Footnotes
[1.]A. B. Davidson.[2.]A. B. Davidson. “Without Jeremiah,” says Wellhausen, “the Psalms could not have been composed.”[3.]Cp. e.g. Jer. xi. 19, with Is. liii. 7; and see Grotius, “Annotata ad Vetus Testamentum,” on Is. lii-liii; Cornill, “Das Buch Jeremia erklärt,” pp. 11-12; John Skinner, “Prophecy and Religion,” p. 351.[4.]II. Chron. xxxvi. 21 (with a reference to Lev. xxvi. 34, 35) and 22, 23, the latter repeated in Ezra i. 1-2. Duhm, indeed, but on insufficient grounds, thinks the former citation, because of its reference to Leviticus, cannot be from our Book of Jeremiah but is from a Midrash unknown to us; yet the chronicler's was the very spirit to associate a Levitical provision with Jer. xxix. 10; cp. xxv. 9-12. The other quotation Duhm refers to some part of Is. xl. ff. (xliv. 28?) as though this had at one time been attributed to Jeremiah.[5.]In the Apocrypha proper, (1) “Baruch” to which is attached (2) “The Epistle of Jeremy” warning the Jews of Babylon in general and conventional terms against idolatry. Apocalyptic writings, (3) “Apocalypse of Baruch,” (4) (5) and (6) three other “Apocalypses of Baruch,” (7) “The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” or “Paralipomena Jeremiæ,” (8) “Prophecy of Jeremiah.” For particulars of these see “Encyclopædia Biblica,” arts. “Apocalyptic Literature” (R. H. Charles), and “Apocrypha” (M. R. James).[6.]Following Hitzig, C. J. Ball (“The Prophecies of Jeremiah” in “The Expositor's Bible,” 1890, pp. 10 ff.) refers Pss. xxiii, xxvi-xxviii to Jeremiah, and it is possible that in particular the personal experiences in Ps. xxvii are reflections of those of the prophet. But such experiences were so common in the history of the prophets and saints of Israel as to render the reference precarious.[7.]It has been calculated that the Greek has 2700 words fewer than the Hebrew, i.e. about 120 verses or from four to five average chapters.[8.]E.g. ii. 19, 29; iii. 1; v. 4a; viii. 16, 21; xxxii. 12, etc.[9.]nĕ'um Yahweh: utterance or oracle of Jehovah.[10.]E.g. the words at his mouth, xxxvi. 17; xxxviii. 16.[11.]E.g. Jerusalem in viii. 5, and in xxxvi. 22 the ninth month.[12.]E.g. ii. 1-2; xxv. 1b; xxvii. 1; xlvii. 1; l. 1.[13.]E.g. viii. 10ab-12; x. 6-8; xi. 7, 8; xvii. 1-4 (perhaps omitted by the Greek, because partly given already in xv. 13, 14); xxv. 18 and a curse as at this day; xxvii. 1, 7, 12b, 13, 14a, 17, 18b, clauses in 19, 20, the whole of 21, and 22b; xxix. 14, 16-20; xxx. 10, 11 (= xlvi. 27 f.), 15a, 22; xxxiii. 14-26; xxxix. 4-13; xvi. 26; xlvii. 1 (except to the Philistines); xlviii. 45-47; lii. 28-30.[14.]E.g. i. 10, 17, 18; ii. 17, 19; vii. 28b; xii. 3; xiv. 4, etc.[15.]Verse 14 is not found in the Greek.[16.]
In his Schweich Lectures on “The Septuagint and Jewish Worship” (for the British Academy, 1921) Mr. St. John Thackeray presents clear evidence from the different vocabularies in the Greek Version that this Version was the work of two translators, the division between whom is at Ch. xxix. verse 7. The dividing line cuts across the Greek arrangement of the chapters, which sets the Oracles on Foreign Nations in the centre of the Book. This shows that it was not the translators who placed them there, but that the translators found the arrangement in the Hebrew MS. from which they translated. Further, he thinks that the division of the Book into two parts was not made by the translators, but already existed in their Hebrew exemplar. For this the Hebrew text gives two evidences: (1) the titles of the Oracles, (2) the colophons appended to two of them. The titles are some long, some short. In the Hebrew order the Oracles with long titles are mixed up with those with short, but in the Greek order the six with long titles come together first and are followed by the five with short. There are two colophons—one to the Moab Oracle, the other to the Babylon Oracle; but the Moab Oracle stands last in the Greek order and the Babylon Oracle last in the Hebrew order.
From all this two conclusions are drawn: (1) when the titles were inserted the chapters were arranged as in the Greek, which, therefore, was the original arrangement; (2) they afford Hebrew evidence for a break or interruption in the middle of the Oracles—the longer titles cease about the end of Part I of the Greek Version, which therefore follows a division of the Book into two parts that already existed in the Hebrew original from which it was made. The Hebrew editor who amplified the titles had apparently only Part I before him.
Using the Greek, Duhm, Cornill and Skinner render this quatrain thus:—
Did not thy father eat and drink,
And do himself well?
Yet he practised justice and right,
Judged the cause of the needy and poor.