jn ni2S«b 1

T T

Disir-by 2

r

a^3-i";-b:7

n^n xib mipb^a^ ninnn i3>:ri^i 3
n:iT rnrs n^^^
nbrn ri:sa
"lax lb ^nxnp nn:?^ sibn 4
nns ini^D q^bx

my-in 5
nnw (i

» Cf. Gen. 4: 10, 11 ; I.Kings 2:5. ^' Targ. TiT-^™"!- " Cf.Ps. 102: 7.
•^ Cf. 23: 1 seq. ^ Vid. vss. 8, 12. <" Targ. -yilii 'fr'^.

288 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [3:7-17

T .- •

^"^ni3T^ nnto? i

min^ ^^'^.^n m^n nxnm mini fnnins mir^n nsnm
nrs3 nu>En;-itJsi; nnx-bD-bs? nniiJT? nssD it»s rms-bD-b:? 8
bsmri "nnia"' nsx: ' bxTCJi

rr^nnbiDi n^nnbir

V T t T I ■.-•■TV ■.' •

Deest nriins

T -:

nmsT ^)?^ inm nni:T bpp n^^ni 9

pn-nxi psn
nsrbDni nxr-bis-a^i 10

f nnins

Desunt-

[ nini-as3

biinffii iissD p-isr bxnc^ nntjia ntJE: np^'i^s 1 1

^bi{-nui nnir^ "^bx nnnr bs-ns"' T\ym nmis 12

^DDib? --ss D'lirs xibi dds i;s b-t'si^-xib

'D^b nrjx xbi nrjs sb

n:?i3T»-xb Dny)3TD-Kb 13

^piiJ-bx ' ]T^2 14

b^Dona (a^yh) ni^i b^DTrnn n^-i 15

u^-cr^i nini-Dx: pxn-b? -nxD niann D^ia^n piq I6

n7:nn nnrT>

bx-nis") iijinp n^nn nin*'^ n^nn

xbi iDf sb nb-b3> nbj?'' xb nnsr xbi nb-b:? ribsJi xbn

"ips^ ^npE'i sbi in

^^'^nT\ n:?ni nnn n^^^n ' xinn nyn 17

n^bii Dii:;n-bD iipDi • Dii:in-bD n-«bs nip3i

Deest cb^l'T'b nini DOb

» Targ. "prtB!l. '^ ut Lev. 19 : 29; Il.Chron. 21 : 13. •= Vid.vss.6,12.
^ Targ. "p-iVuiQ -j_5 nn;^i<. « ut Deut. 24 : 1. f Targ. X^i^;?'n'2. S Vid.
vss. 6, 8. ^ ut II. kings 8:11. » Cf. Nahum 1:2. •' Targ. "(iial?. ' ut
33 : 15; 50 : 4, 20.

3:18-4:31 THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VAEIATIONS.

289

T "

r^ 19

•^DS nbn:
''b-i§!ipn "'DX

Jin's? rrox nir^n ■jrs 20

o'l'^Etj-b^ 21

dn'^nbs
DD'^nh^Tij^ nsns? 22
ib ^:nij
tnvn^T? 23

CjrT'sn-nx 24
ircsm 25

CAPUT IV.

cbc'n''S d'^n'bs-ns ibbrr:
""cbTm-i ^ntj-'b^ n^ini ^irrsb

Q''2:p-b?

nu'n . . . miun 1

T T

^^3n sbn
pyniiJD^i 2
ibbntT^

T •

nbTTTTibi mini o^xb 3
D^sp-bx

* ut 16: 15; 23 : 8 etc, ^ Targ. "pnnnss. <= Cf. 11 : 5.. ^ ut II. Sam.
20: 19; 21 : 3. « Targ. rt??a Nrnx X^pi^i'S'i X^^. ^ Targ. "prtsxr.-ai.
e Of. Hab. 1 : 12. ^ ut g :U;' 8 :Vl ; Zech.' 11 :V6; Ps. 60 : 4 ; 147 ; 3.

i r,:ri>lEb 5<5::n. '^ Targ. 'pn^sa n:-!. ' Cf. Zech. 9:7. "' ut ll ;2, 9.—

Targ. Obiail"^ "^ar'^^l.

290

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[4:4-15

DD'^n'bxb

nin^b 4

(•^©p ,n^5ny) nbny

nib^y

n^in'^ ''c:x

n'Tin'i TD^x .

DbTDTT'n :?13TS1"l

i^^'aian Dbwin^m 5

in^x

iniaxi

-IS"',© (pi<n) ')^nxn-by lypn

f "ixa nsiw ^ypr\^

(ns^) ^sb^

ixbtt

in)25?

iniasi

10:1 (i««) (?)^istJ2n

D3 ixiri G

(S2::i) X2^n yD3

S}2!:'> yOD 7

n«n

?rs;ns

cnyni.

^^.13^

pa mcTi i^sa

ntJi*! ]^sia

nbs-b:7

mrby 8

I^BD-l

n^BD

Deest

"ji-in

33^

I3^a

i)2«i a-'Dnsnn

T :

•^nns

qns 10

Deest

^^

n:?5; ^nsrn

T^T^Ti

T : -

in^s""

■rps:: 11

(ns^o) nyin m-i

n":£T» nsz mn

msTb Kib

mntb siib

Deest

nbs^ 12

'lUBtjia

n'^::BTDia

^1=^1

D-ipsy? 13

xin-) py .

plQ 15

- T - ;

y^'at^i

■innia

nn'Q

•• T •

" Targ, S^d":. '' ut 12 : 6. •= avaXa/SovTcC. "^^ Cf. 1 : 6; 14:13; 32: 17.
* Tai-g. -rrl. ^ Targ. ■'a^i n«5-j>iQ. S ut Ezek. 38 : 9, 16. Targ. x:;^;?.

4:16-29] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. 291

(D-isn) ^xn n:n

nsn 16

DbijTT^a

nb"Oin^-by

(Qin^) Qi-i-is

n-^njtb

'pnnt) yns^

pnn'En px^

^niny

nnn^ n

1^.?ni

I?*!? IS

,cni) ran"! ''©e? n^^n 'iib rimpi

•^nb

''b-nisin inb nin^p i-j

■•nb (W5ni

•'(ny^TS) n2?i30

^py)2tJ

xnpa nntJ lirji

ii-npa nma-by'-ow 20

(^nn) Vin O^nx) bniin ^-lo^

\'t:?''-i'« r^n ibnx nn«

'in:>in'>

(D'^ps) DD-nxni?

D:-nxnx 21

("isi©) ni-iEiii b^p miD

"iBTO bip n:?!;©!*

■«tt2? ('ib'lX) ^ibiS ID

■^^y b-iiN "ID 22

Opsins xbi

nr:n o-'SinD sbi

nspx n:m pxn-b:? irrixn inh-n:m y-ixn-riK '•n^xn 23

cirri nrnT D'^ioyn risni 21

^ - D^^f^^nfi^ ('ibnbnnn) 'ibpbpnn

D1X Vi< n"ii«n Vi5 25

*-inni3 nmrn 2t>

'tjxn insTD ninyn-b3i isns i^-ir-bsn

(lbs) I'lnx IBS pnn '^sb^'i ies pin ^iDBa

■rax ns ni2S ns-^s 27

-sbi ^n'oT inianD sbi 'rrnn^i-^D inian: sbi ti^t 'innnT''D 28

^T"?^'^"^^ f^*^^ "^^■^l ^^P^ Tiyn-bD nmn m»p nTzhi 2!)

nniT:> n-'iJ-bD nmry n-^yn-bD

T

* ut 6: 20.— Targ. x;r"'n-i i'nxri. ^ Targ. ri:;^no, c Targ.nr^'d ^ Cf.

II Kings 24: 15. « Targ. S<^3-1?2. ^ ut 49: 2; 5l'; 58. S Tai-g.-^nP"; Vs
S<r-iX. h Targ. i<-in-JX>.

292

THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH.

[4:30-5:8

Deest

'r.^^^

(a^snnn-b?) D'^r^nrib

II^ITIJ 30

T

nns 31

T T

D'':\nnb

CAPUT V.

ixni

ssnxni 1

T

(Tv;i-Qi5 = tj^ji) tj^-DX ii{2i2n-nx

XH^-Dm TS^X 1X2)3n-DX

nin";-D»: (n^s) ''nnb nboxi

iDpi"a
fib nbos"!

Deest

Dsi 2

np©(b) Kb
Deest

Kibn 3

(bis) (iDXiai'l) *12X^^
^(ibni3 ,isbD) -ib'b^^-iib 13

(bis) IDS^

ibsia 4

** * ( *i'

n^a--? nxn "V^ri^a n^nx

-ipTU n^:i

np© n'aD

^i^ni:^ n5ni2 n-'xsfi^n-bD

Cin'j'i n:n^ xsTin-bD

^1-"! ""^

i3n ''D

Dn^n^msisa

Dn^mnl2l2

Dnii5 ^'ynujxi .

omx yniTKi 7

(irpbrri) I'lnnsn^ niDiT '^nnni

i^iirini n:iT rr^m

T T "

l^n (D^DT^ ,Q'^3T^) 'D^^'iT t]''D1D

iin nistJia di:-t"ii3 n^oio 8

• : - T \ :

* Targ.T^^n^ '^ Targ.xn-i-^ XO"^?^ « Targ.'pn?. *^ Cf. Ezek. 19 : 5.
« Targ. •;": nn;^. "ijpn^ in-iix. ^ Vid. vs. 4. & ut Ps. 44 : 13. ^ Targ. n-^sab.
* Targ. •j-^Oin-'iX.

5:10-22] THE CONSfllCTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

293

n^niiio": (i-i'^rnn) NT^sirn nin^b «ib ''d n^niis^uD -nxn

n-nn'' rr^m bx-r©"* _„

mrT>-DS3

n^iin''

1\nSl TSHD

T ";

nnb rn ^D^x-ias

mnb

mni ->n"i^

^■^ni

Desunt <

^^)

ci^na^.

QS'^a'n

wxb

Deest s^rt Dbi'y^ "^ia «^n 'jn'^s '^^:\ 1 5

T ■• ' T ••

''isTOb bip :>ttt5n «b m»s ^M, yisTcn Kbi i5nub y'^n x"b "^i^

beest ffins nnps inEicx lo

ibrx"! D3^"cnbi Q?n^2p ibrxi rj^ia nbsi^i ?ii2nbi tin-iirpbisT 17

iTSttn^l D?"'n''Tl ' ' ' D3'':sm n un nns mux ti^'^srn^ "^n:?
DPS mrx D3'^':!2n^ ^ny (^ov^i) ' nnnn n:n3

nnnn n:nn (cnnra) D'^n-jin

■^nbsb D:ni< nwx-sb ?i^n"bs' ' nbs crnx nw^x-.sb

apr n^a-bx ap^'' n^aa 20

•nnirr^-n^aa yrffi^n nbi<b n^^n^a n^^^^-acnn
(Dirn) DTtj-mrx "iniiTr-mux 22

» Targ. rns hv. ^ ut50: 15. « Cf.Deut.28: 49. •* utEzek. 13: 13;
II. Chron. 12: 12. « Targ. n-j^irr: n-^?-i3.

294 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [5:23-6:5

^n^ion 1"1D 23

-nrtj'^i "i''2p n]?n *n3?ate nya -nis'O'' ^'^sp nipn n*;?a« ip:?3

""isb" "i2b _

msb^!, D-^TBrx "rrintjnb I'lDb'^ D''1»3X nino^

(nte^nis ntD":;) nii? nss sibDS 27

" ' "ri ■nay'^'i :?V^nn"i i-in:? na irnr:? isrw 28

J T-t" T- ;t ;t

Deest in-ibs^n

fixn-b? psa 30

^np© 1XS3 "ip^a 1X^5 31

(^orT'^^n I'Ti^) Dn^T" isnp'' cn^T'-b:? inn'>

anx inns

•ninnxb Pin-innxb

CAPUT VI.

TTbn wn 1

iTS-nn hn^n) 'n^'in rr^nD -nn '^n^'W ™3:?i:ni man 2

(!yn^-i nnnyi) IT'S

"lypn"! lypn 3

i-i'^a tJ'^x (■i:!^l'!'i) ^li^"!"! i^T'^-nx ©''« nn

niznb^b n-iby ntDipnn n^anba n-'by i«^p 4

^n-iby nbysi . nb:?3T

a Cf. Ezek. 16: 49. ^ Targ. iC?yrh. « Targ. Nn^'n'ix "^aJno-^S ^iia?.
^ Targ. "ip'O '3:n-D. « Targ. 5<S'iDb. ^ to {;i/'o?. S Targ. "f ?';D1.. *" Vid.
vs. 5. ' Vid. vs. 4.

6:6-16] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 295

Deest niX2S 6

b-^n Db»iT-b:? ?ybo ?nsy nns obwi'T'-by iDBtJi hsy inns

pc?-b5 nj^Tsn n'^^^ "^'in (b^n) ^psn ^'ij^n " i^in nbbb

nnnpn ' ' nnnpn picy ."^bs

D")^ nil '^^pn^ n'l'a'')? -iin nipni 7

ni2B-b^ irs-by

T V

HD^m "ibna riD^i ^bn

DbiSTi'' noin DbiDTT' "^noin 8

ibbv ibbi:^ ' ' nbbii?i^ bbiy

(ibp =) ibobo-by nibcbo-by

mms 113-bx mmx •'^-b:? 10

cnibDn pEsns'i '^nsbia -in^n b'^pn ''riixb? ^nxby nirr^ nian 1 1 .
' bbi3>-by TBC« bbiy-b:? is©

in"i Dninicri Dnimn© inn^ Dit3:i rrn© 12

-TV"; T : - • T : T

'i:r2a ''nbD "bi-r^^^i osup^ 13 ibD Dbinrn:?i CDupis ^d 13

s^n:) NinriJi iriD^ ysn pD-nri s^nDian yarn ysia
^np© D^w Db3 (nprn np© nic:? ibD

•^□i-iriti n^bp^ 1^7 nbsb nbprb:? itt^rna 14

mb© (]si) n::si ' oibw 11X1

(iins) ib3 i«:p nnyin 15

2nrb3-D> Will diiriii' xbi Dibin-n:* iisiii-xb ' «ii-Qa

•bDi pb VTi xb (n^bsn) * nibsiji ibsi pb ly^i xb
nisii ^nnpD-nrii Dbs::i ' ibiDsi Qinnps-nyi

1S11 'nbiy nini niin;b " nbw niinsb I6

iron Tiin irjn Tn

* ut 8: 10. b rj-arg. '(in^is. « Targ. nf5':3 "'nss 'pn^lS. ^ Vid. 7: 4.
« Alex. cmpQ-rra. ^ Cf. Gen. 21: 33.

295 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH. [6:17-29

-iBi-crn b^pb in'^'opn nsiia bipb "Q-iiDpn n

D"\iy '<:?ni a-'ian ir^ao -ni^ n^:? "ii^ni n"'i5in nyisiij i8

^cna^cp "ins cnhisnia "^ns

p'Tspp^ ^ii'^rn xn©i3 nsiib aion nipi itinn xnir^ n:in5 20

'■:tDD^ n-'n Ci'n-b? ^na ^:;n D^5t3D^ ntn n;?n-bx ^ns ^:3n 2 1

ibiCDi nnibtJDi ^

•'pssi^ pB2 i^nsia 22

■jrnx nspia ^ini2>'' 'oiiai ps^-'^ns^^'jtt niJ?'' bi^ia ''lai

-by n^n"' D^p ibip cnn'^ i^bi nian-' D^3 'obip i)2nT sbi 23

piianbisbTrss^nr nrniD'^DiD lin:? ^33"i": D^DiD-byi

l^bx ' T^bi'nianbisb ^c'isd

•"ny^air-nx ' i^iaTS-nx 24

''D^ban ^ b-Ti

(rnrn-bs) nnira is^rn-bi)! -bx tin'nm ni©n °'S2n-bi« 25

mn "la " iDbn-bi5 n-'Dinm ni:\^ a:ixb nnn ^'d ""Dbn

a'^aott nir^pi n-^aixb a-iaca

^^'i''' bai? 'i^n^ bai« 26

Qa^'b?; ITS i^a"^ ^3''b^ i^irn s?a''

(inati) iriaia ""^ya' T^nns y^nn nsaa "^rrpa T^nn] 27

beest "ino 28

D'lcp?:^ labn b^an ''abn

a^nn©i2 nba ■ Dnirnc^ oba

nnsy en ttsia ns^ (nna;) ina nnsy unm^ ns)2 *inD 29

^ Cf. Job 33 : 24. ^ ut Isa. 1:2. <= Targ. hy. ^ Targ. "i'in'inair. • ut
4 : 6 ; 6 : 1 ; 46 : 20 ; 50 : 3, 4 1 .—Targ. NJsiQa'a. ^ Targ. "p-a-i?! . » Targ. )^'ri'>\
*" Targ. '|"in3-a"j. > Targ. "pbnn.

Desunt ■

«: 30-7: 11] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 297

ON^ ''3 Dnb ii5"ip CN^3 qc3 cxy "ID cnb ixnp; dsisd qoD 30

CAPUT VII.

in-'Tan^-bs nin-rcx nn^n 1

T : : • v T T -.■ -: T T -

^bsb nini ni«^

T t't ; T : •• ~ - ; ":

T : - T : V - T T - V T

■.* •• T • T : - • T -

nin^b ninncnb

nixns 3

^pton "inm-^b? osb inrinn-bx inm-bjj ODb inuan-bs 4
DDb ib^j^i"" i?b n)9^i5)2 ''S npTCn

"a^^'cij "ibxb -

nirr" bs'^n n^ni bD^nn';h''bD''nnir;^bmninibD^n

pj<3 pij:| 7

ds-^s nan s

ib'^yi'^ iib -nrx b^5>in ^r^bib

vaorn. lai^ni 'isxini 'insrnni -iptJb :?nirrn. ?,b53i nsn ni^n 9
•^Dbni b:?nb I'lppni -ipiob ' sj'bni b3?nb ntapn

'D2b ^rnb ': cn:?-r'i-55b on^^T'-xb

V T - 1

Deest n-Tn 10

tiMisy "inbnb iDbssa ni»5^ l^^b isbsis

DD^isb DC ''^^ xnps iirx in-ia xnp3 it^x mn n'^an n-;n 11
in^x-i ''D:^5 n:ni ''d:x ca nz'':''^^ iiby-i^tj

* Targ. X^"r'3 'pn^nniri. ^ Targ. ^3. « Vid. 6: 14.— Targ. '•p'i'SX-!.
^ Cf. Exod. 20: 13, 14, 15;" Deut. 5: 17, 18, 19. « Inc. vs. 10. <" ut 7:V;
25 : 7. -

298 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [7:12-27

iDb ''3 mr^zh "ID 12

Deest n^n'j-QXS 13

nteyst ''Si^-Da pb T'^'wi 14

-bsn (?)*cni5 'jhb aniBrin bxi nbsn^ nan m:?i i^Tsn-biJi i6

DniT»3i . , . an^ninxi . .' . Dn*i;a n'^TSin'i . . . nins^rji . . . D-issn is

Daises 13B11 D^^wn X33sb C1DD3 -jDn^^ D^is'irn nsbTsb

nni3s ^»in: ' dhids m^n 19

nin": nin;; \5'ix 20

nrn nipisn-by nDns "^n^m' nrn nipi3n-b« naw ''n^m

Dnxn-b:?i ' n"ixn-b:?

Deest bsnfevr!^^ f^'i^^2 21

DD'^mns-bx ^ DD^tTins-ns 22

inibyri nT^n ' Statin ni"*!

•n'lbii? "^nm-bj^ nbv inn^-b:;

•'^'I'l-bDa ' ty'i'^n-bDn 23

'*^DT^5 nn'iopn Kbi "^bx viis «bi Dirs-nx itan-Kbi i^ia© sbi 24

Deest niintja

Dn-^ninx os^'nias 25

nrn min nri nrn o'l'^n i:?

-nx n»p''i ^DSTx na^'tipn icb -nx ^cpii DSTX-nx •Jran sbi 26

Ji'ibs ^^o'^, sbi n^sn

» Vid. 11: 14. b Targ. '(•'inna":^ ' Targ. )^b?. •* ut Ps. 10: 17.
« ut Ps. 10: 17.

7:28-8:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

299

Deest

rij^b Kbi

Deest

*n|s nto:? ncx ni^n-njt

D'^nrte bipT n^ffiir bnp
pxn-b| n^nn nmnb

nn-ibx rrrai^i 2S
vriD-xib mux
iTibx
inpb xbT

DiBTr-b3? iStJI 29

nsnn ni^:: i:m 3i
'in''i2i xb "wm
nsnn ^iy Tax^-sbi 32

nniste bipi 11125123 bip 34
y-ixn n^nn nnnnb

CAPUT VIII.

Dbffiin'^a n''nit5i''n
tD^DDi^n-bob^ nnibi

^n£G'' xb

rranxn i;s-b:> ^]i''^lb iini

n''nxi25n bsb^ ^w^^niz 'niisa innn 13

Deest

•Dipiin-bDn

Deest

nnrri Tax hd ^2
xb risiffin mp"" xb bsisn

ix''3ni'i 1
n-'x^nsn
cbis^'T^^nwi"'

n"i"ibi 2
sitji'n n»xi

T

IDCX^ xb

T "

ninxi2jn bob D'l^nia ma "inn;n 3

T T T

D'^nxtJsn niap^n-bsn
nixns nin-j oxa
nin*" nax ns nn-ibx nnaxn 4
xbi nntj^cx laip-i xbn ibB-in

* Aram. ilFini^rrriirrini?. ^ Targ. n-23. <= Vid. vs. 32. "^ Vid. vs. 31.
« Targ. X^^-'-Jp. '^ Cf. Deut. 10:20; 30: 20. § ut 16:4, »» Vid. 9: 21;
16:4. » Targ. xrwa ',W"in'i\ >* Cf.Deut.30: 19.

300

THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH.

[8:5-14

(nr) nrn '^r?

T T • * -

• ^ T -^ T T T

^ T T : ^ T -: :

iniitj ni;\y ^^is D'lDi nin

- T

(nr) n.n ^rs^i ):i«n nir^'-n«

Deest
"-.cx^ nin^ nnin "^s i-Db^i ^nm

f

Desunt

(ibn:) D"'bni3 D^bym D'^r^ns

Deest

ib isi^un ID

Dbcin'] nrn crn 5

s^iub
:?ttTSX'i 'inDt'pn c
Drnsn^a ma' n'bs
rnanbri

-nx -niauj mr^y^. oici "iini
nx iy"i^ Nb ^^yi n:xn n?

ISHDX D^iaDn 8
n:n ]:«
D'lnsQ npw t:2? nw npirb
nin^-nnin nsn r•ob^^ 'inn 9
Dnb n^-ni3Dm ^zh^'q

Dn^n^";© 10

nniE-ns? 'isn'ii npis no u
nibT» nbiib nbprb? ''^3?-na
^3 ^Tijnh :DibTa 'j^s'] oib© 12
-i<'b laia-Da ^iijy 'nns^in

T T *•

"irb ^y^i^ ii'b Db^ni icjin;:

cn^^ps ir\^2 D'^bssn ibsi

:nin^ -irx ibtjs*"

T ; - T : T •

cs"^c« qbx 13
bnns nb:?ni n:snn

T

D^nny*' Dnb ]nxi
li'inbii nin"; "^d DTi5-n^'i;i 14

nin-'b iDs^-jn ^d

* Aram. f,V. ^ Cf. Ps, 50: 11. •= ut Amos 2:4. ^ Cf. I. Kings 3: 28.

8:15-9:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAIUATIONS. 301

DibL^b "li^ip Dibicb n:;p 15

b^pii i^DiD (?n")r!?) J^^'d^ ^V w'^nsis bipi: roio nnn? 16

n^n^'cia' n^Tuni ^'^^^^^ w^tan: 17

Deest nin'^-Ds:

)M,'> ^b:: (? nnrpbar) n^r^^bn^ 'i^!? i^y pr^"' ib:> ^^•^:^'^5nla is

•T^rtp nbD 7V "1^^ rp ^^^ ^""^P "^^^ 20

Deest ipinairn 21

^n-n ^r3>-rx nsnxT ni:?ia^ ' nsni^i n^ti-n

CAPUT IX.

(pinn) linnx pbia cnns iib^ 1

ijbi npiu'ntJp2n:ii;b-nx'iDiTi'i npra DPicp DSiirb-nx id-itt 2
ps<n-b? (na:) nna^ nnrs pK3 'iiza niiisxb sbi

aninx-byi ns^-brbyi 3

...... T T

n^'cb inmi i^b nr« bnn'^ inrb inmi xb n^si ibnni 4

csiTUb Dinicb

* Vid. 14: 19.— Targ. N;"130. '^ Cf. 15: 8. "= Targ. N^T'^n-l. ^ Targ.
KsV-a. « Cf. 49: 24. <" Inc. cap, IX. ? Targ.^rri. *> Cf. 11. Chron. 1:10.
* Targ. Kn^':3.

302

THE TEXT OF JEREI^UAH.

[9:5-18

- T

Deest

~ T

(inn^x ©:;) nn^xnn'^TZji inipm

xb 0''S5-*ibn^ (^bs) nsriD "^d

D^iD ]^S)2b^ (nibsb) D^bib

(D2^r^) DDb ^^1 i^bx mni-^s -in^
na nny ''bna'

T

lbs nirri n'as^T
Deest

Vn nnb n^jtn

T T - -: -

Deest

rta nnibs

T T

"lii-ip mni ni355 hd

njtbs n;iyn
niaian nr"i)3 i^ni ^innr 5

-13"! nisi'a D2iTUb umo yn 7

na-ipss-Kb 8
Ti:! iDn sbs 9
xb^ -inir v^m-bi-Q inji: is

ni:n "iiya Q-^bsb lo
DDnn TUixn-1^ 1 1

T T V

n'15"''! i^bs mni-^s is^
nny ibnia
nin"! nasiT 12
nn i3bn-iibi

T : T :

onb rm^HD 13
ni'i^n^ 14

T :

n;rb n-n D:pn-nx nb-'Dsia

T -; - V - T T

nnnn-nx Dn^-ins innbici 15

liDisnn nixns mni i^s ns i6

isnpi
njsiini

'TIS ^is'ib^ n:T»m npnrn'i n

p-isiia 2?ia©3 18

» Targ. TliE-J-'it. ^ Cf. Ps. 55 : 1 2.— Inc. vs. 5. " Targ "^nin an;^--,-?.

— Cf. Hos. 10: Is. ^ Targ. t^n-z ■'i "T^^n. « Targ. ■,"'^=3. ^ Targ. 'pn-a^SS.
ff lit 5:9, 29. ^ut7:24. ' Vid. 23: 15,— Targ. N;ri'.' "^ ut Ps. 119:171.
' Targ. "P?^'^. ~^'

9:19-10:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VAEIATIONS. 303

npm nnrr^-nn"! D^rs na^iais mrr^-in^ Q'^cs n:y^T»-i3 19

Deest nini-DX? nb "13^ 21

"^^B-by "^lii^a^b D^irii^n n'bns vr^^ -by Tans D^sh nbns nbsin

T©y bbrirri-bxi i''©:? bbnn'i-bx 22

m^i bDirn "inix s^it'T bsian 23

nnbny ■'bi'a-bD-by nb-iia bi^-bs-by 24

*'D''ttiis-bji ' n'Tin^-byi 25
nsEr. yi2p-bD byi ^nxi'a ^:'2'b:?^ hke ^is^sp-bD b^i nsi^-b:?'i

^nten-ibn? n-^bny

ibn) Dnib-^b-iy nb-^bny

CAPUT X.

im ncx mn-i nn'^ nw ni'i ncx -i^'in 1

a^ian •'snT^x Q^i^^n tjnn-bs 2

•onn' n«:^y t^'^6 nyi^ K^n p mcy^ inns n:?^i2 p-i? 3
nnm ?|DDa ' Knrs'a^) p^):^ nnrm ?,DDn ns:^^? ©nn-^T 4

(Vjir:i)'ip"'E''i<nb'i"nw2r::DipTn'' p'^s'i iiibi DnpTm

^^Targ-'ps-'JI^lX ''Targ.'^r'aV. '^Targ.-pp;% ** Vid.8: 2; 16:4. ^Targ.
■ixrsiiX. ^ Targ. ''x::x'i"3, & Targ. "pn-irns -pair. *> Inc. vs. 5. ' Cf.
Isa. 41: 7.

304

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[10:5-16

Deest ^-izT iibl t^'^n nO)!:^ n^hs 5

T V "

( nn« bi^ia nirr; ?iii33 i^stj 6

Tib 13 Qii^n ?yb^ ' ?jii!n"; &ib
Desunt I n'i^n '^rDrrbDn "^s nnsi

':N',n fy o'^ban
?1DD iDjro sb s^n no,:''? ?,d3 jini"" ©^©nnia ypi'a ?,cd 9

nbDH cbD D'^tinn •'loyia

Desunt

D'^arn mcya Dffiinb

ObD

c'ln'bx-ii^ri hisx Q'^rtbs nin'i'i 10
isi^p^ nbi:? ?fb^i D^'^n

-i-^rrri ''nriDn fisn ntjyn nini bnn 'j'^DTa inai pK ncs' 12
TJ5 insinnm in^Dnn bnn ' ni23 in;innm in^Dnn

Qi^ 'ii'ani 0^13 "jTan inn bipb 1 3

''nix Kisi^i mn nst'I

np© "^D ^''b^cE-by qn^i:-bD uj^nn npo ^3 bcs^ :iii2i-bD is^nn u

en mn-Kb ^cd on mn-i^bi i-c3

a^rnyn-D "^cy^ man c^^nn n^ynyn nryi: nan bnn 15
(D^j-nyna)

rniij bK^/uj'^.'] 16
nisns

Desunt

1

• Murjia,^. ^ Cf. 51; 15. <^ Vid. 51: 16.

10:17-11:7] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS.

305

caoTi (!i?;':i?) inysD y^r\i2 qcx

Deest

■'my''T Dip^a ^bnm (ni:) nip^a

Deest

inniri'' "in^iD ynii^ ^scx n
ybip i;;n i s

'instt nbn3 insir-by ""b-inx i o

ipn: ^nn^ia-bDi "-no "^bns 20
rrub px orxi "'SifS'; ''in
^^1:?'>n'' D'^p^i ^"bnx ni:?

D^3>nn ^"iyn3 "^d 21
nsiED cn'':?ni2-bD"i ib^Dtsn xb

T T :

•\^^r\^ Y5n ir^Kb-xb 23
mni iDiDi 24

^^nb^si 25

CAPUT XL

-bxi n-nn^ ^t??k"5x nnn^T -byi nnin^ iij^si-bx annmi 2

b3 Dniir:?T

nbxn D"'imn-nx
obirji-i^b y^mai

Desunt 1

b33 cmx an^iryT

T

nbxn ainmn-b2-rx o

T

DbtJin'^ niiinni

a cKcXtXa. b Targ. "lifTnin raising. '^^ Targ. nzib. '' Cf. Ps. 79: 7.

Vid. vs. 9; 4:3.

U

306

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[11:8-19

U'

\^

u=

ySi

Desunt <

D"'3bn man nrnn

Deest

n:nna D"!>'n [sinb] a3i;fnr\-bxi

cnn ^sbrn (as) is« ''D^■^S'-l

n^b3? ©x nr^n nbirn bipb
rpm^b"! lyn '-j^by nisin nb'rri

TV ' • - T T T -

Deest

anb "iir:? "^3
bynb anap^

• T

^nyn nrncn'a imrn ^by ''n:!'-'' xb
(''nD'ibC2i) nn^TCii ^Db nbsb

B2rn n;-?:! arn-^y D'!']ip
pbip3 ^:?aT? nrsb lyni
a:TS-ns ^cDn-sbn i:?^t» iibi s

T ; T V : IT •

aab mn^i.T»2 ts^x ^^bn
-b3-n55 an-iby i^^asi y^.n

r ._. ...... • T T ■» T

-mrs riK-n-ni^an ^^^'^.
nitjyb ^n^^r
abinn'^^ ^3t2''31 min^ ■0"'i«n 9
iDbn nam lo

T

insn

— T

nyn an^bii x^n^ ^::n 1 1

lyiis^i^-xb yirini 1 2

n«3b ninara 13

n;n a";:?n xirn-bi^T 14

nbsm

nntc;? in^nn ini-i^b na 15
Trnp-nmi a^ann nnarian

''T'byn
ns?n-ins ns"^ "irs?-! n'^T i g
CK Ti^sin nb^3 hbian bipb
Tim^b"! i:?ni n-^by

nixns 17
anb wy niss
bynb nropb
^zyi'Tin mn^i 18
i:n^s"^n
qibx isnDD 19
incn ^by-is ''nyn^ xbi
nn^nt'D nintjn^

'' Vid.vs.2; 4:3. ^ Targ. 'li2'^>?. « Cf. 3: 5. "^ Vid.7: 16. « Targ.

ynn-r-^a '{r[VZ. f Targ. r,^S. & Targ'. "fi^a "("^Jiri-iS. ^ Targ. •'•a'l?.

11:20-12:11] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 307

(ninab^) nisbn sbn

"D^n'aiiin '^CErrs n^ispn^n ii2Xb ?iTrD2"ni< n^TSpn)2n 21
mni niiJ-by nirr' dts3

i^^n-^n mrp. Cs^b-QS-;) i?b-; is'i'^n n^^n sbi

''in^ninn nn^by "ipEi? ' n:n %:n nis^ns nin^^ -i^5<-nb ^Db 22

cn-'nrni cn^ini in-i'a^ mnn im'a'> D^ninnn nn^b:? npb

cn-pD'n:ir2mn:2^3a-'nTri''n-b2 on^fps n:TO mn::? ^c:i<-bs 23

CAPUT XII.

l"ib^ I3bi 2

ci^b c^iJnpn ^rs? ''nb n:nm npnn inx ^nb n:nn^ "^Dsin 3

(^n:\nnn) srjnn aT>b mrnpn-i nnnub ]i<is

mrn nry-bwi nirn-bs rnrj^n 4

"irnniij-ns c^-'bxn r.sni sb isninns-nx nKn*" xb

"^^XT i^xb^T i::^-!"; Ti'^bsn npx iisb^n nnif) o'^bn-nsi ^2 5

•jnynn ' ' ' nnnnn t«^

(mbisn) !?iisibtj f nsm aibir psni

' nr3?n T'X mryn i^si

(^i^biann) isb^ T"inx^ isnp i^bia i^nns nxnp 0

' ^nbip "^by r.:n; nbipa ^bs? n:nD s

rib n'^nc^ nnyrn rr^by n'^no "j^yn

T • T r ; T -.■ T

^nbiiib iT,sf;^T mrn n^rrbD hbsxb mn men n^^n-bD

n^nx n^a^TCb " "(n)2ir^n) n^ir "^by nbns nia^icb n^r 11

n'3T2« ■'by (mns) ' ntj^t?

» Targ. T'-itUtn. ^ Of. I. Sam. 2: 16. « Targ. f n^-^bw. "^utUrlS;

44:12. e Yid ^V: 12. ^ ut 7: 32 j 19 : 6. 8 Targ. PPOTrx. ^ Targ.

U

308

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[12:12-13:11

tn-^nibn? inip a^spi □•'•jn nynr
c:nns£na ion nnb ib^^T" xb

IS^TT'' Nb CXT

T

Deest

7n«n nsp-ns^T px nspa 12
ibn: insp D'^spi Di'isn i:?nT 13
DD'inii'QiJu it5ni ib:?^'' sb

nbnsa n^:?:i:n
^r:? '^^IT'^i^ iG

' 13321
IZ^TSTD^ Xb DX1 17

T ; •

CAPUT XIII.

Deest

Nin^^ xb 01)231

Desunt <

nms ^bi

nin'i ''nis nis mrxD

QTr-'i^r:b

nn:n nniD ibsi

T T - '

^insnti xb n^'cni

ni:tj 3

ri^sp -nrs 4

nnns "jb

T1IX nin"' nis nrsD 5

mu-i2^i:b G

T ;

nnns ^bxi 7

^bDb nbs^-xb nirx nmr: n:m bsb nbsj^ sb nirsn nmci n:m

n-nbx

jabTSini ■jixmsi :nnn obisni pi<^-nxi i)

nrn lixsn '^nnn :?in ntn nrn 10

Ft-- -t tt

inns{ D^Dbni isb^^i nab ninnrn a-^Dbrin

^si^ni "in^i

c^s -^rnis-b? ts^x •'^n^-bx 1 1

'^ Targ. N;^""^. ^' Targ. nriiX'3. « utvs.lO. ''inc. vs. 10. * Targ.

13:12-24] THE CONSPECTUS OF TPIE VARIATIONS. 309

Deest nin-^-DS]

■lbs iy^i» ' 13?t:tu «bi

n.f n Di'n-bi? nniasi on'^bx miai^i 1 2

Desunt -^ ' ■ " ^ i_ "•■ ^ V

1 bsnTCi. "inbs

ynsn ■^mci-nx pxn ''2tJ-'-b3-ns 13

-n-b n^:3 D"'nt5''n on'^rb^a-ni^i -br Tnb a'>mr'in n^sb^n-nsT

^nn^sDD-by ixdd

-bD nsi n^in';-n>;i n'^x^n:n-ni5i ■^str-'-bD nKi D'li^^n^n-n^i

nsi DbtnV"'3 n-inr^n "iin^io □biu'n';

(mn^-ass) nin^ ^ bi^^ns

innr^n-bs'i. ^ innsn-bs 15

b£-i;:?b ipffii_ "nTabs: nrisi bsnyb n^Tpi° rrrabsb ni2i»i 1 (>

'i:?^rn xb asii ms^^irn s*b bs5T 17

T

airs: nDsn '^'Cb: n^nn

Deest Wn yb^l

nac: ""s ''niyi:^ ar'*;'':? n:'inm m:? naiijs "^d nyw ^p'^y "nm

(a^ni3;;bi) a^'i'^n.^bT ^b^ab niax ib-'sirn nn^'aribi 'ib^b n^x is

azrs"!^ Ti^n "^d imsn ibisirn aD^nirsi^a Ti^i ''d imu

B-^iaibffi nbsn rn^ a^iaibTr nb^n rtbs lo

ixni a''bri-i-; i\'[i^:p ^xtJ °'^sm ap'':'':? "'^s^tc 20

\^by 'n^^B^-^D l^by ipB^-^D 21

'(ni:?nn) ynn a'^'i^ab ynn i^'ab 2;^

'-ai^b nn-ii3 nniy lapD ^m^s mnb nm:? cpD 21

» ut 15:2; Exod. 12:26. *» Cf. Ps. 122:5. "= Targ. . . . '•nr
r(Vrn. *! Targ.'p^":-!. « 7ra/)a^£/7,^ar/7^:jya/.— Targ. rnrx. <" Targ. N'i'-3

T : : : t t ' t: ' • ■• t :

o

10 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [13:25-14:9

1?

CAPUT XIV.

imrn in©

Deest Qti^n ^2m ^^abani ^m

T T : -. : r :

bnn n^^i?n (n)'''iiny'i nnn n^aisn n^iya 4

Deest ^nxa

in^yi ^-bi mtjn nib*s-Da niryi nnbi nnirn rib^s-n:^ ■'s 5

a©37 ^rr^n x'b-'D rnsy v^"^^'

i:b mry mn'' i:i ^tj^ i:'^;i3> mijy mn-" i:n i:y irDiy-os 7

Ti"^':Eb ir:!? 11VD i:?^b la'^nhiiria inn-'D "r© ]:?i2b
n:s'jn ^b ''3 (^'n3;b) i:s-jn ^b

nyn i^'iffiini ^nin^. bx-ns^ n^pia nns nrn i:>^TSii2 bxmr'' mpi: s

psn-bi? nr^s n^nn n^b ^nn^ n^i^^i V^i*5 ^^^ '^'''^^ '^'^b
'(ibi2b nt:b nnrstDi )V5b nus

I T 1 •.* T : V 7 T T T

^p 1:3 nr,s*i "'2a";pa nnsi

i:n2t'n-bi< j^nps ntiiri isnsn-bK xnps irby ^^01S^

» Targ. -"ri!i::r!l rpv^'i'S'-?. ^ a-akXorpix^i?. <= Cf. 17: 8. '^ Targ.
Sf^p sinsdX X31.. ^ Aram. "i^^"';. *" ut vs.5.— Targ. 'iin xb. ff ut 17: 13.
•» Cf. is': 11. ' * Tai-g. Xr^^b X-jCI.

O T T ; • T ; •

14:10-19] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. oil

"nnt-x'' xb D^n'bsn n^irn Dii sb nin'^i

Deest DnsDn ^pB'^.i.

^nnben-bx cnp-bi5

^nirr^ nns nin^ ^:ii« nns 13

D'^n'asi ''n^xs:^ Qf^'^i^^^: cnb a'ln'ax n^s^nsn

'cibtn nisN ^D DDn rr^n^-xb n^m oibir ^d nab n^n^-xb i:?-n

T : T ; T

ciprn^ V'^iJO"^? 1^^ mpi33 nob -jnx max

nrn nrn

tv-i:"! n*^i:cp^ "ipis nti-'Tn ■'S ni^nnn bibs^ ncp'i npiu lirn 1 4

onb ^n'^'a^m ' onb '

"ip© '>'airn n''sn:n i^irn n'^xnDn 15

nxrn pxn-by n^n^ xb r.s*7n ynxa n-in^ xb

(^bn niian) ^inxj^ Q'^i^bnn "^nii:^ n-ina

-inptt T^sn '•nynnn ninn i:e^ nnp^ "i^si snnrn nynn "1:2^

T T - T " T

N^nrn:^ ps ^d iHd-c^ i^'inraa ^d is

15?-'' Kb nirx 1?"!^ xbn

'it's: 2?pn 'ji^si^'i ^rs: nbya "ji^si^-nx 1 9

mbisb ''HD-'ip D^btJb n^p

Ken's nrb xsn^ rybi

^ Alex. n:i"i sb. ^' Targ. ■•inr.'ib::. " Vid. 1:6; 4:10; 32:17.
''Targ.-i3:ra-!. "e Cf, 33:6;Isa. 39: 8. '' Vid. 23:26. eutl6:4. *» ut
16:4. i C'f. 6: 8; Ezek. 23: 17. ^ Yid. 8: 15.— Targ. X3"?p.

/^

o

12 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [14:20-15:9

^r\trj i3'iniyii5-i mrri r.^^^ irmnx py i:?tjn nirr' id^i^ 20
(inxn) bnnn-bi« bnrn-bs

(□n^in ,03-1) nn^n-i i:n'« D'^n^an I2n^

CAPUT XV.

Qyn-ns nbir nn^bs 'irsD ■j^k nb© nrn nyrrbs ''©B3 I'^x 1

- T — -.

''(?)niyiTb n|:iTb 4

nia:>-TCx-b2-by nirsj-iirx-bsy

xn^'; '>12^ nbtJin^ ^^b:? b^n-^-^a nbirin'' 'T^bj? ban^-'^a ''3 5
1^^ ('ins';) ^b 112^ 1^21

bi«TBb

^■as^-ni^ ^'lax ^bic ^^y '^n^^jn ^p^3« inbst? vn.yn i^^tn 7

•'an^niDisbx ''ia2t2> ' ' ^nisiabx '^b-i'asy 8

'ITT ^D"i"iina ns-b2? ^Jii^an n']© mna Ds-by nnb ^nxnn

nbnn^ n^y . nibnm n^y

nrnuj rnbi ns^msn nnb"" 9

Di^n ''sn i:>n rib iriai^n nsn d^I'^ ^:>n wotit? nxn

Desunt |

* Targ. ^"T.m. *" Targ. Tj^'^i^^. " dyccyKag. ^ Targ. 'pnrb^nx.
• Targ. '('in'^'a'^l!',?.

15:10-21] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 313

Deest rTin^-a^^3

^nb5pi23n':Dinbo^N^n-mrrN'5i "iiibbptt n"33 ■'i-iorxbi

n-'iTS^'ab) *an2 Dimij''b ""nx ps ?in^^TS Kb-nx 'nini n^x ii

• ;-;-' VT •T;-t -; i •■ r ' • - ■• t: ~t

(?)(s^3b niDb

niisb an"i2 mm Dn-^niyn r:3?n -nx nna mm n5?n nyn

: T :■ V T

n^sn-bx n-^xn

^^ssri bnn (s^^i^^in) 3?'Tn ps^^ bpa bnn s^'Tin 12

n^n^i inxTib ^'T^Ti^^i^T n^""" ^^ "i^^^ ^^b i^nnsixi ^b^n 13

']^nix::n-bDn T^mxt:n-bDn^ '^''fl^^'

pX3 T'mxb mno •^Ti^n^iayni sb -ji-nsa i^n^i^-nis -^ninyni 14

m^i ^ab "iTTx ' mi''

Deest p^^i nrs 15

''?)5?1 '^b Dpann

p,x l-iKb-bx *>:n;^n ?jsj{ '^nxb-bif:

'inn^ ^nii. ab? T'^21 ^issia ■^nii DbDi^n ^'innn isir: I6

^b ' ' ' lb linn' '

pysn T'b:?xi 17

^nxbtt n^'a-'D ^;n5?bia oyr-^D

T T T T •

'':in3i3'^ ''2^X2)3 n^b nsa i^sd n^n n^b is

D'ii'ck: xb iT2i5 "irD !i:^x: xb n*;^ stdx ira

^nyn ^3Bbi ^T05?n ^:sb ]<>

Deest nin'i-ax: ^ib-ijinbi 20

^bijinbi ' ' T'nban"! 2 1

* K<zTc-j'^vv6vTav ex'jTuv. '^ Inc. vs. 13. « Cf. 17: 4. — Targ. "jiinsrn'i'ri

'■,'i="'nsn "^^vzh. d Targ. iini. e ^arg. ri5Spn. ^ Taro-. r.-ra-a.

314 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [16:1-14

CAPUT XVI.

Deest ^'■cmb ^bx nin^-ns^ ^n^n i

rrin^ "i-cs nirx npn-sb nns<T ib T^n^-xbi nt^x r^b npn-xb 2

ni'i p nb i^n^-xbi bxiic"' ^nbx niDn^i D^;a

n^nsn ^'D-b:? "li^^^b n^-sn ^:s-b:? "j^nb 4

sy^m ibs-^ nina n^aiun D^^irn aiyb brsiab nnbns

;" I t-:-;tt:'

lbs'' yiitn n^nabi

Desunt

^'i2'^^_ sb ni?Tn
xbi 'n^ir^n'' xbi Enb inso^-V? ^'ir^n-' xbi onb i^isc^-iibi

n^-b:? Dn:b Qbnxa nnb cns^-sbi ii2n:b bns-b:? nnb ^c^E^-sbi 7
inis ipisi-i5bi cnii? ipic^-xbT n^-by

nns Kinn-Kb nnic^a-n-'a i^inn-xb nnt^^a-n^n^i 8

Deest nixns 9

■jTisiiJ bipn nniaTS bip nrrati bipi priu bnp

nia nbiitn m'ynn-b^ ri< nxin nbi-an n3>nn-bD nx 10

DDTTinx ^niii ",nT:;-n©x b:? "^mx DD^mnK ^nT^^-iirx by 1 1

Deest fTii^yb 12

:?-in-DDab ""niKr) ::>nn-i3b n^-inin

''fixn-bs pxn-b? 13

Deest . nb-^bi a^ii

T : - T T

i:n''-i{b iPi?'s«b

* Vid. 8: 2; 9 : 21. ^ Inc. vs. 6. = twv apearikv. ^ Targ. X^"^i<b.

<S ' T i : • I : T ;

16:15-17:5] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

315

-bx D^mnrn'] n^» ^nnn tcx

Deest

ons M!th)2 ^m an^nir.yi

T T •• .

nsm (n:?a) o^^sn n^^i'n'a ^::n

bsnc^ ■'32-ns 15

r T : • : ; ■

T - T T

nbn:a

T T ;

CAPUT XVII.

Desunt

•jys nn^ns n'^in^ nsisn 1
-by mr^nn ni^in "jnEsn bns
:n3^ninsT^ ninpb^ aab mb

: ninhan ni:^na b? |:in y?-by
Tj^niniiii^-bD Tjbin n-jisn innn 3
-bD3 ni^DHS n^nra "iPX tab

T : T - . ' V T ' " V - T

?inbn:'a ?|n^ nnprci : ^j^b'ina 4
-ns Ti^n^nyni tfb ^phd ncx

DbV~i? "IE S3 Crin-lp TCS-^3

nin^ ni2i« nb :"ip^n 5

T • - T fr

^ Targ. "rn;.;-N5. '^ Targ. Tiri-^l'n "i-SV""? ^V* ' ^^^- 18:23; 31 :34;
36:6.— Targ. 'VnxT br ■,in-N-jn;' I'irT'^'in.

31 G THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [17:6-21

nira nrn d-j^d ib numa ncs nm nci mxn ncni "^^^^

T T

nnbT2 pxai nn'^rni D^nb^ -dot nnbis px nmian D"'n'in ]d'idi r
mrn \^?b nirx airn sibi

nnis p'3 f 73 s

(xni-i =) ii-^^n Sib icnc ^fbir: sni stbi i^w^to nbiri

r.iTrn ]:3?-i nb:^ o^b2>) ^rr^by hth nnsn r:m^ py'n ^nbr n-^m

?(xn''-;) 'ins'^ sb nnsn asci"! ifb

■''CI scin ''cj:si bD^ ''nbn p'r:? ^a xnn tjixn bD^ abn npy 9

^^D-\'o w^ath t^Th^ m^bD ]na'i idiis ©^i^b nnbi ni'^bD ]nn 10

n^bb:?^ ^isdi n-'bby^ "iiss

-b"« j{b nox (*i5s) ^'j,i x^p xnp ncy nc7 ^b^ i^bn n^i snp 1 1
"jSTUisn xb imzj:? nir:? usir^n sbn

Desunt I ^^^^^'^ ''

1 Q^PJ

innr pi5n-b:r (^nc) i-iio 13113^ ps?3 ''n^o-; 1 3

i^in'' x; xin^ 15

ci^i I'lnnx tiDb^ ^''ti'^sb? i<b dt'^ T^^i* nyhia ''nss-i^b ig

T'^isb insTZJ 1x2112 T^s n?: Tis© xsTa

^hrb) -iD:b ^b-n^nn-bx nnnrb ^b-n^nn-bx 17

Deest nnx

Deest "ibx 19

o

(bis) nnn . " (bis) in

Deest latji 20

D3im»B2 iTQir CD'^miSBra in^Tsn 21

nbiDini •'lyistt ixsn-bi?i C]bioTT« in3>m on^nni

a Targ. i^Yl. ^ ut P8.64: 7 (Gk. & Heb.). ' Vid.vs.16. ^ ut Ts.
3G: 10; Prov.l6: 22. « Targ. n"':;?? sb. '' Vid. vs. 9. S etg dWoTp/oiJiv.

17.22-18.8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 317

Deest na

cn^ciDi nn^spvbr n^3Dni D^cneni nrns D-^nDi 25-

nKTn n^:?n (nDTSti) ict^ ' r.srn n-^yn nnic^i

'nWin^ n-inGrT abTSiT nin^25T2^ 26

nbscn 'fii<t!i nbDTrn-';i2T

(?)nn:ti'i n"ib]:^ oTinn '"nib:? "^snisins-Qbi nn:ttT nnti nb:?
mn^^n'in-bsn'inn^iin'ansinbi nnrr" nil min

sb-aii rr^n-i «b-DXT 27

sn ''nbabi sis^ ni<t3 ^nbnb in^tJi xni stia nsw ^nbnbi
obisTi-' in:?ira^_ Dbirini

.^^

CAPUT XVIII.

n'':nsn-b:y D^.:ni<n-b:? 3

v:^:?n n::i ncsD nsi'^n ^r^n mc ncsD

T .. _ ..

Deest nirr^-DSS g

i^.in ens nm^n -rainD ^-i^n ani5 1? nsi^n ^^a TanD

Drn:b n:bi2i3-b:? is f '^^?^1 ^"i^^?^ riDb^sia-by-i 7

' Dn'^ni2>n-b2^ T^by '^nna^. nrs in^-ra s ^ ,

cnb miryb -rnrn -itjs? ib mtrrb '^rnirn ncs ' ' '

^ Targ. V^br. '^ Targ. rr-^h. '' ancpola.

318 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [18:9-21

— ytrsnbi n^:anb nsb-atji ?i'J?'?i, f^^:^'? nDb-c^-by^ n

"■^rsb nynn iTrrn t?3 nynn nir:7i lo

*'^nci^-b5iT rrnni ^iiJis-bx nbx -b:?n mi.n^ c^s-bi? xr-nrs 1 1

Dbiri-1^ DbtJini ■'niiJT'

Deest nini n'ax nb n72xb

T : - T

T

(:\bi2Ji) abc-as CI"!© "i^s^a ^np^n pDnb ;\bc '^^to nis^ strn 14

D'^bTIS ' D'lbnD

ibilJD^l mb©D';i 15

nh:?b T*!^ anb 'j'^k nb^bp «b "jii

abiy npi-nci abi:? npirns 1 1;

^n-^r^i 'I'ac-' nib3^ a^nni:>rj bD t:^i n^^ n^b:? nni:? bD

affii^nn iirxin

nv asnx ''an^niix ''rsb as^sii a'^is-i^b'] q-ib ni^is "^rcb aa^ss 1 7

Binx n"i^N aTi2 axnx

nnirn^ nin^n^ is

-br-bx ni'iirp^i "jiisbn inDSi -bs r;ni©prbs-i piDbn inrii

I'^nm ' I'l-im-bD

bipb :ff'am nin'' ^bx nniirpn bipb y^Tui ^bx nin^ ni'^irpn 1 9

T

^TSDsb nn^Tt (inai) ^si)^"''^ ''tJBDb nn^o iid-^d 20

''b ^rr-j abirbri

nnn-^^i-br (ascijnn) an^s«n1 nD^nn"; nnn-^-^-b^* ai5n", 21

an^ir: nrnn an-^rs

ann-^bs: a^nmi'i ^"in-'STs an^ninn

" Targ. ■^■?-",. ^ Targ. "^^r^^l. *= ra a^ofjTa. ^ Xarg. ''iiT'?^" "?;[?•
« ut 20: 12.— Targ. ^zzbv.

18:22-19:7] THE COXSrECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 319

(D-'-t-io) ''u'^'i'i^ ' "n"i^ nn'hy

"^•'obb nn''Tr'(in3) Ns^.:? ^3 iDTDbb nn^o ins "^d

T«:sb nbiiJD^ ire T^isb n'^biCD^ n''n°i

' T • • ; ' * T \ ; r :

CAPUT XIX.

^^b« n^ni niax tx nin'^ -112s nb i

'':pTTa f nsnw) nnpbn icnn -12^^ ^:p'^^ Qi^n i;pTi2i TDnn isi^

nbsn D^nn^in-bs-ns D^nmn-rs?

mn'^nnn i^'rtj on^bx JTrai^i nini-nn^i ii"Qt; nn'asn 3

n-,^n^. '^risi n^ini ''Dbia ^nirii n^nn*' "^Db^a
n^isn"! abir-n^3 n'^nis^'ni Dbuji-i";

r :

nrn aipian-rs iiib)2 nvn mp^n-nx lab^^
D^p3 ^r-i D^p3 3^

bynb n^'an b:?nn nTan-ns 5

Deest bynb nibi?

- T -

•^nbs "inrnijn xbi inb-b:? nnby s«bi "^nna"! sbi

:-:-T - t:t *;-•

ri^T\ mnni n2::;-ni{ (?)wpni mini n3r:^ni5 "^npni 7

nbTCTT! nbizjin^i

a Targ. ',;|-:d'2. '' hcxe/pri7av. <" Vid. 16:18; 31:34; 36:3— Targ.

■jin^S-jlji *|'in'';:'in. ^ Targ. "^b "'^ Tax. ^ Targ. "i^iri.. ' t^? xapssi'h.
& ut 7: 2; 17:20; 22:2.

320 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [19:8-20:3

D^i2cn iniBiyb bsxtib on'bnD c^rirn ^lyb bDSiab onbas

ynxn nrnnbi y^mn trannbi

nn2^-5D-b3^ nnis^-bD-b:^ s

^bsNT D^nbDsni 9

Deest Dr£3 ^•epn'Q^

Deest ni3j?bnipT9]^x^^nap')n2hii

nrn mp^b nin^-a«3 mr3?s-p -dxd nrn mpiab 'ntj:?X"D 12

"i^yn-nx nnb i2 n'inic^''b'i -ri{ nnb-i n^nisi^b'i mn''
nEns nsTn nsHD nxrn ni:?n

isb^ inni abirin-i "ina^ -^DbTa T,m D'^bTCin*' ^nn i^m 13

T ;

ncnn oipiaD i^n^. n^rw n^nn nip^D rrnni

nri? Q^nnn bna cn^niiirirpia nirs a^nnn bob a'^x^rsn

inap ana inup

"a^DDD (^DD'^.i) ^rG!:i a^DDi ?fDni

mni bsnte'i in'bx nii^ns nin'' 15

-b^n. ni-iy bD-b^i nxTn ^T^^^n-b:? -bD-b3>i' ' nsrn niyn-bsi

(n-i'TC'i^^ ,n^ni"iTi!) rj-inerbs rr^-iy

" "(?) "^nisia-bx ^^iisTu' Tibnb I'la^-ns :>iru5 inbnb

CAPUT XX.

'nssn^n-bx inx I\bt3^"^ ^ns^i ^5^n:n irr^iann nx n^mrs ns^i 2
n:En n^an i:?Tca nrr^n nirx • ncx nasnian-b:? inx in'^T
(Vns^ia ]^^D3) -ji^b^^n rrab i^^bj^n ]^^:a nym

Deest nnni2^ ""n^"! 3

T t: T • • :-

Sip nini Knp

=* Targ. 'j-^sp? il^-'p?!!. '^ Targ. Nn'^p V?. <^ Targ. »tP3'^=>.

20:4-12] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIOXS. 321

^T^ ins rmn->-b3-nNi ?|nisi -^by n^s inx min^-bD-nsn
ninnna csm nb;\ni bai-^b^ nnn3a2ninbnanb:*mbnn
mnsix-bD^ nsV n3>^!;^-bD-nNT rinp^-bs-ni^i ' ?n:>'^:^^-bD-nNi 5

TV T I^T : T '.- : T

Dis'^nm i^n\^ ^n^a n-nn^ ^b^ min^ i^b^ mnsrix-bD nsi

nbni DiTT3^ D^^a^s i^a ]ns
nbnn mx^nm cinp^b^
nn^33 n^niu^n bDi nnsi ^n^n ^niai bDT i^nicB nnsn o
mm bnini nr^n mri s^inn bnm

bD^m npJTn bDini "irnpTn 7

°3:?b2(n) nbs uvn-b^ ^b yjb n"b3 CTTi-bD

Onn-j ""n^s) nn^^n ''-i^n-iD pnx "is-s '''^^■^d 8
(pnipK) priis?

■lb nsnnb nsnnb ^b

"^ipi^-bD Di^n-bD

-"i:^ nm«-sbi nirr^ Dtj n2TS-xb iyt5sni3>Wi<-sb^^3n5Ti5-i{b o

"ip"* ni^"3 ffiXD nim ii2C5-b:? nsry nnrn tund "^abn n-^m

(bb bis) b^bD ^n^sb^i iniai*:>n Kbi bsbs Ti^sbri ^n^i::>a

(nsir) sib: bois sbi bsix

''Trzs bD (?i^by nnhDi i^i;) ' ^nriij " ^tbc ri:j« bD
ins? 11)2^ 'T'^ii: (itibp) ^ybs

(innirn):)
ibD"" sb bsipni 'iST] ibD^ i^bi Abies'; ^£";'i 1 1

^*b sbir' nn-ini^bD lyT 'i^b-^i sb abiy nisbD ^b^sirn sb-iD

n:nDt;n riD»n

-i^n (nip'ii') P72 pn mn'' nsn p^ns ^nn nixns nin^n 12

inapD ni<ni« ninnb^ ni-'bD ^nisps nitii? nbi 'n^-^bD

nnn sma

T

pL'jKT^^pi^ofjisvog. ^ Tavg. n-np Tins"? ■j'"r:3n"3.
X

322 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [20:13-21:7

(inis5 ibbn) ^nibbn '^"I'^V^? '^'^''^ ^ ^

mrto "IDT ' nnnizir niro nor "ia ^b

T - '■

^b-^nm anna ^:nni^-Nb mrx ^b-^nni onn^ ^rnnTa-s^b n©s 17
nm^ ^nxsr^ nr n^b ^ns^i nnn^a nr n^ab is

CAPUT XXI.

'ini^n^-bs n^T\^ rnn'n nini rin-a in^'an^-bs 1

iD-ibr Dp bni Dnb: bnn-^bia n^xnnD^ns

' "irb:?
Deest iDnix

in^^n^ nrr^bs nias^i nrr^bx nn^'ani n^s'^T 3

J^lin"!. ?fb^ in^p"i2-bx in^p"i3j-bi5

mn^ Tas-nD bsnte"] ^rfbx nin*' "i'ds-hd 4
Deest DD'i'^a mrs

Q^iiSDn-ni^ Dint5Dn-ni{i bna !ib)2-nx
nbi-D. nanm ^xa biisi :i2pa^ n^anan qxai 5
-ni« nsTn n^ya ' D^airn^n-bi n^xn-nxi nxrn n^rn ■^aiuT' 6
naia nirnan-nxi u'^tzi^.r^ bri^ naia n^nan-nxi

^ainn-f^ai aynn-pi a:?-in -jiai annn-";T2 lain

* Inc. vs. 16. ^ Cf. Deut. 29: 22.— Targ. ^i.TJina ^-j 'qsm. «^ Targ.
ypiT':'!. •! ut I. Chron. 6: 25. « Targ. XS-in -(Ta!!.

21:8-22:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

323

Deest

zrro:? cin^-xb nnn-'^Db asm
*aiQn"is|! mb^
nrn n:?n-bi5

* - T

Deest

n-^m bb^b ^irss nn^m n^n'^

T T : V : •

bni-^b^ '^'1^3

m^ni ibi3 n^3

•'■ipiry T13 bin ib^3sm ^it'si

Deest

Deest

Desunt s

Din^-i4b nin-^sb c^m

T T

Dnni i{bi bbn: sbi nn'^b:?

nrn n3?n-bKi s

in^ni 9
a'^^iTUDrrby bE;i

- T ;

bbisb ITCSD ib-nn^ni n^n^.

T

bnn-ibu ^^3 ninTaic?
n^nrr" iba n^nbi 1 1
-'js pizjiy -j^'a bin ib^sm 12

anibb:?^ ?'"i "^^e^
niu^^n -112 13
nSn^i-axs

nin^-as3

CAPUT XXIL

'I'll ^^

ainin

"in t

pic:? "I'la 3
aini

-by a-^n^ni Nil xcD-by B^mri a-^nD-i ixoD-by ninb a^nir-" 4
r^iiT} a'>DiDm 'ninsn^ i-:an sin a^oicni 12-^3
D1251 aninnipi ' ' . ■ inri

» Cf. 13: U. b Vid. 38:2; 39: 17. = Vid. 22:3.— Targ. Prb C:xn.
** Targ.psn-^ XrVn. « I,6p. ^ ut Exod. 19: 24; 32: 7. & Vid. 21:12.—
Targ.rril? DrxX h utvs.2; 17:25. > Targ. •)'^=-'r-ia.

324 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [22:5-13

ton xb Dsn wtr\ mb DNi 5

imuiD N5 nntJi3 xb i;

(isb^ri) i^bDi lu^ii ,l^b3i

' "©xn-bi? tJsn-br

-i^sii nxrn i-i^sn niiTn

nbi";:jn nstrn T^yb iixm nbin.-^n n^s^'b

lb i::ipn-bxi ib i^:n-bxT lo

•"□bTD-b? DbiiJ-bx 11

Deest nniJTi ^bia

•'ti'iban-niui^ njn nipTzs-^ax ^s ^ibr^n-mux oip'os '■'o 1 2
i^m^b:?T pisrxb irr^n ^n:nn p^iir-iiba m^n nsn " tin 1 3

t32Tr)23 xb UD©^ i{b3 ^imibs^i

^b n^;a ""b-nDnx 'itjstn 1 4

Q''nnsi2iTnx3a^ri£Di^;ibnai2>ip nsa -i^Bci ^:ibn ib ripi

^^3x ^rnxn nnnn^ nnx ^d ^^nx nxi mnn^ nnx ^d 15
Ijb iiD ^mc"^. iibi ^bDsii mb -j^tJia niaJn nrncn bsx xibn
npnii "jsir'^ r-iTUS' ib nrj tn npnsii

•j^^^s* ^'i^ ii'bi ^:y ]i'i ^n iib ^yy_^ ijb p'^^i^i ^:3?-]'''^ in i g

Deest ni'J Tx

''ini^ ^in^'T-sbn inx ny'^n N*'in-«bn

^D ni'j T^^ r^^l 1^-^^ r'^ '^ir' -brns^ ID inbi Tiry 'i\>? ^s 17
''pan-m-bsT lystn-bx-ns T^nnb "^pan-nTbyi i^i'n
^nsn-bsn nipTD3?^"bxi iDsrab nsi-iian-b:!?! p©2)n-byi

nrnujyb nTC^b

D^piini-^b? • D^p^irri-bx is

HTn t;\^{n-byi n";in^ ib^ n'nn'' i^'a

^b ^is nb "nsD-i-xbi nx iin -,nsDi-xb ninx lim. ^m ^^n

■Jinx nnh lini pns? '^in ib

^ Targ, X'niJb. '^ Targ. Ci^bd b?. •= Targ. "jribs. *1 Targ. i_3ai.
* Targ. JiX^"!!? Sf^^W?- ^ ^'? (povov. S Targ. bv.

22:19-30] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS. 325

Y'tjni nino i-inp^ -nian nmnp ibirrii mno nsp^ n^rn n^np 19

ITSnn-bsn y:f:i^ pDnbn-b.s ^bs^ i:n jirnni "^py^iT )i:nbn ^by 20

nbip '•in ibip

(a'^n-nnyb) c^/iny^ Q^l^?^

ni^xi inibrn ^^bx'^rnn"; mr« T.^ibisn i^bx ^nnnn 21

ny^is-Nb n^'rir-sb ^3

ix^^ ^mun I3b^ ^niun 22

(^n2sr}) nnss? ^nrre-nia 23

nnbiD n^bnn n^b^D bin nibnn

nrx ^rss '^tjpnia ''T^ I'^^^t^^i ^^^'^ l^s: ^icpn^ ^^a Trunin 25
Dn^:si2 mr^*" nnx nn^:D)a m:;i nnx mux

Deest ^^^"^^^ 'i^^'^l?-'^^ 'i^ni

ribi-xb nrs} ^pK-bx -mb nrx nnnx psjn b? 26

D© ' ' DUJ cnnbi

^pxn-b.vi ynsn-byi 27

in^TT'i bnb inw^ sb n^ti cc n^icb

- : T T AT T

fsn 'j'^x "ibDS in^rDi nn: n-n ts'^xn psp nrnD nsirn 28
■}^ns-bs ^bcm bum "^s in in yen px 'ibs-ax in^rn

-mi ntJx vnsjrj-by inbirm

yim pK T^-ix px >nx 29

nhs '"innn nirr^ -i)2X nb 30
Deest V'a'jn nbs'^-s^b

ly^T^ n^sii sb ''D t'^ic ii"nn2 nb^-^ sb
biL"ii3 bnri

^^ Targ. r-ixb. b Targ. Ni'^X^I. ' Targ. XDrD.

326

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[23:1-12

CAPUT xxni.

Diyn^ "itx n^3?n onb in^pm

Deest

bijmr'' y-iT-bs f 3p rnrs
-bs on'^TE'^n en on^^n "iirx

... J - T •

^^^ (? 'n^D?,) nu^y nnsDi n^mr tu^nd

Deest

mpbpbnb

is2-nx t^ssti'i D'linx^ 1
bx'iffi"; "iribs nini 2

T

iiss n^-iXTiJ-ns 3

p-^irby
DiSJii D'^yi nn^b? iniapm 4

^3p1^

-ns i5''sn ntjsi nbyn rnri? 8

bxrnc'i ni3 is^nr
-by intj^i DT!J D^nn'^n ^wx

D'^xnsb 9
■j^^ inny ^n^Di nisp ts\^d
^tj-ip 'i-in'^ ^DSiai
fnsn nsb^ q^bs:^ "^s lo
' ' nbs •'Ds^-^D

'n^pbpbn? 12

^ Targ. "|"i-;-a^t 'riSii:^'^. '^ ut 10 : 21. « Targ. iSST X'^N"^ n\ "^ Targ.
";'ini;^nNl3. « auvexofjisvog'. ^ Targ. "(inrd^a I'an;?. ',^ba. &'Vid. il : 23; 48:44.

23:14-26] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 327

c^pTn^^ D^'^.i^TS? D'^vbhi D^sxiTa ^pTnn ^;;tra 1\bTy\ CiijJD 1 4

Ni^ n:5;b

f"iN*n-bD3 p«n-bDb

t^Nn;n "i-imb ly^irn bx cxnsn ^ni^-b? lyiairn bi{ 1 0

Deest DDb Disasn

inm^ anbia prn nnb D^bnnt: 13 nnb prn nrns riEn n^bina

.' nin'' 'is^ xbi nin'' ''sia xb iiin"^

mn^ nni ''sxsiab ''a^n^s nirri na'i isxr^b m'^s o-in^i? 1 7

"jbn bDb', on^isna □"'Dbhn bbb^ 13b mnnifs ibn bDi

inbn^5?r3 ' ' ^.

^i^bj; snnn-sb D3'>b5' x^nn-i^b

3'^'cpn-^'a i'i3T-ns snn "^12 inm-nii 3?i2©^i xn::i is

nrm *mn'> ns^a nnyo nyoi nxsi n^n nin-' nnyq it)

z^>'t'nn-b:?bb-inni2ni'obns2^ n-^yc-i tJs<n-b:> bbinn^ "

T ;

K3-« b^ni

{1^^ niffi^) m©"' ^i:> xbn n^ffi'' xb 20

^nb ^n^T^ inb ni^T^

T T T ; - •

^''isi mnp D^nbx i:x ninpia ''nbi^n 23

p^.n^a D'lnbx sbi pinn^a ^nbs xbn

Deest nin^"cs: 24

'nibn iniabn T^^^n ''i^^^"

(n;;r!';) ^tu"^ ^n^-iy ©'^n ^n^-ny 20

^/

* Targ. nnpb xbn. b'^na . . . 'i"'Spn^!i -ip'::3 'pr^n^ii -pxsT. •» Vid.
9:14. •= Targ. ''Pjrs?. ^ Targ. 'p"!"?X. * Targ. -■; Qn;^ "j^. *" Targ. n:::rr;^.
S Tar?, r.irx'^2^ iixibv Ti'^ia Nubx x:x. ^ Targ. •|''^';X1 n^. • Targ,
■^b x^nrx n-z-nz nsfir: cr.rs. •' Targ. n-x t.'s'^x -!3.

328 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [23:27-38

(?''n^>":i)^i*En"cijs;a npo^sns nisnn "^sri iprn ^^sn;

"^nnin-nx nbcb ^"cti '''ay-ns n-^stjnb 27

i^Vsn "ISC Dibnn in«-n£« cibn nsc Dibn 'ini^-nrx 28

Deest nin''-ax]

n:n i^bn n^n-^-asD ''^nm riD -cw ttxd ^ni"i hd «n:n 29

\:^5i;-ax2 D-'X^nrn-bs pb v:n -ass D''i<'^n;n-br isrn pb so

pTSb D'lnbirn o-'K^nsn-bs ^:iT\ nin^-nss a^J^^arn-b:? i::n 3i

a^:3nw^("|itJbnix^n:)'^nN^nD cs: Tai^ri npiub a^npn

a^xaiTcn c^i^nsn-bs •'rin pb npo mrbn ^xarb:^ ''irn 32

ninsc^ iibi ipir niiabn mnsoin nin^-DS«]

Deest nin"'-cx3

ibsTT^ iDn ?;bi<l!J^-^D1 33

-; ' : T

STTJrn ^DPS XTrti-ni2-rs

n^:npm s^nin in^ni sinrni 34

N-.nn Tr^i^n-nj* ''^n^psi -byi Kinn ir^sn-b? ^mpsn

'in3?n-b5i tJ^J5 iny^-by is^s 35

1121 n^n'' is^sb Nffi^n I'm ©"^sb n^n*^ st5^n 3G

T

•T:r-nr s-'asn-bs nrxh 'nb 37

is^ribs nin"' 'lai ma-byi - nin'' nn'i-n^'i

irribK mn*! n^s na pb na pb in^s^in nini sisis-asi 3S

Desunt ■

a Targ. 'a:""?"!. ^ Vid. 14:14. <= Targ. '^p'^rs. <i Targ. '23n'?1.

« Raschi: 'isi iT'^prib Kt"2b crx ,s<ir2n n^ c=^' b^n-a'^x. ''Targ.'n^a

23:39-24:10] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. 329

Deest TE-b;'^

T T

CAPUT XXIV.

i:i!j nin'i '•ri^-in ^:iii n^r^) 'n^r^^ ^5i5nn 1

-ni«i D^Tis^nn-nsi cn^n-ni^i lannn-nxT nn^n^ ^-iia-nsn

T

nnsn "mm nns "inm

■■ - T T V

■jy-i^ n;b2xn-xb nics y-ra n3bD«n-xb nirx

■j^-ra n:bDsn-S5b n'iJX :^'^a n:bDi«n-i5b nt'K 3

nni-jb nxrn ''psn-bx nxm pxn-by

Dcnnx xbi D'ini« xbi

"ini? on^nb v.si n:?ib 7

''T^biirniii rnir-nsT ^,..; /,

(nhtb) ''n^^nTb D^nn:T n:?nb n/nrb □^nn:i •) ^^ ^^

nsnnb ^'^n^i ' ' nsnnb

ns:'Trb ni^iirb

T : • : T ■ : ■

nnnn ni-n

cnb ^nn;-"iTrK cn^ninxbi nnb ''nni-ncx

a Targ. K^i'-n r-1 !!t^:^»X rr^X "^ Targ. xr-X^. « Targ. ■'n'^inn.

~ T-: t-:t-t "t ° t;-; o • ::-

•1 Vid. 34: 17. « ut 8:3.

330 THE TEXr OF JEREMIAH. [25:1-11

CAPUT XXV.

Desunti ' . ' " t ' ' " ,

-bxi n^i-r."' a^-bD-bx nn^ nrx -by i<^n2n'^n^i2n.->' in'inffix 2

T

nbTUi-i''
n:tj nniuy ^rbira n:tj hnin^ irbiu-]^ 3

Deest lbs niro-in^ rr^^n

n^xnsn N^ny-nx CD^bs nbifsii i^^ny-bs-nsDD-'bijnin-'nbri 4

- •■.'tt t t:t:

nbis DDTun nbisi ODisn o^snin

DD'^rrsa nnnirpn-sbi rbiob QD:Ts-ns on'^ran-i^bT

n^isn-b:? i^n^ri"! n^'iNn-b/iniri

DDb ^Pin2 DDb nini. "jn:

iDbn-bs iDbn-bsi 6

CDb y-inb QD^^i ^ir^^^n oDb 5>ns sbi dd^^-' mry^n

■^siorDn p^b nirr^-QS] 7

Desunt > . , .

[ DDb ynb D91T mssj^n

^nnib cn;i2^n-sb ^nm-ns Dn^)2Tr-sb

('^')t^'!2 nnsir^) pss nnstJ^ nini-ns? ps2nin5Taia-b|-ns 9

Deest "inns'' b33-?fbT2n!^sn"i2^n:-biJT

fnb n'ino a^i:in-bD n'^no nbsn n^ir^n-bD

'^Dbiy nisnnbT . obii ninnnbi

pt'UJ bipi nni2ii7 bip nn^tJ bipi pTSio bip 10

ni^ ni-i D'^nn bip

n^TCb )nsn n^icb ns^inb nsTn fisn 1 1

0*1^53 M2S^ bn2?fb^-nsnWnD"i^nnnayi

^Vid. 1:2. "^Cf. 35:15. <= Cf. 23 : 40.

25:12-25] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 331

■^nr^n-nst npsfi? niTsn -b?i bna-^b)2-b:? ^pBx

T) f f T"?i?"^?1 Dj'i?"!^^ '^'I'^T^^'??

n-iiSin-b:? Q^^^n-b3-by 13

T

Desunt I nnb iripbtj"! Qibina o'lpbri

bxn'C ''nbii nini Tax hd bs^niD^ ''nbx mn^ n'ax n3 ''S 15

"i''2nn ]i^n oiD-nx np n^nn -j^in oiD-nx np "^bx

-bD-ni< nn^pTsm ^n^^ ''n-jn inii5 nn^pirm ^";^)a n«-Tn

nii!;n n'^ii^n-bD-nx

''isjpi TOi'^r-irn ir,

D''i!;n-nN D^i;\n-bms 17

T

n-'-iia-nxi n^iin^ iDb)3-nxi n^*T25-ni5 n^sb'a-ns^i is

: T : ■• : - T v T ;

np-nsbi n^irb nTnDi'^snbbpbinpnirbn^iub
i)23?-bD-'^ni<i : i^bi-i^-nsi Tay-bD-nxn i^nic-nxn

T : T T

Deest yrjr\ fnx ''sb^'ba nsi 20

Dint5b3 ''Db^-bD D'^mrbs y-)i« ^Db^a-bs

ni^x-nsi Di"is-ns 21

^zhi2 nxT ^2 "^Db^ nsi ""Db^-bs nj^i is ^Db^-bs ni^T 22

T T

nnrn mrx Q^pbTzn nssn 11-122 ntx ■'n*:; -^2^12 ns^i p^p2

■|---nsi pTnx 23

^Tin-nw^i T^3-nsi

nn:?n-bD nxn -bD nj5i n-iy ''^b^a-bs nsi. 24

n"i:?n ^Db^
Deest 1-i^T "^Db^-bs nsi 25

DIB iDb)3-bD nsT "iTa ^Dbia-bD rx"i

T T T T

a Targ. r^'i:i5. i^ ut Ps. 75:9 (Gk. & Heb.). ' Cf. vs. 27. '^ lac.
\s. 20. ^ 'P:;c.— Cf. Judges 5:23.

382 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [25:26-34

niDb^ttn-bD ni^T fnxn niDb^^n-bs nxi

Deest D«l^"!ni? ^^^''. '^VV. ^b^^

in-rn irittrj mi532 mn^ nizx-HD irfbx mxnir mrri ^i25<-nD 27
ibBn"! li^^pni ten i^p^^nptin in© bx-jic^.

nTaxi cnibx m)3Si 28

T

n^b2> 'I'cTr Kip:-"ii2Jb{a i^:?n ^d ^^tu x'lpmrx ^rii^s nsn ^d 21)
np:n cnxi 3?nnb bnia iD:i5 nnxi i^nnb bn^ -^rix n^bj?

ip:n xb ip:n iib ^p:ri npan

■j^ni^n-b:? n^aiu^n-bD-b:^ y^i^n ^nr^-bo-b:?

Deest nixns nin^i cxd

c'lnn^in-nx on^by Nn:n nni^T -bs nx on^bx sn:n nnNn 30
□1112^ mni rTTasi nbi^n nn''bsnn'Qi<inbxnn^nn^n
fni (Ti!J";p72'a) TOip^ n^T, )i:>i2i2i ^stij"; nin-a^ nin'>
i'/2ip^-b5? ' na^i nnn^ ibip sxtj^. !ii?© ibip "jn^ itnp

\ / T ■• : V T •• "T

r-jiNTU iin;" fnxn imci-b^T :pi{n ^ms'^bs bx

f nxn nsp-''by yni<n nsp-"i? -iixiu sa 3 1

nnnb nnnb cinD

mni r,ix3S mni 32

bi"i;\ 'li^oT "^irbs? ''i.'\^ ni?^'' r^s^ ^yoi iirbs? i^r;^ nsiii'i n3>i

n-in-; nv^i nini 'ibbn I'^m x^nn era nini ^bbn itii 33
)ni<n •^nispy ^nsn nspia

nnnp'' sb innp"' N*bi ^ECij;; iibi ^ieg"; sb
w^'j^ ^bib^n- ' 'o^ynn ib'i'b^n 34

T

i)eest DD^nitiEni

•■'Cf. 48:24. '' Inc. vs. 31. " SK-opi-jsrat. *> Targ. ■^2;'5-:.

25:36-26:11] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS. 333

(lEb ^in-i-ixtj) inn-] 130 3S

CAPUT XXVI.

JDeest

mnm!Jnb n^snn-b:5bi (? n^jin-;

^^■n1nn nobb

^iim-bx y^irb

^b« cnriaizj xbi nbtJiJ-i ^oDTrn

Deest
yixn-bD ^•'1:1

inii5 mn-' mi-nrs-bD

^in-i^n^-b:?
n;Tn nn-in

nnw; ijb^
nbi^b nini' nsT2

-nia ' ninr.Tcnb c^xnn

nin''
n:?in-bN "inrnn 3
nn-'bs tr\)2^^ 4
-in-jinn nsbb
"inm-bir yiaiob 5
an^Tara Kbi nibo-i DDrni
hns'-n G
y-ixn '''^1.1
n^ii'^nsni 7
nin^ ms-mrx-bD s

in^'ani-bs?
nbxn D^nn^n 10

V " T • 1

:»'>.

/o

='Targ.::^n C-;?. "itl. "^ Vid.46:16; 50:16. Cf.Isa.27:l, "^Targ-riZZ.

'^ Targ. Kri"ji2 '-a S'^Vxi. ^ Targ. ''^snsb. ^ Targ. D'npp. e Targ.!iri;-3-i'i Vs.

334 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [26:12-22

Deest ibxb

Dinrn-bs n^mcn-bs-bx 12

T

nxTH T^:?n-''b:?n nrn ninn-^b:;? niirn i'':?n-bxT nrn n^in-bs

Deest D^T^'bi? J 3

SDb m'JDi nic^D dd'isi^ji to^di mioD

^p3 m ip: n"i-^D 15

n2 r:^3Tri'^n-^5:?i nxrn "T^^^n-^b^'i nintJi^-bxi nxrn T^rn-bi^i

DDibs mri"' i:nbTr OD-'by nw '^:nb©

-iptn "ijt^nrbsT C'S'^nsn-bxi lo

Deest nbxb 17

in^prn ^•a'^n n^n in'^pm ''r^n X3: rr^n is

Deest nissb

niEirb D^btJii'^i ©nnn n'^'^y D'^bTDiT'i ©nnn mir

inn^n n^nn inn^an niann 19

Deest n'l^n-j-^bia

'ibn xb-^pi. nini-r-iS ixn'' iib ""rn bn^^i nini-ns sn*' xbn

nxrn ^nxn-b:? r.xTnpsn-by^;nxTni^yn-br

Deest iiniarbsT 21

irrirn icpn^i T'-im-bs-nx in-'ian ^bisn cpn'^i Ti-im-ns

-bx n-icrx ibian nbTCi d'^ttix n^p'^in'; ^bisn nbic^i 22

* Targ. Xrn;? b?. ^ Targ. bs\ « Targ. h^\ ^ Targ. "iO ;■; n^r'-i
snri2. « Targ, bri. ^ Targ. b?\ & Targ. nrrC^Z '{0 ^-^ Sr'. ^ Targ.

C-^-::ir:>. > Targ. E-^-^Sri^.

26:23-27:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 335

1 ■

Desunt

Desunt^ ,

D-^ni^-bx ins

U'e^'Q inis is^2t'T>n n^.'^a?^^ irr^n^ix-ns is-'Si^i 23

— T T

CAPUT XXVII.

-]n Dp^ini MDbia^ rt^tisia 1
n^n m^n'i ?ib^ ^n^isiii^

T J

mni ntt«-n3 "ibx nini Tas-nD 2

nnsnpb c^i^nn Dn^Dsbia '''3^3 n^xnn D^Dxb^ n^a 3

DbttJin"! abicin^

^ ^ i mrs nrnsn-nsi msn-nx
Desunt { •■ -' ' • ■ ' ^r •■

nix:nDis:b y-nxn-ns "^nriD ni2n^<^J-b^-n^5^nn:^p:s^nyn (;
nvn-nsi innrb ' bnn ^bia "iba -issD-iDin: n^a n^sn
' 'mn^^b mirn n-;ttjnn::n-nsmTi^3ybnn

: i"inrb ib ^nns

Desunt

( i:a-nsT n'li^n-bs iric 1^3;?^, 7

: n^bii^' n^pbi:i
-xb n©« nDbT2Tam ''ism -sib mrx n3bt3i2ni "^irin n^ni s

* £ig TO i^vyjixa.

336 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [27:9-18

b22 in^-Kb iffix nxi bns-^b)a
bnn Y^^ brn'i-ixi2-ns
Deest "15"^^

on^b? j^inn ^ian-b?

"mzn-ny Dni5 irn-ny

CDb n'l^iDjjn-bxi ''-ijjiin nD^x-i^; -bxi DD^rop-bsn' DD^^'ins 9
^□D^iiJn:)abxiD;bD^rbnn-bsn DD^:Di>-bxi OD'^n^bn

ci^xn yamb OD^bx □in'ax an'Tt^S!;
Deest Di^1?xi Qsnx '^nmri'i

(n^ns)^) iinyi " .'tiwV nin'i-DwV: 1 1

'ibis-ns i-ns^i QDnm-nx is^nn ibia bb^ DD^-ixisr-ns ix^nn 12

ban i^ni iizi?'] ins i^rnyT bnn

S'nna ^iiayi nnx ^m^n n^b 1 :•(
nin-i nan nTCi?a na^ni'ana
-ns nh^r^b niys" "^ian-bs
-bs iyi3tin-bxi ' :b2a ^b^ 1 4
orbs Din)2i?n n\s:a3n ^na"!
baa ^b^-ni< ^la^'n 5<b ir^jb
^y^b npTC-'br "i^isa n-^iiaD oni px:b npiub " 'i^tja o^xas am 1 5

□^aTa"ipTS"bynDbD''xa:nt]Dii<^a:i oab c\^asn a\st^a:ni

D^:nan-bxi nrn cyn-ba-bsi aab nrn Q:?n-ba-bsi o^inan-bxi 1 r,
D'^s'^asn iian-bs oa^sias ina^i-bs?

Deest nnn^ nny

n^nnb© iib -ns ?ina^ cnibx ^y^t-n-bs^ 17
ST^nn STEb i^m baa '?Tb)a
: nann nxTn n^rn
"lanyi^i --^nbab nisas nima i^nyr^si is

• : • : T : t - t

-n^aa D''nni-n D-iban ^s*a
nnim iibi2 n-'ai nim

T : ' V T :

: nbaa Dbic^n^a^

Desunt •

* ut 24:10. ^ Targ. K'ipian ■ps'^'a?. *^ Cf. Gen. 44:5. ^ Cf. vs. 10.
^ ut 28:15.

27:19-28:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

33Y

— • T • T -

-ns mbsii b22 ib^ nj^b-i^b mrs ^b^ ^^i^nD^nD nni^b-Kb "ics 20

Dbirnn'''a n^:iD^ -p n''3°iD^-nx imb;\i bns

n-T^n"|-^b^ D'^p'^in^^

i']h-b| nsi nbaia nbTriTia

: nbio^n^i n^rri

''n'bx nixns nirri nrs-nb ^s 2 1

D^inisn D^bsn-b? bsnte-;

n'i^n^--fb^ n^ai nin"; n^n

jobiiJiTi

■T T *

■""ips Di^ "ly 'i^n'i nfitJT 22

T

-bx c'^nhtjnn n^nibyni

Desunt

CAPUT XXVIII.

mw min^-^bia n^pis riDb^^

n^y^nnn rston
p:pn!*^ "^p^n ^'^^sn pyn.^^ nTrs x^nDn

nini nbstbbxnisvn^'^'ii^^^imn'' 2
n^TD^ ''sxi i''Tri2 '':x 3

T

bna--Tb)3 nsixsns^n: npb -nrs
Desunt I cx'^n'^i n-n niprn-'j'a

mini mb3-b2-nsT n^i^n*'

" Targ. N'np'a X^SD.

338 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [28:5-15

Uesunt ^ • -(^^,-Qjj3 j^.^-^; Q^p^n
-^D ''S'^^^b rTirsn-bK in^^n-' n^H'ii n^::n-5i<" i^-^asn n^'an'' ni2i5''T 5

oyn-bD

*inn-!-ni« np'' T^nnms nirr; cpi

DD^:Tsn "^2Ti<n

manb)2b nn^ibi nynbi n^nbiab

nnnn snn Dibicb xa:^n xin:n sa2 o^bisb xnr mrs s'^nrn 9

nwxn nin'' niaxn mn'' inb©-nirs

Dyn-b2 "li^j^a n^:Dn np'ii nrj^an-nx s^nsn rriDrn np^ 1 0
n'^^T' 1X12 b^^ niui'cn-ns s-^nsn n'^ri"' liiis byis

^ ^ f njiK:-i2n: 11

Desunt ^,^, rrK^--^

c^ir^n-bD ^1x^2 bj'^ c^isn-bD ns^i'is: by^

byi2 nrJ'Tan-n^^ n'i;:n -ii3T» "i-inx -nj? s^insn n^::n mnir "^nns 12

(ntoi) in^oyi nicyi 13

mn^ bsnic'; ''n'bif; nis^ns mni 1-4
-a:?b D'^i^n-bD nxis-b:? "^nrD nbsn Q"'i5n-bD nsis-b:? ^nnD
ban ^b^-nx . bnn"ib^i2ixn?a:-nNiayb

Desunt { •• ^ - - - ■• -.;

n^;3n-bx rr^'ani •rax'^n n^::n-bx x'^asn n^'mi n^x^i 1 5

■ T -

x^asn

Taig. --^ars. b Targ.

28:16-29:9] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 339

Deest rr^^rrn i«:-:p)2T»

T -

Deest •^in'i-bx nna"t n-iD->3

'T'^awn innn nia-in s^'^nn n:Tr3'i{''n2n n^^:]n nr"«T 17

^:?^mrn ©inn

CAPUT XXIX.

nbian

Desunt I - ,

t nbna

■i.-c"cni (Q^ninn) Nn-bDi ©nnni abttiTi nTin-; ' ''I® 2

bin ibi3-bx bnn ^b^ n^'x.;"!D^n;-bx 3

nbir^n-by nb'i^n-bDb

cbcjTTitt nbna obtj^n^n

la-n ci^-inm ntn^ q'':^ n:^bnn

fnsn D^bob TO'i'ii n'':?n Dib^jrnx w-im' 7

m/n ibbsnm n'li^n ibbsnm

CDb mbc Qibi nDb rr^ni.

^x^TT^-bs? nin'' "i^x hd "^d "^ribx nixns mni n^x hd "^d 8

iTDX ^npTfn ^i^inD nnb nab' ix^'0"«-bx bx'ite-;

crb 5ix^ffi^-bxi CDnnpn nsnnpn -nri< crx'^nD

os'^ticp ns^iaopi

(c^npc) npo ID np©n "id 9

Targ. X-in Nnra. ^ fkev^spov. '■' Targ. K'^p;!!''!.

340

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[29:10-19

^UlbXD

nniijn^ orby nitrn^^i

UDb

nnb niy-i xbi

s^^«

Deest

''n« Dnssirn

CDb (in^xnsi) ''n^b52i

D^nnbffi xbi nin^-ax3 o'^nnbic xb

(nsb^b) niib^s ^d nxb^a "^sb ^d lo

n^t*nb u^'^b'j •'nni-nx ■•n^apm nir:n inn^nx OD^by ^niapni

DD^y^ DDn^{ iiTsnb

ni!?nb{i7'ninoni2n-nx ^nyn^^ i;:x is 1 1

-2SD n^^b'j ntjn '^pbx tcx

i{bT Dibiij nirnrn^ nin-^"

mpn^n^nnxQDbnnbnrnb

CJ^sbni ini5 cnx'ipi 12
Dnss^i 13
Q:b ini^^i35i ] 4
a:n^°mr-n5i ^nnoi nin^-osD
D-'i^n-bs^a nsnx ^niapi
••nn'in mrs ni^aiprin-bsisi'
■'nhTsni nirr^-Dx? ais orns
"in-'bi^n-mcs oiprn-biE D^nx

?fbi2n-biJ; nin^ ibn nb-"? 16
-bs-bKi 'Ti'i xss-bx rnsi'^n
DDins ns-in n^^^n miirn ayn

V •• -T - • T •• - T T

:nbi!i3 drnx ixsi^sb nirs
i2:n nixns nin^ n^x nis 17
nynn-ns nnnn-n^j ds nbisia

T T T V v - T - •■ - :

D^rxn? onix innp, "in-nin-nxi
: 5?hy r!:b3sn-sb ■imD"'i:?i!rn

bbb nriTb o^nn:^ nn^^n^
nsirbi nbxb rnsn nisb^a^

T - : T T : I -■ T T : : -

ni.i5n-b:a nsnnb^ !^p"lT»bi
-iTrxnnn :n© DT^mn-im 19
nirrj-nxs ''"?nn-bx ii^ric-Kb
[ "i-^ny-nx' nnibi< '^nnbis' ^m

Desunt <

^ T T : T ; : -

29:20-31] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 341

Desunt

T - r T : - : : •

-]n iiTipis-bsi n;'bip-)a

-ipir
bns-Tby "i^^s bnn-Tb)2 'i^ii^n^rinD Va
n'nni mbii b^s nbbp nn^ ^npii mb:\ bsb nbbp onia npbi 22

bann bnnn ^m mini

nrx anxDi in^p-isib nw iric? -^bttnbp-nrsan5«D"nnipi3i3
TTXa nbp bninb^ isxa ban

i^TUa ina^. na'ii "i;:© i-aira na- iia^i^i 23

^3? ia:s<i ' n:>n yn^n isdni

T *• -

Deest nbxb 24

-p ni:£3:-bxi ^'cisa ^i^nnbTB sb ^ribx nixair nin"" ni:irna 25

■bs-bx Din£D riD^ira nnbtj

T V ' T : T ; ■ : T : - T

-bxi DbiDiTa "itJs ayn

pan nu^y^-p nissi

:ni3i5b nipnbn-ba-bxi

TD^x-bsb nini n^aa "n'^pB nmb -bab mni n^a n^^pB mTib 2g

:?;^-£;a iriyi-bDbi xa:n)a xarniai 3?:\ts^' r^x

^lisstn-bsii pb^sin-bxT

UPTi^:^ niab ri-i:?5 iib n^b 27

n-iH thna ^a nbiu p-b:> sbn baa li^bx nbtj p-by p 28
i^sb ®nbaa na^bx nbto ' n^sb

^2532 inbn n^iBs 29

nsDn-nx n-n nson-nx

in^'ani xp:n"in^)2Ti

nbi5n-^5X nbiu nbi:*n-b5-by nbo 31

a Targ. bs. "* Targ. b?n. <^ Targ. N;^^^^ ISp KSr"?. ^ Koi.rapaKrr^v.
« Targ. bsnb. ^ Targ. Pilb.

342 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [29:32-30:1

ttj'^s? (an^a) nnb nini-xbi -tjinn rnc^ ©''X ib n-'ni-ijb

"iffix mtsn nii^nb DDDinn mun nxii-sbi n-Tn nyn

sb DDb no "las -dw i^?b-mo^ las-mui?

1X11 nin'i-by nan nno-^s nin*^

CAPUT XXX.

iBD-^b? nsD-bic

"n'lin^i bs-itc^-b? nnin^-bxi bsmc^-bx 4

n'Q^Vi bip mrT> "Tax nD n^-in bip m'n-' -iiai? nD-*>s 5

TT-:--i ~T " T

n'';3 ''iDsriD i^irbn-b:? wi I3sn2i n^bi^s i^sbn-by i^i''

ppi^b ' ' ppn^b n^:D-bD

bn^ n^n ID biiri ^d "lin 7

T T

Dn^nnnoTai nisiar b^^ia byn by^a ibs? nnisx nisas

•• T T \ T ;

n^nrb : d-iit n:? ia-nn^^^-xbi

nnb n^px onb o^px nujs); 9

np2^'' ""ins? i<n^n-bx nnxn 10

f

I ■ ' V • : T ! \: • -:

* Targ.b?. ^ Targ. ^5. « Targ. nniinil bxnb-; ^S^. ^ Targ. n-^b.

30:12-22] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 343

Desunt

i3Spt:b Ti^n-!5''_T nbD nr?x

nnc ^"^xte3 nin^ n'as hd ^fimrb tJi2S nin'^ niai? nD •^3 12

(nssn:)ri{s-i/™bi2'«np-)^i« nis«sn mpb i^-in p-^x 13

^b ]^5s» nbyin / ' lb "i^x nbyn

TCJ-iT' Nb iicm^ xb Tfnix 1 4

13iy bb by i:iy nn by

[ TCi:x ^finc-by pyrn-ma 15

Desunt <| ra:::? ?f:i3?_ nn by i\^^^'a

?f:iy nn by (ibrx"-') iDnb-* nnm-bs nsb"; "^nm nbs 1 0

lib nbs ^iry tr-nsisn ^122^

nbn? ns^a^i -jnDnx nbyi? ^d ?f>ni2Ta^i !fb nDnx nbys ^d 17

13 K^n D3"t''2 nx'ip? nn^: ->:> a^n p^s ?fb isi;p nm: ■'d

nb ]^N tnn nb 'j'^x cm

V3iri mpy mnTU 2t3-i::n nipy ^bns nimr ms-^::n

(nyni) iTanni i^^isi

(ni^n) 'cnniTSia cn^a is^i'^i bipi. nnin nn^a i5S''i 19

D-^pmria bip n'^pmria

Deest T\^^V. ^^^ D^niapni

on^rn (iDbn^) "1553^ ' v:2 vr}^ 20

cn'iyn ' in^yi

''cn^srnb-by T'snb-bs by

^.bo^i cn-'by (in^ns) ^nins'i^m iaiprjibir^TiiTa^ain^-ixn^'m 21

^bx '^inic^i n^nsapT s^i ^1312^ ^bm m'J^ i^nnnprn sri

■^bx a^irb iab-nx "ins ^bx ntj^b inb-nx nny

r, , f n^ns "^rbs^ oyb "^b- nn^'^ni 22

[ :D^nbxb nrb

a eig ak'/T;p6v. ^ Cf. vs. 12. '^ Tai-g. NP-iin '^'by'^. '^ Targ. ■pir^prn.

n

44 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [30:23-31:10

*n)2nn nxs'' nin'' myo ^s nss^ rnan mn^ nn^'o nan 23
n^yic-i-bj? -rnan^ nyo s^^'^^ n'^^Trn ujis'h-bs? nnis^n^ ^^o

Kin'' b^n^

CAPUT XXXI.

bsiTU^ ir^nn iibi. ^isbn nnn bsTUji i>5nnb ^ibn

nnnx ib nsn; pini^ nini nnnsi •'b nxns nin^ pini'a 3
'^'^nDiria p-by T^^nx nbis? ^^nD©^"j3-by^\nnnsabi3^

icnb "icn

n^pnii3)a ''bnpn o'^pmuia bin^n

c^^ns iron ""S d^^id "ly-jn "li:^ 5

ibbni i::>i2D ibbm n'^^'o: i^'jd

• • • • ; T

^)2^p n^nsx ^nnn ninsD rix^np i^ip o^nsx inn D^niD ii<np e

Ds^nbx mn^-bx p''^ ib?i iD-^ribx mrri-bs i^^st nb2^2i

nn^iu npy^b nin^ "rax hd-^d npyb ^3-1 mn-' n^x hd-'d 7

(ina^i) ibnsri ' ^bnsi nn^aiu

-nK mn^ ^-itjin ' iTax ibbm. -ns nirr' s^irhn iniaxi ibbn

T

c^'Q ''bnr^b:? (D3''bix) "jribn^ . D-^ia ^bnrbiJ DD^bix

nn rjt^-^ sbi nn ibic^^ xb

mni-'i'inT nini-nn'i 10

* Targ. Nf^S; nns. ^ Cf. Exod. 15:20. "= Targ. nr"^p3. "^ Targ.
PTH? n\ e Targ^ ',=3 iin 13 ']'in^a'23. f Targ. b'J.

31:11-20] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS. 345

-br nini nrj-5X (iin^^) -b?i pvbs^ mn*' nin-bx
1X21 1pm "iiBi '^Tcn^n'i )yi f nx 'jxs-isa-b^T nn^i-byi itj-i^n
-K51 ^iE f ys Dirs2 nn'^m m ps ctcsd nn^m npm
Si:' (?n3?.^'=) ''35'n'] Sir !i^i<'?^ ^D^ci^-xbT

n^nnn bnpa nibini ren^ziunrx O'lnnmbinmnbinnn^iunTi? 13
iin;: D^DpTi "Tin: D^:pn

Deest nini-ax2

^D n'^rn-b:? msb 'n:s^ rr^zi-by nnrnb n:s)2 n^Da

- T ■•T • ; T V T

T.^i:f)2i)2 T^^*J^ ^D2)2 ibip :f:i2^_ ni?^-;^ ^'':'':?i 'lon^ ^bip lys^ i g

(!j":Dnb ■jinsT) in^nnsb mpn ni'n^.-nxs "jn^insb mpn-r::^ 17

' Db^nijb D^'Dn ^mni
^ny^ic n^TOO ' "^ny^ir yiisr 1 s

'■^nnisb Kb b.^^D hza) idd^? -jisb 5<b brjD

nm Di^-b:? (^n-:ED) '^nnijj;: -C5i "^nm ^i^-b:> "'ripso
nsnn tsttd ""d Tj^n^sini nsnn ^nxirs ''3 ^n'ab:?

2^:?iir:?TU ibi ■'b qiisx n^pi p ib^ ex n'^nsx ^b -I'^p"' '^2n 20

i:nDTX H> ISnsTX IDT

(lb) i^bx ^rnn^ ib i:?)a irn

^ Targ. rsp^'^ I??- "^ Targ.-irj3. « Cf. Deut. 33:28. ^ Vid. vs. 25.
« Cf. 33 : 18. f Targ. Sbj ^ns. & Targ. '"'j^rjb. *> Targ. "'iT^nian 'hv:^ V^ii-Z.
' Targ. WSrX S^\ "^ Cf. Ps. 129:1. ' Targ. "^r-^n-.x "^^srs. ' '

346 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [31:21-35

(?)r2r3b inb Tiir nip^ab inb tiuj o^-iin^n

^nbns T^:7-bx ^qtt ' ' n^x "iiij^-bx --mr

riDTsb C:)®":) ny^TiJn nnn'' xnn-^3 pija mrnn mn-> xnn-^D 22

n^nns nmo^ ny^iijna lann naa nnion naps

• T ; : T ■. ■ T T '.- T : T ' " :

nirr^ n'ax-nD ^3 ^n'bi? nii^as mni -i^«-nD 23

bxiTC

iiu-!;^ in pn^-b:? innpn nn p"i:2-niD

i::nN-bDai n^in"' ^n^^a D^ar^i i^i^::?-b3'i min^ nn nnis^i 24
' -n:?n ii<irn nDi?-Q^ inm -iiyi' i:?c:i o'^nDs* ■nn-'

• ; T •

csrbDi nijrs issrbs "^XT^Tin "id rcrbai n^yj ^d3 ^^^^"ln "^o 23

T •■ : T — . T

nn^n ^b nany ^ri:m ^b na"!:? ''n;©'! 2^)

D^sn D^^i riDn "jab n-'xn 0^)21 nsn 27

min^-nxT bxTiZJi-nx n^in^ n^a-nxi bxiiu^ n^a-ns<

Deest 'T^3sn?'i onnbi yin:bT 2S

^:t2J1 ion ibDX maxn in'a5?^-i{b nca ibsx ninx ^ir 'n'as"'-5«b

T

bDxm bDi?n Q-sn-bs 30

; T T T r

(-nx n'a^pn) i^ry xb man "^s "^n^nn-ns^ nnsn nan~nrs 32

''□3 inbnn 13:^1 ''n''-in(a) on ^nbyn "^dski

"in^nn nxT ''D ni-inn ns^T ^d 33

^n'lin-nx ins "iinD '^nnin-ns inn:

pnDX Dn'^niab-bs^i nannDi? Qab-b:?i

■n^ab^ Nbi w l"iabi xbi 3 1

mn^-ni? y^ mn^-ns ir^

Deest m'ni-DSD

•'aninii^rsnbT Dn'inisiyb- onsranbi u:rjb

T T T

CTTi nis^b Tc^ttjn 'jns D'aT' mxb tt^tt in: 35

Deest npn

nb^bn nii^b nb^b nisS

» TTo/^crov Tiixupiav. ^ Aram. !T;^5<(?). ' Cf. 14:19. "^ Vid. 16:18;
18:23; 36:3.— Targ. ■jin-^N-jr^ -(-IT^rins.

31:37-32:5] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 347

D^^a (n-n.) c,)'ii D'^n n'n

»5 ■'rx-c"; ' ni2)ab ps-'iiD'^ -bsn ox^i? "^rx-ar^ ni:i3b

mn-'-ssD bsn'23-' rnn cs^x mcx-bD-b^r bxmsi rnr

to:? TCX-bD-b:? mni-2S3 niry

n^Xl 3"^^^ D^Nl ° 3S

n^iy nn:n3i T^n nnDasi

''bx^asn bnr^ia^ bxD:n bns^ia

ninj?"! D^:nx3 n'^no 2oz^ no:i nii nyn:^ by

Deest 'jTS'inn D^nssn p^ayn-bsi 40
^nTanran-bsi 'ni^nT!Jn-bDT

nbiy~ty onni-xbT ri:r "li:? sbn cbirb ^^^ onn-'-xbi ©riDi-sb

CAPUT XXXII.

in^'an^-bs mni nxia mni nx^ irriTan^-bx 1

-n:^o n:t^n x^n 'in^p-s: Y^^b x'^n n-j^n^ ^b^ in^p'isb

?jbT2 -iss-nD^a: ?jb^b nnis:? n;T2 n-ir:?-n:)aTU nsirn

b23 nrxn^iDin^b

V T

bnn ib^ b-^m bnn ^b^ b-^n rsi 2

']b)2-Vi'i32 nirx nn^n"; ^ba-n-'a nirx

inipni* Y'^n li^bD mrx2 n^irr^-ib^ in'^p'is ixbD nrx 3
bnn-Y'^ "^T? bnn-ib^ ^^2

inipim jTinn'^ tfbri in^pn^T 4

bnn-ib^ "^n^a ' bnn-Y'^ T^

mr"'aT!jn(nbnn)b3mn'^p^3:^b::T n^n*,QTmn^p^2:-nsTbi"^bn2^ 5

* ut 32:9. ^ Ka) TravTc? ' k'lapr^fx.-Jih <= Vid. vs. 3; 34:6. '^ Targ.

n-=S 11. • Cf. Num. 12:8.

348 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [32:6-17

T^ ■ f "^3 m'n"2S2 ins ^^ps-^y

I ^n^b^n iib n^'iTCsn-nx i)2nbn

n:p^b nnpb tJETSia ni:pb nbstan "osiu^a 7

''"n QbtJ-]! nini nnSs ''iTp 8

"^jb r\:p Tcs^i s<5 n:p ^bj? n^s'^T

nnxi im'Dpb tssir^a ib ■'d ?ibi rnsn^n 1:2115^ "ib ^d

bs^:n niTS-ns nspsi bs^^ssn ns^ n-ten-ns n:psi 9
Deest rir:y3 nrs

HTcyi D^bpTD nymr ^b-nbpir^xi n:>ntj ?]C3n-n« ib-nbpicKT

Tp:> ?|Osn miryi n-^bpTU

.nso-bx nnDsn ns5n nnsxi 10

Deest '^ibsn-nsi cprini ni^rn 11
(ininsi) in« ]nsi !^?p^r} nscn-ns fnsT 12

ct-rsn '':i:>bi ii^-absisrn ^r::?b D^iyn ^r:?bT i"n bs'^rn ^i-^yb

nrnn ncs Diiin->n '>2i:?bi D'^ms'^n a'^i^n'^n-bs i-'^yb

•• T : " •* v:

Deest nbsn a^iiEsn-ns

.• ■• T • T ; -

-^brn ipinn xinpn neo nsi ^iban nso nxi mnnn nxi

It t t -.* - :

";ry> jyab TU-in p^b lann-ibsn annn hth

''nirT' nns' nsn nin^ ^ns nnj? n

'^i<b2^-sb "n^nni rrirj^n ^^'im 71:^ sbsi-sb n^rj:n "jy-im

a

ut vs. 7. ^ Cf. 1:6; 4:10; 14:13. « Taig. N-aJS-^O. *■ Vid.

vs. 27. e xarg. •'SSr,"; x^

32:18-32] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS. 349

Deest i'niD nixnir nin^

piini DTZJ bnsi nixns bi^ian ' ^n-^D-n-brbs^ninpsT';'':?

nnb D^ixn i:n ^Dm-bx "i''3^y 'i^?'3l? ^"'^'^ ^^'^ o"!^

ixnns TU-^Nb I'^bby^a '>nEpi

(nr^.stri ^'j^b-'ni) q^x isnni mxni 20

npTH T^n npTH "i^n^ 2 1

'^nibi'ia ''D'lxn^am bi'is sni^m

Deest nnb nnb 22

nn^j inpii nnx iTSJn'ii 23

T^ninnm iniinm

nnb ^n11it nir^x-bD nx niisyb nnb nn^isi nirx-bs ns

nbsn nvnn-bD nii cnb ^ix^^.p^n ns-Tn n^nn-bD nKDni^^npni

s<n (b-jrin) ji^nn n:n ixn nibbbn n:n 24

Deest "in'nm

■■■ T - :

ST^n 12 nnm muii? nsi-i ^jsni n^n nnnn "tcsi
''bx ni'ax nns"i nin;;; ''jix ibx nn'ax nnxT 25

O'l^TTDn i^^a D^-jTUDn 1:13

n^xb lbs "i^sib in^^pn-^-bs

nini i3i< mn^ 13s n:n 27

nn";-bD (nns'') V5S^ i3^^n "im-bD iibsi i3T3^n

bsnir') "iri'bs mn^ -rax hd pb "inb ^rsn mn^ n^s riD pb 2S

i'r

bnn-'ib'a bnn-^by n^sn^Din? 1^31

n^nnn-nx isnirn D^nnn nsn nis'^ir^ 20

13 30

nw^3
nsTn -ii3?n nn^n ns^rn -r^yn ib nn^n 31

rninii bs-nri-133 ri?n-b3 b-j min'ii33ibs-i"ai-i33n?Tb3b:? 32

=> Targ. ^5'n. b Targ. NJims^. *= Of. Exod. 3:3. '^ Vid. vs. 17.
e Vid. 34:2.

■i^is s^nn n^yn ^insn Vnsn Qm^3nT3ns--nn'':^'n-ns«

: T : ^ ; T A T :

I nin^-Ds: nn-'T' nwa-

V T : \ : •.•-■. • -: -

350 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [32:33-44

DH-'inD"! Dn^nTr"] Qni^bia^ cni^ns cnin© nrr^Dba
mini iTTDS Qn\><^nDi ^aciTn"nn''ii5^i<lDnix''n2i

^y^c sbi DDcn cnx ''n-tisbi cs^xi l1zb^ CDTcn ans^ n^bi 33
nciia nnpb li;? ^oTa nnpb D'^:?i3ic

"nnisa-ja iXT2t:b 34

an^mrn-nxi on^rn-nx n'^i.^nb -nx"i nn^:n-n5{ n^n?nb 35

^bTsn ibttb ^b^b on'^mDn'

bsmui Tibx mn^ n^x-n^ nnyi ^nbs mrr^ Tai^-n^ ]3b nnsn 36
np.x nffix nsTn n-i^^n-V "iT^i« i^^^'tn n^yn-bs< bxnffii
bnn-ib^ I'l^n 'jnsn ''Tax bannbtt-^anrnra^naiiDnx
(nnboani) ^^^isi'] ' nnnm

ynsn baa nisnxn-bD^ 37

ins nbi "inx ^n ^ns ^'in ^ns nb 3t)

onb mi2bi onb mub

^ Deest nnx ''n'^p^nb 40

^b:?i3 niiD inbnb ibri mo ^nbnb

T

in^ipsi on^bs; ''niSTr-i 41

©Bi-bDii ^nb-bDn^ '^'psrbsm "inb-bD^

r,x nrn oyn-'^bi ^nxnn niri^s nrn c^^n-bx insnn mri«D 42

r^:^iiin nibiTsn ni^^nn-bo nx-in nb^"i:\n nr-in-bs nx

V •' T - T T

ninron-bD-nx nniun-bs-nx

T

'nil© "iiy izp:"! nnisn n:p:i 43

n£Dn nip^n^ qcDn mi© i2p^i nscn mnsi iip-' ^^ddi' mmu 44
w^i^ ^^yni mnnni ,,, n^'i:? i^ni cinrn

Deest nin^-DX3

• Cf. Lev. 16:16. ^ Targ. b?. ' Vid. vs. 43. "^ f v ocTrosTokyj. « Targ.
^?. *■ Targ. 'f'bpri '|ii:2'iT^V & Vid. vs. 36. ^ h Tzokssi rr,: "Leipr^Ka

33:2-13] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIOKS. 351

CAPUT xxxni.

*nmx nsn^i 7ns no nmx nsn^ nirr; niry 2

n^in^ tyb^ ' ' min'« "^Dbi?

p:;^nT mbbon-bs nnnn-bxn mbbcn-bx

Deest " D'^sa 5

■ T

Dn^ IDS '^n-inom ns-n n'^rn^ ^:s "innncn rnrsn

-za ^ri^'te:?'! n'^nxsm onb ^n^b;»T nnny onb ^nib:\n nnsBm 0
ni2S-Da DibttJ nttsi mbtj

^□H'^niDiy-bs^ ^ Dpy-bDia s

^cn^niDi^b nirs-sibi cn^m:i:?-bi3b ■'nnbci

prirb nrr^m iiTrir m?b "^b nrr^m 9

^2:s mr5< ninrjn-bD ns n-c'j ^2:s nrx nnvjn-bD-ni?

m»y cnis

T

^anb nw iDrx ntJS nb nc^' ■'srx niBX

^n)2nai n"ix '^^m-a n^ns f^siai nix )^ii-a 10

abtJTTi ')^inri nbTuiT nisnm

n^nm mx ]^i5i2 ]\st;i rnri^ i\sr^ □"ix v^^

mni *'ninb (ni:ni:) nin:ia ^xin^^i nini n^s nnir\ n'^sn'o 1 1

N^nn pxn-mnt:-brnx ynxn-mmr-nx

i^ny-b^n 'n^nn^ ois? iixia Tiir-brn^n^ana-n^-iDis-i^STa

*2rcn inrm nbEirn inyni n5:n i-iirni nbEcn •'"ira 1 3

* Cf. Isa. 45:18. * Targ. llSPr^"^ X^'i. « Targ. 'in-:::^ = n'i-i!i:i:!|.
^ Targ. "["itT^a'.n. = Targ. I'in'^a'in. ^ Targ. fnb T";;r six?. S^ ut 32:43.
•» Targ. n"^?!?. 'ut 32:43. •'Vid. 32:44.

tJ u ^

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[33:14-26

Desunt

I

nin^-as<3 Q^s^a a^i:^ n:n i4
nci? niton "OMn-ns •'n^vni
n^3-b:?i bsniB'i, nia-5x ■^nnz'i
x^nn nini nnn n'^^^a : n^jin-; 1 5

T r ; »T T ; - v • T ; - • : '

cr^^a -P^^ '^)?'3^^ "osTTia 16

rnb-x-np^mss r^r\, n-jnb "jisicn
nin^ n^x nb-^s n;p"ii'inin^ 17

T : - T • #- I ■ T :

-b? ntji ffi^x 'ii^b nns^fiib
Qisnisbi ibsnic^-rrin sss is
\:sb)3 TB^x ^"!2^"i^b D^^bn
nrott "i^i3pi2^ nbis? nb^^ia
"inii :n'''a^ri-b3 nn-T nwn id
ni^asb ^rrj^ni-bi^ nirr^-nn'^

- T T : - T

: ania nb^brc^i'^ ni^n ^nbab^

-nsnixDS-b:? ?jbb ]! ib-ni-inri
ntjs' pniiaia D^:n3n o'libn 22
nrV sbi D'^^airn xas nsD^-i^b

'^^.'=1 5>"3.rf^i? ^^1^? 1? t:;^n bin
pns? '^nntj^ D^.ibn-ns') ^^in?
'in^^ni-bW ' nirri-nn^ ' in-'^i 23
n/n-n^ tr^x^ iiibn ' : n^axb 24

T T T T T -:

ninsTBisn ^ni^ irxb ^na^i mn
CDijan nna nin*^ nna '^rx

55b-DS nirr^ *Tas nb :oni:Eb 25
n^.^TD nipn nb-'b^ D^i-^ ''ni-in
nipy^ynrbs : ^nptc-iib y-iij"; 2 a
nnptj cs)2X •'in? "iini
cnnnx yirbs n^bria i:?n-^

34:1-10] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 353

f -ns

CAPUT XXXIV.

n-irr: 'i-iy-bs-byi nbiiJin'^ -bi D"''anb3 DiTsrn-bD'i

n^«b ^isKb n-'i^^-bs-bs^T obiriTi

T

-bK ibn nin^ n^x-ns bsnir?'; in'bs mn"" "ras-nD 2

irr^pis inipis-bx r\1^«^, ibn

-"lbi3 '''i^a n«Tn n^yn "insn "jprn "i:^a nsrn i^yn-nx 'jn: ^::n

n'^sb^'bnn bm-^bia '

inrn vy^^ rsnn tjsr.'i in:n i^iim rsnn irsn ^3 3

bnm nrxnn i\ry-n5< i^ryi bnn-?fb^ i:^y-ns? t^^^^t

Sinn na-.i ?]^s-n^ in^s'i nrxnn

iiinn bnm
Deest nnna mrn-i^b S'lby 4

V T ■,• T ' V T

^■"in ^b-D3' i-SD-i (nrirs^na) ]mx iinn "jb-nsniD-'
^bn'iSD'i bisffi-"!yn i^ni? ^b-i^iED"^

^irT'p-i* ibnn-bs in^'an^ nn^i^T -bx K->32ri irr^^T' nm^i g

n-nn^ ^^^-by^ abtc^n-'-by anbD -bs byi nbirm^-by a^'anbs 7
npT:?-^by"i ■CDb-'^b?-] -bs niini-n mini "i^j?

npT^-bsT iS'^Db
nin'i snpb arrrnx obi^'n^a nics D^^n-bs-ns s

*iinn onb xnpb
n^inii3 TS^i? nh:? ^nbsb ^in-^nx i-nn^2 na-^^y ^nbnb «)

T • ■ T • * T T

r''nnsa>'nn-bDia^nirn-bDinw^T ayn-bDi a-^niun-bs ^:>•l210*^ 10

* Vid. 32: 28. '' Targ. \\ ^ yj^^ 32 : 1, 3. ^ Targ. hv. « Targ. br-.

Z

354 THE TEXT OF JEHEMIAH. [34:11-20

^nbw^ rj'ct^;^_
riinsffibi Qi-nyb ^cnis -nx ^i^tt'^i p-^^nx '^nic^^ ii

■.- -; T ; - V : • T -; T

Jn^nETubT D^in5?b

Decst nirr; ns^ 12

nirri bijs-iir''. 'in'bx mni 1 3

-nx nbirn d'^dtu to© nsibris r^x ^nbirn u^iti V2ti y^j^s i-i

ibx ii^^ii5-xbi ^lasn innb^T -i^bi ?ji£^*t; ^irsn innbTOi

riiob dit; inTO'^1 TO:?ni m^n nrx iniunT 15

•nns^-ns ir^i^ mrnb iiny-ni? t?^i< ^n^ni 16

T ; T -

Deest onsi iTOarn

snp "^sin in::>nb r-'K m-n i?npb tu^si ^ins'b to^x -rm iiipb 17

DDb mm -n-n DDb a-'^p ^::n ih^Sd
Deest nini-2XD

^nmn-bx"! ^nin-bs

■j^ni^n niDbtt^ boa ''n:?nTb ynxn niDb^^ bsb n:>?_Tb

ib-^nyb im -iTOX byjT] ^npy^i D^.^irb inns nirx b:\yn

(c'^cncm) ^□^^■'^xni n-nrr^ '^n'o nbTri'n^ i^iri rnin-i imn 19
crni a^:nDni ny bii c'^rnsm n^cnen
• ■'■ina "i^a D^inyn y-isn

b52?n

*Inc. vs. 11. '' Targ. Sri^ ',t:!1. '^ Eigha^Tropav. Vicl.24:9. '^ Targ.

34:21-35:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 355

c^b^rnb bnn iba b^m i^n^ qises ' itjppn^ Tn^

Dnib;:?^ DD^b:?i3 niisyr; bnn -jb^ b^n
ns*7n yixn-bs? ^^-lmun'^ ni^rn n^i'n-bx cnnium 22

CAPUT XXXV.

, cniw^nni *D^33"in nin-bs iibn nns^'i o-'DDnn n^n-bi? ^ibn 2
nns-bs mni n^n-b^} mn^ n^n nmxnm cnix

n^isnn niDi^bn nnx-bx

VDn-nxT ' n^2n-brni<i

mni ^n^n-bx mn-' n^n 4

i.-pb^^i-jn n7.:n-]a ]:n -^'.2 inibir\^-]n i^n '':n

irr^o^ rriib in-^Trj^^ia ^?T2?''b

V' y'^ns an^iBb ci'n;; a-^nDnn-n^n 153 ^Dsb 5

■j^'' D'^xbia
Taxi an^bx i^xi

i:nn-xb D^nni isnn-xb rr^ni 7

S3b n^n"" xb d-idi CDb r.'^ni sb"i ^lyian-xb d-idi
n-<b:? D^nri cnx mux nrnxn-by n^i^ nnx -',icx nionxn iis-b:?

(na) DTT

Deest !ir^2 -icx bbb

'kpia^sh. Vid. vs. 3. ** Targ. n"^2^.

356 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [35:9-18

T V V T «...

•pxn-by nirx^^iDin; mb3?n ^na'-rbis isi^n^iD^nD 'nib3?n 11

f-ixn-bx

''nbi25in'>-bx nisst xhb obtj^'^i xmDi 1x3

DT2 ntj;i (D^i^tjx) niTTx b^n ^ds^i D.;Ti'"i"i^3 msDi nnx bin irsTai

"i^sb lbs "Tai^b ^n^Tpni-bx 1 2

mni 5X'^te': "^n'bx nisas mn'' 13

Deest nin^-DSD

Desunt i " : , • - - -

crnyatJ sbi dd^h ^bx onj^rr sbi nsni CDCn

T " .. - .

•^niaisn-b? inicnn nia^sn-bs intn

cn:^^© iibn DD^rTX-ns: ibs D!n:?icTr xbi nD:TS-ns

T "

iiaipn-i raipn ^d 1 r>

Deest 0^2 "ittJS

ibi5 2?rttJ i?b lbs ^:>^T0 i?b

n^ni bx-iis^. ^n'bs nii<n:£ inbs mn*' 1 7
Qbc^-i'' intJ'ii-'b^i mini-'b? im»-ii-b3-bj<i ' ' mini-bs

Db»ini
J. . f ly^ia sb^^ on^bs ■'nna'i i^^
1 r.y> sibi Dnb «npsi

V T V T T ' : ■.- T

lies i:?'! nini Tas-no pb -n3in';aninrsDin3-!nn''3b^ is
niiryb nn^ns ms^ (-by) ' -by onyais n©i{ p^ bienir^

bbs ^iryni i^nisr^-bs-nx

: — T : • T

» Targ. xr'^it ^?. ^ Targ. fiVrn-^^. <• Cf. vs. 16. •* Vid. 25:5.—
Targ. x::-s; h'J. ' « jarg. b?. ^ Targ. br\

35:19-36:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 357

I ■•• T T - ! • T -

CAPUT XXXVI.

DbtJ^ni-by bsnipl-by

rn-ini n^^a rriai ''b^s min^ n^n V)2Tr'' "^bix 3

^rnboi n:?nn ""D^n^^ ■qtc "irttb n:?nn ixn^iia ©^k na^iri piab

'*cn-'n«t:nbi □nw'i^^b isnxEnbT apyb "innbDn

n£D-nb;\i3-bs nBD-nb:*i2-by

nin"^ "n-'i-bx mn^ rr^n

m-n nbr^'aa nsnpi nbr^ian nxnpi nrix nsni g

Deest nini inn^-ns ^s'n nnn3~nrx

rmn-i-bD ^:Tsn^ niirri-bD '^itxs n^n

□nb xnpn Qsipn

T

''-by nm-mrx mn^ msni ;ixn -TCi< n^nni :isn bi-^

• T -

^ ut Gen. 8:22. ^ Targ. Pirr. "^ Vid. vs. 7. <* Vid. 16:18; 18:23;
31:34. — Targ. fn^Niinb!! 'pn^ninb. « Targ. r^^b. *' Targ. ni;:s. & Vid.
vs. 3. ^ Targ. bv.

358

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[36:9-21

nin^ n^na

mni n^n

Q^p^in^ i^'Bb ri'iD^ni^n nsicn

-]a D^p^m^b nu'iann n:Tun y

rri^n-j-ib^ irrjt'ii"'

rmni n^n^

mm"' i-ii'To D^xan orri-bDi

• r T

nn^n^:\ tr^nn n^rri n^aa

irr^n^a risiabn mn^ n^n i o

"ly© ''nnss

ny© nns

Dyn-bD •'rixni

oyn-bD ''iTs^n

nson nia-^bsi Y'^n-^'n^n-bx ^i^i

^Eon n?T»b-by "jb^Dn-n^n nTiT 1 2

?inT2J'i D^nis-bD

D^nTiJi^ D^iTsn-bD

]nDin^i. ini'jabTD-p

•jriDbsi in^y^TiJ-]!

Deest

^253 1 3

n^^ir^a 'iTm-bi?

l^nn-bx 14

''sin^

^■=1

^inn

^rr^'iria fiin

nrribx 'ini^i

T T :

xnp •'(I'lo) ma

nsxnpi N3 mij i5

linn xnp^i

nn^:Txn i^nn i«np^i

022>i3) I25:';rin

inns 16

i^'as^i

^in3-bx in^K-'n

nnnn (]s) ^^i?

nnnD t^x i:b i<r-5n j 7

, • T T ■.■ -

Deest

Vr^-Q

Ti"in Ta^^'^i

linn nnb n"a5{ii \ s

m-;^*!'; ibx K*ip

ibx Nnp"^.

nsoa '>rinn3 ^riJi

ra nssn-b^ nnb ^:xi

' 1-1^x^1

n^nbn in'ox'^i lo

■^noni lb

nnon ^b

y-i^-bi? is^i{_

^"i^-bii TU^s^i

2)^iu''bx n^in

nsbn y)2Tr''b55 nntjbn 20

nbi<n Q^nnnn-bs nx ^biab

D^nnnn-bD nx ^bian i:Txn

fi<np''i 2?^T0-'bx nin^a nnpn

nsbn y^Tu^bx nsiijb^ nnp^i 21

rjicnp"''!

Targ. n-^^V ^ Targ. P3"3>. *= Targ. xrNI. <^ ut vs. 28.— Targ. 2in.

36:22-32] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. 359

' Deest ''5?'itJnn tj'-tha

Ti3Sb (ns'n rsi) iiJs nsn ^"^^^^ ^^-s'' nxn-nxi

cxa ^bisili nson nynn i^np'^ l^izjni nson n^^nn n^np'' 23
nxn-b? nizjs nss'n-bx TCis* ir^jn-bx

(itj-i'i) i^ps-iibi iins-xbi 24

ib^b 12::?^^ in^bn^i "insbsi ^n-^n'a;^^ in^bii -jnibis* o^n 25

Ciniub ' riniy' ^ribnb ^b^n ly^sn

T^ , f ' Dn^bs 2?^T^ sibi

Desunt -^ . - -■ .- /

I bi^'inn^ irrj^iffi-nxi 2G

D^^s^n-b3 ' ' D'1-inin-nxi 27

nriDi nib:? nnsi 28

T V T

D^innn-bD D^siiJsin ainmn-bD

* T

nb.^)an-b:? n:iri<nn nbj^n-b:?

T • T

nniasji iT^s'n n^^^n^.-^bia n^p^^in^-byi 2a

nb^bn nnpbi ni^n nnnb nb-'ba nnpbn m^a ninb 30
Deest D:iy-ni« 31

n^tin^ '}^nb«-bx^ n^in-' tJ^iii-bNi

mn55 nb:^^ ?jin3 np^i nDniin-insnb.i)2npb^n-;)ani.i 32

"iDbn n^^"i.5-ia ?f^na-bx
Deest t>*n n"7ini-;ib^

T

'^ Targ. ^lEQinX.

360

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[37:1-14

CAPUT XXXVII.

D'^p^in-'

mn^-bsc
T^^n Tf^^ i^^'^^T i5n

Deest

n^xb hni^T'-bs

?i^bs nbiun

T

nxirn-bx mn*' "rax hd "^s

■nxnjD'i

ittipi nTzn ii3ipm T^i?

DiniTDn b-in mbya

(?npbb) nnpb
(mz^) ibm i^tD mrs tj-'x dtu*,

^;x ^D^^^SDrrbK xb np© -rasiT

bs3

in^p'TS ?jbtt-^bT2^n 1
D-ip^ini-ia in^^:3

' ' ' yi2TS sbn 2

• T -

Kinsn ini)2n''-bi«
i:irtbs nin^-bi5
c:?n "Jinn ss'in xn 4
X'bsn n">n
nbtj^ni-b:? D^nsrn 5

■ - T : - • T -

nbiaTi'' b:?a ib^'^i
nrxb s^nsn ini^n-'-bic i;

■ T —

bx'iTri "inbii: nin^ 7

^bx nsnx nbcn
D'^na^ iitnxb m»
n^niUDn imui 8
ixieri-bx n^n'' n^as? ns 9

I'aip'' ibnss 'iJ^x

in^^T" Ni'^l 12

irpi n"ip2 b?a niri i3

■ T —

bs; "iri^x ^pT» ^n";T2-i.^, nias^i 1 4
a">-!ffiDn-b5

» ut vs. 18. — Targ. VT^ZS.
'^ ut vs. 13.— Targ. 'X'^p?'!?.

Targ. "i^'^pb n^52"i'^ D". « Vid. 44 : 7.

37:15-38:1] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 361

Dt5-n©^i ^n-inn-bxi ^n^Tpii DTa-aici ni^snn-bxi

inbsttjii ins-if;-'i wp^iinbir^i innj^^i in-^p^s ^bisn nbttj-^T 17

imn ©Ti nbsb -inon ib^n nnoa in^na ib^an inbXTi5"'T

■^Ts TTJi "1)2X^1 nin'' ni<^ mni nxia nn"i uj^n n^s'i

■^n^n bnn ^bia -raii':! ic ^rT^^a^^i Tas'^i

"jnsn bin'ib^-Ta
^b^n-bx irr^PI^ lbi2n-bx is

's{bD nin-bx ^nni5 nnj-^D xbsn rr^n-bs •'mx onns-^D

fixn-b:? bnn ^b^ sin'^-xb ^s -b2>i OD-^by bnnnbia sin"^-i«b

nsm nsTH psn

Deest s:-y)2TiJ 20

r

^ri'.nn bsn "^nDnn XD-bsn

nDcn'jn2in^''n^n-bs'':munn73bi nDon "jns^ni n^n iDmun-bsi

' niu '^n'ai dtu n^iaij sbn

i^i2n 'in'^p^s Tb^n 21

nrj^n m-ia-bx ins iD'^biB'^i nsna in-^^is-ivns 'npE'^i
DTib ^ns Dnb ib ^r.n'^'] ' onb-nsD ib ]hn nrj^an

Dl^b
T:?n-p onbn un—iy n^yn-ra nribn-bs nn-iy

CAPUT XXXVIII.

Deest n;'3b^-]3 nintJE^

» Vid. vs. 18. ** /fa/ «V ttjv Xf/Jf'^- ' Vid. vs. 15. ^ Targ. r"^3^.
« Targ. "r^n';'!.

362 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [38:2-11

n3?in^ nnnn nnnn^ nyns nnnn 2

"bbrab TCS2 nn^ni n'^n*' bbwb tits: irnn^m n^n^

•-* : • T T :

bnn"ib^ b-'n ^n^s bni-jb^ b'^n n':3

Xj n-ai^ ibrn-bx in^s"ii r,^T< ib)2n-bx o^^.i^n 'i-i^ai^ii 4

on^bs nnn on^bx 'la'ib

n^btj i<a: iss^x Dibicb tjni i::''s

T * : "

cnb ^b^an bsii-xb id boi"' ^b)an -j^s-^d OD'T'a

T T

Deest ^n^'a'';';-ni? ^inp".^ g

^in^zh)2 -iin-bx in^Db^ 1 -nnn-bij

ni33 inis nnbTS-ii a'^bnnn ^n^^n^-nx inbTU-'i

• T -: T : : •

■Jit:! TiiT t2^i:n 'in^^n'^ S'ap^i

Deest D'l'^D tJ'^S 7

n^n ibism 2tv ib^m

l^bi« X2^i tjb^n r\^^i2 ^b)2-^3:? K2t''i 8

n-'rnb Ti'iirs' nics nj? ni3?nn n^irixn i:>^n tjbrn ^dix 9
2'J-\n i:E'a n-n TJ3"»sn-ni5 'in^'cn'ibiir:>n'CX-b3n5«n5J«n

V - T .- T ; : • T V " T

"i^i'n nnb n:> -j^s ^d -bs« ^D^bTrn-niBs ns x'lnsn

''ib^-^ny-nx ■'O^sn ^b^a— iny-nx 10

1T^ np "|-^n np

(is) iibT nnnniia inis n^byrri -]ic is^'^nrn irr^ti^^-ns n'^brm

Deest i-;^3 11

^ Vid. 21:9; 39:18. "' Targ. X^Sp-^l X3i:^. •= Targ. NSb^T Stn^r r-^

38:12-23] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 36.'?

Deest e^bnn^

• T -: -

nnn n^nbisn'! ninnsn

^b):n nb^rii 'irr^PI? ^bian nbujii u

itJ^birn 55in72-bx

r

T

tjbrn-bx ^rr^p^i^-bi^ 15

^b^n ib ynt"^i -bx ^n^^p^ii ^b^sn' :^mL^^i lu

i:b-mr:? niss? i:b-nt^:^ nVx ns

Deest "TCsr^^^^ D^i^P^^ "n^i*

in'^'an'^ T>bs Taxii ^in^p^a-bx nn^'Q'Ti nrx^T 17
mrp bxnip": in'bsnixnsr^n'bsmn"'
nsrn -i^rn imn xsn-xb dsi bnn ^'b)2 inis-bs x^n-xb asi 1 8
n^-!T25Dn "iTa \^a nxrn n-iyn n:n:i

T T ■

iirx mni *=nn■^ :?at5 ?ii:rii ^^ n^n^ bipa xr-^^tJ i;n'' Kb 20

Tbs nn '':x T^bs? nm ■'rx nirxb

Tbr^n(nipbpbnn)nipbnmb''C2n ir^ca ^brn fan 'i:>3cn 22

Toll's 15DD ninx

T'lrrnxi T^crbs-nsi 23

=> 'A?£Xe/j^X. i' Targ. "i'lnin'^a, « Targ. ^"^n i*';":'^?^.

364 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH, [38:24-39:4

Deest Dl'^'a

T T •

ciiTsn nxTn T'yni tJsa tinirn nstn n^^^^n-niiT

nbxn (Dins-n-^iD) -Dinmi? -D^nn"i3 s^Ti-bx ir-'X

I5>iat5i a"»m»n ^di D^mrn 12?^ti5'i-^di 25

ibian ' ' ' ib^an

^b^n i:'':?b ibian ^ssb 26

-sb ID ir'^n'^i ib^n ^mi nirx ^sisia ^t2'\n^^ nbin ms ^irx 27

nris^ '' Di'i-'iy 28

Deest Dbffi^n^ nnsbi nirss rr^m

CAPUT XXXIX.

nbiu^^i-bi? ' ' Dbiij^ni-bs

^ban

n^nbt:n '^tJis? bbi n^irT^

T T : • - •• : - : T t

Desunt \ Tyn-j^ nb^b ^ss^;^ innn'^i

T T -; T ' V V • T

^ Mapyavaaap Kai 2a,«aya;2i *•«) '^a^ov'ja-/a.p Kai '^apov(7apete,
^ayapydc, ^aaeppa^a/Mcc^.

39:5-16] - THE CONSrECTUS OF THE VAEIATIOKS.

365

Desunt

Desunt I

-bx' ^nby^i ins '^n'^^^
nnbnn b-in-?rb'a nsrsD^iDin]
ins na^n n^n Y•^^^
bna ?fb^ toniD^i :d^i:btdt2 g
T^r?'? '^'?^'!^ 'i^'',pl3J '':3-ns
^btt TDntJ m^n"^ inn-bs nsi

ins s'>2b Q^ntjnsa inncs^'i
-nsi. ?Tb7:n n^a-nsi Jnban s

"T ■;-- :t tt

nsn nsn: nbic^-T' nbin-ns^ 0
-nsn n'^ya cnsirsn ai'n nn^

VI ■ T ■ T : ■ - T T ■■■ ■/

nsi vby ib£5 mrs Dibssn
nb^'n n^nsTiJ:n n^n nn^
:bna D^n3i2-m psnt'in:

V T ■ T - - ' T -: ;-

psit^iD Tsirn n^^s^ onb

It-::- ■ ; • T V i

: Sinn ni^a n^nrn n^-ans onb
-by b33-?fb^ ni^s-i'jD'QD is-'i 1 1
-in p,sinnD n^a' in^^n*^.
DiT2?ji3iyi?i3n]? :*ibsbc^nat2 12
^:s 2)"i n^is^ ib ©yn-bsi i^by
nter )3 Tf-^bs naT "^T^i<? Q^
-nn' n^inns nbt^^ :ii2y 13

^an bb^ ;^^-an issno b^n5■l
' ':bna-?Tb^

V T ' V •••

n^an-bs inssinb 1 1
"Vi^y in'-^na 1 5

T

nis22 r^^n'^ nias-na

366 THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH. [39:17-40:5

^'bbTub ^irs: nnvn bbrb ^irss r,^ nn-'m is

CAPUT XL.

^'-iX innpn niann-)^ ^m -5«^m_ ^nx innpn n^ann-jia
n-ini mb:; ^ini n^p • «^ mbr^-'bs 'iini n-'pTSS i^ds

n^iin-'i Dbic^n^

nrn ''aip^n-by nrn mp^n-bi?

ib onK'jn-^D nini w^^ nn^ Tp.ss nini wi sn'^i 3

T ~

Deest n^n nn"!. ODb n^n^

Tb5? ^r:?-nx n-^Trxi ^^b:? ^r:? -nx d^^si N3

Desunt •

rnxn-bs ns-i bnn bnn

I '.• T T T -■ : T ~: V T

nt^n-bxi nrj-bx s^Dsb

T T - V : ■.• ' V T :

:!Tb nrtj nsbb n^:^5?3

' •■ T T V ■_■ T ' ■: " :

nibnrbi} sis ?rb ^xb-cxi -bx nmsi aiir^-xb r^-l'^:^^ 5

n^b^.^
n-Jr\ Tinn inx niri t^^in-^ ynsjn iinn ins 2TU*i nnirT« "^nyn
nii3n-bD-bs« n^jini ynsa '"(^:''::^nnTr';n-b3-bi5 isnyn

ibi nri^ nDbb ^li'^^^n ' ^b nsbb

"nsic^ nsTri2i nnns

T \ -:

* Targ. N-in UTTj^ h'J. ^ Vid. 21:9; 38:2. « Targ. •j'^nn X-nrx b?.
'' Targ. "^sa nx'ni^ DNl. ^ Targ. l^ns.

40:6-15] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAllIATIOXS. 367

isr;n to ^nnn ms"'i D^^>*ir2n orrj tj^^ "iris mr-'i

b^nn ■'■nu-bD D^b^nn ^-iiiJ-bD 7

Deest C)x^ns"p

'bnn ib.'^n-j^b mux -xbnius)2yniinnb^)2iJit:'i

ban nb^n
xnii iNa-^i 8

bxr^TU'' bxy^tj'i'

"nnp-13 nnp-i;3 'jnsi-'-i

Deest 1?^")3 Dj<''ri^"i^ 9

nsiiTin Dr-iiEb rnu^ ^:i< n2ni nsst^n niri ^::n i]s:, i o

(np^by) DD-^bx is{2 mri< ^iD^bx is«h^ ^irx

n^'iin-'n-bsi n^-in^n-b3 d^i 1 1

f nxn-bDn -ni;sT ai";s3 TCi^T nisnsn-bDn mL"xi oi-xni

Deest "iSTlJ-ia

n^ini-i^nx in^birrbj? ^is'n-iT -bs)2 n^-i^n^^n-bD imr';T 12

DT^-^rri? nTTi? ni^piiri'
-bx nnin''-ps 1X1^1
in^bna

f V T T

nintja TCX b-;nn -"mr-bai n^isn mux D"'b';nn "^nis-bDi 1 3
-nx ?i^bx nbiu p'aria Y^^ bxy^air^-nx nbiu ii^a:?-!:^ ^b^ 1 4
tjite: (-nx) nsnb bx:?:Qii3"' rs; ^nDnb n^:n;-|3

Deest apinx-)3

'jDni'> nrx'^i -irx nnj^-]3 pmin i :>

Desunt{

Targ. n^i^-ia. ^' Cf. vs. 10.

368

THE TEXT OF JEKEMIAH.

[40: 16-41 :«

Desunt \

V '.* T

Desunt

CAPUT XLT.

?fb"En "isinn

rna^^i anna ItTO-ia aj:''ns-]3

'ins?
^nxn-b? pxa

Deest iST'b'irnx ;}

T : - ;

ainisan-bs-nsi aiiTuon-nsi

Desunt -^ ^ • t t = • - ■• - .

1 ^i^2^)2TS';

irT'bnr^-ni* (inbnb) in'i^nb

abiE^i

in^bimx n^ianb 4

T ;

ibT^^ 5
aTa nsiabi

''an->Ta nsnabn

ni2n bsy^ic anxipb xsii n^rnr'ja bi^y^izj^ ns^i 6
an^bx I'as^'i iDai ^Dbn tybh riBstin-j^a ani^npb

utp. mi's '>r^^^ riDhi -y'bn

an^bx niasn

Deest ap^ns'ia

nnan-bs aarac^i -bs n^ins-ja bxy^ic^. aamtjii 7

a-^TCji^nV ^'in man ?fin

irii-nrs*

* Targ. b?. '^ Targ. 'pn-^n-'a.

41:8-17] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 369

T T

Deest D''TlJ:sn 'i"i5s 9

■ T -: T " : •

(nv) sin bn5 ni3 K',n in'^b'iri:!?-

Deest ^n^snr-ja

-nn Tp2n nrj? "jb^sn niiSTu:nD>*n-bD-nsi.lbi2n

Deest n^:^]:"^ ^^s^'^T^i-) nat^^i
]T523^ "t:! inrb 'ib^i "ji^r ^:n-bx ihyb ib-^i

b'lnn'in'ttJ-bDi D'^'p'^rri iniiJ-bDi n

Deest ^""^rr^ri?

znbnb irb^i Dn:TO-bD-ni{ inp^T lob^i D'i'prsn-bD-nx "inp^T 12

ii£y n';:n:-)3bs5;^'iiji-aynnbnb

Deest n"ip-|S 13

b^nn inis-bD D^b^^nn ■^mr-bD

Deest imciS^l

T ■. •-
J T T .■ -: T T T T-

T : • - ' ■ ■• T ; •

nnp-)3 'jrm^-bN* ^sb'^i

n^;nrp 15

b'lnn ''nirj-bDi 'jzm^ cb^nn ''nis-bsi n^p-p ):r>^^ 1 g

(_ Dp^ns-p rrjb'jrns

n^^st^ni s^c:m n^nbm ^Qiniaa D^t':i nicnbian ir:i? n^nasi

Desunt \

Targ. Vi'. ^ Vid. 43:6. = fv Ta^yipo:x'z/jLaa.
2 A

370 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [41:18-42:11

Desunt } "^^ ''

CAPUT XLH.

rri-iTJ^i ]:r!i'>i b-;nn inw-bD titbit ]:miT D'^'^^nn ""ntj-bs m-iT i

bbsnm is'is'^ bbsnm

V •• T T ■ - .. T

nnxn T^ry "iTCXD !i;ns mxn I'lrs? niusD

-bx C3n:?a (bbBn^^) bbsn^a "^iin ODTibi^ mrr^-bx bbsni: i:2n

nmn nnn-bs

T

ia^ CD^ n^nps-xb im ODt: ::>:i3X-xb

p«3i pns irb ])ax3T ni3K nrb 5

i:ibx mni nbo -ncj5 r^bm ?i^ribx mni ^inbiD'; ntjst
mni bip-nK j^^vdxi aita-nx'i nini bipa y-i-Qsi nrj"Ci« 6

Deest nnj^-ja 8

b-^rin ^nis ipiii ^tcs D^b^nn "imr-bs
b'i"i:\-nyi ^]ii2pa bnr^-'^yi 'jii2p7ab

cnnb© ncs bs^iio^ irtbx 9

Desunt] , > l i_

ii2Bb DDnsnn b^cnb vbx

V T T : ■.•:-•! * - : T "

ixnn-bx 131213 ix-in-bx 1 1

9./t> f^ D2rK :)^ujinbi ODnx b-i^nb nDr.« b-^iinbi UDtim y^icinb

D"I'^)3 iT<13

* Vid. 43:2. *" ut vs. 1. "^ Targ. xn'r^a 'j:? n-^on •1:1s.

42:12-20J THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIONS. 371

-bs D3ns n^TUx^ CDns ^nisnni -ba nsr.x s^tiJni DDnj« onn^ 1 2 ^

n^nbtt nianbia nsnrxb nrs

nnrKb nnbni n3?i2-Nb nnbbi

mni-nm ly^ais pb mn^-^n'r ly^TU pb r\pT. 1 5

Deest nn^n"^ iT'li<T^'

nini bx'ite'; ^n'bs nixnir mn*'

cnsni ^D^ns^b cd^:s jTaiun n^'ii'Q shb dd^:s iTairn oi©

ni!;b DT» D© ni:b Dnxn

r^'^irn n-iisin d"'X"i'i Dni< tox did ns^y d'^xt" nnx nirs 16

pm"" ^^:^'Q d\'ixi ons-nrs dto ^2^^ a^r^xi Dns-nirsc

(D^n-Tn) D-^npsn-bDi. D^irixn-bD -ns i^ac-TCX o^irixn-bD 17

n:?nni nnnn ''irn^ qt» m^b ' nanni nrna mnn im^'>

_ , ■.- T - T

"12 is^bs onb n''ni-sbi i2-»bs^ ^-(-(to nnb n-^ni-xbT

y

nynn

n:?-in '^:z'q

f

mni

bsiTS'' Tibs nisns nin^ 1 8

*• T ■ • " T :

TiTsn nspiD Tirs3

'^tM2n^ IBS ?fPD "^"css

*=n"'-!nybn n^irb

n^iobi nbsb

T T ;

nirri nm "itcx

nin'i "in^ 19

T * ;

D?3 ^nT^n-13 lynn yT

h.^k.k ^tek.

-Lli , -^..^ -^^--..^^ ,

0

n^n-i-bs "M'^hy bbBnn "rasb OD^n'bs nin^-bs 'ins cnnb©
mn"" Tj-ibs nias"' -nrs bDsi mn^-bs i:"!:?? bbtnn niasb

no: nw n^si -nrs bDDi irn'bs
isiirn i:b-;3n p isTibs

■ T I T ■,.-;.. .. .-

^Targ. n-^ns^b. ^ Cf.l4:15; 44:12, '^ iirofiipiot. ^ ut vs. 22.

« Targ. Xjbr -^s^.

3*72 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [42:21-43:9

"Trx n-ini bipn cn^'^ais mb^ cn:>)2^ xbi oi'^n D:b ^5x^21
as^bx -irnbuj bbb^ Q^Tl"'*? nini bipi

DD-'bx ^:nbtJ-nT!JS5
^zrn n^/nn^ mnn nn:?i n:s;"in nnnn ■'^ i:>";n y^r^ nn2?i 22

T • . .. - T

CAPUT XLin.

rnn-' i-in--bD-ni{ D:?n-bi5 ^n^b "^-is^-bz-nii n^n-bs-bx nn^ib 1

mn^ "inbiD it^i< inbiu irs an-Ti'bs nin^

cn^n'bx nini
''n^ir2>^-p rr^yT^in-p 2

Deest D'^1-;!n

-xb npi^nb^bin'i^n^-bxD^^^sxn r,ps? npio in^^T-bx a-iTax

irbs mrp ^nbtj i:''nbi< mni^nbir Kbin^i^

n^:n

CN ^3

"'D 3

c-TSDn-iTn

c''nir^Dn-"i^n

Deest

b-^nn iniu-bri
Deest

c'^b'jnn "^Tiu-bDi

b-jpn inis-bDi

O'lbinn inizj-bDi

• T -:

Deest

f ns3 msb

T : ■-• -: • - T •

Dinn^n-nx 6

□''ixrzn q-jn-nxi

t^jn-nxT

T :

■.■ .- T

Deest ■

D^nsia pi? ixn^T 7

^ib-np

i-:=i "p 9

^ Cf. 14:15; 44:12. ^ Vid. 42:1. 'Yid. 41:16. * Targ. NHCSD ^.
« Targ. -ilW 3D.

43:10-44:6j THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. 373

-n-'n ■i<r(::) "D'^r'sss nn:'?:t2i 'icx 'j^r^a t:^^a cnr^-jT

1X03 d\£';i ii<DD ''nrirT "^nny bnn '

-TirxD D^-i2:)a ^nx-nx ^n'^yi -mrxD oniz^a fnx-ni5 n-j;;?i

DY5Trn Dibiun ms^

-ns{i "jii^n nrx rrir? n^^:? Q^.^j^^ T'^i?^ iiri^ tl'^io n^a 13 (Uc^^

CAPUT XLIT.

Deest jjin^

nt5i'' nirn^ cna -j^xi n-n ai^n

V T / ; V -

Deest ^hyb 3

cn^T i<b nirx cnx nrn di:?t xb ntJX

D3"'nhs']

iin:>-nx innj^-b^-rx 4

nbrsT rfbon

i©:?n-bs icrn xrbi?

^bs iy)3T» xbi ■ n:?riu'xbi 5

nbTcn"! ''firi^i min^ ''"i^irn DbtJin'^ niinsi rnin^ in:?n fj

* £V jrpaihvpotg. ^ kol) ip'^sipisl.—Ta.rg. '))^'i'T''l. "= wffB-5/3 ^''^eipiXsi.
^ e^x'^sv.—Yid. vss. 9, 17, 21.

374 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [44:7-17

T

in^'sn lyiab ' ODb n-inrn ly^b s

"^b^n ^{b issn 'xb 1 0

'^n'lit'ai OD^ti) ip^rnn-iibi \^'iira iDbn-^ibi is-i'i'sbi
' nn'^mnx '■^zth ' ODininx 'i:Bbi DD'^sBb
'':d d© ^::n mni n-ax-riD pb irfbxnixnsnnn^-i'o^i-nD pb 11

nynb dds 'ids q© ^rsn bsnte';
rTi^rr^-bs-nx ninpnbi
nirx D^^st)2n-b5-ns ^axb n'l'in^ n^i'istj-nx innpbi 12

T"-T ""; t: •• *:f-T;

ny-in^ annn ^bsii D^nsr^aa -ynx xinb cn^DS ^^ic-mss?
^bTi:^-'::? IDpia Tanii bb ^isni oto ' ^'I'^b ninsia

nnna ibs^ 'q'i'isi? y"}sa
bn:\-^3?i pp^ i^ni ny-13
Deest ' '^m nnni n'ina

nbbpbi n^Tsb^ ns^inb ^^m nbbpbi nisTU^' nbxb i-im

nannbi

Deest Wn^ 13

nini?TB)a t3^b&-b5 n^n^ Kbi n^n^TsbT^itoTD^bsj n'^n^xbi 14

D-'isj^a pi<a D^nsn mw cc-ri^b n'^ssn mw

-niuii n^iini px miub fix niicbn Qinstt yni?!

inTO^-i^b QIC mirb o© nnisb n^wb Di^Brnx

inw-xb "i?
P, . f ' D^nnx D^rtbsjb 15

irsbtti is'^Dbti

* Targ. b?. b Vid. vss. 6, 17, 21. "^ Targ. ppS n\ ^ fkmXovai
Tali \l'V^alg avruv

44:18-28] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE YAKIATIONS. 375

I2bin rnrxDi iDb^in Ts-jpi is

Deest D'^DC? fib-^Dni

n'^DOD nb ^D'l^sD^'i d^:d5 nb ^jenbi

Deest nnsrnb

D''DD3 nb 1DDD1 D^iDS nb 1\tT^^

-bD-b^i "D^t^n-bsT n^iin5n-bx -byi c^'i»:n-byi Di-insn-b:? 20

D"!"!!^ ini? D^::?n n3>n nn^ inx □'':3?n n^'n-bD

DbuJTTib pn^i Db©n^ nisnni 21

nin'' nDT nin^ "idt onit

T

(nas^inn-'i^a'i) DD^nns^iniQ^ nny'-inn ^:bi3 22

"^ninnnb DDinx "inm nannb CDsni? ^nm

T

Deest mail "jij^^

(■^n^^iyai) mnnni I'^npnn vnpnm innnni 23

nbsn ni:7-in ddux nix-ipni nx-in ninn DDni« nsnj? 1?-b?

Deest mn ni'^s

c^ir:n-bi{i orn-bx o^CDn-bs bxi D^n-bs-bi? 2-1

T T

Deest d^.^ii*)? ynsa nrx n"7^n^-b|
•ri? bx'iiT'^ inbx n^n^i "rasi-ns ''nbx' nixn^-mn'' n^x-na 25
-s'^'i'^m "innan p^£n D-^csn ns^irpi nnx'nbi^b bxTC

^nxbi3 CD^-'^m CD^sn npanni

Dnxbia
ni^tsyn n•os>^ I:rn"!:-n^^ ns^wn nori
n-nn'i-b3 ^sn i)2tJ "n? n^ni-ox i£a s'lpp'^^is ii^ n\-ii-t:x 26
nin";-^n in^ -^n 'irii mm*' ©■'iit-bD

nin;;; ■'px
onb rinb on'^by "iptJ '^sx "is iibi nnb ur^^bT "ipo 'i::n 27
min'i-bD iTsm n^p'^nb xbi min*' tJ^x-bD ittni nnit:b '

Deest Q"!'^2Ta fnx"'j^ 28

» Vid. VS8. 6, 9, 21. '^ Targ. )-X:r^' " Targ. N^T^r^n K*^2aVi. "^ Vid.v8.6.

376 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [44:29-46:2

t:^-ty2>n nnirr^ rr^ni^iD i^^T^i o'^xan n^iin'^ n^ni<i2-b3 1^111

Deest on^^ ^ziz'Q

i^^p-^^ aip ^13 ^2>^n i^iab
nynb Dv^by ^nn^

CAPUT XLV.

*iS3a "iSD-by 1

Deest •y^mb

nini ^^i^-ns bsnto^. "irtbi* ii^r^^ n-aj^-nD 2

-^3 lb ■'ix ''b "'IK trrai? (f?^) "^s mn^ iiD''-''D ""b Kr^is? nTas 3

^ny2i(?)^bnx2^p:\^mni ^d-" ^nn:^3-'ny.^^^3i5D)2-bypDt'j

Kb nn"i;i3 nin:i«3 ' ("innDTiJ) Tii^^^ xb nnisisn

Deest ii^n ^"isn-bs-nsi

Dip^n-bDa bbisb ^Tijsrnii nnsi by bbicb ^lasrnii T^b ^^nji

DTU-jbn -iTUS Dia-ibn nuj« ni^pizn-bs

CAPUT XL VI.

n^^^n^-'jfb'a^n^pnsmDb^n^t^s'ia '-bx nin'^-'in^i rr-n ntjs 1

T T

*-i2S:^DinD nsx-^-Din:

h Xap/xefg. ^ Targ. ^2n=!i23.

46:3-14] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 377

'nSssi (pi:) ^i)2 (itesri) ip^rnn ' nam i-^ia iD-iy 3

a-^imBn 153? D^Dicn incii'i D'^'onsn ib:?i a'^oion incx
(•ipinn)ipnTC3^^:mDnini^nm ' ipl^ n^ymDi inst^nm

mns a^:\ic2i n-^nn n^n yi^^ n^^io: n^nn n^n ^n\s:n s^ii^ 5

1D3 1C3

ibt^D nns n^-bs> pEir-b:? ibiiJD nns-ini ^^'bs npss 6
''a-.TQ iiryr^n^ mnnisi r^a^ia 'nr:s7MT' ninn:3 7

nb:?"! ^ix^D D'l-iis^ •'■a nbs?'^ msis o^nsi^a s

Deest Q^'a iTrJ^'hn-; riinnsri

''ninsirniiibnniQ^DiDn-bi^ib^? n^nn ibbnnni D^oion ibis? 9
iir£r!n''2^bT''a^'iriD-^"iin^ns2: r;i2i 1»13 n^ninsn ii<2;;i

nrp ' map ""Dn-i

iirn'bs nin^b nixnsf nin;; \;^sb 10

^nin-^ ann nb^i^i vn'^is^a DpDnb a^.n nbDi^T iin^a np:nb

~in:-^3:? "jis:: ynsa ^i-i^b -jibs pi^n nixna nin;< ^2^sb

n^s nns-^nrbK

"in-innn i^iirb Q^^^ra-nn nbinnb \^^n^ni5i'ii)bD^"i2T2-nnnbin3 11

^a i^x nb:?n ^-jnixsn ^b px nb^^n m«si

ibip D-ii^ li'^H) ' 15ibp D-ii^ lyaia 12

^m ibtJD r^^n-^ ibujD

T t

xni3 in^'/av-^ra nin^ nnn nuji? -bs? nini 'ii'i nirs na^n 1 3

bna ib^ i^iab s^asn in^ia-i''
ban ^b'^ n^sn^Dias
-bx ir^rrm bn^^^(a)b in'^r^n ^i^'i^irni n'^nsm i^i^an 11

^qb(a) p':a ' ii^)2iuni ' bi^i^^n

Dn:Bnnai

^ Targ. ■,"'p^;iri. *> ut vs. 8. ' Targ. X-S-^n-i. ^ Tj^^g^ -^sro.
« Cf. I. Chron. 21 :12. *" Targ. b?. S Vid. vs. 19.— Targ. O'S-^::.

378 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [46:15-27

b:>r CSX (^12=) ^^^ D? yii^ T"i^3i? vino? :?T!a 15

Dip; "i^i? ^nyn-bx niQip ^-irs^'i inyn

^-:'ii2(n)'(n)'^STCn p«tD n:?T)2n n^nyn iix»

nin'"' '^ns-DXD iia© nixnt nin"^ ?ibr2n-n«D is

'Tib-'D jrjb-^D 19

na mrT' "j^s^ ''is snpai aisi'' i''S^ nnjisi

^'nn xn )^^i'n 7-ip i^n xn ]ib2^ f-ip 20

resins cb^aia pnnia ^^b^VD pnn^ "iba^D 21

cmpD cnnpB

iDb-> binn-''D bb*; ©riDD obip iDbi bini-'iD ifb;; t;n:D nb^p 22
'^■'n-jnD :n-»by ixn miainpa ''ni:nD .^^jb isn riTa-inpni

nn-isT2 nn -^d nw^ sb id nnnsia 'lan id npn^ sb ^d 23

psii-Dj^ ''Ts nsnD iisi-ay i::3 n:n; 24

nns-b:^ wa in^s-ns ipis "^ssn bsnto'^ '^n'bs? nisns nirii -iicii 25

■o D^n-jan bri -b:?yss^p'as-bsnpiBi:3n

'id D'^nuDH b:^i ni^ns

■:;iDi dite: icpD^'i::^ D^riO?'' 26

Tx . I T^Di bDa--Tb'a nsixn^DiD:
Desunt < - .•■ : '•■ ■• - •• =- =

inin-i-Dss D-jp
Q'^DTStt aims' y-)i^i2 27

« laiv 'EjySf/l MxYjl. ^ Vid. vs. U. ' Targ. sb^; •|!ir.'i\ <* Inc.
vs. 23.

46:28-47:7] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS. 379

KTTTbx «nit-i-bx nrs 28

T -

T :

CAPUT XL VII.

c^mubB-^b? in';^^_';-bxmni-nn'7n^nmrs i

"'nioi'' bD ibb^m ^Q^T»:sn ^pj^ri msi'i bD bb^m D-^xn ips^'TT 2

mon&ia (tistj) in'jyio bipia i^n/sx mens n-jyiu bip^ 3

■ji^sntt Dn^iis-bx mas i:sn-sb p-^sn^ ni?a-bi5 ninx i3Bn-Ss'b

-bms (nibDb) ^asb snn DT'a -ba-nx ni^ijjb san on'Ti-b? -i
12 (nbzs'i) n^iDsi' D^mcbs ■Ji^^sbinirbn^ianba'^mrbs
nnr:? C'l-'iffiri bai l^'i^si mn-i "niu-^a nts -i-ito ba

riti^zy nT2>-b? nnip nsa nn^^D nT:>-bs nnnp nsa 5
H:? *:D"'p::? n'^nsTS^ libpm --y opisy n^ns^rj -jibpiax

mn^i ann n^n^b a"in ^in 6

tsptjn Ti5 ''tprn Ti< 7

* Targ. b:' ^ Targ. X'rsx ''Ja. <= Targ. n:'-)X "'Sr-; bs ",^^"^11*. •* Targ.
•'H'isvnb. e 'EyaAr/>.— Targ. ■,'ins:p!in. ^ Inc. Vs. 6. '& Aram. ■^'nw.

o

80 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [48:1-12

CAPUT XLYIII.

mr^nn OT.^ip hid^d nmtJ m-nr ^d inrbij ''in bsnir^.

nnm nsiurn nir^nn

T T T T : -

Diiri^ n:n^"i2; n:?n n^bV nrn n:n^n:;*i 'iDb n:?n n^br 'imijn

D-'p^s bnp "^s " np:^2i bip 3

n:3-nb:>i ^Dnn ninbn nsb'a -nb:?^ ^Dnn ninbn nb5>^ "^d 5

nrnm DD^^nitsi rob'an ncs nrnm CDirsi rjb^ id: g

i^:nDi v:n^

-I'ly-bD-^b? "i^ xn'''! TS^i 'i'':>-b:D-bs< ^'itJ sn^i s
nin^ n'as "tcxs mn^ n^i5 niri^

mnn till ^d nxi-ab i^^ir r.n Ksn iisD ^^d nsi)2b y^i-r.ri 9

■j^.i?^ nr^nn maiub n^n5/'-bDi '(■'k^ nsiinn niaisb n^^yi

nn rnoTi inn ntsi""

Deest n^nxT 10

T :

n:>b)a r-^wsia 11

T

(?i)3TC) i-ins-b;? «in i:piri i^n^tj-bx i<in t:pTri

^□''sn 'i'i')2''-n:n ' o-'sn o'^'a^-nin 12

T

^>'^5'') lasip'' 'T'j^pi ip'^T "T^^^i I2a:'i nti'^ba;'! ipini rhD^

^Targ.^rV ''Targ.b?. <= Cf. 50 : 27.— Targ. b?. ^ ' A//aSr «■«/ Aya!5i . « Cf.
Isa.l5:5.— Zoyo/ja. fCf.Job39:5. & Targ.br. •> Cf.50: 27,31. » Cf. vs. 25.

48:13-31] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 381

cn2 (nbna) on-jna nnz^'Q cn-jn^ 13

ni)2nbT2b b^n ©■'si ni^nbttb b^n iffissi 14

{•i'\^'j) nn-^y nby n^-i:?-i 15
Deest ii2Tr nixns nin^. ^brn-nsD

^NTa -s^ nnnia

T -r •

^^la ^:?^^in bs iiair ^s'f bsi 1 7

^(n)n3 11S11 nnr** nsrnn '»niri (in'^i-ns nnic xriin ^^rj^ is

^-ii^Ti2>annffi"T'^s2ii^"iryTn-"by nmri^ ^ssi •'^lay im-bx 19
'-•a ^Tcs-i i:b72:T cr-^bst^-i ni:b)2:i cr^bs^ir n^'in:?

■i-nsn 'i'i\^n ip>'n ib^bn "jinxn ^^^^n "'^pyn °'^b''bn 20

-b:^ ^nt"iB yns-bx xh^ t:siC'!2T -bs nir^^n yns^-bs? s'3 -jsiij^i 2 1
n^^si^^ ns^nn pbn nrsi^a-bi^n n^n^-bsi pbn

D'^nb'^ n^n-b^T ' D^nbn^. r\^2-b'j^ 22

2XTa in:)-b3 b'j^ ns^'a f ns? 'in:?-bD b>"i 24

Deest nin"' Ds: 25

^lEDn nKi^ p2ci lii^pn ni^Ta psoi 26

bxic "(b n-'n ^pnt^b i^ib nsi bsnici 'ib n^n p^,nrn i^^b Ci«i 27

in ^'7i:^n in ^^-in-i

imui D^^'bcn 1:3 tin Di^yn inr:? ims'' :^bGn ^:DtD^ n^i:? inr^ 28

^:;;bcn n:2pn n^irn it; nxi)2 ]:pn n:n'^D T^ni nsi^a

nns-^s (^niin) ' nns-^s ^inrn

r,x5 nsTQ-pii^ (:'rTrsi) %-?:?aTS'i ^x^ ^^?5 n55Ta-)is;\ 'i::?aT3 29

inb D^T imx.'^T i:ii<3 7n^ inb oni inissn isix.'^i inza

n^nc)2 Vs^bin nxi^b p-by nsiabi b'lb-'s nicna-by p-b:^ 31

>* Targ. X'n'i'2. '' iKrpijS-^^STai. = Targ. Nnnix b?. '^ Targ. "i"i~??.
^ Mf/ffw^. ^ k-at i~iKpo-j-ci Ma-a^ iv x"',^' aO~oO. & ut vs. 26. ^ Targ.

v-y

382 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [48:32-40

"©-in nan;i Tcnn

■;3:^n ^b-nDnx it:?"' '^■'Dns p:*n nb-riDns ^ry^ '•ds^ 32

1^11 ss^ir^ b-'^ii nn^air' neoss bipn?^ b^^^i nniais nsosr 33
(-int^n) DSirn ^^np"!? rr^n D^np-^ia )^'*^ ns^Ta n^^''

(iTn) ' ' Ti^n xb

Dbip lira nniny nn^s-iy nbip r.r\: yn:i-"iy nb;?bs-i:? 3-i

D-i-iaD •'^-c;^ ^D ^n^ujbTC (?)nb:\y^_ o^n^is ""^a-nr^ ^d n^TCbia nb^y

i^n^ n^snia^b i^n'^ nn'EOttb

niii'a-nx innicni ni^Tab ■^nmrni 35

iinbi^b D'lTupiai rraa D^bs?^ rnbi^b -i^-jpai nian nbyia

^nb ^lan'' D^bbriD nsn^ nb p-by nrn^ n'lbbnD 1x113b "^ibp-by 36

m3nibibn3''TC"in-n^p'iii3:«-'b? tennn^ ''T0Di5-bi{ -^nbi

C-ST2 nim T\ii nnni p-by nin'' p-b2? nisni D^bbns

^r\^p^_ nipTa-bDi Tcxi-bs nrnp iri^n-bD ""S 37

Q-'inia-bs-byi m^:^ ' D^'T-bDi. n^5n)2-byi nn:^ o'lT-bs b:?

pTT ' pTS

n-'nann-byi ni^iis m5.rb3 byi n^nnrnni nxii2 m^^rbi by 38

•a T^sn -DS3 la )^Dn-]^x ^biD asia

mni
Deest . ib'^b^n 30

mn"! n^s md-^d m»3D nan mrr^ yam riD-^D 40
'-bx T1S33 iuifii ns^"^

* Targ. "iTI^"?- ^ Targ. b?. *= A:£//3aJa? avx/^oD (ia"in=C)'^n).—

Vid. vs. 36. '^ Targ X^S. * 'Aaepyifxa. ^ aile. S ayyc'X/^v

i:a>.a5/a. •» Targ. "^n XnisiS "'"'wHnNVJ ft^3>3 "i? ^?. > Targ. hv. ^ Vid.
vs. 31. ' Cf. Deut. 32:26; Hos. 9:12.

48:41-49:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 383

41

v T ~ : T ■ •• :

nnsi insi ns nsi nnsi ins 43

Deest '' nin-;-DSf3

-^by n>i« s^ns-^3 nsn '^ob^^ "bx n^^bx x-'ns-'D nsi iDb"" 44

cips' niD^ ^1)2:^ r^^^^ ^3:3 45
nnnb^ liaiiJnt? xs;; tis-'^s
nsi)3 nss bzxhi ih^p 'j'^a^
nxi^ ?ib-i'ii5 :-jis;a ■'?a ^p"ini 40
Desunt { iT-rn ^npb-'is ci^ra? "ins

■imTDi :n;;nm ^'•nbni ^no 47
a^'a';n ni"insa n5<iia~n'aTn
•jsiria nan - "jy nin*: - ds;

CAPUT XLIX.

•'(n^b^) bbb^ irn'' y'l^iio nnb -nx oibri ©n*' y^iia ib ^x
me-i oni-iyi di:3>i irbrnii mc'' ^■'■lyn iiQyi la

ni^nbiQ n3?inn nnn-by^ny^©ni iiT2?-^:a nnn-bi? 'Tii^wTsm 2

n^nbni nbsbi niaiaTub ^^m bnb nn-jm nmb)2 nyn-in

-ns bi<-nD^ irn^i n:nin irsn n:n2n rsn n'^nsni n^iais

(inb©^^) i^TUi^i n'ns ^^irn'-^-ns bsms"^ irTi

T

ib-f (32br) bbbtt •'D nnED^ "^d J^i"!"!?? nrLD'oiTcnni hdied 3

^nbi^n ' ib^'nbisa osb^a

ran ^0^:2? yavz ^bbnnn-nia iip-a^ nr n-^p^a^a '^bbnnn-n'a 4

nnsi^n nni:nn nnnwn nn-jnn nnnrnsn nnn
^ib:? xnai •^'a nnrsn •'bs siai ^)2 n'^nnssn

T T ! T - TV:

^Targ. br. "^ Vid. 11:23; 23: 12. '^ Mskx'^X. Vid. vs. 3. "^ Vid.
vs. 1. « 'EvaKef/Ji.—TArg. rjSp^r. ^ Targ. "-b? b^l";; p '^1^^-

Desunt l '^^ ^"^^ =^'^^ '"^"^nj^n C

384 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [49:5-16

m"n^-cx2 ^^b^ ^ns s'^n'a ^::n '^s'lii-Dii; ins T^S' xim2^::n 5

nisnsr nin';;

f -:?

^T2^nn ')a\'nn n^Dn 'iiy

ipryn (?n2£n) c'cip^a ^xt? "inici nniDb ip^^\-; i^sn '•lO: »

'I'^rnps
in^NiiJi Jib nt'x ij^n D^nin-i? ii^ntu^ sb tjb is^n ain^a-as 9
mitsn nb^bn a-'Ds:;? T"!.!? ?)b nb^bn n^nra-ni;: nibbi:?

i''©3>-n« (^nnno) ^nsno ^:x-^d ^n-'b^ i^ics^-nx ^n&irn ^;x-^d 10
mb nnnsi on^npc^-nx inibi^ bsi^ i^b nnn;i i^^ncia-ns?

*• : T T

1:210 rns i:s>nT3 ^nniu ^bDT" i^ptLn iinsi. iynr ^'^©
ninxT n^ni 'jyisb "^rn^ nrs^b rrTis i:x "iirni nni:? 1 1

Deest nsn 12

np'.t^ mb np5 nn«T ^n© nj^^ a^^'n nnsi ^n-j?^ imr

nrts 13 np:n ^^b ripsn

nrjirn

HTin nbbpbT nsnnb^ n^oTUb-^D nbbpbin'ihb nsnnb n^irb-^D 13

nin:?-bDi (nsnpn) nsirn nin:?-bji nns^n n^nn

"nbi::>b run-in nsiinn nbiy mn'inb n:iinn

ixm iiinpnn nb© n^isn di-i^si liimiinpnn mbia n^i:a i^s^ 14

n^nb^b iiaip n^bs nianb^ab iisipi n^by

Deest nin-is 15

ni?b£n iir^n ^ria isb pbp :?bt?n ii:\na i:Dio inb p-T lo
tinis m'3^ (nsn^) m^ tosn n^nr^n-^D nyn^ Din^ lirBh

T-^T;--' T-T - T •;

^r:D nin."\n ^s (nyn:^ d^tq) ^";inix cir^ ?|:p -ittzd
Tn^n^N nir^ isp nin^-zs?

» r^TraT-^T!. '' Cf. Exod. 23:1. <^ Targ. nh'Jb (^hvh).

49:17-30] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 385

rr,i3in-bs

^□n^N nirb^? pnin ^in^ -n^^x nirbs' pn^n "jis.;;^ 19
''nib:? d^n^nni n^b^'ia c^i^nx n^bx n'lnn i^i n^bra i23:i"ix
(^'ipEn) i^ps npBi?

^ipncmai m-b5-''b? ' pi ' nri? mincn^i Di"ix-bs pi nt'i} 20

p\n imri-*^by rnun ^lUi? ^^^n iniri-bx nirn mrsi

b-ipi pi5n nm^-i nbss bip^ 13 npi^'s pi?n mr:>-i absD bip^ 2 1

:?^T!;5 i?b C'^n (npysri) '' ' fibip yrios :]1o-di3

ri2:D Tinsin nxni nr:3 n:n ^51511 nxTi nbs^i niosD nsn 22

(?mn23) npsn^-by ' n-iss-b:? iiesd

!i:;i«^ 1^133 ny-i ny^tj i^isir-iD c*a is^5 ly^ai n^/'-iny^ir-iD 23

-: T T -

^^bDTi s*b t:prn bDii xb -jpiun ms'i

npiTnn i:-jn npirnn t;i:T; 24

Deest n^bi'i? nnmi« nibDni nns
nirir^a ninp ini:^ nr^'-xb t^s? n^np nbnnni:^'nn-:ris*b t^^ 25

-bDi ^".n^"^^ Qininn ibsi pb ninnn^i ^!'''^1^l ib^i pb 2G
(Tail) ti5sn ^n^snbia iir:i5 nr^^ n^nbr:n iirr^-bDi

nnni cw mni cx3 i^^nn Di^a

n^n-n ''ni:)2ni5 nboxi ^in-p ni:i2nN nbDXi 27

"isn niDbisb nun mbbr^bi 2S

mp-^b:? ibyi i^ip '^"p"'5i? ^"^^ i^V

ninsi3 (?nir^^) ^nbs onib:? iKipi nino^ nisiia nniby li^npi 20

1C3 ^'t: ids 30

Ssna Dinuji nini-D5«: nisn inri

^ Vid. vs. 33; 50:40. ^ ki%a.u.. ^ Targ. H^?. <* Targ. ^3. « Targ.
ti-^nri-r-cs. ^ Targ. ^:^". e Targ. nrr^ 'i-bri xb.' ' h au(f)olcx. » Targ. b?.
•^ dnoikeiav. ' Vid. vs. 33.

2 B

386 THE TEXT OF JEEEMIAH. [49:31-39

ii!jT25 «iirbi> ibyi ^^ip vb© ^irbx iby iia^p 31

Deest nin']-ai{3

D'^n^nn-i^b D^nb^-xb onb mcx ib n''*ia-«bi D^nbVsb

^D'l'na-iib

(Dt?iab) nbsb bbiab 32

i-inns^-bD^ ii^ny-bDii

nia^TUi D^Dr i^y^ ''isn nn^m nis^tJ n^sri py^b ^lisrn r^n^-n 33

nb^y-ny Dbir*T3y

mi^-p ^DTS ■\i:^''-i<bi D"ix"p fna m:\i-i5bi

nbiy-bx w;>^n')-b«niri';-nn'i,n^nnT2s 34
iT'iiJX'ia Db-i^^-bi? 'x^isn
nnin';-!jb^ in^^p^s niDbia

"ibsb
rnijp nair? nw ni3i5 hd ^D3n nixns nirr' "i^x no 35

ub^Sf nb^^ nujp-nit nni»

Dbisr^b? ''nxnm nbi^^-bx '^nxnm 3G

-xbT nbKn nimn bD3 Dinnn -i^b"! i^bmn ninnn bsb n'lnnn

Dnix ^nnnm Db-ij^-nii 'Tinnni 37

Deest iSBbi

'^nnbTSt "iBX pnns onibs^ 'rixnm pnn-nx nyn Drr^by ^nxn'm
nnb3 ^y '«nnn nn^nni? '^nnbTui nin^i'DW ^tim

"inb? ^5> annn-ns cin'i^ni?

Di"iini "ibi3 D«^ iniayni w^^m "|b)2 oisis "innnxm 38

Dbi5> nia© nx a'ltjxi cb^":? n^air-ni? aitax 39

r

* Targ. X53S b?. ^ oig ouk eta) %\ipai, o\i ^aka'JOt, ov fxo^ot. * Vid.
vs. 30. ^ Yid.Vs. 18; 50:40. « Targ. b?. ^ Targ. D3 ^71 !S^1.

50:1-12] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 387

CAPUT L.

- ~ ; V T T ~

• T -

njsyisni (nntsbn) nn-'iba ^nn tos? ^iijinn i"ii^ nn

Desunt i .' ^ '

mn^-ns iDb"> c-^Dini D'^Dbin "in^ -ns*i iDbi ibm tiibn 'Tim

• : - - : T ' T AT ; -

cn'':s'^3n3ni-nnibKTS^^]rs-n? dh^sb n;n" ']'-\i ibxtJ'' 'jT's 5

-bx "nbDi ''i^n^^. O'a^to';) isn''. ni-ia nin'^-bx ^^b^^ ^xs
sb nbi37 n'inn'''3 nin^' is^'s 'nDi»n xb ub^^

nn'^yn ^^y n-^n m^nx )X2 cn'^y-i ■''ay rrjn n^mx "j^s e

iDbn n3^n:;-b:? iDbn ns^nrbx

(Dxis?) nnbiCD xb ^-mqh on-'ns dttxs xb Trax nni^iii 7

';«2-''DBb (□'iD^ans) -ji^s-^rBb n'^'i^nys

-nibnp bnn-b:? n'^yia "^Drx nsn ■'d -by nbyai n-iya "^Dri? nsn ^d 9

a^ia n^bna niirbnp bnn

b''3i»^ •'■iina yns b-^sis^ •nnn.'is i-^sn

Deest mrri-DSS 10

o

(ibbnnni) irbyni nnnaic 'id ^ ^^Tbyn 13 ^n-cmn ^^d 1 1 '^

^nasnm xw-in nb^ys ^^-Tbn "id "'^bnitm xian nb.'^yD "'^tSisn "^d

nnrob ODmbii ox nnsn DDmbT' n-isn j 2

»Targ.by. *• Targ. "(rsb. <^ Targ. ',!in''\ ^ Cf. Ps. 120:4. « Targ

383 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [50:13-26

bnsa'ins^bDi nbD*n^)2tj':nn''ni nns? bo nbs nia^is nnim 13
-bj-?:? ^pniu'iT nia^ (bnn ^ins) -bo-by phiriT DtJ*i bna-b:?

-b:? ibi2nn-b« n^b'j ii'i ^n-bx ibiann-bs* n-^bs it i4

^niT iisn n^iCEn^ fi^i n;nD n^no n^by 'i:?^nn 15

TV T T ; • : T T : T ■ T T ■.- T • T

n'lb:? Tapsn i^^n n'ln'bx ni2p] nn ^.'op:^ j^^n rrirp niapD
b;^ia TTsn bnny ynr ^niD b:\t3 irsn-) bniia y-jir iniD 1 g

bnn 'ib^ i^is? bnn ^b'a iSixmD^nD i^i::?

mn^ bsnir^ ^rtbij nii^ns nnn^ is

is:nx-'b:^*i bnn 'ib^-'^b? nps "^^sn litiK'-bsi i5nn^bl2-bx-ps■'::n

niUJX ibi2-^5^ 'in'ips -nuND n^TTiJ lb)a-bx ^n^ips mz3i?D

n^nsii nnni lybun^ ^biannn n3>-ii nnm "jTrnn-! bisinn n^T 1 9

bxTC -jis^-nx ''TOpn^ bi{-ii25^ p:>-nis* irpn'i nini-cxs 20
D^nsiusb nbDi« ^n ^^xiux rnrkb nbcK ''d

n-iby nb:^ n^n^n'a nin^. pxn-b:? n^by nb:? D^.?]^'a fixn-by 2 1
n'ln Tp& niby n^niri^n-^b>'i cnnn^nhnTp£'^nTrr-b:^i

nnnm ' CO''"!^^

c^-tcsfnKnb'n!^^ntJin)2nb^bip b^";;\ nnisi pi«n nianbia bip 22
bnnn t^s^' Kbi i^bs? (^b:?) ^i?n nsi bnn mnbrEr^i lb ^rit-p"^ 24

rnnbrnr^i n:?T xb

mrr' ^^s-iib nni^b^-^n nin'' ^i'liib x'ln nnxb^-^n 25

nisns

T :

(n^nini?) n-^iip ^Kn "^n Vpi? rtb-ii^n 20

. » Targ. mV ^ Cf. vs. 43; 6:24. <^Vicl. 46:16. '^ Targ. !:?. « Targ.
h-J). ^ Targ. ^3?. S Targ. N^-^-c Sr^NS. *' Targ. '|"i"3n:. ' Targ. b^JI.

50:27-37] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 389

'y^n nnt:b ini'^'i n^ns-bD ^nnn iin nn-jb iit nins-bDimn 27

' '^nn-ibK ' ' nn-'by

nmps n3^i cnips n:^

Deest ibn^n n^p3 2S

T " - * ; •

^n"j-b3 n^nn bnn-^b? ii^^tjiun -bs D-inn bnn-bx n:?'''aTrn 29

mup nirp ^d'\^

(•j"ibs rnb-in-'-bs) nu^bs '^n^-bs ribn^bis ni3''b3°-in-«-b«
n^bysD nbn'abio rnb:>ED

bsi'ir'' ©lip bs bxnis'i ©i-p-bi?

-2^*: 'jTi-Tn "i^b:!)? ^;:n nin;; ^px-cKs i^T Tb« ^-n 3 1

' nini " ' ' niKns

□7^2 •j-'Ki bs:^ (pTjn) ?i:i-T biTDT 0^)2 lb 'i\s*T bsDT p^r biUDi 32

nin-' ' nisns nirri 33

T ;

Dnint5-b3 i-ni cn-'n'O-bDi i^rn*'

onbTT i:i«72 ^2 onbiij i:x^

(nbxrn?) abx.-^T Dbxa 34

Deest m'n^-DKS 35

-'bi"i niT£5-'b:?i bnn ^ms^-'byi -bsi sr^ntJ-b^ii bna ^ma->-bxT

Deest 'ibsh Di^an-bx nnn 30

-by nnn mm n^i^ar'b? n-in nnm n^mnrbx nnn

^nnn :''Dn''zi3n-b?T dh^did -bsi isDn-bsi i^o^D-bx nnn 37
rnrs^' an:>n-'b:^:"i nn-ininrb? vni noinn nirs nn^rn-bs
-'b:? nnn ^a^icip vm nDinn rjinnsfis-bx mn Qiffisb

»Cf. 48:1. ^ Targ. V?. « Targ. r,^y. ^Cf. 21:14. « Tavg. ^ri
^ Targ. bS. S Inc. vs. 37. ^ Targ. ■'inD-'n'i ^:"i 'pnriiDID b?. * Targ.
br'.. '^ Vid. 51:30.— Targ. N''4':3. ' Targ. hi.

390 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [50:38-51:

■ibbnn'' [m»s] a^^sm ibbhni n^ia^sm

D^^sa (d^'Ts) D^p'^s'in'O'' pb imjjii Qi^x-nx d*^^2 inu5^ pb 39
-xb (?)^q^TtJ;i niDn hs ims^i 'iiy mrn-xbi n;?'! niDi nn
nssb ^iy am "i^"} niTi? istin xbi niDb
D^nbii ^'^isn? D-ribx 'n?En^5 40

Q"is-p ''d© ni;;^-xbi mx-in r^3 "n^^-xbi

Nbi Kin inTDX nnb p'^Di mrp nrn I'lTsi^ ^p^n'' p^Di mcp 42

nm'' ' iisnni xbi

*Ti;sD Tin:^ inDi'' a'^oio-by ts^sd Tin:? inDni D-'oiD-bri
bni-ni T^bx nianb^b bnn-nn T^by nianb^b

'■jn-^x s^r^ii pT^'a nbyi 'jj-i'in n^ipbx pTn -jixsr nbs^i 44
"ipsx ^n^b? nin3-bDi_ "rpsi? n^bs< mnn '''qt

^ bnn-Sy p-i ^irx ^ni'bx p'^ n©s 45

n;i52''r£2t('i!n'irns:)innD''xb"DN ]i{2rn in'iys mnno"' xb-ox

Dn-^by^ ni5 D'^tJi sb-ci? ni3 onibs^ n^'O'' xb-a«

pxn ffi^'iri bna nte'^En bnpia 13 n©?'^? bnn nic&ns bipi: 46

:ram Q^ir^n npyri t-qw: D^i^n np::>Ti 'pi?n

CAPUT LI.

'nims^ "ly'a nin ''ni'iir? "intj^-bri n'»m»^ mn i^p nb ^nt5^-bN*i 1

""min D''^T mnn D^nT 2

nny-i D^"'! n^noi: baa-b? ''in n3>n DT^a n^ino^ n^b:? i^n-is

qbyrr (n-j?::) nmrp ^mn 'pi^'' -bxi inirp in^in ^ni"" "imi-bx 3

n^ini-°by ib^nn-bsi is'inoa -bii'ib^nn-bxTisinDnbyn^
nsas-bs TQi^nni nsns-bD ii3"^nnn ninnn

1

=* Targ. 'pnawrp. ^ aeipyjvuv. <^ Targ. pnn'i X'23, •* Vid. 49:18, 33.
* Vid. 6:23. ^ Tai'^dv. S Targ, n^3 "^S-aX. *» Targ. b?. • Targ.
■'^f?^ ^?. '^ Targ. ■'X'np? NS-ix "lan^ b5\ ' icf. Isa. 4:4. "" Targ. 'pTin
PT3!i'n-\ " Targ. b?.

51:5-16] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAKIATIONS.

391

nb ib^Si'i
(ibnbnn'') ^11W p-by

(nnirb) •'n'lnTZJb
n3nT:?D

• T

nb abo^
D'^i:^ ibbnn^ p-b:? 7
DxnB s
I'^siXD^b
rrary 9

T

Q''pnir-"Tr ii^D:^
irnps-nx 10

(in^an) ib^'t bnn-bx-''D inis ^b^ intJTia' baa-bs^-'D ^^^ ^Db^

bnn n^in-'b? bnn n^airrbx 12

(n-i^yn) i2:^pn niEirxn iia^pn ai'itiio ^la'^pn ^ispan ip-irnn

bnn ''nir^-^b:?

^y-ii? nic3> nirri
insiana
•jnD bipb

bna ''ms^-bx

^n2D© 13

px nw 15

insinnai
■inn bipb 16
fnx-narpiQ

^ Targ. 'rnnbis:-?, *> l^coSrfy aOroyc. « Targ. rn-^irb. « Targ. ■'-K
n--;^. e xarg. b?.' f Targ. Nni25 n-^3. e Cf. Isa. 62': 8. ' *» Vid. 10:12.

392 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [51:17-29

n^iu mn^ inbns ii:uj nixn:^ mn^ ^nbnD -oniiji 19

D^Db)2 (in) ninbi:^

'^''^niisnT nnn-n DID in '^^nsrsrn ir.ssDT inn-ri d^d in ^n^s?^ 21

^on^nn-n ninsn)? -n inn-n nnn

Snsrani nbinmmnnin''-'n:tEn'i '•nssDi nrxi tJ-'i^ in ^nssDi 22

nrxi tJ-'X in in ^^i2D^ -i^':'i "ipr in

nbinm -nnn

''•^nsjsni nni:?i n2?-i in ''^nsEnn ti'ssi Tni^^i n:?-i in \-^,::3:t 23

in '^^-^s:s^^ 11^21 nns in in ^r:^r^:^ M)2^'] -nrx in

tjirr^Di ninD q^:3di mns

ii^2:-b:; ^02? ii5« nn^riz^vbn nx p^an 10 irs? cri;^n-bn ni< 24

Deest nini-Dis? 25

inn iTinsi D-^s^bDn-b? i^nb.V5r^'i i^nnii D^:'*bDn-)^ I'^nbbijT

nsniu ns-i2j nnb

n^nn n^^T!Jb-''n -^D^^b psn cb^:? niia^ir-in niioi^b ps^^ 26

□bi:?b n^nn

D^i:»n lypn f-i«n-b? d:-ixi2J nsi'O i>*pn fiKn dd-ixtt 27

'lEira ' D-ii^n

Mpt) ^07:2^^ 1313 irhn D^nbia TD2Tri<i ^:^ i:nnx ninbicTa

^Dins n^by "iDsp n^by ^ips

I'inn pb^D DID n^b:? ibyn ^^d pb^n DiDnb:?n

iiy lbi3-nK Q^^a n-^by ^b?;n ii^ '^nbia-nx n^i:\ n^by iiiijip 28

T I T T TV T •.■

i^nD-bn "ii^bTrti^ y"\i^'^:> nxi

psn mr?n pxn tj:?nni 29

nini nncna mrT^ ninonia

* Vid. 10:13. ^ Targ. 'i^rilS'^ns. « Targ. -Tlll^. ^ Targ. ^?2X1.
* cV ffoO vel £> 73}. f Inc. vs. 22. & Targ. ■pni33-}'i 'p2"in-i, ** 'Axocvoc^iots.

51:30-42] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATiONS. 393

(ns nt?i'> ]"'s^) STSin sbi aiBi"' ]^i<'q

bnn mn^ bin bnn "iniir; ib-in 30

ni"^:? niDbr-^D jnsp^ it^ rnDbi-is 31

T ; * • T T - :

fnb n'ii;?n
bfisi ip^^Ti'n (^3;5^"in) ^:]:bri ''rbDi? ^bia n^xn^oins iD'a^an ^b^m 3 i
lbi3 n2i5niDi3D "pi (sbs) i;ybi p^n ^bs '^:y>^7^ bin
iTsns ijb^ "psnD ^:^b2 bna ^:ir)2 iisid s^b^ ^^DnD

a

-bs (i^iij) ^^intji 'losn ^i;in^-n bnn-b:? ^njs'tj^ x^n a

bni

in^T-n« nn-^3:n in-in-nx nn-^:Dn 30

msin «b"i niarb ban niT'm c^:Pi 'ii:?^} a^bb bnn nnTin 37 ^^

^-11:^31 ini^s Q''"i''E23 ^-n*' ^^ 11:^3 ^-"^sffii a-i-i^DDD i^ni 3S

minx '' ' ' mi-ix i-nris

onb nrir^ ]rs Dninir^-nx n^rsj 39 - —

(^b:?ni ^'ibniyi) iianni "f3>iab ■ ^ifby^ pab ^

d^bii^D^ D^biio

Deest ?fCTO 41

□1^^n nisffib bnn nn^n t»x orr^n bnn rrairb nn^n tx

nnoDDT nncDD -12

* Vid. 50:37. — Targ. X^'r:3. ^ Inc. vs. 32. "^ Targ. "^S-iX nrj'J.
** Inc. vs. 35. e Targ. -pn^!. ' ^ Targ. h'J.

;94

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[51:43-55

Desunt

-bD "ibbn "-lbs*; bsna-Di

nirr^ ri^n-b« ^s'«ffi'npi3-bN n^nr ixn

'*D''bbn ibs":
''Di D^'a'05 bnn nb3?n-Di« ^d

pNS bn:; nn©T bnna np:>T bip

n^sffib 1^5 d-^n-i d^^^d Tan
nbip (nxiij)

n^2 7155 nrtib n^nr iti 43
-bs inn ma^-xb"j^nx nn"i:?i
mx-p "jnn ^hy^-sbi tjis

bnna ba-by '^n'lpfii 44
-na Qiis niy 'i'^bx inns^-s^bn

nbB3 baa nw
TO^x iiDb^i "iry nain'a i«2 45
: nin-^-qx linnia iOE2-ns
n^^i2t'3ix"|''niDDnnbiTn:;-;£i 46
n:"iB3'xni' fnxa' n^^crn
nsffis I'^'^nsii nrittijjn

a^xa u'-'-Qi nsn'pb tbiria-by 47
-bsV bnn' ^b^cfi-bi "^n^ipEi
ibs-i fi-^bbn-bsi " TDinn nitis
Di-a© bna-b? k:r\^ jnDinn 48
■jiss^ 13 ana 'im'bbi f':K'i
tnini-axD a'^'n^iirn nb-xia^
-aa bxnis-i ^bbn' bs:b baa-aa 49

ynxn-ba ^bbn ibsi baab
ini2yn-bs labn anny a^isbs 50
mn^-ns pinnia i^idt

nsnn *i33>tt'0"'^a 51
nin-i rr^a iw-ipia-b:? a^^nr isa ^a

bbn pis"^ 52
^ai a'^'aisn baa nbin-''D 53
nxa^ inxi3 my ainia isan
nb 'w^^^vi
b^i:s^ naiui baaia^npyr bnp 54

a'^iira fnxia
•jM a'^an a'ltts an^^h iisn") 55
abip lis©

* Targ. nz. "^ Targ. ^2. <^ Targ. 'p^anri-. <• Targ. N ■b-'Up '|'i^";ri\ * Targ. 'pS^S.

61:56-52:3] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 395

n^nin;; i^sbi ^iis bis-by tin ^d iin© bnn-b:^ n-'b:? xa -id 56

~ T V T

Lbuji bx "^D tnffip nnnn nnnn n'»nnn:; msbsi

: "anb nini nibi:a bi? "^d Dnin^p

jDbtji nbir
jT^niu T2t5:i "I3TC1 obpi ''nin'' ni^Dm nirnu ^nn?irrn 57

T -.* ■ : T

bnn nrn mni Tcs-nn niisn nii^na mn^" -rax-riD 58

namn ' nnrnn bnn

in^ sbi in^i D^nnrin nin3?TUi ins'^ •osn D^nnin"nin:?TrT

©xnn D^i3i<bT p^nb ni^ay Q^'as^bT p^ v"in d^^:? lyr^'^i

in^i2'Ti-n« nin^^ msi-nuK ^mn s^nsn ri'iian*' ms'-nicx nn'in 59
n^-iuj-bs nbsb i?^n:n rr^nnj-ns

"i2Dn bnn-^bV xinn-'iiux nnxnso-bxbnn-b^iiinn-TCJs go
bnn-'^by D^nnnn ' ' ' bnn-bx D^nnrn

nnn^ nns (nin;; id^s) nin;; mn-^ n^p^n-bs nnn^i nnx nin'> 62
^■^bnb^^n^nD^b nrnrnp^n-'^b? -nTin Tibnb in^nDnb nrn
-ly D'lxia D'^nTsn'! in-m'^n niann-iy^^ o^i^^b nw'i^ in ■

nirpnT n»pn g3

Deest iin'^^a'i'^ i^n^i nsn-i^ id^^i

CAPUT LII.

T T ' ■.•

T^ 4. f ^23 nin'i i^yn rnn tori 2
Desunt i : x = .. •• =

" Targ. "jinK ^ Inc. vs. 57. « Targ. 5<Pa':p''n. '^ Targ. b:

396

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[52:4-17

Desunt {

I

T

inT (nin!i?3) nnra inii? ir^'^TU^i
t:BTC^3 ^^bi« nn^i-'n nnbn^

; T ■• A •

Desunt |

bsn-^b^ ''ssb ^^3>
i^yn ^nn-bD-nsi

• T

D'l'nsD b^n

Desunt •

-m -i^x^n n^'n

nxs-'?^ tjnix iD^birn-i?
' J b23 -fbra ^n^^p"i2 I'tq^I

ib'^n-bDi sin

nbib "i'':?n)2 li^s^'^n innn'^ 7

nnnyn ^m iDb^i
Di"jiUD-b^n is"Tii 8
jnhn:?3 in^jpn^-nj? ir^^is^n
I'^bj"^ i2tSD ib^n-bDi inii

t:r;t) n^in^i ^^iiJ-bD-nii 051 10
nnbnnn
n^psrrn'inn in:n^i 1 1
n;tD nntcy-^TSW riitj «^n 12

bnn-ib^'''22b i^y
Dbtc^-ii \^n-bD-ns'i 1 3
n^no Dbinin^ niian-bD-nsi 14

T

D^bs2n-nsi "n^r^ D'^ixt'zn
nsV bia ' ?fb^-bs< ibcj nirs
"j-ji^'inn: nb^n piasjn nn;;
• ' ' ' " ' : D'^nau-m

'j'jsnmD Ti<Ti;n ynxn nib'itti 16

nini-n^nb ^t^i? 17

* TBTpaTTsloig Xr^oig. ^ hg 'ApajSa. ^ Targ. ri'iza.

52:18-27] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VAEIATIOXS. 397

nbnn

Deest 'inpb

-ni<i mn:)an-ni5i ^mn^on -nximn^cn-ri^inipnTrn

nrp:an nvp:rn

nni? n^ni d^:© n^^Tas^ni ^ni^n D''n c^rij ni^i^r^n 20
D'n nnn niib^n nnn— i^i?

Deest nbsn cibrn-bs

r,i"ai5 ©icm nrn: tn^b:? h^n^- h^nrnri'a^p'intjreiib^'n-ns'i 22

nnxn mn:n t^aa ntiip ni^'i^ t'^n nnis'n

nrsa c^:i^n n:i^TS "iiirn ^ir^^b d^di^'ti. '':Tsn "iTai^b

nrxn niry-a'rit'b

T - T T T •• : ■

c^ri-ain-bD ^'in'^T nns(pb:n) mn Q'^^'-i^nn-bs nnin 23

qsn 1^1210 niib©
cnci D'lnD npb n^yn-;T2i 25

7b)2n ^rsa nt'x dt? 'iirri? n>'mri Y^^n-iisixS^D^TCzxnymsT

•jbrn ini-j-nn c^nn-j-nn 26

nnbi^ nnbn-i

nbn-n nbnnn cnTp"^ 27

Deest in^^x bva ri'i^n'' bi'^n

iTToyvTY^pag ko.) rag Xvyy/ag xa) rag "^vicKcxg Kai roCc Kva^ovg.

398

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[52:28-34

Desunt <

n-nn^-lb^

T T : - ;

(ia "i^^r) in k^^d n^n "icx

^Ti^n n:n3 ib nnns<i
Deest

mrbo' D'^nin'; y^iiJ-nDm
n:T»a tmsbr^ D^"lic|T a'^sbs 29

nixi?' n:bTS ©si" DbTS^n''ia
tjbffi nriDa' iw^'-tfi^ a^wbtj 30
nbjn n!2i<n"]3^nDb O'^ntoyn
a^T,ni_ D''naiJ-nn n^"!!^^?
a-»ranx nixia ^ms csa
D^sbx n:?anx tJErbs msiani

p^'in'' nnbr^b 31
w-nb ntiam D^niayn
^^n^ b^ix

U^^hizl KDDb bj^^y 32

onb baxi isba '»'i53 ns sisirn 33
ib"n:ri2 i^ian nnnx innii^i 34
Ti^n •'■a^ bi3

* OJXai/Malaxccp. ^ Cf. Gen. 41 :14.

T. and T. Claries Puhlications.

In demy 8vo, Ninth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,

AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR:

OEi't]^ Prostcssiije Crxrccfscs in 3^£atjmc[ anti 5j2Hritms.
By a. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,

PROFESSOR or HEBREW, ETC., IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.

' Simple and elementary in form, while thoroughly scientific in principle,
it is the production of a clear thinker and a sound scholar.' — British Quarterly
Review.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In Pi-eparation,

A SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

In demy 8vo, price 8s. 6d. ,

SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.

By Professor HEINRICH EWALD.

^ranslatEi frxrm \h.t (Eighth (Strman €liition
By JAMES KENNEDY, B.D.

' The ■work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, M'ritteu
with a profound analysis of the la-ivs of thought, of which language is the
reflection. Another striking feature of the work is the regularly progressive
order -which pervades the whole. The author proceeds by a natural gradation
from the simplest elements to the most complex forms.' — British Quarterly
Review.

In Two Vols., demy 8vo, price 18s.,

A NEW EASY AND COMPLETE

HEBREW COURSE:

Containing a ^jtbrtto (Siitmmar, toith (Copious ^)fbrrto anb English
Cf.xctdscs, strictlu grabuatcb, toith a ^If.vicon.

By Rev. T. BOWMAN, M.A.

WORKS BY PROFESSOR C. A. BRIGGS, P.P.

Just published, in One Volume, post 8vo, price ys. 6d.,

MESSIANIC PROPHECY.

By Professor C. A. BRIGGS, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANG''AGES IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL

SEMINARY, NEW YORK;
AUTHOR OF 'biblical STUDY,' 'AMERICAN PRESBVTERIANISM,' ETC.

Note. — This Work discusses all the Messianic passages of the Old Testament
in a fresh Translation, with critical notes, and aims to trace the development of
the Messianic idea in the Old Testament.

' Professor Briggs' Messianic Prophecy is a most excellent book, in which I
greatly rejoice.' — Prof. Fr.\nz Delitzsch.

• All scholars will join in recognising its singular usefulness as a text-book. It
has been much wanted.' — Rev. Canon Chkyne.

' Prof. Briggs' new book on Messianic Prophecy is a worthy companion to his
indispensable text-book on "Biblical Study." . . . He has produced the first
English text-book on the subject of Messianic Prophecy which a modern teacher
can use.' — The Academy.

Just published. Second Edition, in post 8vo, price ys. 6d.,

BIBLICAL STUDY:

ITS PRINCIPLES, METHODS, AND HISTORY.
With Introduction by Professor A. B. Bruce, D.D.

' We are sure that no student will regret sending for this book.' — Academy.

' Dr. Briggs' book is a model of masterly condensation and conciseness.' —
freeman.

' We have great pleasure in recommending Dr. Briggs' book to the notice of all
Biblical students. ' — Nonconformist.

' Written by one who has made himself a master of the subject, and who is able
to write upon it, both with the learning of the scholar and the earnestness of
sincere conviction.' — Scotsman.

In post 8vo, with Maps, price ys. 6d.,

AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM :

ITS ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY.

Together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, mziny of
which have recently been discovered.

' We have no doubt this volume will be read with intense interest and gfratitude
by thousands.' — Presbyterian Churchman.

' This book travels over a great extent of ground. It is packed with information,
and appears to be the fruit of protracted and enthusiastic study.' — Aberdeen Free
Press.

' An honest and valuable contribution to ecclesiastical history.' — Glasgow
Herald.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

PROFESSOR GODET'S WORKS.

(Copyright, by arrangement witli the Author.)

Just published, in Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,

COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE
TO THE CORINTHIANS.

By F. GODET, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL.

' A perfect masterpiece of theological toil and thought. . . . Scholarly,
evangelical, exhaustive, and able.' — Evangelical Review.

' To say a word in praise of any of Professor Godet's productions is almost
like "gilding refined gold." All who are familiar with his commentaries
know how full they are of rich suggestion. . . . This volume fully sustains
the high reputation Godet has made for himself as a Biblical scholar, and
devout expositor of the will of God. Every page is radiant with light, and
gives forth heat as well.' — Methodist New Connexion Magazine.

In Tbree Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d.,

A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.

A New Edition, Revised throughout by the Author.

'This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself
so rich in spiritual truth, that it is impossible to examine it too closely, and
we welcome this treatise from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more com-
petent exegete; and this new volume shows all the learning and vivacity for
which the author is distinguished.' — Freeman.

In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,

A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.

' Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and
interest as one of the most recent and copious works specially designed to
illustrate this Gospel.' — Guardian.

In Two Volumes, Svo, price 21s.,

A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO

THE ROMANS.

'We prefer this commentary to any other we have seen on the subject.
. . . We have great pleasure in recommending it as not only rendering
invaluable aid iu the critical study of the text, but affording practical and
deeply suggestive assistance in the exposition of the doctrine.' — British and
Foreign Evangelical Review.

In crown Svo, Second Edition, price 6s.,

DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

TRANSLATED BY THE HON. AND KEV. CANON LYTTELTON, SI. A.,
RECTOR OF HAGLEY.
' There is trenchant argument and resistless logic in these lectures ; but
withal, there is cultured imagination and felicitous eloquence, which carry
hoiue the appeals to the heart as well as the head.' — Stoord and Trowel.

T. and T. Clark's Puhlications.

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Eight Volumes (or more at the same ratio)
from the Volumes issued la this Series previous to 1SS4 (see belo^v),

At the Subscription Price of T-wo Guineas

(^Duplicates cannot he supplied in such selections),
NON-SUBSCRIPTIOX PlUCES WITHIN BRACKETS.

Alexander (J. A., DD.)— Commentary on Isaiah. Two Vols. (I7s.)

Baumgarten (M., Ph.D.)— The Acts of the Apostles; or, The History of the

Church in the Apostolic Age. Three Vols. (-iTs.)
Bleek (Professor)— Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (218.)
Christlieh (Theo., D.D.)— Modem Douht and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.
Delitzsch (Franz, D.D.)— Commentary on Job. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)

Commentary on the Proverhs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.)

Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (21s.)

A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)

Djllinger (J. J. Ign. von, D.D.)— Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Church of

Rome in the First Half of the Third Century. One Vol. (7s. 6d.)
Dorner (I. A., D.D.)— A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.)
History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five

Vols. (52s. Od.)

Ebrard (J. H. A., D.D.)— Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol.

(lOs. fid.)
The Gospel History : A Compendium of Critical Investigations in support

of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. Gd.)
Gebhardt (H.)— Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Voh (10s. fid.)
Gerlach (Otto von)— Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gieseler (J. C. L., D.D.) — Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. Four Vols.

(42s.)
Godet (F., D.D.)— Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Tliree Vols. (31s. 6d.)

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)

Ooebel on the Parables. One Vol. (lOs. fid.)

Hagenbach (K. R., D.D.)— History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)

History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vuls. (31s. fid.)

Harless (G. C. A. von, D.D.)— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. fid.)
Haupt (E)— Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. fid.)
Havernick (Professor).— General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol.

(lOs fid.)

Hengstenberg (E. W , D.D.)— Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary
on the Messianic Predictions. Four Vols. (42s.)

Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.)

On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended : Treatises on the Son?;

of Solomon ; tlie Book of Job ; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacriftces of Holy
Scripture ; and on the Jews and the Christian Church. One Vol. (9s.)

Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. Od.)

Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.)

The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.)

[Continued on next page.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY— Coji«t)M(«;.

Keil (C. F., D.D.)— Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21.s.)

Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)

Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. Gd.)

Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (IDs. 6d.)

Commentary on Ezi-a, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (lOs. 6d.)

Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.)

Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.)

• Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. Gd.)

Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)

Kurtz (J. H., D.D.)— History of the Old Covenant ; or. Old Testament Dispensation.

Tliree Vols. (31s. Gd.)
Lange (J. P., D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.

Three Vols. (31s. Gd.)

Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.)

Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)

Luthardt (C. E., D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. Gd.)
Macdonald (D., M.A.)— Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.)
Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (ICs. Gd.)

Christian Ethics. General— Social— Individual. Three Vols. (31s. Gd.)

MUller (Dr. Julius)— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.)

Murphy (Professor)— Commentary on the Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. One

Vol. (12s.)
Neander (A., D.D.)— General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Nine

Vols. (G7s. Gd.)
Oehler (Professor)— Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Olshausen (H., D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.)

Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. One Vol. (lOs. Gd.)

Commentary on Epistles to the Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.)

Commentaiy on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (lOs. Gd.)

Philippi (F. A., D.D.)— Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
Ritter (Carl)— Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (2Gs.)
Schmid (C. F., D.D.)-New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Shedd (W. G. T., D.D.)— Histoiy of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.)
Steinmeyer (F. L., D.D.)— History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord.

One Vol. (10s. M.)

The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol.

(7s. Gd.)

Stier (Rudolf, D.D.)- The Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (84s.)

The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of St.

James. One Vol. (10s. Gd.)

The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)

Tholuck (A., D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. One Vol. (9s.)
UUmann (C, D D.)— Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany

and the Netherlands. Two VcjIs. (21s.)
Weiss (B., D.D.)~ Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)

■ The Life of Christ. Vols. I. and II. (lOs. Gd. each.)

Winer (G. B., D.D.)— Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol.

(lOs. Gd.)

The Series forms an Apparatus ■without which it may be truly said 7io Theological
Lihrarii can be complete ; and the Publishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more
appropriate gift could be presented to a Clergyman than the Series in whole or in part.

Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.

Lii.sDo.N : {For li'orks at Non-subs:ription price oidy) Hamilton-, Aimms & Co.

WORKS BY PROFESSOR FRANZ DELITZSCH.

In Two Vols., demy 8vo. — Vol. I. now rortrly, price lOs. 6d.,

A NEW COMMENTARY

ON

GENESIS.

MESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in intimating, that by special arrange-
ment with the author they are publishing a translation of the Filth
Edition, thoroughly revised, and in large part re-written, of this standard
Commentary. The learned author, who has for a generation l)een one of
the foremost biblical scholars of Germany, and who is revered alike for his
learning and his piety, has here stated with evident care his latest and
most matured opinions.

'Thirty-five years have elapsed since Prof. Delitzscli's Commentary on
Genesis first appeared ; fifteen years since the fourth edition was published in
1872. Ever in the van of historical and philological research, the venerable
author now comes forward with another fresh edition in which he incorporates
what fifteen years have achieved for illustration and criticism of the text of
Genesis. . , . We congratulate Prof. Delitzsch on this new edition, and trust
that it may appear before long in an English dress. By it, not less than by
his other commentaries, he has earned the gratitude of every lover of biblical
science, and we shall be surprised if, in the future, many do not acknowledge
that they have foundin itawelcome help and guide.' — Professor S. E. Drivkk,
in The Academy.

In crown Svo, price 4s. 6d. ,

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY OF REDEMPTION.

' Few who will take the trouble to look into it will not readily acknowledge
that it is not only a masterly work, such as few men, if any, besides the
Leipzig professor could give, but that there is nothing to be compared with
it as a handbook for students.' — Literary World.

In One Volume, 8vo, price 12s.,

A SYSTEM OF BIBLICAL PSYCHOLOGY.

' This admirable volume ought to bo carefully read by every thinking
clergyman. '—Literary Churchman.

In Two Vols., 8vo, price 21s.,

COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO
THE HEBREWS.

KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S

COMMENTARIES ON, AND INTRODUCTION TO,
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

This Series (published in Clark's Foreign Theological Library) is now
eomi)leted in Twenty-seven Volumes, price £7, 2s. nett. Any Eight
Volumes are now supplied for £2, 2s., or more at same ratio.
Separate Volumes may be had, pi-ice 10s. Qd. each.

' Vei-j' high merit for thorough Hebrew scholarship, and for keen critical
sagacity, belongs to the^e Ohl Testament Commentaries. No scholar will
willingly dispense with them.' — British Quarterly Review.

PUBLICATIONS OF

T. cSc T. C L J^ K. lEC,

38 GEORGE STREET EDINBURGH/

LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO.

Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of Jaimes. 8vo, 9s.
Ablfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross: Sermons on our

Lord's Passion by Eminent Living Preachers of Germany. Cr. 8vo, price 5s.

Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay)— System of Biblical Theology.

Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Alexander (Dr. J. A.) — Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 17s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works

OF THE Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of
Nic^A. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s.

Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.

8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s.

Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bannerraan (Rev. D.D.)— The Doctrine of the Church. Bvo, 12s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. Bvo, 27s.
Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.

Pastoral Theology in the Xew Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,

Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes hound in three, 24s.

Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo.

BiXNiE (Prof.)— The Church, Is. 6d.

Brown (Principal) — The Epistle to the Romans, 2s.

Candlish (Prof.) — The Christian Sacraments, Is. 6d.

The Work of the Holy Spirit, Is. Gd.

Christian Doctrine of God. Is. 6d.

Davidson (Prof.)— The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d. '

DoDS (Marcus, D.D.)— Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s. Book of Genesis, 2s.

Douglas (Principal)— Book of Joshua, Is. 6d. Book of Judges, Is. 3d.

Hamilton (T., D.D.)— Irish Presbyterian Church History, 2s.

Henderson (Archibald, M.A.) — Palestine, with Maps. The viaps are hy
Captain Condcr, R.E., of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Price 2s. 6d.

Kilpatrick (T. B., B.D.)— Butler's Three Sermons on Human Nature. Is. 6d.

Lindsay (Prof.) — St. Mark's Gospel, 2s. 6d.

St. Luke's Gospel, PartL, 2s. ; Part IL, Is. 3d.

The Reformation, 2s.

The Acts of the Apostles, Two vols., Is. 6d. each.

Macgregor (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Galatians, Is. 6d.

Macpherson (John, M.A.) — Presbyterianism, Is. 6d.

The "Westminster Confession of Faith, 2s.

The Sum of Saving Knowledge, Is. 6d.

Murphy (Prof.) — The Books of Chronicles, Is. 6d.

SCRYMGEOUR (Wm.) — Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. 6d.

Stalker (James, M A.)— Life of Christ, Is. 6d. Life of St. Paul, Is. 6d.

Smith (George, LL.D.) — A Short History of Missions, 2s. 6d.

Thomson (W.D., M.A.)— Christian Miracles and Conclusions of Science. 2s.

Walker (Norman L., M.A.) — Scottish Church History, Is. 6d.

WiiYTE (Alexander, D.D.)— The Shorter Catechism, 2s. 6d.

Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d. In

cloth, 8d. each ; free by post, 9d.
Croskery (Prof.)— Joshua and tlie Conquest. Given (Prof.)— The Kings of Judah.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.)— Life of Paul. Iverach (James, M.A.)— Life of Moses.
Paterson (Prof. J. A.) — Period of the Judges.

T. and T. Clark' s Pjiblications.

Bible-Class Primers — continued.

KoBSON (John, D.D.) — Outlines of Protestant Missions.

Salmond (Prof.)— Life of Peter. The Shorter Catechism, 3 Parts. Life of Christ.

Smith (H. W., D.D.)— Outlines of Early Church History.

Thomson (P., M. A. )— Life of David. Walker (W. , M. A.)— The Kings of Israel.

WiNTERBOTHAM (Eait<er, M.A.) — Life and Keign of Solomon.

WiTHEKOw (Prof.) — The History of the Reformation.

Blaikie (Prof. W. G.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the 6th

TO THE 19th Centuky, Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bowman (T., M.A.) — Easy and Complete Hebrew Course. 8vo.

Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part IL, 10s. 6d.

Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study : Its Principles, Methods, and

History. Second Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s, 6d.

Messianic Prophecy. Post Svo, 7s. 6d.

Brown (David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming : Will it be Pre-

Millennial ? Seventh Edition, crown Svo, 7s. 6d.
Bruce (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the

Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. 3rd Ed., Svo, 10s. 6d.

The Humiliation of Christ, in its Physical, Ethical, and

Official Aspects. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. 6d.

Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. Svo, 10s. 6d.

On Comfort in Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.

On Improvement of Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s. 6d.

Bungener (Felix) — Rome and the Council in 19th Century. Cr.8vo,5s.
Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. (Translation. ) 2vols.8vo, 1 4s.
Calvini Institutio Cliristianss Keligionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.

Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s.

Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.)— The Kingdom of God, Biblically and

HisToracALLY Considered. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc-
tion TO THE Life of Christ. Svo, 7s. 6d.
Gaspers (A.)— The Footsteps of Christ. Crown Svo, 7s, 6d,
Cassel (Prof) — Commentary on Esther, Svo, 10s, 6d,
Cave (Prof) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, 8vo, 12s.

An Introduction to Theology : Its Principles, its Branches,

its Results, and its Literature. Svo, 12s.

Christlieb (Dr.)— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Apologetic

Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Cotterill — PeREGRINUS Proteus : Clement to the Corinthians, etc. Svo, 12s,

Modern Criticism: Clement's Epistles to Virgins, etc. Svo, 5s.

Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa-
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. SUPPLE-
MENT, separately, 14s.

Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History

of Christian Doctrine. Svo, 9s.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Review of the

Principal Doctrinal Discussions since the Apostolic Age. Two vols. Svo, 21s,

~ Discussions on Church Principles, Svo, 10s. 6d.

Curtiss (Dr, S. L) — The Levitical Priests, Crown Svo, 5s,
Dabney (R. L,, D,D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of the

Nineteenth Century Considered, Crown Svo, 6s.
Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With

Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. Ninth Edition, Svo, 7s. 6d.

Delitzsch (Prof.)— A System of Biblical Psychology, Svo, 12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Delitzsch(Prof.) — NewCommentaryonGenesis. Two Vols., 8vo. Vol. I.

(Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. hi"w ready, lOs. M.

■ Commentary on Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 8vo, lOs. 6d.

Old Testament History of Redemption. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6(1.

Commentary on Isala.h. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Bollinger (Dr.) — Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Roman Church

in the First Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Domer (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine

OF THE Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.

System of Christian Doctrine. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.

System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s.

Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. New and Kevised Editions, Edited
by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, IBs. nett.

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s, 6d.

Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Emesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s.
Ewald (Heinrich) — Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old

Testament. 8vo, 8s. 6d.

Revelation : Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Fairbaim (Principal) — Typology of Scripture, viewed in connection

with the series of Divine Dispensations. Sixth Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 2l3.

The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Ezekiel and the Book OF his Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d.

Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special

Functions, and Proper Interpretations. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

New Testament Hermeneutical Manual. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation.

With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Pastoral Theology : A Treatise on the Office and Duties of

the Christian Pastor. "With a Memoir of the Author. Crown Svo, 6s.

Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
■ Analytical Commentary on the Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Studies in the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Frank (Prof. F. H.) — System of Christian Evidence. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its Relation

to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. Svo, 10s. 6(1.
Gieseler (Dr. J. 0. L. ) — Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. Svo, £2, 23.
Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.
Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truths of Scripture in connection

with Kf:velation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 6s.

Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded.

8vo, 10s. 6d.

Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary

on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

The Messianic Prophecies. Crown Svo, price 7s. 6d.

T. and T. Clarlz s Publications.

Gloag(P. J.,D.D.) — Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s.

Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

ExEGETiCAL STUDIES. Crown 8vo, 5s.

Godet (Prof.) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Commentary on Epistle to the Eomans. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Commentary on 1st Epistle TO Corinthians. 2vo1s.8vo,21s.

Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. 8vo, 6s.

Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things

THAT ARE Made. Crown Svo, 5s.

Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans-
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s.

Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown Svo, 5s. 6d.

Hagenbach (Dr.K.R.) — History of Doctrines. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

History of the Reformation. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Hall (Rev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants,

Occupations, and Life. Crown Svo, 5s.

Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Harris (Rev. S., D.D.) — The Philosophical Basis of Theism. Svo, 12s.

The Self-Revelation of God. Svo, 12s.

Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.) — The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit,

Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

Old AND New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr.8vo,6s.

Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.

Vol. L, to A.D. 325 ; VoL IL, a.d. 326 to 429. Vol IIL, A.D. 431 to the
close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Svo, 12s. each.

Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. Svo, 33s.
Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Treatises on

the Song of Solomon, Job, and on Isaiah, etc. Svo, 9s.

The Prophecies of Ezekiel Elucidated. Svo, 10s. 6d.

The Genuineness of Daniel, etc. Svo, 12s.

History of the Kingdom of God. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Christology of the Old Testament. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s.

On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Herzog — Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and

Practical Theology. Based on the Real-Encyklopddie of Herzog, Plitt.
and Hauck. Edited by Prof. Schaff, D.D. In Three vols., price 24s. each.

Encyclop.^^.dia of Living Divines, etc., of all Denominations

IN Europe and America. {Supplementto Herzog' s Encyclopaedia.) Imp. Svo,8s,

Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s.

Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In-
stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy Svo, 12s.

The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, 10s. Gd.

Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) — Commentary on First Peter. Svo,

lOs. 6d.

Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 5s.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s.

Philosophy of L.aw. Tran«. by W. Hastie, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark' s Publications.

Keil (Prof.) — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. 8vo, ols. 6d.

Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiaii, Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vdls. 8vo, 21s.

Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the

Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Handbook of Biblical Archeology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Keynier (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.

Killen (Prof.) — The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doc-
trine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced to A.D. 755. 8vo, 9s.

The IgnatianEpistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.

Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Religious History of Israel. A Discussion

of the Chief Problems in Old Testament History as opposed to the
Development Theorists. Ciown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or. Meditations

on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

David, the King of Israel: A Portrait drawn from Bible

History and the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

Autobiography. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. Svo, 15s.

History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.

Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A

Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s.

Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited,

with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D. Second Edition, in Four
vols. Svo, Subscription price 28s.

Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited

by Philip ScnAFF, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each.

On St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. Gd.

On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 18s.

On the Gospel of St. John, Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.)— The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic

Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s.

Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — ^The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his

relation to the World. Second Edition, two vols. Svo (14.')0 pages), 36s.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt (Prof ) — St. John the Authorof theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d.
St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according

TO ITS Peculiar Character. Three vols. Svo, 31r. 6d.

Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental {Sixth

Edition), Saving {Fifth Edition), SIoral Truths of Christianity {Third
Edition). Three vols, crown Svo, 6s. ench.

T. and T. Clark' s Publications.

Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s.

M'Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)— The Early Scottish Church. To

the Middle of the Twelfth Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Mair (A,, D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the

Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Gro\vth of the Spirit of Christianity, from

the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d.

Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St.

Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On the Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. 8vo, lOs. 6d.

On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, lOs. 6d.

On Thessalonians. {Br. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, lOs. 6d.

The Pastoral Epistles. {Br. Exiiher.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

The Epistle to the Hebrev/s. {Br. Lunemann.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

St. James' and St. John's Epistles. {Hutker.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Peter and Jude. {Br. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Michie (Charles, M.A.) — Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is.
Monrad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d.

Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Miiller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely

New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s.

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.

NaviUe (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.

The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.

Modern Physics: Studies Historical and Philosophical.

Translated by Rev. Henry Downton, M.A. Crown Svo, 5s.

NicoU (W. R., M.A.) — The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus

Christ. Crown Svo, 6s.

Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Religion and

Church. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d.

Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s,
Oeliler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for

Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. Svo, 6s. each.

Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, 6s.

Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and

Acts. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s.

Romans. One vol. Svo, 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's P^iblications.

Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Corinthians. One vol. 8vo, 9s.

Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. One vol.Svo, 10s. Gd.

Orelli — Old Testament Prophecy regarding the Consummation

OF THE Kingdom of God. 8vo, 10s. 6d,
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in Seven vols., £2, 2s. nett.

Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Komans. From

the Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip

ScHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical

Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.

Vol. III.— Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Hebrews to Revelation.

In Four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d, each.

Pressens6 (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Piinjer (Bemhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of

Religion from the Reformation to Kant. 8vo, 16s.
Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopjldia of Theology. Two vols. Bvo, 21s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian

Doctrine. {The F'ifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic
History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science, Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New

Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s,
Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy : Its Origin, Historical Charac-
ter, and Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. Crown Svo, 5s.

Ritter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the

SiNAiTic Peninsula. Four vols. Svo, 26s.

Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. Svo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the

Kew Testament. Svo, 9s,
Rothe (Prof,) — Sermons for the Christian Year, Cr. Svo, 4s. 6d.

Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the Christian Church. (New

Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.)

Apostolic Christianity, a,d. 1-100. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 2is.

Ante-Nicene Christianity, a. d. 100-325. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 2is.

Post-Nicene Christianity, a. d. 325-600. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 2is.

Mediaeval Christianity, a.d. 590-1073. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo,2is.

{Completion of this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation).

Modern Christianity, a.d. 1517-1530. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 2is.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Didach^

and Kindred Documents in the Original. Second Edition, ex. Svo, 9s.

Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Svo, 10s. 6d.
Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the New Testament Times. Div. II.

Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d.

Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation

Established and Applied to Biblical CRnicisM. Cr. Svo, 2nd Edit., 4s,
Shedd — History of Christian Doctrine, Two vols. Svo, 21s.

Sermons to the Natural Man. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Skrmons to the Spiritual Man. Svo, 7s. 6d.

Simon (Rev. Prof. D. W.) — The Bible; An Outgrowth of Theocratic
Life. Crown Svo, 4s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Smeaton (Professor) — The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught

BY Christ Himself. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.

On the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 8vo, 9s.

Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Mediaeval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Stalker (Rev. Jas., M.A.) — The Life of Jesus Christ, New Edition,

in larger Type. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.

Life of St, Paul. Large Type Edition. Crown Svo, 3s. 6d.

Stanton (V. H., M.A.). — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah.

A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Steinmeyer (Dr, F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord : Examined in

their relation to Modern Criticism. Svo, 7s. 6d.

The History of the Passion and Eesurrection of our

Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables : The Predictions of the

Apocalypse in relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d.

Steward (Rev, G,) — Mediatorial Sovereignty : The Mystery of Christ

and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

The Argument OF THE Epistle TO THE Hebrews. Svo, 10s,6d,

Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight

vols. Svo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.

The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on

THE Epistle of St. James. Svo, 10s. 6d.

The Words of the Apostles Expounded. Svo, 10s. 6d.

Tholuck (Prof. ) — The Epistle to the Romans, Two vols. fcap. Svo, 8s,

Light from the Cross. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s.

Tophel (Pastor G,) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. Svo, 2s. 6d.
TJhlhorn(G.)— Christian Charityin the AncientChurch. Cr.8vo,6s.
Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi-
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. Svo, 21s.

The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity,

Fourth Edition, crown Svo, 6s.

TJrwick (W,, M,A,) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary

upon Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 6s.

Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown Svo, 5s.

Pastoral Theology. Second Edition, post Svo, 3s. 6d.

Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland,

New Eilition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d.

Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of

THE Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s.

The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific

Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown Svo. 6s.

Weiss(Prof.) — BiblicalTheologyofNewTestament. 2 vols. Svo, 2 Is.

Life of Christ, Three vols.' Svo, 31s. 6d.

White (Rev, M,) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 4s.

Williams— Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. Fcap. Svo, is. 6d.

Winer (Dr. G, B,)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited by W. F. Motjlton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s.

TheDoCTRINESANdCoNFESSIONSOfChRISTENDOM. Svo,10s.6d.

Witherow(Prof . T. ,D. D. ) —The Form of the Christian Temple. Svo,io/6.

Workman (Prof. G. C.) — The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi-
gation of the Greek and Hebrew with the Variations in the LXX Retrans-
lated into the Original, and Explained. Post Svo, 9s.

Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown Svo, 5s.
Wuttke (Professor) — Christian Ethics. Two vols. Svo, 12s. 6d.

Cf,

7

, ny

^

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme I ibrary Card Pocket

Under Pat, "Ref . Index File"

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU