THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

PRINTED BT 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,  d. u. HINRICHS'SCHE BUCH HAND LUNG.

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH

OK,

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

Rev. GEOEGE COULSON WORKMAN, M.A.,
PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND LITERATURE IN
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY, COBOURQ, ONT., CANADA.

2ln SntroDuctorB mottce
BY
Professor FEANZ DELITZSCH, D.D.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1889.

Stow

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.

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

Vm CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII. 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

CORRECTION.
Omit "bride'1 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 discussing 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 regarded 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

PREFACE. XI
whole Old Testament, the work has 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
exacting duties, having been engaged 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 distinguished 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 give 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. Xlll
Targum 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
W. Drugulin, Leipzig, where the last chapter of the
work was composed and stereotyped.
Although 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 reading,
and "ut" to an identical reading, in the Hebrew;
" Vid." refers to a similar or like rendering 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 Aramaic.
The volume is now given to the world with the
hope that it may prove an interest-awakening and
a science-furthering 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 prophecies.
We know that this prophet twice dictated his
prophecies to his amanuensis, Baruch, as Paul
the Epistle to the Eomans 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
haps, 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 original arrangement , must have been
another and a different oue, because the present
order of the component parts of the book amongst

XVI INTRODUCTORY 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 Kings. But even
the form which the later redactor gave the collec
tion is not perfectly preserved. Chap. xxvi. 17 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 follows. It seems that here chaps.
xxx., xxxi. have got out of their right place. The
expression isy'i (" and they shall be weary "), in
chap. Ii. 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 original arrangement, 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. XVli
which the later redactor has torn to pieces things
which chronologically and essentially belong to
each other, and has placed them together, as they
now appear. J. J. Staehelin in his discussion of
the arrangement of Jeremiah's prophecies divides
the book into seven parts,1 and Anton Scholz in
his monograph on the relation between the Greek
and Hebrew texts of Jeremiah divides it into six
decades ; 2 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
book of the irrevocable curse, belonging to the

Zeitschrift der deutschen MorgenUindischen Gesellschaft, t. iii.,
9, p. 216.
Der masoret
Jeremias, 1875.

1849, p. 216.
2 Der masorethische Text und die LXX - Uebersetzung des Buches

xviii INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
time of Jeconiah, 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 along with Jeremiah, as true
prophets, are mentioned the elder Micah 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 chronological
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 belonging 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, xiv., 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. -Ii., belonging partly to the time of

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. xix
Jehoiakim, chaps, xltf-xlix. 33, and partly to the
time of Zedekiah, chaps, xlix. 34-39 ; 1. — li.
This is, as I think, the distribution aimed at by
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, xiv., 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 specially
as chaps, i. -xliv., together with chap, xiv., are
appointed 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 have 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 ages 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, owing 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-

XX11 INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
recension. I also regard the version as of very
great importance for the history and the criticism
of the Old 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.
Leipzig, 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 Syriac, 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
critic in the textual work 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 Septuagint, one is con-

xxiv PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
fronted at the outset with the character of the
deviations in the version. The differences 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 orio-in of the
variations, it is believed, can be most readily
demonstrated, the differences 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 work, the divergences are arranged
in parallel columns, the divergent words, or letters

PRELIMINARY OBSERVxVTIONS. XXV
only, so far as practicable, being punctuated. In
this way the differences 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 believing that the original 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 resembling substitute. The constant observ
ance of this rule has been most advantageous 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 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
words follows almost slavishty 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 whether 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 57 Tracyvla aov
ivexeiprjae aoi, stands for ^flN W®r\ ^£hT?Dfi (" thy
terribleness hath deceived thee"). The Hebrew
word translated " terribleness " does 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 uniformly translated. This want
of uniformity greatly increases the difficulty of

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXV11
retranslation, because the same word, or the 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 single
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 pfj/m rod
@eou b eyevero eirl 'lepefilav. In this superscription,

XXV111 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
which forms a common introduction to the prophetic
books, 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 To pr)na
tov 6eov should be rendered nin^l"7! (the word of
Jehovah) or Din^N"^!"7! (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 Eevised Version, except in a few cases of
verbal translation, has always been used ; but,
when translating from the Septuagint, it will be
observed, a literal rendering of the Greek text has
invariably been given. The Greek word Kvpio<s,
wThich generally represents the Hebrew word i-fiiT1
has been regularly translated by the English
word "Jehovah." The term in Hebrew is not a
divine title, but a divine 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

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXIX

extensively, since the 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
iTim. *T2N ("says Jehovah") from nin^a^i ("a
declaration of Jehovah "), which throughout this
book is usually represented by the Greek \eyei,
Kvptos or et7re Kvpio<s, the latter Hebrew phrase has
been regularly translated by " declares Jehovah."
The word 0^5, 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 QN3, and employed as an emphatic
synonym for -i^N- Whether probable or not, the
supposition is here suggested as being possible, at
least. The words in Hebrew are not identical, as
the rendering of them in the English 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 Hahn's
edition of van der Hooght. When citing Hebrew
words, the Massoretic pointing has generally been

XXX ' PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

reproduced, wherever a point of punctuation or of
accentuation might be regarded as really essential ;
but 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 which 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
analogous constructions, both in this book and in
other books of the Old Testament ; citations from
the Targum, when it either agrees with or corre
sponds to the Septuagint translation ; doubtful and
peculiar words and phrases in the Greek, which
seem to possess a special interest ; a few readings
from the Alexandrian manuscript, which appear to
be of some importance ; and an occasional Aramaic
word, which suggests the possible origin of a
deviation in the version.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xxxi
In 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 properly,
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 by
facts. Sweeping generalizations from insufficient
data, or from superficial knowledge of them, are
utterly valueless. Only by collecting all the
evidence available can sound principles 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 infallibility is no longer a matter of debate.
Difficulties and obscurities abound all through 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

XXX11 PRELIMINARY 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 unquestionably 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 which 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

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXxiii
a version of the Hebrew Scriptures, as has been
generally held, it is natural to suppose that they
were properly qualified for their duties, as well as
reasonable to believe that they honestly performed
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 originally
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 their Preface to the Eevised
Version of the Hebrew Bible, the English trans
lators openly acknowledge its reasonableness and
probability. " The Eeceived 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 possibly 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

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXXV
condition of their 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 appear 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 Eevised
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
diverging readings in manuscripts belonging to
families or individuals." 1
In considering the nature of the Septuagint, the
purpose has been, so far as possible, 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 Review, October, 1885, p. 460.

XXXVI PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

brought 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 exceeding con
scientiousness with which 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 superiority have been pointed
out. Beautiful illustrations of superior readme
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 scarcely be too
highly estimated. An impartial consideration of

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXXV11
its character proves that for the emendation of
the Massoretic text, an entire reconstruction of
which the English Eevisers have suggested 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 who 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 in its present state it

XXXVJii PRELIMINARY 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
ing the sacred text. In endeavouring to recover
the original of the version by 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, whereas 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

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. XXXIX
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
groundwork 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 Eevised
Version especially, the question of its absolute
trustworthiness has come into prominence as never
before. The judgment, though, of Christian
scholars differs greatly as to how far the supremacy
should be given to it. While the English Eevisers
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 Eevisers, 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.
Although 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."1 Hence both its age 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 significance 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
1 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii., p. 1204.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. xii
should be made. Firstly, do the two texts agree ?
Secondly, if they disagree, were their originals
similar or different 1 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 upon 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 leading or controlling 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

Xiii 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
clusively, 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 equally 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 labourine; to
find a better text of the Old Testament. In their
inquiries and discussions, the central and essential
question is the comparative worth or excellence of
the Greek and Hebrew texts. On whichever side
the final verdict may fall, after the fullest and
deepest researches have been made, the proved
results of Biblical criticism must neither be dis
carded 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." 1
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
1 The Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. ii., third edition, p. 240.

xliv PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
nothing," Paul declares, "against the truth, but
for the truth." Eeverent 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.

CHAPTEE I.
THE RELATION" OF THE VERSION. "
The relation of the 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 significance 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

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 irregularities. 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 prophecies, and in the arrange
ment of the general contents of the book. A closer
investigation reveals divergences of a much more
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 differences of more or less
significance. So numerous altogether 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 VERSION. 3
proved to have existed at a very early date.
Eeference 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."1 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 simply are the divergences thus proved to
be very old, but their extreme age indicates that
most of them quite 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
1 woXA« Se TOiairot x«i iv ra ' lipsy.ici. xccrsuotiirxfiiv, h a nut xoTiThjk
furahsm x.tx.1 hctKhuy/iu Tij? *i%ia; t2i/ TrpotpnTsvofiivaii zvpofiiii.
Epistola ad Africanum, tomus xvii., p. 25 ; Lommatzsch edition.

4 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
the evening of his 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
writings was in use amongst 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 fight 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 thought 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 who have
claimed superiority for the Greek, the principal are
J. D. Michaelis, Movers and de Wette, 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 RELATION OF THE VERSION. 5
¦errors of translation, as approaching much more
nearly that which one might reasonably expect the
original Hebrew to have been, Ewald, Schrader,
and Kuenen are the most distinguished. Of those
who have considered the Hebrew incomparably
superior to the Greek, the most prominent are
Eichhorn, Eosenmtiller and Spohn, Kueper, Haver-
nick and Wichelhaus, Nagelsbach and Hengsten-
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 differ 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 OF 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 suggested. Hitherto
almost any explanation of the variations has
been commonly considered more credible than the
supposition that the Hebrew was not absolutely
worthy 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 RELATION 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 the 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 E. Payne Smith.1 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,
which 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
1 Speaker's Commentary, vol. v., pp. 324, 325.

THE RELATION OF THE VERSION. 9
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 Havernick, Spohn and Nagelsbach,
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, where
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 suggested 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 original 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 RELATION OF THE VERSION. 1 1
but unknown period in the past. Whether, 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 was 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.1 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
significant to have been intentional. Although thus
far no satisfactory account of them has been put
forth, the need of a new and thorough investigation
1 Der masoretische Text wnd die LXX - Uebersetzung des Buches
Jeremias, Regensburg, 1875.

12 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
of them has often been expressed, and has much
more frequently been felt. In view of the im
portance of the problem, it appears a little sin
gular 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." 1
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
effort being made to answer it. Its solution must
affect 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 Hypothese einer der alexan-
drinischen Uebersetzung zu Grunde liegenden besondern Text-
recension hat sich der Miihe unterzogen, die Beschaffenheit dieser
Uebersetzung genauer zu untersuchen." Biblischer Oommentar iiber
den Propheten Jeremia, etc., p. 24.

THE RELATION OF THE VERSION. 13
is the more correct, or which 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." 1
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 different
form of his Hebrew text from that which has been

1 " Die Losung der Frage ist nicht allein fur das Buch Jeremias
von Wichtigkeit, sondern entscheidend fur die Beurtheilung des
ganzen alten Testamentes. Fallt namlich die Entscheidung zu
Gunsten der LXX., so muss die Ansicht von der fast absoluten
Zuverlassigkeit des hebraischen Textes nicht unwesentlich modifizirt
werden." Der masoret. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., pp. 4, 5.

14 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
handed down to us."1 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 hypothesis can the divergences between
the Greek and Hebrew 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 arguments for
the existence of a special text - recension, which
formed the original of the Alexandrian version of
Jeremiah, it may be advisable to present in brief
1 "Bei den imzahligen Beweisen der Eigenmachtigkeit und
Willktirlichkeit des alexandrinischen Uebersetzers ist es ganz un-
moglich seiner Bearbeitung — denn Uebersetzung kann man es
kaum nennen— irgend eine kritische Auctoritat zuzuerkennen und
daraus auf eine von der uns uberlieferten verschiedene Gestalt
seines hebraischen Textes zu schliessen." Der Prophet Jeremia
Einleitung, p. lvi.

THE RELATION 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 sufficiently significant of them
selves for such a purpose ; but these two classes of
variation together 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 divergent features between the two
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 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
critics in discussing the character 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 divergences 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 any
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.
With 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 RELATION OF THE VERSION. 17
express, but peculiarities that belonged in general
to the individual manuscript that formed the
original of the Alexandrian version. 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.

CHAPTEE II.
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 give 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
assumption. It is not fair to suppose either that
the omissions were made capriciously by 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 long 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 charge has never been substantiated against
the translator of any ancient classic work. The
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 his text appears
to one unprejudiced incredible and inconceivable.
The sacred character of his text, and the solemn
nature of his task, alike forbid 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 which
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." x
Notwithstanding the evident unreasonableness of
Grafs hypothesis, 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,
systematically abridged his text. This system of
abridgment, 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 schon deshalb durchaus unwahrscheinlich, dass der oder
die Uebersetzer selbst sich anderswo und an so vielen Stellen solche
willkiirliche Aenderungen und besonders Auslassungen sollten
erlaubt haben, als der Fall miisste gewesen sein, wenn von ihnen
alle die Aenderungen herruhrten, welche ihr Text gegen den
hebraisch - masorethischen darbietet. Ebenso wenig ist irgend
-wahrscheinlich, dass dieselben im Allgemeinen auf Rechnung
spaterer Abschreiber der Sept. kommen sollten. Denn da wiirden
in den Handschriften der Sept. selbst grossere Abweichungen und
theilweise grbsseres ZusammentreSen mit dem hebraischen Texte
stattfinden, als der Fall ist und als schon zu Origenes Zeit der
Fall -war." Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Fiinfte Auflage, pp.
320, 321.

22 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
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 hypothesis,
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 system 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 original which he used.
As Graf is the ablest and most distinguished

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 23
advocate of the 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 great advantage, in making 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 hypothesis 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 requires 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 formulas, " Jehovah

24 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Sabaoth," 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 remarkable 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." 1
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 noticing the numerous instances in which
a similar formula occurs in each text, it may be
sufficient here to give some illustrations of the
foregoing 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
1 "Nicht weniger als hundertsiebenundsiebzigmal wird im ma-
sorethischen Texte die Phrase Ne'um Adunai -wiederholt, und zwar
in zahlreichen Stellen, wo sie fast nur den Sinn haben kann
wiederholt zu versichern, dass das Gesagte gewiss wahr sei, weil
Gottes Wort, etwa wie ein Prediger sich auf Bibelstellen als auf
Gottes Wort beruft." Der masoret. Text und die LXX-Uebersetzung,
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.
Ii. 62 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 wanting 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 this 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 be regularly or
systematically traced, though even then it would
be most improbable. 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
two verbs of restoration. If the variation had
been due to design, the translator would 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 good ground for holding that sufficient 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 single 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, shown the 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 which 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
form in the Massoretic text.
In the majority of instances in Greek where
variations of this kind occur, the parallelism is not
at all disturbed, 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
by 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
decidedlyJ improved by the reading given in the
Greek. Examples of this kind are found in
chaps, ii. 20, 24; iv. 15, 19; v. 20; xviii. 7;
xxv. 9 ; xxxix. 17. So far as this species of
omission is concerned, unless it can be believed
that the translator sometimes changed a reading
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.
looking a marked peculiarity of Hebrew style
cannot be 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 language. 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 tongue. 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, the 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 Graf's 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 words 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 /cat, as Graf asserts,
shows that the absent words must have been
present in the original of the Septuagint, it does
not prove that the translator omitted them. They
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 the verse in
Greek. He must, at least, have understood the
genius of his mother tongue.
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 Graf's illustra
tions argue nothing for or against either of the texts.
Tbey 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;
xiii. 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.
xl. 4 the whole second half of the verse is

THE VARIATIONS — OMISSIONS. 35
possibly an interpolation, as Movers and Hitzig
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.
Eespecting 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 JEREMIAH.
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
frequency, 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
annexing 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." 1 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 " Quare si quo loco vis quaadam inest nomini, si tota quasi
persona in scenam prodit, apponuntur cognomina eadem lege, qua
modo leviore pronuntiatur sono, modo altiore voce effertur." De
Jeremice Versione Alexandrina, pp. 70, 71.

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 37
of the context, and that their 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
superfluous trouble of introducing such a number
of unnecessary names and titles, had they not
stood originally in the Massoretic text, is again
gratuitous and unreasonable. While some of these
variations possibly indicate recensional divergences,
others of them very probably were made by 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 chapters, 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.1
1 " Regula enim de cognominibus vel titulis cum nominibus con-
iunctis h«c 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, Movers
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 novse narrationis coniungi soleat,
narratione autem progrediente, nisi maior orationi vis concilianda
est, solum nomen admittatur." De utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum
Jeremice, etc., p. 4.

40 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
where , they 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." L 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.
6. 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-
1 " Dass es nicht in der Absicht des alexandrinischen Uebersetzers
und seiner Vorlage gelegen ist, solche Namen oder Beinamen
abzukUrzen, geht zum Ueberflusse noch daraus mit Evidenz hervor,
dass LXX. selbst an einigen Stellen solche Zusatze haben, wo sie
im masorethischen Texte fehlen." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX-
Uebersetzung, etc., p. 100.

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 41
ing in the Septuagint, Graf thinks 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. 12 ; xxi. 9 ; xxiv. 10 ; xxvii.
8, 13; xxix. 17, 18; xxxii. 24, 36 ; xxxviii. 2;
xiii. 17, 22; xii v. 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 JEREMIAH.
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
disagree, 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. 43
indicates that he 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 the Septuagint in chap. xxi. 7 is the
usual one throughout 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, xxxvi. 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 be asserted also of the supposed omis
sions in chaps, xiii. 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.
xxvi. 22, or in the absence of one from a succes
sion of well-known names, as in chap, xxxvi. 25

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 45
26, or in the absence of definite chronological
data in some of the superscriptions, as in chaps.
xxv. 1 ; xlvii. 1, are really no more fortunate or
satisfactory. 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. Although the form of
the word is admittedly irregular in its present
position, it cannot have been omitted through
ignorance, because it frequently occurs elsewhere

46 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
in Jeremiah, or by intention, because the trans
lator could have rendered it then as readily as we
are able to render it now.
The first half of chap. 1. 36, " A sword is upon
the boasters, and they shall become 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 greater 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 offensive ,
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
in the original text. The term " fatness " again
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 reading 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." x
On close investigation, there seems to be no
evidence in the book that the translator ever left
out words because they were either difficult or
unknown. If the derivation of a word was doubt
ful, or if its meaning was obscure, he transcribed
it literally, as, for instance, ao-lBa in chap. viii. 7 ;
Xavwvas 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 Ausspriiche ' mit Tinte ' geschrieben waren, wussten
sie so gut wie Baruch, denn sie batten sich ja aus der Rolle vorlesen
lassen. Der Urheber dieser Bemerkung hat also den Fragepunkt '
nicht verstanden." Der masoreth. Text und 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 the
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 bound 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 fail, there
remains nothing but either to seek to divine the
meaning, or to apply for advice to the kindred
Semitic languages, or finally to give 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 groundlessness
of the assertion that he has left untranslated words
and passages, because they seemed to him particu
larly difficult." 1
9. The translator has omitted lengthy passages,
1 " Ein Uebersetzer kann nicht liber unbekannte Wdrter einfach
hinwe<wehen. Die Worter, die dastehen, sollen und mtissen iiber-
setzt werden. Es eriibrigt also in Fallen, wo die gewohnlichen
Mittel, die Bedeutung eines Wortes zu finden, versagen, nichts,
als entweder den Sinn zu errathen suchen, oder bei den verwandten
semitischen Sprachen sich Raths zu erholen, oder endlich das
hebraisehe Wort unubersetzt mit griechischen Buchstaben wie-
D

50 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
which 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.
Eepetition, 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 thirty -seven of these longer
passages are repeated in the Hebrew Bible. Thirty
of them, or thereabouts, are correspondingly re-
derzugeben. Alle diese Wege hat unser Uebersetzer betreten.
Diese Beobachtung ist von holier Bedeutung fur die Charakteristik
seiner Arbeit : sie zeigt zur Evidenz die Grundlosigkeit der Bebaup-
tung, dass er Worter und Stellen, weil sie ihm besonders schwierig
vorkamen, uniibersetzt gelassen habe." Der masoreth. Text und die
LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 24.

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 51
peated in the Alexandrian version. The seven
passages that are wanting in the Septuagint are
apparently, in every instance, in the Hebrew out
of place. Their insertion in the latter cannot be
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 belong to the original 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.1 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 Hebrew, 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. Ver. 13, which is united in thought to the
1 Das Verhiiltniss der Massora zur Septuaginta, 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 both texts, begins badly and awkwardly, as it
stands in Hebrew, having no natural connection
with what 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 gloss or not, it certainly 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, " but
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 VARIATIONS  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 words are to be understood as
referring to the forefathers mentioned in ver. 7 ;
but there is also a logical connection between them
and ver. 6, 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 VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 55
in each place, it should be regarded as an interpola
tion. If so, it must be very old, since, in this
latter chapter, it is found in both the texts. De
Wette, 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
wTith 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
passage 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-

5 6 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
stantial repetitions of preceding passages. Vers.
15, 16 almost coincide with chap, xxiii. 5, 6 ; 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 substantially 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 really 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 why
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 the 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. Iii., 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 be
ascribed to Jeremiah than can the fifty-second chapter
of this book, or the corresponding passage of the
Second Book of Kings. The verses wanting do not
properly belong in this connection. They not only
interrupt the narrative, but also they disturb the
order of the thought. The account which they
contain, too, does not agree with that in chap. Iii.
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 uniting ver. 12 to ver. 14. By 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 the 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
bable ; but 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 ? Why 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

60 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Greek, is of doubtful origin and of suspicious
character. If one supposes that these passages really did
belong to his original, one must believe that the
translator left them out because of their apparent
spuriousness or inappropriateness. 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
cal 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 ? With 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. 6 1
the right. At all events, though, too depreciative
is the judgment of Graf, who will attribute to it no
authority whatever." 1
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. Iii, notwithstanding the fact that
the latter chapter ends the book in both the Hebrew
and the Greek. Although 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-
1 " Warum that er es denn bios an diesen sieben Stellen und nicht
liberall, wo (manchmal in nicht allzugrossen Zwischenraumen)
Wiederhohmgen stattfinden ? und weshalb trifft er bei seinen Aus-
lassungen (trotz seines sonstigen Mangels an scbarfsinniger Kritik),
die bei dieser Annahme doch ein Produkt seiner Willkiir waren,
gerade die sieben Stellen, deren Urspriinglichkeit in der That im
hbchsten Grade zweifelhaft ist? Diese Fragen bleiben bei jener
Ansicht immer unbeantwortet, und sie nbthigen jedem unparteiischen
Beobacliter das Zugestandniss ab, dass hier, und wenn liier, dann
jedenfalls auch an anderen Stellen, die LXX. in voUem Reclit ist,
jedenfalls aber das Urtheil Grafs zu abschatzig ist, der ihr gar
keine Autoritat zuschreiben will." Das Verhaltniss der Massora zur
Septuuginta, p. 60.

62 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
ing the 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 grossest ignorance,
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 numberless 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
they 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 VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 63
conceivable with a translator who translates with
out consideration 1 " 1 Such a supposition is both
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 but an
objective one ; that is, it lay not in the arbitrary
procedure of the translator, but in the peculiar
form of his original.'2
It is still more remarkable, if possible, that in
each of the other cases in which a parallel passage
is repeated in the Septuagint of this book, Graf
1 " Vbllig aber ausgeschlossen ist, wenn es noch eines weiteren
Beweises bediirfte, die Annahme von dem absichtlichen Auslassen
dadurch, dass die griechische Uebersetzung in einer Anzahl von
Stellen sich wiederholende, gleichlautende Verse das erste Mai nicht
ausdriickt, wahrend sie dieselbe an zweiter Stelle hat. Wie ware
das beieinem Uebersetzer, der leichtfertig ubersetzt, denkbar?"
Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 26.
2 " Der Grand der Auslassung ist kein subjektiver, d. h. er liegt
nicht in dem eigenmachtigen Verfahren des Uebersetzers, sondern
ein objektiver (ausserer), d. h. er liegt in der Gestaltung seines
Originals." Das Verhaltniss der Massora zur Septuaginta, 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 op'inion, 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
apply it in some thirty out of thirty-seven lengthy
passages, is so ridiculous that it scarcely claims a
formal answer ; and yet, since Graf has made the
accusation, it must not be passed by without some
attention, notwithstanding 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 by 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 inconceivable to a
person who takes into account all the facts of the

THE VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 65
case. Scholz has answered Graf's 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 possible, —
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." J
1 "Wenn es Grundsatz des Uebersetzers ist, Stellen und Aus-
spriiche, die sich wiederholen, als uberflussig an zweiter Stelle zu
iibergehen, wie konnte er diesen seinen Grundsatz so ausser Acht
lassen, dass er ihn nur in einer verhaltnissmassig kleinen Anzahl
von Fallen anwandte, in den weitaus meisten Stellen dagegen die
wiederkehrenden Stellen ebenfalls iibersetzt, und zwar nicht bios
in Fallen, wo ein Vergessen mbglicli war — obgleicli das von
vorneherein im hbchsten Grade unwahrscheinlich ist, da sicherlich
nicht der Nachstbeste, dem das Buch in die Hand fiel, sich an die
Uebersetzung machte. Wir haben vielmehr mit hochster Wahr-
scheinlichkeit anzunehinen, class es die Albeit eines 'Lehrers in
Israel ' ist, der mit dem Buche in alien seinen Einzelnheiten durch
vielmaliges Lesen sich vertraut gemacht hat." Der masoreth. Text
und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 26.
E

66 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 by the Massorites. Both
their nature and their number are too significant
to be overlooked. Not simply do they supply
important evidence for the hypothesis of a special-
text-recension, but 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
of them have been rejected by Graf himself. On
the same ground many of them have been rejected
by Hitzig or by Movers, or by both. On a similar
ground, moreover, others of them must be regarded
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. 6 7
each of the nine species of omission that have
already been investigated. It is also just as true
of all or nearly all of those remaining 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 unquestionably
they sometimes are ; nor is it meant that many
of them did not belong to the original 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 always be claimed to be the case, however,
is very questionable. The question, too, is one
that cannot easily be answered. Such omissions
are described 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 JEREMIAH.
A significant 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 they are wanting 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 significant 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 VARIATIONS  OMISSIONS. 69
The omissions of letters, of which there are
several, are also worthy of some consideration
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-nsfl, i. u ; ^5551-^35^, ii. 34 ; ixyg-
rrwip, iii. 2; ly^BUi— i3a*i(?) orn-rffaij iu- 3;
^Bia-ren, iv. 1 ; manam-njnai (?) vi. 2 ; n^3-
^3, vi. 6; p£}— jm1], vi. 14; Dritat^m-dmioSQ,
vi. 19; QjiM-ttJM, vi. 23; 1. 42; n^nipJ-n^lp2,
xi. 19 ; D^tov-taVs, xy. 16 ; ^rtfitpFn-^n^j?,
xviii. 12 ; D"nt— tnt> xviii. 14 ; Tl^h— ify, xxiii. 15 ;
rrtbyrtg.— rrtbga, xxxvii. ii; ^n^N-ia^N, xliii. 2;
Ctoyi5£-Bto"»3&, xlvi. 2; ^Ti^-^p, xlvi. 12;
^V^2-Tnj>|), xlviii. 6; Din^-D^rta, xlviii. 22;
wnttfn— wttfn, xlix. 9 ; d^nm-d^ii 1. 38 ;
T^tJNT— D^Nl or WD«1;, ii. 27 ; nman-nron,
li. 59.

CHAPTEE III.
THE VARIATIONS — ADDITIONS.
Convincing as is the evidence obtainable from
the Omissions of a twofold text-recension of this
book, the evidence derivable from the Additions is,
if possible, more conclusive still. Their number,
as well as their importance, has not as yet been
properly appreciated. Even Bleek, who is a great
admirer of the Alexandrian version and a vigorous
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." x
This statement, however, is scarcely accurate.
Though small compared with that of the omis
sions, it is true, their number, notwithstanding,
is considerable. They really amount to several
hundred words. Significant as their number is,
their nature is much more significant. Instead
of being confined exclusively to "single words
1 " Nur selten hat die Septuaginta Zusatze, und nur in einzelnen
Worten oder Gliedern bestehende." Einleitung in das Alte Testa
ment, p. 318. 70

THE VARIATIONS  ADDITIONS. 71
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.
Eespecting 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 exhibit genuine text, that
might have been omitted from the present Hebrew
through the fault of copyists."1 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 who anciently transcribed
the Massoretic text, although it may not be improb
able that here and there a word or two may have
been overlooked. The additions are too numerous
and significant to be explained on any rational
1 " Unter den Zusatzen zu dem masoretischen Texte, die andrer-
seits in LXX. vorkonimen, finden sich nur wenige, die zu der
Annahnie veranlassen kbnnen, dass sie achten Text darstellen, der
in dem jetzigen hebraischen durch Schuld der Abschreiber wegge-
fallen ware." Der Prophet Jeremia, Einleitung, p. xlix.

72 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
hypothesis other 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 recognizable 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 the translator systematically abridged
his text, no one could believe 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 he 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." 1 How far this state-
1 "Nachdem Dargelegten kann es keinem Zweifel mehr unter-
worfen sein, dass die von dem griechischen Uebersetzer dargebotene
Textgestalt eine aus dem uns hebraisch erhaltenen Texte in viel
spaterer Zeit entstandene verstiimmelte und verderbte ist." Ein-
leitung, p. Ii.

74 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
ment 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 they 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
by 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 VARIATIONS  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 whole 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
city 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

76 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
reading different from the Massoretic text. If
the parallelism of the Greek were inferior to that
of the Hebrew, 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 by the translator or by 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 by 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 words, " the great
God," were apparently repeated by mistake, either
in transcribing 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 18th
and the first word of the 19th verse. In the
Massoretic text, we have bl5 : Ittty mN12 mff ; in

THE VARIATIONS  ADDITIONS. 77
the Septuagint, we have TDTV blX\ 0)2? filNUJ or
mrf DtZf V"D1 JVIN12- 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 ver. 18 are wanting in
the Septuagint, but are found, as indicated, in the
19 th 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 they
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 belonged 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 chapter, 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 JEREMIAH.
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 there 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 "be not dismayed
at them, lest I dismay thee before them;" v. 20,
where it has " the house of Judah " 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. 79
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 your own
hurt," chap. vii. 9, Graf considers, is taken from
ver. 6. His supposition here again is just as
incorrect as in the preceding case. The Septua
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 were quite
as unnecessary? Only a foolish theory would
admit such an absurdity. The words were neither

80 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
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 importance, in other parts of the chapter.
The significant additions which likewise characterize
it, as well as the omissions, 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 wanting 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 his manuscript.
A further proof that the original of each text was
different is furnished by the important fact that,
while the two sentences in question 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.
Hitzig considers the whole verse wanting 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 allegation also to be false.
The sentence, " great is the distress upon 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 : — "Y^N m2£n rrV"0
fbif (W) for rvhy Vrvt msrr nbl>- 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. 83
There is no real resemblance between dSttfTY1 and
Dr\N"1p7, 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 uncommon
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 beginning 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 billows 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
annual 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. Ii. 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 the first
half, in Hebrew it stands in the second half, of the
verse. Although 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 reading, " king 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 be, 0 Jehovah,"
chap. iii. 19, is not inappropriate where it stands
in Greek, nor can one fairly claim that it did not
belong to the translator's text. The words were
naturally interjected by the prophet, and thev
correspond with a similar form of expression in

THE VARIATIONS  ADDITIONS.

chap. xi. 5. As the appended words, " falsehoods
falsely," chap, xxvii. 15, are simply regarded by
Graf as " very useless at least," it may be quite
sufficient to reply that this objection 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, which 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 the 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
daughter of Zion. This thought harmonizes with
the words, ' the flock that was given thee,' the
inhabitants of the land in general." 1
Neither can the additional clause, " a letter to the
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 explains 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 words 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." Hitzip
1 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Jeremiah and
Lamentations, p. 107.

THE VARIATIONS  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 difficult. 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 wTas 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 they 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 Hitzig 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-members, it rather gives them a rhythmical
balance. Thus both objections to it are unjust, and
the latter, that the words should be rejected because
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
gives an increased significance 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 says, " 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 reading 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 the Greek it reads,
" Behold, neither are thine eyes nor is thy heart
good, but for thy covetousness." Instead of
" But," the Septuagint has " Behold ; " 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,"
qualifying 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 wTords. The
variations in the Greek are all appropriate, and
represent a classic form of Hebrew text.
5. Some additions are due to ignorance, or to
wTant of understanding, in translating the original
Hebrew text. The charge that the translator
omitted portions of his manuscript through ignorance
appears entirely improbable, 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

90 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 significance
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 Tischendorfs edition of the

THE VARIATIONS  ADDITIONS. 91
Septuagint, the clause is printed as if it were in
apposition to " Jehoiakim " in the preceding clause.
This construction seems not to be correct. The
added words appear more properly to refer to
" Shall um 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
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 JEREMIAH.
it seems to be superior, for the reason that it makes
much more natural sense, and corresponds much
more nearly with the parallel passage, Isa. xiv. 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 word of Jehovah." In the three
succeeding verses in the Hebrew, with some slight
verbal variations, the prophet is represented as
declaring to the king "the word" which 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. 93
ing 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 being
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 investigation,
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 with 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 manuscripts.
The great majority of them, however, were due to
recensional divergences. Instead of belonging 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,
exhibit a very 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 origin of a number of variations. Like the
omissions 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 examples : —
i^aa— laVsgg, vii- 10 ; mn— bto$R (?) vii. 16 ; xi. 14 ;
a^Dtp— DVlQip, iii- 21 ; vii. 29 ; j»'l— p"VTT, viii. 2 ;
ix. 21 ; xvi. 4 ; tt$M— "ittJfc$ (?)xi. 16 ; Q^rn— ErttNrn,
xviii. 21 ; ^p^-^vpll (?) xix. 7 ; fljna— fll^ga,
xxii. 23 ; sfl^— «n^; (?) xxx. 16 ; Pl'jJM— rfeiM,
xxxi. 21; Q-nyn— ffnosr" xxxii. 12; sfi-pb-n—
^y}ri&> xxxvi. 25; JTnaSL— JVr03S, xii. 17 ; "n^—
"n.5>t±L, xliv. 6 ; -73—^^, xlix. 1 ; qi^— ovy*, 1. 39 ;

CHAPTEE IV.
THE VARIATIONS — TRANSPOSITIONS.
The character of the Transpositions in the Septua
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. Iii. the numbering of the
chapters is entirely different. This difference is
chiefly 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 does

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, Babylon,
Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab ;
their order in the Hebrew is Egypt, Philistia,
Moab, Ammon, Edom. Damascus, Kedar, Elam,
Babylon. Although it is not the special purpose of this
investigation to discuss exhaustively either the
arrangement 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
top 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 each 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. 9 7
grouping of the individual prophecies is practically
immaterial, 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
wrhich 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, but 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, while favourable
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
a

98 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
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 endeavouring 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 chap. 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 logically 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  TRANSPOSITIONS. 99
Here the group of prophecies begins directly after
ver. 13, and 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 logical connection
with the preceding chapters, they are manifestly
out of place.
Moreover, as chap. xxv. 13 in the Hebrew reads,
it has no legitimate 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 foregoing
part of the book there are no threatening discourses
whatever against heathen nations." 1 In the
Septuagint, on the other hand, ver. 13 ends with
the clause, "in this book." This term here, as
elsewhere in Jeremiah, seems to be equivalent to
a volume, or a collection of prophetic writings,
of 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
1 " Da ini vorhergehenden Theile des Buches sich noch gar keine
Drohreden wider fremde Volker finden." Einleitung in das Alte
Testament, p. 326.

100 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
contained the prophecies against the "nations"
mentioned in the; section already 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 prophecies 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 wine-cup of the divine fury. In the
prophecy respecting Edom, chap. xlix. 12, where
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 which they
must have originally occupied in each text. That
is, this is where they evidently stood in the
originals 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 Baruch, or by 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
foreign 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, who 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 bs> and then also, for the
purpose of connecting it with the foregoing, has
placed at the beginning of ver. 14 a V], which like
wise did not originally stand there, and which the
Septuagint does not express." 1 This explanation,
though good so far as it goes, does not go far
enough. As the whole of ver. 14 is wanting in
the Septuagint, it, too, may have been inserted by
1 "Der Urheber der masorethischen Recension aber, der jene
anderen Orakel wider einzelne Volker von liier an den Schlnss des
Buches verpflanzte, hat (wie richtig auch Movers bemerkt) die
fraglichen Worte missverstandlich mit zum Contexte der Weissagung
gezogen — mit Einschaltung von 73 und dann audi v. 14 (am
Anfange) zur Ankniipfung an das Vorhorgehende ein "O gesetzt, was
urspriinglich ebenfalls nicht dastand, und was die Septuaginta audi
nicht ausdriickt." Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 326.

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 103
an ancient copyist or editor, in order to connect
ver. 13 with 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 Orelli1 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 king 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 favour of the reading in the Septuagint. It
appears unquestionably to have been either a gloss
1 Kurzgefasster Kommentar, etc., Vierte Abteilung, p. 217.

104 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
or a marginal 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
(Judah) 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
position 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  TRANSPOSITIONS. 105
say the least. Concerning the different positions
and the respective claims of each to originality,
Kiihl 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-cup 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.
(Ii.) are directed. If one reads chap, xxv., there
really remains something missing ; one seeks even
here the presentation of the prophecies, such as
chaps, xlvi.-xlix. (Ii.)." 1
1 " In den andem grossen Propheten, Ezechiel und Jesaja, stehen
die Weissagungen, geg en die Heiden in der Mitte zwischen Straf- und
Mahnreden an das eigene Volk und messianischen Zukunftsweissa-
gungen. Wir kbnnten sie also mit Fug und Recht hier auch in der
Mitte erwarteu. Nun finden wir auch wirklich in Kap. xxv. eine
Aufzahlung der Volker, denen der Prophet auf Jahwes Geheiss den
Becher des Gotteszornes reichen soil ; und die Anzahl und Namen
dieser Volker stimmen im Wesentlichen iiberein mit den Vblkern,
gegen die sich die Weissagungen in Kap. xlvi.-xlix. (Ii.) richten.
Liest man Kap. xxv., so bleibt wirklich etwas fehlen ; man sucht
die Ausfiihrung der Weissagungen, also Kap. xlvi.-xlix. (Ii.),
schon hier." Das Verhaltniss der Massora zur Septuaginta, 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." x 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, Scholz, 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 VARIATIONS  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 book,' 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 book.' Hence it follows that the arrange
ment of the book in six great divisions (Dekaden)
is in the Septuagint alone correct." x
1 " Dass die Aenderungen nicht vom Uebersetzer herriihren, geht
aus dem Charakter seiner Uebersetzung umwidersprechlich hervor.
Es ist undenkbar, dass derselbe, wahrend er nicht nur mit ziemlicher
Genauigkeit von Wort zu Wort iibersetzt, selbst Satze, in denen
er keinen Sinn finden kann, widergibt, hebraische Worter, deren
Bedeutung er nicht kennt, mit griechischen Buchstaben, ohne sie zu
iibersetzen, schreibt u. s. w., so grosse Aenderungen sollte gemacht
haben. Auch sprechen die Worte, v. 13, 'Et adducam super terram
illam omnia verba mea, quse locutus sum contra earn, omne, quod
scriptum est in libro isto,' entschieden dafiir, dass die Weissa
gungen gegen die Volker ehemals hier standen, und zwar ran so

108 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Notwithstanding the convincing 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." x 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. 15-26, the first
group of prophecies against the heathen is certainly
niehr, als die Worte, v. 26, ' et rex Sesach bibet post eos,' u. s. w.
sicher unacht sind, so dass also in der Weissagung, xxv. 14^38,
von dem Lande, von dem nach v. 13 haupts'achlich die Rede sein
miisste, in dem libro isto keine Sylbe stiinde. Hiezu kommt,
dass die Einrichtung des Buches in 6 Dekaden nur bei LXX.
richtig ist." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX-Uebersetzung, etc.,
p. 156.
1 " In den friihesten Ausgaben des Buches die meisten jetzt an
seinem Schluss befindlichen Spriiche iiber die Auswartigen sich in
unmittelbarer Nahe von c. 25 befunden haben mussen." Kurzge-
fasster Kommentar, etc., Vierte Abteilung, p. 217.

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 109
connected." x Ewald and Kiihl, it is worth noting
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 prophecies
had already been delivered. In answer to Ewald,
it should be remarked that the two wTords, " 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., bepaaldelijk met vs. 15-26, haugt de eerste groep
der profetien tegen de heidenen stellig zamen." Historisch-Kritisch
Onderzoek, etc., Tweede Deel, 1863, p. 218.

110 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
In 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 the 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, Moab and
Ammon, 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." x
1 "Die Reihenfolge, in welcher diese Volker aufgefiihrt werden,
ist so wie sie sich aus Lage und Umstanden am natiirlichsten ergab :
Aegypten erscheint zuerst, denn von der xlvi. 3-12 geschilderten
Niederlage seiner Kriegsmacht ging ja das Ungliick iiber die andern
Volker aus, dann kommt Philistaa, welches zugleich an Aegypten
und an Juda grenzte, und die drei Lander, welche auf der andern
Seite zunachst lagen, Moab und Amnion, die stets verbundenen
Brudervblker, und Edom, das Brudervolk Juda's, dann das an Israel
n-renzende und mit diesem einst in so vielfachen Beziehungen
stehende Syrien, endlich die bis naeh dem Euphrat hin wohnenden
arabischen Stamme." Der Prophet Jeremia, p. 506.

112 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
There is something interesting, it must be ad
mitted, in the order of these prophecies in the
Hebrew, proceeding, 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
chadnezzar would be the signal to the rest of a
similar fate." 1 This prophecy, 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.2 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, Ammon
and Edom in this latter chapter is inverted. This
enumeration of nations, however, does not in each
text exactly correspond. The Septuagint, besides
omitting " and all the kings of the land of Uz,"
ver. 20 ; " the isle," ver. 22 ; " and all the kings of
Arabia," ver. 24 ; " and all the kings of Zimri,"
ver. 25 ; " and the king of Sheshach shall drink
after them," ver. 2,6, reads "Eoz" for "Buz,"
ver. 23; "Persians" for "Medes," and "all the
kings of the East" for "all the kings 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

1 The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Jeremiah and
Lamentations, p. 284.
2 Der Prophet Jeremia, Einleitung, p. Ii.
H

114 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
the Alexandrian 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 available 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 VARIATIONS  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
by 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. 26, 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., Ii. The whole sentence is
wanting in the Septuagint, as well as the word
" Sheshach " also in chap. Ii. 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-

116 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, though, offers a suggestion
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 AVorld-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 brought into chronological
order." x
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 steht der kleine Aussprucli iiber Aelam, das zudem
langst aufgehbrt hatte, eine entscheidende Rolle zu spielen, voran?
Etwa,' weil 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 zugleich als Erbin Ninive's. So wurden zuerst die Aus-
spriiche iiber die grossen Volker in chronologischer Ordnung
gebracht." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc.,
p. 157.

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 117
gint 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 we 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
would 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
against Elam last. Instead of this being the case,
Elam begins the group. Hence it is evident that
the arrangement 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. 15-26 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 reign 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 agree 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
prophecy 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 be 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 VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 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- tvhole book, a subscription :
' 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,
against 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 JEREMIAH.

placing the subscription at the beginning of a
section." J
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 change might 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 change, it is
quite improbable that the divergent order of the
prophecies wTas due, in any sense, to intention on
his part. The originality of the arrangement in
the Septuagint is further indicated by the fact
1 " Dass die Weissagung gegen Aelam bei LXX. an urspriinglicher
Stelle steht, wird hbchst wahrscheinlich dadurch, dass der griechische
Text hier eine unzweifelhaft urspriingliche Eigenthumlichkeit zeigt.
Die Weissagung gegen Aelam hat bei ihnen und zwar allein imganzen
Buche eine Unterschrift: °E» «-p%*i jS&ai'hivanos'S.ibix.iov ficta thine syiuim 6
Tio'yo? oJto£ Tripi AlXa/i. Es ist ganz unglaublich, dass z. B. ein Bearbeiter
des jetzigen masorethischen Textes auf den Einfall sollte 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, wie ein Diaskeuast
es fur in Ordnung gehalten habe, diese Unregelmassigkeit dadurch
zu beseitigen, dass er die Unterschrift an den Anfang des Stiickes
stellte." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 157.

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 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 Massoretic 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 unintelligible ? ! 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." 1
Thus the investigation of the position, and also
1 " Endlich spricht fur LXX. gerade der Umstand, dass das ord-
nende Princip bei dem masorethischen Texte sichtlich dem cap.
xxv. 14 ff. conform, klar, bei LXX. aber mindestens unklar ist.
Wie kame nun aber Jemand dazu, Klares und auch bei oberflach-
lichem Lesen leicht Erkennbares bei Seite zu legen, und ihm selbst
Unverstandliches an die Stelle zu setzen 1 ! Um so mehr, als es
nicht muhelos sein konnte, statt der einfachen Abschrift die einzelnen
Stiicke an anderer Stelle unterzubringen. Wie leicht konnte da,

122 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
of the order of the prophecies, leads to a similar
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.
While believing 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 'leichtfertig und oberflachlich ' gewesen
ware, etwa eine kleine Weissagung z. B. gegen Damaskus ausfallen !
So sprechen also auch iiberwiegende Griinde fur die Urspriing-
lichkeit der Reihenfolge der Weissagungen bei LXX." Der masoreth.
Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 158.

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 123
and he justly adds, " neither has it been proved
that the Greek translator took the liberty of trans
posing and transplanting these prophecies." 1
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 quote in full his very
reasonable explanation. " Were 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 het einde der gansche verzameling hebben gestaan ; . . .
ook is het onbewezen, dat de Grieksche vertaler zich veroorloofd
heeft, die godspraken om te zetten en te verplaatsen." Historisch-
Kritisch Onderzoek, etc., Tweede Deel, p. 240.

124 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
one), and as the third the one respecting Babylon
(which in the Massoretic text is the last of all),
and so forth. Much sooner, on the contrary, can
one imagine, if these oracles formerly 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 sequence amongst themselves. For as, a little
while before, the immigration of the Jews with the
prophet into Egypt was related, together with the
prophecies respecting the destruction which would
meet them there, such as those referring to the con
quest of the country by Nebuchadnezzar and 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 followed immediately after those
concerning Egypt. By this means, though, no doubt,
the displacement of the position of the whole of these
prophecies was naturally ahd easily brought about." 1
1 "Ware die masorethische' Recension die urspriinglichere, so
wiirde sich durchaus nicht begreifen lassen, wie ein spaterer Alexan-

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 125
The transposition of chapters, which was owing
to the bodily removal of the prophecies against the
heathen nations from the middle to the end of the
book, as shown by the foregoing investigation,
furnishes no real evidence of different 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 twTo 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-
drinischer Redactor, wenn er auch diesen Orakeln im Allgemeinen
im Buche eine andere Stellung gab, als worin er sie vorfand, sollte
dazu gekommen sein, auch die einzelnen gegen einander so umzu-
stellen, wie sie in der Sept. sich finden, dass er das Orakel iiber Elam
(im masorethischen Texte das vorletzte) zuvbrderst stellte, das iiber
Babel (im masorethischen Texte das letzte) als das dritte, u. s. w.
Weit eher kann man sich dagegen denken, wenn diese Orakel friiher
die Stellung und Reihenfolge wie in der Sept. hatten, wie der
spatere Redactor, der sie von dort an das Ende der ganzen Samm
lung stellte, dazu kommen konnte, auch ihre Aufeinanderfolge zu
andern. Denn da kurz vorher die Einwanderung der Juden
mit dem Propheten in Aegypten erzahlt war, mit Weissagungen
iiber das Verderben, welches sie dort treffen werde, sowie iiber
die Eroberung des Landes durch Nebukadnezar und den Unter-
gang des Pharao Hophra, so konnte er leicht veranlasst werden,
von der Sammlung der Orakel iiber die einzelnen fremden Volker
die beiden iiber Aegypten, welche erst hinter dem iiber Elam standen,
an die Spitze zu stellen ; und ebenso konnte er es angemessen finden,
das grosse Orakel iiber den Hauptwidersacher des Bundesvolkes, iiber
die Chaldaer, welches unmittelbar auf die iiber Aegypten folgte, ganz
an den Schluss zu stellen. Dadurch schon aber wurde von selbst und
leicht eine Verriickung der Stellung dieser sammtlichen Orakel
herbeigefiihrt." 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, being
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  TRANSPOSITIONS. 127
Its position in the 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 substantial 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.
the translator. He did not find them where they
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, " saith 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 priests," 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. Ii. 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 ;
" the 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 impossible
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 maketh 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; "way" and
" heart," chap, xxxii. 39 ; " honey," chap. xii. 8 ;
" unto Jeremiah the prophet," chap. xiii. 2 ; "to
deliver" and "to save," chap. xiii. 11; "there,"
chap. xiii. 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,"
chap. 1. 22 ; " and thou art also taken," chap. 1. 24 ;
" habitation," chap. 1. 45 ; " the trumpet," chap.
Ii. 27; "and all the land," chap. Ii. 28; "Nebu
chadnezzar the king of Babylon," chap. Ii. 34 ;
" Babylon," chap. Ii. 41 ; " five cubits," chap. Iii.
22; "continually," chap. Iii. 33.
It is unreasonable to suppose that all these
transpositions of words, amounting to nearly ninety
cases, were arbitrarily made by 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 " saith 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. 131
words in the Greek, chaps, ii. 27 ; xii. 4, is more
poetical than the order in the 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 be 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
of the earth," chaps, xv. 3 ; xvi. 4, is shown to
be 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 Hebrew
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 been 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 the 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
probable 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

THE VARIATIONS  TRANSPOSITIONS. 133
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. 26, which
corresponds with chaps, xlix. 2 ; li. 58 ; "be con
sumed " for "shall die," chaps, xi. 22 ; xiii. 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 purposes of
text-criticism. The following examples occur : —
TV}**)— 121T3, ii- 15; ttftpVfi— tififth> ni- 3' ISi-ia—
irm iv. 26 ; ihvfa— in1??' v- 4 ; rrjarr — ^rn^a, vi- 2 ;
on^nipn— b^nnm vi. 28 ; pfnx—tpfx, vi. 29 ;
DYnk*— |VtrjM, ix. 1; in5£— IXI73, ix. 9; Nav—
Nil\ x. 9 ; vmi— *lBFf>, xi. 22 ; ^ri^HM— WTliTjN,
xii. 4; 1NX??3— ^SO, xv. 16; n'pjf— ph%, xvii. 9
^$5?— batom, xx. n ; nami— nmrn., xx. 17
ptity—'pft}, xxi. 12 ; pfnfy— "iptpjr, xxii. 3
nsro— *«$*&> xxii- 23 ' tatf— 1TOJ, xxiii. 14 ; y\n—

134 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
i-pil, xxx. 7; ^M— ViMto2, xxx. 12; *ab*— I^D^ (?),
TT X • TT ......
xxx. 16 ; ntt—^l CO, llpnil— pH^> xxxi. 37
10"^— Vrsp\ xxxiv. 5; -|2iNrr— y^M(rr), xxxviii. 11
vw— iiarp, xiii. 17 ; wiofi— lann, xiii. 22
T - ¦ XT*
rroafin— rftgyo, xliii- 2; nyh—yirb, xliv. 27
t;— x**-:- xx: — x :
TTp.iSp— Tj^ip, xlvi. 12 ; n^tf— PTVy, xlviii. 15
T^X-l— T^> xlviii. 32; D*H— DT, xlix. 9; iflBtoTT—
** * - • -. X - XT • : - X
VlQnto or vqnp, xlix. 10; otf$j— DNtea (?), l. 7;
n^-iy-my», 1- 26 ; Yntfa-W&, 1. 32 ; ^n— *<n,
"¦• tx. tx: -:- :. x
li- 2 ; mm— iaya, KL 8.

CHAPTEE V.
THE VARIATIONS — ALTERATIONS.
The nature of the Alterations, which 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 significant for
proving the existence of special text - recensions.
This class of variation cannot have been due either
to accident or to design. 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 rendering 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 respecting 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 every

, THE VARIATIONS  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 both
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
1 "Von der Willkiir des Uebersetzers legt fast jeder Vers Zeugniss
ab, es geniigt daher von den verschiedenen Weisen, in welchen sich
dieselbe zeigt, nur einige der schlagendsten Beispiele anzufiihren.
Ohne Rucksicht auf die grammatischen Formen des Textes und oft
ganz gegen Sinn und Zusammenhang wird Person oder Numerals
geandert." Einleitung, p. Iii.

138 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
wisdom. The second person of the pronouns in
the succeeding 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 (will) 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 well as
the change of person and number, proves that the
original of the Greek in this verse, too, was different
from the original 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
words, " that saith," are wanting ; and the verse

THE . VARIATIONS  ALTERATIONS. 139
commences with a direct reference to Jehoiakim,
the subject of the passage, " Thou hast built for
thyself a wide (symmetrical) 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 meaning of the verse as it stands in Greek, the
latter half of which may be correctly rendered,
" and there shall ye 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 JEREMIAH.
person instead of the first in both members of chap.
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 similar 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 wilful 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 wanting
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 bring against thee a destroying man and his
weapon," 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 thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into
a country, where thou wast not born, 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 " king
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 sayest," 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 by 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 singular for the plural in the first half of
chap. 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. Ii. 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,
but 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 blame 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, was 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 preferable. The
comparative merit of each reading will be left to
the judicial consideration . of each critic. Some of
these alterations, it will be observed, were due to
difference of punctuation ; but none of them were
due to arbitrariness on the part of the translator.
Except in cases where the letters were originally
the same, the alterations indicate a special text-
recension in nearly every instance. An exception,
of course, must be made in the. case of divergences
which were required by the genius of the language
in which 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 different.
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,

K

140 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 were not so definitely
fixed at one time as they are to-day, and as they
have been since the Massoretic system became
established. The following classification furnishes illustrations
of the chief kinds of alteration that occur : —
Species or Conjugation.
Kal for Niphal. — IBM^— VlDfc-1 ("it shall be
said" — "they shall say"), chaps, iv. 11 ; vii. 32;
xvi. 14; inna— Vina (" it shall be chosen" — "they
shall choose"), chap. viii. 3.
Kal for Piel. — ni3C?b— rftiWh ("to change" —
" to repeat"), chap. ii. 36.
Kal for Hiphil. — "^JT^nrr — yv>*n ("thou
shewedst me" — "I saw"), chap. xi. 18; *nNlfl—
Nil^ (" cause it to come " — "it may or shall
come"), chap. xiii. 1; ^jpjp^N— y^n ("I will
cause thee to hear" — "thou shalt hear"), chap.

THE VARIATIONS  ALTERATIONS. 147
xviii. 2 ; D^tjJjn— *rS$3';'! (" tney nave caused them
to stumble" — "they shall stumble"), chap, xviii. 15;
V^li^l.— I^p^l (" they had caused to hear " —
" they had heard "), chap, xxiii. 22.
Kal for Hophal. — np^l— IH^I (" shall be taken
up " — " they shall take up "), chap. xxix. 22.
Niphal for Kal. — liatpi — "iit^ ("breaketh" —
"is broken"), chap. xix. 11; ^ ^fcng — riN'Tpa
(" they have called thee " — " thou hast been
called"), chap. xxx. 17 ; frptoPl— *ptofi ("thou shalt
burn" — "shall be burned"), chap, xxxviii. 23.
Niphal for Hiphil. — yiptpn— yiy&> (" publish-
eth" — "is heard"), chap. iv. 15; ^yijpttJn— ym&\
("publish ye" — "let it be published"), chaps.
iv. 5 ; v. 20.
Hiphil for Kal. — ^nay— TOgl ("is Passed away"
— "have taken away"), chap. xi. 15.
Hiphil for Hophal. — DglPr — WpH ("is per
formed" — "have performed"), chap. xxxv. 14.
Hophal for Kal. — ittfii— 3ttfr (" inhabiting "—
"being inhabited"), chap. ix. 10.
Hophalfor HiphU.~ar(^Q—^ryn0g ("they
deal corruptly" — "they are corrupted"), chap.
vi. 28 ; Drrnn— nrrftr (" he had driven them "—
"they had been driven"), chap. xvi. 15.

14.8 the text of jeremiah.
Tense.
Perfect for Imperfect. — ^7V— ^0 (" slia11 be"
come "—" were "), chap. v. 13 ; rprP— HVl ("shall
be" — "was"), chap. xxxv. 9.
Imperfect for Perfect. — ^yftty— lyfttpfi ("we
have heard" — "ye shall hear"), chap. xxx. 5.
Perfect for Infinitive. — nnitoy— nntoy (" to do "
— "has done"), chap. xi. 15 ; rm^i!1?— TV-pHl ("to
cut off"—" I will cut off"), chap, xlvii. 4.
Infinitive for Perfect. — fianil— ^TOa. ("may est
try" — "to try"), chap. vi. 27; TWV— TVDV. ("did
do"— "to do"), chap. xxii. 15.
Imperative for Perfect. — ynipisn vnttjpn—
^Qttft N3"!Q,,fiJpn (" I hearkened and heard " —
" hearken now and hear "), chap. viii. 6 ; *nsjp, W)t
— Tfep, Ijnt ("they have sown, they have reaped"
— "sow, reap"), chap. xii. 13.
Imperative for Imperfect. — ^Styl — 1^1 J7 ("they
shall glean " — " glean "), chap. vi. 9.
Imperfect for Infinitive. — JQ$rn ^tol H2"l HlHil
— wat^ri iiaani to$?fii in?n^ ("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 ; TjDi~n— IDp^
(" to pour out" — "they pour out"), chap. vii. 18.

THE VARIATIONS — ALTERATIONS. 149
Perfect for Participle. — \rt— "".Firo (" giving "
— "I have given"), chap. v. 14; •^ — ib'1
("travailing" — " hath travailed "), chap. xxx. 6.
Participle for Infinitive. — "ienS — Q^ftto (" to
say" — "saying"), chaps, vi. 14; vii. 4; xi. 21;
")inb — "irn (" to speak " — " speaking "), chap.
xxxviii. 4.
Imperfect for Participle. — ^bil— 'yb* ("walking"
— "shall walk"), chap. x. 23.
Gender.
Masculine for Feminine. — nilfo2 — "111503 (" her
self" — himself"), chap. iii. 11.
Feminine for Masculine. — : TrhlA littery — UttJri
Y^N lltijfl ("shall. he return unto her?" — "shall
T " T
she verily return unto him ? "), chap. iii. 1.
Person.
. First for Second. — ^ttJSi— "HtfEQ ("thy life" — >
"my life"), chap. xi. 21 ; fiifcw— iJTtoy ("thou shalt
make" — "I will make"), chap, xxviii. 13.
First for Third. — rrjPP. pb— Virti (" the Lord
hath given " — " I have given "), chap. xxv. 5,
Second for First.— ifipm WltJ?— ^p^2, ^TO'tt?
("I have broken, I have burst" — "thou hast

150 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
broken, thou hast burst "), chap. ii. 20 ; ^b—Q'Szb
("my heart" — "your heart"), chap. viii. 18;
la^y, wby— 0??%, ttb% (" for us, our eyes "—
"for you, your eyes"), chap. ix. 17; VISE, 'HltE—
TyriSE, ^">ltp (" my hurt, my wound " — "thy hurt,
thy wound"), chap. x. 19; "gvy, ittJOi— Qpip^, 05093
("my soul, my eye" — "your soul, your eyes"),
chap. xiii. 17.
Second for Third. — Mlpb— Dljnpb (" they re
ceived" — "ye received"), chap. ii. 30; m-flE — rP"lft
T TT " -r
(" she hath been rebellious " — " thou hast been
rebellious"), chap. iv. 17; nimmi-^riirni
("in her streets " — "in thy streets "), chap.
xlix. 26.
TJiird for First. — ijq-^v — rP3S"V}f ("before me"
— x — X v x —
— " before her "), chap. vi. 7 ; VVjnft— orPJHE
("my pasture" — " their pasture "), chap, xxiii. 1;
CfirnrT— orTHH (" I had driven them " — " he had
driven them "), chap, xxiii. 8 ; ifirptov— titf*) (" I will
set" — "he shall set"), chap, xliii. 10 ; .ifijBTj—
nisrn (" I wifl kindle "— " he shall kindle "), chap.
xliii. 12.
Third for Second. — DpinilN— DnVtflN (" your
fathers" — " their fathers "), chaps, iii. 18; vii. 25;
xliv. 10; Ofi-ftl— mil ("ye have dealt treacher
ously " — " she has dealt treacherously "), chap.

THE , VARIATIONS — ALTERATIONS. 151
iii. 20 ; ^p>m — D"Wt2 (" thy neck" — " their
neck "), chap. xxx. 8 ; QriynttJ— W!?ttj (" ye have
obeyed" — "they have obeyed"), chap. xxxv. 18;
OpriN— OniN (" you " — " them "), chap, xxxviii. 5 ;
xTlp — i3p (" thy nest " — " his nest "), chap.
xlix. 16. Number.
Singular for Plural (Noun). — rfinstlfo— Jinsiljft
("families" — "family"), chap. ii. 4; oi^yan —
by®n ("Baalim" — "Baal"), chap. ii. 23; ^HEnES,
•Q'rh — *h, ijntoipi ("thy confidences, in them" —
" thy confidence, in it "), chap. ii. 37 ; 0133^3 —
t32?5 ("as clouds" — "as a cloud"), chap. iv. 13;
CplTm— prnt2 (" distances " — " distance "), chap.
viii. 19.
Singular for Plural (Verb). — D^JflDUJ— PUS^b
("ye have obeyed" — "thou hast obeyed"), chap.
iii. 13; snaa— 1X3. ("have dealt treacherously" —
: t -t *
"has dealt treacherously"), chap. v. 11; ^EQj^i—
5^01") ("they may hear" — "he may hear"), chap.
vi. 10; QJV!5/T-rn3/T ("speak ye" — "speak
thou"), chap. xi. 2; sitoy— rutoy ("they have
done " — " thou hast done "), chap, xxxviii. 9.
Singular for Plural (Adjective). — cnn?:! —

152 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
OH1?? ("fighting"— "fighting"), chap, xxxiv. 7;
D-nwwn-^n ("left"— "left"), chap. xl. 6;
?0pl!Q — t»j?in (" seeking " — " seeking "), chap.
xliv. 30.
Singular for Plural (Pronoun). — QTip — iTip
(" their voice " — " his voice "), chap. vi. 23 ;
DM110 — ^M110 (" their captivity " — " his cap
tivity"), chap. xxxi. 23; DMM31 — "iMM31 ("put
them" — "put it"), chap, xxxii. 14; D'HE'N QMN—
"YOitf MMN ("ye are saying" — "thou art saying"),
chap, xxxii. 36, 43; ort^— fhif ("upon them" —
"upon him"), chap, xxxvi. 31; nrfhyr—Tvhy
("to them"— "to it"), chap, xxxvi. 32.
Plural for Singular (Noun). — -^ri3 — Mi"^n3
xx t :
("river" — "rivers"), chap. ii. 18; Tj5"H— Tp!3"H
("thy way"— "thy ways"), chaps, ii. 33; iv. 18;
^a— D^a ("nation" — "nations"), chaps, ii. 11 ;
vi. 22; "nMjn— TpMin ("thy wickedness" — "thy
wickednesses "), chap. iii. 2 ; "iiiy— ¦'"IIT (" word " —
"words"), chap. xxxi. 10.
Plural for Singxdar (Verb). — ^fcittPT— Vl'Win
("hath changed" — "have changed"), chap. ii. 11 ;
Ml^n— ^fyi (" she has gone " — " they have gone "),
chap. iii. V; 1^— nppj ("he shall set"— "they
shall set"), chap. xiii. 21 ; nfcm— toy ("it does"—
T T T *

THE VARIATIONS— ALTERATIONS. 1 53
"they do"), chap, xviii. 10; irjya— DPT\V> ("thou
hast rebuked " — " ye have rebuked "), chap.
xxix. 27 ; ttM'TYl— Vffl ("it shall become" — "they
x : t : x : x J
shall become "), chap. xlix. 2.
Plural for Singular (Adjective). — N^n —
0,W!rt!'n ("going out" — "going out"), chap. v. 6;
p*T2— MlpTS (" righteous " — " righteous "), chap.
xi. 20.
Plural for Singular (Pronoun). — iMtoy1?—
DMtoJ^> ("to perform it" — "to perform them"),
chap. i. 12; ^nV, ttTSJ?— D^n1?, Dl")"1?!? (" thy
harvest, thy bread" — " your harvest, your bread"),
chap. v. 17; iW20— OVE0 ("its fame" — "their
: x x : x
fame"), chap. vi. 24; <Q.b— 031^ ("nis lieart " —
" your heart "), chap. xvi. 12; <ink— DM& ("it" —
"them"), chap. xxv. 12; rfyip—nb\p ("her
sound" — " their sound "), chap. xlvi. 22.
Plural for Dual. — O^INM— D^lNPr ("the two
^ -x:xx • x -: x x
stones" — "the stones"), chap, xviii. 3.
Case.
Nominative for Objective. — OJTN'MN ItSM—
D3TN mt'0pM (" they inclined their ear " — " their
x : x t ¦ ': •
ear hearkened "), chap. vii. 24, 26 ; ijvjr {13™
nym-M^ai ny?y-by VTnfrr (" let mine eyes

154 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
run down with tears " — " let tears run down from
your eyes "), chap. xiv. 17.
Objective for Nominative. — Tiy M^N 110^—
liy V^N 110M littjrr (" shall he return unto her
x •• x -: x
again ? " — " shall she verily return unto him
again ? "), chap. iii. 1.

CHAPTER VI.
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 Graf's 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-
1.15

156 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
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 this people out, and let them go forth."
The variations in this verse afford an interest
ing illustration of recensional divergences. The
original of the Alexandrian was evidently different
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 the verse in
Greek will fully demonstrate this statement, as well
as advantageously exhibit the divergences. It
reads, "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 shall 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,
changed 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
other 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 VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 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, where 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.
While, 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." 1
Parts of Speech.
Substitutions belonging to this class, it will be
seen at once, were often due to punctuation, or
rather to the utter absence of punctuation. In
cases where the consonants were alike, the varia-
1 " Im griechischen Texte ist der Volkername nach hebraischer
Weise als Landername gesetzt ; und die Worte miissen ubersetzt
werden : ,'Bewohner Chaldaa's.' Es ist geradezu undenkbar, dass
der Uebersetzer, wenn sein hebraischer Text ' terra ' gehabt hatte,
diese ganz richtige und entsprechende Bezeichnung verlassen, und
seinen griechischen Lesern die unniitze Schwierigkeit sollte gemacht
haben." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., pp. 107,
108.

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 161
tion naturally explains itself; but in cases where
the consonants were not alike, the original 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. — 0;jn — 03N ("sick" —
"man"), chap. xvii. 9; Eft3N— 0i3N ("woeful" —
"man"), chap. xvii. 16; np5— MDQ ("lame" —
"passover"), chap. xxxi. 8.
Adjective for Noun. — D3 — D3 ("standard" —
"fleeing "), chap. iv. 21 ; M3H— (O^h) Min (" know
ledge" — "feeding"), chap. iii. 15.
Noun for Article.  &17M — riSTV "ill ("the
word" — "word of Jehovah"), chap. v. 13.
Article for Noun. — miM"1 ">*to— -D'HtoM ("the
princes of Judah" — "the princes"), chap. xxiv. 1.
Noun for Adverb. — 00— D0 ("there" — name"),
chap. xlvi. 17.
Adverb for Noun. — j-ffiN— M£N (" measure " —
"truly"), chap. Ii. 13.
Noun for Preposition. — ^N— ^N (" against " —
" God "), chap. 1. 29.
Preposition for Noun. — 05?— DJ? (" people " —
"with"), chap. xxxi. 2.

162 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Noun for Pronoun. — "nMN— bijr$r] 0ilp "HMM
(" after me "— " after the Holy One of Israel "),
chap. ii. 2 ; mVn— nbi* (" these "— " oak "), chap.
ii. 34; nrrhy— MTM Di;M-V« ("upon them"— "upon
this people"), chap. xi. 11 ; M^Q— TVftrt] "O^B
(" her kings " — " kings of Judah "), chap. xxv. 18 ;
Minn 01*1— MlM? 0^1 ("at that day"— "at the
day of Jehovah"), chap. xxv. 33; M"ny— TTTtf] ^
("her cities" — "the cities of Judah"), chap.
xxxiv. 1.
Pronoun for Noun. — nirP MOM— ''MOM (" the
fury of the Lord" — "my fury"), chap. vi. 11 ;
rfirp1?— i1? ("to Jehovah" — "to him"), chaps, viii.
14; xl. 3; ^Q0 ]V^7 ~ ^^? (" for thv name's
sake" — "for thine own sake"), chap. xiv. 7;
¦^-^—itp ("for my feet" — "for me"), chap.
xviii. 22; pr^N — mVn ("swearing" — "these"),
chap, xxiii. 10 ; niM^ ?M3— "'MMS (" the Lord hath
given " — "I have given "), chap. xxv. 5 ;
WxU-m inniM-MM— IMlN, 1M1N ("Uriah, his
x : - v x ¦ v v
dead body " — " him, him "), chap. xxvi. 23 ; ipiy
Sll'TySn— 113^ ("the eyes of the king of Babylon"
—"his eyes"), chap, xxxiv. 3; IHWrMN — W«
("Jeremiah" — "him"), chap, xxxviii. 6, 13.
Noun for Verb. — ill— ill ("hath spoken" —

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 163
"word"), chaps, ix. 11; xxiii. 17; i^QM — ^QM
(" I delight " — " my delight "), chap. ix. 23 ;
lin — 11M (" slay " — " sword "), chap. 1. 21 ;
TMlpS— TjMlpQ (" I will visit thee "— " thy visita
tion "), chap. 1. 31.
Verb for Noun. — fl01— yafty (" confusion " —
"may be confused"), chap. vii. 19 ; niMl?— T^toyi
("abundance" — "I will execute"), chap, xxxiii. 6 ;
Oil.— D11. ("haughtiness" — "is lifted up"), chap.
xlviii. 29 ; rOBMM— ^"lOMl (" as the overthrowing "
— "as he overthrew"), chap. 1. 40; ,i3p3 — *i3p3
("his molten image" — "they melt"), chap. Ii. 17.
Verb for Adjective. — llttj— 110 ("laying waste"
¦ — "hath laid waste"), chap. xxv. 36; iV1 — lb1"*
("travailing" — "hath travailed"), chap. xxx. 6;
N^l Nl— NTH Ml ("coming in and going out" —
• • ; x xx It ° O O
"came in and went out"), chap, xxxvii. 4; ijpfc —
1b« ("saying " — " to say"), chap. xliv. 26; MN2—
MN3. (" proud " — " has exalted "), chap, xlviii. 29.
Adjective for Verb. — rTO3— ME3 (" turneth aside"
— "turning aside"), chap. xiv. 8; iny — 10i>
("stood" — "standing"), chap. Iii 12.
Verb for Adverb. — tibft — IN^ft (" aloud " —
«/ .. x xx
"were collected"), chap. xii. 6; yiTV— IIPP ("to
gether" — " shall be glad"), chap. xxxi. 13.

164 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Adverb for Verb. — rroto — MOtU ("make it" —
U |T T T |T
"there"), chap. xiii. 16; M3«n— M3MO ("refuseth"
—"whence"), chap. xv. 18 ; 10—10 ("sit down"
— " again"), chap, xxxvi. 15.
Verb for Interjection. — i*in — MT» (" alas ! " —
"is"), chap. xxx. 7.
Interjection for Verb. — ^n— iiM (" shall be "—
" alas ! "), chap. Ii. 2.
Verb for Pronoun. — rt?5— M^3 ("every one" —
"ceased"), chaps, viii. 6 ; xv. 10 ; xx. 7.
Pronoun ivith Preposition for Verb. — Nl— m
("it is come" — "upon her"), chap. xlvi. 20.
Pronoun for Article. — t£jQ3M— D0D3 ("the soul"
—"their soul"), chap. iv. 10; TJ11M— ''ITT ("the
way " — " my ways "), chap. vii. 23 ; D5?M — ^IpV
(" the people " — " my people "), chap. viii. 5 ;
Oyn— isy (" the people " — " his people "), chaps.
xxvi. 23 ; xl. 6 ; HOM^M— TTMOM^E (" the war "
xx:*— '¦•; — :*
— "thy war"), chap. xlix. 26.
Article for Pronoun.— *yr\$, "-J^IN— CiyM, flNM
("thy land, thy cities" — "the land, the cities"),
chap. iv. 7; Tny — D^IVM ("its cities" — "the
X XX -x V x
cities "), chap. iv. 26 ; ''350— O*O50M (" my neigh
bours" — "the neighbours"), chap. xii. 14; HDMl
— OM1M (" her womb " — " the womb "), chap. xx. 17.

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 165
Conjunction for Article. — QiftttfM— Qi?2lZJ3 (" the
heaven" — "as heaven"), chap. Ii. 53.
Conjunction for Pronoun. — DM0p— M0p5 (" their
bow" — "as a bow"), chap. ix. 2; -^^—15 ("which"
— " because "), chap. xi. 17; 10N— 10N3 (" what "
— " as "), chap, xxxii. 24.
Conjunction for Preposition. — ij-jS — 1M3 (" to
a mountain" — "as a mountain"), chap. Ii. 25;
XFtiilb— -D',|035 (" to women " — " as women "), chap.
Ii. 30.
Conjunction for Interjection. — M3M— DN"^3)
("behold"— "but if"), chap. vii. 8.
Interjection for Pronoun. — MOM— M3M (" these "
—"behold"), chap. v. 5.
Adverb for Pronoun with Preposition. — ni— 00
("in it" — "there"), chap. xlix. 18, 33.
Pronoun with Preposition for Adverb. — Q0 —
(Ml) Tthy ("there" — "in it"), chap. xxxv. 7.
Adverb for Noun with Preposition. — D^ttftTl
—00 (" 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

166 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
similarity between the forms of the words; in
other instances, they certainly arose from textual
differences 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 significance : —
Similar Text. — nttJlMl— MtiHMl ("in her month"
x*t: t t ¦-. :
— "in her humiliation"), chap. ii. 24; D^l—D^l
("lovers" — "shepherds"), chap. iii. 2; *aij?3—
liy5 (" as an Arabian " — " as a raven"), chap. iii. 2;
D-Mlti— (on^) Cl/iS (" watchers " — " companies "),
chap. iv. 16 ; 0iN|— 0^5 (" as a man " — " as fire "),
chap. vi. 23 ; Qi^j— Qi^a ("heaps" — "captivity"),
chap. ix. 10; MVlDM— M^iSM ("tumult" — "her
circumcision"), chap. xi. 16; fiasp— PlSSfi ("from
the north" — "overlaid"), chap. xv. 12 ; D^MiltpMI
— QiM^^Ml. ("I will bring them again" — "I will
cause them to dwell"), chap. xvi. 15 ; *y\$Q — ~\!iXQ
("a terror" — "a settlement"), chap. xx. 4; m—
DM ("grace" — "heat"), chap. xxxi. 2; MpS— MDS
("lame" — "passover"), chap. xxxi. 8; ii3V»M —
(MWil) M31!;M ("oppressing" — "Grecian"), chaps.
xlvi. 16; 1. 16; MlpO— M5p» ("the hope" — "the

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 167
collector"), chap. 1. 7; ms-FrlB (" her bullocks "
' A T VT T ! ¦ ^
— "her fruit"), chap. 1. 27; 101^— 1011 ("they
shall be dried up " -^ " they shall be ashamed "),
chap. 1. 38; llMtt— (pM») 11MO ("from the
sword" — "from the land"), chap. Ii. 50.
Different Text. — TflNM— M0NM ("the land" —
" the woman "), chap. iii. 1 ; r\1110— M'iSJfiE
(" stubbornness" — " devices "), chap. iii. 17 ;
D5''Mi10tt— D5',110 (" your backslidings " — " your
wounds"), chap. iii. 22; 3iOM M3g— Ti»2p ("sweet
cane" — "cinnamon"), chap. vi. 20 ; D1011— Dl'lpll
(" whom they have sought " — " to whom thejr have
cleaved "), chap. viii. 2 ; JT.110— M1NM (" stubborn
ness" — "desire"), chaps, ix. 13; xvi. 12; xviii. 12;
M3N11M1— M3,'33>M1 (" they may come " — " they may
speak"), chap. ix. 16; nil— TlN ("wind" —
"light"), chaps, x. 13; li. 16; D^M — D^l
("jackals" — "ostriches"), chap. x. 22; ''03N—
13,0V (" men " — " inhabitants "), chap. xi. 23 ;
!|3*-)i— yj-;-. ("they grow" — "they bring forth"),
chap. xii. 2; ^JTIMN— ^MMIN ("our latter end"
— " our ways"), chap. xii. 4 ; to'ty— M15N3. (" bird of
prey" — "cave"), chap. xii. 9; H103— 1103 ("is taken
captive" — "is destroyed"), chap. xiii. 17; D13M—
D13NM (" give them over " — " collect them "), chap.

168 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
xviii. 21; iy£0M— ItoJ^M ("ye will hear"— "ye
will do "), chap. xxii. 5 ; ittJ-jj-j ^111—11113 11M
(" his holy words " — " his glorious majesty "), chap.
xxiii. 9; M3^30 — MN30 ("a taunt "—"a hatred"),
chap. xxiv. 9 ; Qini Vlp— TO ITl (" the sound of
the millstones " — " the perfume of myrrh "), chap.
xxv. 10; T^M— Y")«M ("the city "—"the country"),
chap. xxix. 7 ; nil ]X2— ''IS Y^5 (" a watered
garden" — "a fruitful tree"), chap. xxxi. 12;
niNl— M13H (" sorrowful " — " hungry "), chap.
t -: t t ¦• :
xxxi. 25 ; 0i«— yi« (" men " — " land "), chap.
xxxvi. 31; D^M— T^M ("the people" — "the
city "), chap, xxxvii. 4 ; O^lMl— llll (" with
cords" — "into the pit"), chap, xxxviii. 6; Dl^—
ny ("the day" — "the time"), chap, xxxviii. 28;
1-1^3.— V1N1 ("in the cities" — "in the land"),
chap. xl. 5 ; i^iyi— 113^1 ("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. 169
prove conclusively recensional divergences. The
only variety necessary to note in this 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. — m0i — 3*i0fi
3/10 ("return" — "verily return"), chap. iii. 1;
M'M1'— IVTp 'V'M ("were" — "really were"), chap.
xxii. 24; \PlM3— ]MN )iM3 ("I will put" — "verily
I will put"), chap. xxxi. 33; 1D31— 1*10 1D31
("shall turn about" — "shall verily turn about"),
chap. xxxi. 39 ; jn!) ^M— JM3M |M2M (" behold, I
will give " — " verily it shall be given "), chaps.
xxxii. 28 ; xxxiv. 2 ; ^130111— T301 1301 ("I will
make drunk " — " I will verily make drunk "), chap.
Ii. 57.
Unemphatic for Emphatic Form. — 111N1
1111 D30M 03^$— 03^ 111«1 (" I sPake unto
you, rising up early and speaking" — "I spake
unto you"), chap. vii. 13.
Proper 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 the
same ; in other cases, they were different. The
following examples of each variety may be given
by way of illustration : —
Proper Noun for Proper Noun. — ViON — ViJDN
("Anion" — "Amoz"), chaps, i. 2; xxv. 3; rfttV
rt\N2$—TXb$ ("Lord of hosts"— "thy God"),
chap. ii. 19; i-ripP— ^10'' 011S ("the Lord" —
t : •• t : ¦ ':
"the Holy One of Israel"), chap, iii 16 ; QiTM^M
-D011p iM*>N ("their God"— "their Holy God"),
chap. iii. 21; j-jIM1'!?— DS^M^nV ("to the Lord" —
"to your God"), chap. iv. 4; rrtPT; 'tflN — rriiT.
(" the Lord God " — " the Lord "), chaps, vii. 20 ;
xiv. 13; xxxii. 17; MINIS HiPP— STirf (" Lord of
t : x : t : %
hosts"— "Lord"), chaps, vi. 9; ix. 16; xi. 20; xx. 12;
xlix. 26 ; 1. 33 ; li. 58 ; ttVl^N MljT-DVT^M
(" Lord our God " — "God"), chap. viii. 14 ; nilM"1 T '.
— D^JpIlM ("Judah" — "Idumea"), chap. ix. 25;
tDIN— tSINtt (" Uphaz " — " Mophaz "), chap. x. 9 ;
M1MH— D^mSnM ("Lord"— "God"), chaps, xiv. 10;
1. 15; 13V6« MIM^ — TfiTT* ("Lord our God" —
•• v: t : x : x
"Lord"), chap. xiv. 22; nlN12 V(Vn MlM^-MlM1"
x ; •• v: t : x :
M*iNi$ ("Lord God of hosts"— "Lord of hosts"),
chap. xv. 16; 1PT03 — IM^ (" Coniah"— " Jecon-
t: t tT t : x

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 171
iah "), chap. xxii. 24, 28 ; niM"' — ^mVn MlPP
t : •• *„¦: t :
(" Lord " — " Lord our God "), chap, xxiii. 38 ; til
—til (" Buz " — " Eoz "), chap. xxv. 23 ; ytq— DIED
T T TT
("Medes" — "Persians"), chap. xxv. 25; MlMI—
bw*tipm "M'Vn MlM^ ("Lord" — "Lord God of
Israel "), chap, xxxii. 28 ; M^tN*1— M''33'' (" Jaazan-
t: — :- t:t:x
iah" — "Jeconiah1'), chap. xxxv. 3; DIN — 110N
("Syrians" — "Assyrians"), chap. xxxv. 11 ; ^Nli?P
— pS01T ("Israel" — "Jerusalem"), chap, xxxvi. 2 ;
JM^NI. 1M^0 — \ny\TF\ 1M;O^0 ("Shemaiah and
Elnathan " — " Shelemiah and Jonathan "), chap.
xxxvi. 12; ippftT— 1111 (" Jeremiah" — "Baruch"),
t : : • . ' t v '
chap, xxxvi. 32 ; rP^NT — M^10 (" Irijah " —
J- T . • . T T ; u
"Seraiah"), chap, xxxvii. 13, 14; Jft^i^N— S^V**
(" Elishama " — " Elisha "), chap, xii 1 ; rPJP
rpy0inil— PPtoyall MJ"YT3? ("Jezaniah the son of
Hoshaiah " — " Azariah the son of Maaseiah "), chap.
xiii. 1 ; ppM11 — D^N PrtPP (" Lord " — " Lord
t : v: t :
God"), chaps, xiii. 4; li. 62; ^PiW MVP— MlM";
("Lord thy God"— "Lord"), chap. xiii. 5; nlM"!
l^rf^M— MlM11. (" Lord our God " — " Lord "), chap.
xiii. 20; ppJNtflM — M^05??2 (" Hoshaiah " — "Maa
seiah "), chap, xliii. 2 ; filN32 MlPP. "tflN — MiPp
13^^ ("Lord, the Lord of hosts" — "Lord our

172 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
God"), chap. xlvi. 10; M^N— DM1!* ("Elealeh"
— " Etham "), chap, xlviii. 34 ; CIO? — D^ll?
("Nimrim" — "Nivrim"), chap, xlviii. 34; pfipp
— MINIS TftTT1 (" Lord " — " Lord of hosts "),
t : t : ^ '
chap. xlix. 18; PpilM^. — O^lM1. (" Jehoiachin " —
"Jehoiakim"), chap. Iii. 31.
Proper Noun for Common Noun. — -fijj — t,^
("rock" — " Zor "), chap. xxi. 13; tlN — tMN
("cedar" — "Ahaz"), chap. xxii. 15; D^S — fi*^
("waymarks" — "Zion"), chap. xxxi. 21 ; 330an—
MEM ("the citadel" — " Hamath"), chap, xlviii. 1;
PPliyS — MlijIS ("her little ones " — " Zoar "),
chap, xlviii. 4; 03*772 — (b) DsVp ("their king" —
" Milcom "), chap. xlix. 1, 3.
Proper Noun for Adjective. — ,'0i^0n — ^^^BJM
("third" — "Salathiel"), chap, xxxviii. 14; n-pN —
QrVN (" strong " — " Etham "), chap. xlix. 19 ;
lO^N— |M^N N^ (" strong " — " Gaithan "), chap.
1. 44. Proper Noun for Verb. — T12?M — (m)*'10M
("pass by "— " Hishbi "), chap. xlvi. 17; nMM —
T t
(M3M)Ma ("broken down " — " Hagath "), chap.
xlviii. 1.
Common Noun for Proper Noun. — ypp-1)? —

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. 173
DPPiy (" unto Jahaz " — " their cities "), chap.
xlviii. 34.
Common Noun for Common Noun. — pill— 11 N
(" wind "—" light "), chaps, x. 13; li. 16; tfw—
•pN ("men" — "land"), xxxvi. 31.
Verb for Proper Noun. — itoy— (M)l0y ("Esau"
— " have done "), chap. xlix. 8 ; TlpQ (" Pekod " — ¦
"punish"), chap. 1. 21.
Adverb for Proper Noun. — DTllQ — MITIO
("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

174 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 : —

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. 175
a = n (^jstzi— +a$\ (?), ii. 35). =1 (nbaan—
MblSM, xxxii. 8). = n (tjblS— TObM, ii. 25; 81—
Ptl, xlvi. 20; K3T— ffil, xlvi. 25; MjT*— ^WrM,
p5J«— Jlp^TM, xlviii. 31; DTliX— DTlin, li. 40).
= ti (MBWD— ftETTD, ii. 24; lbijp'3— lbfil'3(?), v. 4;
D-nihn— airjn, li. 12). = 2? (nis— nsis, ii. 24;
naffarp— riwani, ix. 16; niaib— nasib, xxxi. 12;
t t: t s - - :' * t -: - s t -: — ; ' "
M1JSH— nasi, xxxi. 25; "jypSSJl— "Mlisni, xlix.
38). = n (sxtj— ran, xxi. 12; ssn visa— nan rtn,
xlviii. 9; T»— PiS, xlviii. 16).
^ = J ("M^'l— hMb?5 (?), xxxi. 32). = "I (ill?!—
(n)Th?1, xiv. 4; "nasa— "^sisai, xlviii. 28). = D
(ill3>— 113? (?), xxiii. 9; ^i;ip— ^31D, xlvi. 14;
111M— ir3M (?), li. 11). = b (]0111— "JlDaVl, xxii.
20). = U (n^illl— D-'llTO, xxxviii. 24; "pKa—
yisa, xlvi. 10). = 3 (d^iipj— d-rpi(?), xi. is).
= D (D3;ili$11Fl73— D3M1NSMB (?), xii. 13; IPlDb—
fflttb, xv. 3; nilltibl— tlBlnbl , xxv. 9; 1TJ11—
11T31(?), ]. 37). = £(111?— 112S(?)> xxiii. 9)/ = p
(IpS— p52S, xvii. 9). = 1 (O'lSl — D*ifta, iv. 29;
"UUto— DitDl, xxx. 16; naa'TB— -ME11D or TOUTS,
• ;- tt:7 7 t : • t«s t ¦¦ ; - 7
xlviii. 32).
J = 2 ("Msr— ¦tiss; (?), xiv. 3).
1 = i (iBb— ^ab, ii. 24). = b ("?— b?, xxv. 31).
= p (1SS531— j«Pfitt or pSai(?), x. 3). = "1 (T1W1B
— ^na, ii. 19; nsi— n'Si,.iii. 15; lisri— 113P,
iv. l/niiati:— niiari:, v. 7; tyw— main, vi. 2;
ipsn— igtfiri, vi. 6; '^11—^11, vi. 18; nai?i—

176 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
naiil, 13Bin— 13aiM, viii. 14; T313— 1p2, xiii.
V T" :' T • -! 1 T . • * ' '*
25; DSTJ3— mi?, xiv. 9; ^153— "152, xx. 8; 1HK—
in«n, xxiv. 2; ni«jb— TOSlb, xxxi. 12; nii«
—niSl, xxxi. 25; ins— 1TJK (bis), xxxii. 39; T3
—111,' xii. 9; nwaia— MtiMi.3, xlvii. 5; ha'l1—
^'11, xlvii. 6; PnS"1— PPS\ xlvii. 7; IS— TS, xlviii.
• T ' 7 t t : t • : ' '
32; ynri?— DrrlS, xlviii. 34; M5JT— MST, xlix.
22; sfiBT— iaT, xlix. 26; 1. 30; TTi— iin, xlix.
27; waani— Tniasn"; , xlix. 38; lain— win,
li. 6; ITH— 1TH, li. 14; rapis— isfctll, li. 58).
= T\ (1S1— tlSl, xi. 14; -n*— IIS, xlviii. 16).
51 = 8 (d^pPi— d"p!S, xi. 5; NSipJ— KETW, xv. 18;
1SM1— TS81, xxxii. 25; l^MI— 11BX1, xiii. 12;
"T; * TT7 ¦ ' •": • TT 7
rnsnbj— rpissi, xlvii. 4). = a (nips— i^sa (?),
ii. 23; d^ian— d'l'ai, xxv. 11; dVi— d*l, xxxi.
35; baisrj— baisa; isbani— is^aii, 1. 19). =T
(DrTB— D^l?, xiv. 9). =1 (HlSPj— IISPj , ix. 4;
nna'ia— inato , xxxi. 7). = n (anb— onb, xvi. 7;
nssiiian— nsi^arj, xxii 17). = D (nna— dns, v. 17;
iTrqab1]— d^iabl:, xiii. 18; Pnsi— disi, xxix. 7;
nbip— dbip, xlvi. 22). = D (na'ii— sa'ii:, iv. 29).
= V (ribnn— nbsn, xlviii. 2). = ~i (rns— diis,
vi. 18; M103— 11TB3, xiii. 17; ManM— lann, xxv.
1 T ; • - . . 7 7 T *• - -TV7
15). ¦= n (PlMS— fiFjS, I 6; xiv. 13; xxxii. 17;
^in— h*!P^M, vi. 8; ns'ia— roba(?), xvii. 16; ni3
— til?, xxxiii. 12).
1 = 2 (bh3bni— bSiBSTSl, iii. 15). = T (fias— D!?rS,
xxx. 17). = n (mn— nam, ii. 12 ; naa— rroa,

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 177
ix. 2; liab— mab, ix. 4; PJS51— np£n, xxxi. 8;
lbs— n'ffis (?), xlix. 8). = n (nia^s— rra/is, v. 6;
Mian— n^ns, vi. 2; issas— "xsbia; xv. 16; las—
ha3, xv. 18; nffltf— MTTTD, xviii. 20, 22; nTfi—
.. .7 7 T r.7 7 7tt;
nTP; saw— Sa0", xx. 16; dlSH— Uisn*. xxiii. 4;
v : " ' - t : - ; • ' t i i • 7
11^*1— "atS^, xxxi. 24). = 1 (ib— tjb, xxii. 15).
= b (b|3l— b'S3b, xxi. 9; 1SD1— ISpb, xxiii. 19;
nipai— nipab j 1. 7). — 1 (nsjrb— nsiib (?),
xxxiv. 17).
¦p = tj (-ji-irta — t]ina, xii. 13). = f (-(ias— y'as,
i. 2; xxv. 3).
J = 1 (TS— IS, xi. 15). = S (pSTS-prj^S(?), xx. 8).
= y (Tbss— yiss, xv. 17). =1 (IT-Tal— lljal or
11T21, 1. 37). -to (pSTS— prim (?), xx. 8).
n = "i (tit— tt(?), vi 26). = n (iiin— nain, ii.
12; praina— Piunna, ii. 24; mp;3— mm or mm,
" t i t ; t t *-. : 7 7  : " — -: ~ : ~ '
viii. 16; binaa— bnpa, xxxi. 4, 13; ibbni— ibbni,
xxxi. 5). =D (lean?— ica33 (?), xiii. 22; DnbiD^
— DibiD?!!, xxxviii. 11). = " {rilT— T)®-, xvii. 8).
-= 12 (nrntfj— naT2i(?), ii, 6; tinea— *jb(2?) op, xlvi.
15). =5 (C^a— 'r|5»a (?), ii. 25). = "1 (ihDb—
fpt:b(?),xv. 3)".
TJ = b (n;t?£ti— n*3STD or n^SS, xxxviii. 1).
i = a (drs— dias, xviii. 17). = 1 (ibis1— ibisi,
v. 17; ibbis^ bbis— ibbis ib^is, vi. 9; 113T— 1ST,
vi. 23; o4ab-mbab(?j,ix. 10; h?S^— "3S22"!; d^pai
— dipa, x.' 20; W-131&:; -^san— istisan,
x. 24; rabizj— ia'b0; ^tfffl— 'PiaiD, xx. 10; hBl'l—
M

178 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
isii; iber— bs'ttri, xx. ii; ma"— mai, xxi. 6
;T7 ; T • •• ; - : 7 ' \r " T '
"'IIS— iiasb, xxvii. 6; "Til?— ''TniD, xxxi. 2; "6
— ib, xxxi. 3; "St3M— 1St3M , xxxi. 5; Ta— lia
xii. 9; ¦'ill— 13T1, xlvi. 9; bra— biH3, xlvi. 22)
= D ("tiiba— dnibs , ix. 15; hmsia— drrsia
xxiii. 1; *atia— Dl'lOS, xxx. 16). = to (n^sT—
n^lia, xxxvii. 13, 14)'. = n (d^ST— dPST, vi. 29;
^ap— tlia]5, xxvi. 23).
T = V (dV— fiS(?), xxxviii. 28).
D"1— "] (a^a— Tijra, xlviii. 33).
ji = N (nrsiab— nsiicb, xxiv. 9).
2 ¦= 2 (ltiS3— lirsa, v. 19; li30— liati, xxiii. 9;
nipbpb-3— nipbjpbria, xxiii. 12). = 1 (13b:— lib:,
xii. 2). = i (b3bi— W?3(?), xx. 9). = 12 (nans—
nana, xxxvi. 32). = 2 (drbis— drbis, xxxi. 9).
= i (mra-a^sa, ii. 23). = p (nisa-ipa (?),
Ttrjasn— npllS'B, h. 23; 115— ISip, xviii. 20).
" = 1 (*p»— ias, xxxi. 7). = b (r\b*— bb" , xlvi. 22).
= D (TP— ffp, xxxi. 19). = D"1 (Tjpas— d"p3S,
xlix. 4). = 1 (TS— "(S or p*, xxxvi. 17).
b = 2 (dPjb— dPja, viii. 9; dib— 051, xiv. 13; bbb
— bba, xix. 13; xxix. 22; d^saab— dhS32a, xxiii. 9;
T]b— tra, xlvi. ll; siab— siaa, xlvi. 13; bsiiirb
— bsiicia, xlix. l). = i. (nbas— nias = -jins,
xii. 11; biais— TtoiK, xiii. 14; b?— IS, xxxi. 39).
¦= i (ti^inb— miisi, xlvii. 4). = 12 (nb^—m^,
xxii. 30; bbicb— aa'0b, xlix. 32). = "j (bjig— *|aia,

THE VARIATIONS  SUBSTITUTIONS. 179

xxxix. 3). = "I (T'bSSl— yiSSl, xv. 17; ^33—^33,
xxv, 34). = n (TbS— Tjrt&, ii. 19).
o - a (fisata— fi»sa, ix. 18; dnia— dma, xx. 17;
niasa— n^'-asa, xxi. l; uSurp = icbta— tibuia,
xxv. 3; S'aa— P133, xlvi. 25; tFSpq— T3|?"a, xlviii.
33; d"ia?— B"ia3, xlviii. 34; iaD— TSJ3(?), li. 27;
baaa— baaa; ynsa— visa, li. 54). =n (nisaaa
— nisaan, iii. 23; dnias— nnas, xii. 17). = la
("frpab— sat?b(?), ii. 33). =2 (isaa— dsa, iv. 8;
"33.a— "333, xlviii. 32). = b (talja— bb!?a, xlix.
1). = j ("jFffl— "jM or -JP3, xxxviii. i; dpaS— d"p3S,
xlvii. 5; TjpaS— d"p3S, xlix. 4). = X (ia"pn—
irpn, li. 12).' = p (binaa— bnpa, xxxi. 4, 13).
= n (mat— mj(?), xiii. 27). = n (n'aa— nan, vi.
25; DT— IIS, xxxviii. 28).
D = 13 (diss— liics, xxvi. 19). = "p (dsn— i"sn,
xxxvii. 4). = n (d"ba^— mbab(?), ix. io').
3 = j (nan— na;, iv. l). = 1 (mna— mni(?), viii.
16). = n (baan— bann , xiv. 21). = 2 (ins—
TO(?), vi. 29). = a (ba-15— -jaia, xxxix. 3; tp—
t|'a, xlvi. 14; MTaii— M^'ail, xlix. 2). = "1
(Pii'ariM— niHM, xxxvii. 16).
"2= D (isaa— d3a, iv. 8; lars— drs, xxxi. 15;
ISiriS— d£"lS, xlix. 19).
1 = n Cpsi— n?si(?), vi. 14). = d (]n— an, xxxi. 2).
b - B (ancb-rnt3b(?), xv. 3). = 2 (iaa-T33(?),
li. 27). = 12 ("11D "b— lab, ii. 21). = to (ii"pn—

180 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
1TSTl:n(?), v. 10). = to (1SD31— 1Si33i, xxxi. 24).
= n' (iTpn— iTnin(?), v. 10).
2? = tf (1SC31— 1Ste3i, xxxi. 24; nbsa— nsb73, xlviii.
5). = f(sai— Ta'i(?), xxxi. 35).' = n (d"asa-
d"ina, iv. 29; psts— pnas or pnias, xx. 8; "nbsa
— T#ra(?), xxxi 32). = i (iss— 1|T(?), xx. 9).
- D'(nsia— ti3ba(?), xvii. 16). = 8 {"'Tyx—
"T32, 145). = x ("iasa— "liaa(?), xlviii. 28).
= to (sa'i— izai(?), xxxi. 35).
S = 2 ("mns— "mna, ii. 19). =2 (sbs1;— sbr,
xxxii. 17^ 27). ='toT(lp£n— l^M, vi. 6).
C] = 1 (t|nC3— *|B(a)&3(?), xlvi. 15).
s = J (niarsi— na^ai, ii. 6). = n (isaa— inaa,
vi. 27).' = u (t]Si?a— t]:saa, li. 13). = o ("?a"sn
— "?a"sn(?), li. 34). = p (iss— i]r(?), xx. 9). = to
("?a"sn— "?aiBn(?), li. 34). '
y = D (ynrns— amis, xivhi. 34). = ) (y?sa—
¦jisa, xliii. 13). = "J! (y*S— fi»s, xlviii. 9).
p = j (nipTan— niabjan, Hi. 18). = i ("Fipip—
"msc, xxxi. 19). = n (ibpbpnn— ibnbnnn, iv. 24).
= b (ipw— nsro, vi. 29). = 12 (aps— pas, xvii. 9).
- x (sbip— sbis, x. 18). = "i (p'a-sn— liasn,
xxix. 26).
1 =i (nisi:— TiST, ii. 16; trial?— ma-!? , v. 6;
T)3— T13(?), vi. 29; imas— ima's orinias, vii.
29; I3"ni3aisa— asna-sa, ix. 20 ; nasa— (n)iiasi,
xiv. 4; main— train (?), xiv. 14; xxiii. 26; STn
— sTn, xv. 12; "masni— -masni, xv. 14; d"ip

THE VARIATIONS — SUBSTITUTIONS. 181
— B"l]3, xviii. 14; 12S— T£(?), xx. 9; TSUa—
isiaa, xxxi. 8; isiirr— 1103/;, xxxiv. 5; lSil?3—
TlS3, xlviii. 6; 1p"i;— 1p"T, xlviii. 12; imas—
1'niaS, xlviii. 30; iBlPTTp— IDimTp, xlviii. 31, 36;
nun B"ij— nun B"T, li. 2; p"i— pi, li. 34; "isiri
— "lb'1:(?), li 35; nnbai— nnbai, hi. 9, 10, 26).
= 1 Ofr— ai", xxxi. 19; yisa— -p'sa, xhii. 13).
= Pi (nsa— Tnsa, xxii. 15). = n (iais— ina"s or
na*sn,'ix. 7). = 31 (nan— ia"5n(?), ii. 11). =2
(rSijb— ni3Tlb(?), iv. 11)' = bT(nsia— mba (?),
xvii. 16; nipijan— m'abTan, Hi. 18). =2 (isssiisiaa
— 1SS313133, xlvi. 2). — ] (T3S— -,Hs, xv. 11).
= n (iaap— naap, xxxix. 3).
to = to (nssti— n'snia = nsno, ii. 24; satisi—
\ t -: T tt; tt:7 ' - • J -T
saiasi, v. 7; rYsaia— nsais, v. 24; nniia— nnir,
_ . . - T 7 1 '.<: -;.7 7 T T.7
xviii. 20, 22; lblB3:— bsirni, xx. 11; S1233— aiflb,
xxiii. 39; n3'3Tiib— nssisb, xxiv. 9; 1B13S— TiSifla,
7 T . . . T...7 7 T ,TT7
xxx. 12; 1S13n— ISton, xxxvn. 9; 1133— B3"SiS3,
xHv. 9.
to = to (naiaa— n]3iffia, H. 23; sisn— bsiijn(?), vH.
16; xi. 14; na'ffli— nauil, xiii. 16; "lir— B^lui,
7 7 tt: tt:7 ' — t * t '
xviH.14; "Tib— "11lT3,xxxi.2; TITrrTp— isJjTTJ?,
xlvHi. 31, 36).' = ^'(rtaato— naiTS, xlviu. 32).
n = s ("niab— saab,H. 33). = 1 (niabsi— niabai,
ii. 6). ='n(mbi"i— nibT"i, xxxi. 8). =B(iBna"—
T2JtJ|:, xxxi. 40)." = "> (liV— lia;, iv. 1; T0S1— TS1,
xxH. 22; laaiann— isaiam, xxHi. 20). = T (B"an—
B":s", x. 22; xHx. 33). =2 (nnsa— na'sa, Hi. 4).

CHAPTER VII.
THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS.
Having 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 important.
Had they all a similar origin ? Were they aH 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 them 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
translating 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 charge 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 remarkable 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 help us to determine the laws of
textual transmission. By showing how the diver
gences arose in this prophetic book, we may also
show how they arose in the other prophetic books.
Indeed, the principles of explanation which apply
to the variations in Jeremiah apply, 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 manuscripts, 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 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 185
not possibly be otherwise. This fact is too well
known to need discussion, as well as too irrelevant
to the 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
probability. 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 origin. 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 and ignorant pre
tender, who arbitrarily tampered with the sacred
text ; but an honest 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 were not entirely unlike. Though different,
they were not altogether different. At one time,
too, they were a great deal more alike than they
are nowT. 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 many
other places, where the divergences appear remark
able, when 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 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 187
Graf himself, 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 pecuHarity 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 divergences. 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 the 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
been arranged amongst themselves in rows ; that
is, these passages underwent a revision. This was
evidently not performed by one who was unac
quainted with the sacred Scripture, but by a
teacher, and certainly, too, by one of the most
illustrious of teachers." 1
A fourth cause of variation was transcription.
It is probable that a number of divergences were
1 " Naeh und nacli sehwollen diese Bemerkungen stellenweise zu
soleber Menge an, dass es nothwendig wurde, Ordnung in diese an
einander gereiliten Zusatze zu bringen, d. h. diese Stellen erfuliren
eine Ueberarbeitung. Diese ist selbstverstandlioli niolit von einem
der heiligen Schrift Unkundigen ausgegangen, sondern von einem
Lehrer und auch unter diesen gewiss von einem der angesehensten."
Der masoreth. Text und die LXX- Uebersetzung, etc., p. 104.

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 189
due 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
Homceoteleuton, or like-ending clauses, are, perhaps,
most easily and naturally explained in this way.
Graf and Hitzig 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 unnecessarily 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
transcribing 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
possible to tell in which recension the error of
transcription arose. This can only be conjecturaUy
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
corruption 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 supposed, 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 VARIATIONS. 191
badly worn, or poorly preserved manuscripts.
Where a variation was most Hkely due to corrup
tion arising from transmission, it is often difficult
to decide with certainty which recension was the
more imperfect. In some places, the imperfection
was manifestly in the Massoretic recension, as, for
instance, chaps, iv. 1 ; xi. 15 ; xxxi. 2 ; xl. 5. In
other places, the fault was 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 = pf 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 TpN, chap. iii.
19, is an abbreviation for 13 niM'1 ft3N- The
example is interesting, and the explanation is
possible. Again, according to Movers, ©1^, 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 ttMaN- Whether probable 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 1, the
abbreviation for nin\ as a suffix of the first person
singular. " My anger," for " the anger of the
Lord," chap. xxv. 37, Hitzig and Movers think,

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 193
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 niPP- " An Hebrew"
t :
("Hiy) in the Massoretic text, is rendered " a ser
vant of Jehovah " in the Alexandrian version.
Here, besides the abbreviation, the letter -) 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 five and twentieth day," in chap.
Iii. 31, may most likely have arisen from the
confusion of i with pf, 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 only having been written in the ancient
manuscripts. Thus the mode of writing greatly
increased the difficulties of translation. As the
language had long ceased to be a living 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

194 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
punctuation, it was impossible to decide with cer
tainty the meaning of a word in every case.
Ambiguity would necessarily arise, not only from
the double signification of individual words, but
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 difficulties 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 : —
Ml^a— MI^S, i- 3 ; "13/1—1131, i 12 ; ^pj^_i-,nN,
ii- 2 ; 1^3^— 1^3^, ii 13 ; ^mitt?— ^Mllttj ; Vjj?£D—
"MpM3, ii 20 ; nbp — M^p, ii. 23 ; nijnM'MN —
: ' : - • t '- t i tt v
Ml VIM MN, H. 33 ; MlMMai— MlMMftl ; M^N—
PfS«, ii 34 ; Mia©1?, "V?M - rftiXpb, ""VtM, H. 36 ;

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 195
D"in— I3"5h, Hi 1 ; bft?—bp£>, iii. 9 ; 13D3M1—
13D3M1, Hi. 25 ; ni^iy— Ml^iy, iv. 4 ; D3 — D3
iv. 21 ; Qifffy— D^M1?, iv. 31 ; 111—111, v. 6 ;
yi#N1— yiipNI, v. 7 ; iTMilttJl— PPMiltpi, v. 10 ;
yiNl— yiNl, v. 19; M^— M^lto, v. 24; tfyM—
1tl>M, vi. 1 ; H2iT— M£tf, vi. 6 ; •'ayi— ^ayi, vi. 27 ;
1N1:,1— 1Nl:p, vi. 30; yiNl— yiNl, vii 7; M^S—
M^3, viii. 6 ; xv. 10 ; xx. 7 ; DE^DN — DQ"DN
T T •• • — : t ¦ -; 3
viii. 13; tOMIttJ — tDMitt}, ix. 7; D^W? — ff^ ;
lOT— 1E1", ix. 10; 131—131, ix. 11; xxiii. 17;
M^13 — M^13, ix. 21 ; r\^l — roj£, xi. 15 ;
mo" — mc; rhvaft — M^iaM, xi 16; a^iiM —
•• : v t t -: t ¦ "-
"py"liM, xi 18; tifo\ — Xtb}, xi. 21; MTT — MTJ ;
rib^vh — nbmb, xii. 9 ; nato — Mato ; Maattf —
t : t : t : t : t t t ¦• T ¦• :
Maa©, xii. 11; ijnt im*; 112p— 112p, xii 13 ; ty^ta
t t : :t :¦ t't ': ^ .. T
— 1J?at!J, xiii 11; natol— MattJl, xiii 16; prVs— M^3 ;
:t TTlTTl T \ TT
M^M— M^M, xiii. 19; yiM— jnpf, xiii. 23; "in«—
T : T -, T - - «T TT ••-: -
"1MN, xiii. 27 ; Ma3— ME3, xiv. 8 ; |is-aa— \)SSQ)
xv. 12; imi— "M"1, xv. 16; M3NQ— M2Na, xv. 18;
Mllltp— Mill0, xvi 12 ; xviii. 12 ; D"]iiltpPT1—
D"Mll#Ml, xvi. 15 ; MSl31— M^131, xvi. 18 ; itol—
Itol, xvii. 5; NT — NT1., xvii 8; ttfjNl. — IMN1,
xvii. 9; UJ12N— QJ13M, xvii. 16; DaiNM— DaiNM,
xviii. 3 ; v-pa — "H"!, xviii 6 ; BN1N — DN1N,

190 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

xviii. 17; ]i©ip3 — ]ittn>l, xviii. 18; 121" — 12*P,
xix. 1; nM3a — MM3a, xix. 8; pi^ail Tttai —
TV- T T - ' T : T .
pisaii lisai, xix. 9 ; la©'"— "iaf\ xix. n ; nanV
— una1? ; aVaMi— a^ani ; asm— qsmi, xx. 4 ; ny"^
t : t : ¦ : -. ; ¦ : t • : *-, ¦ : t * .
— MI>"a\ xx. 5 ; 2}h—wh, xx. 7 ; "3"1— "1"1, xx. 12 ;
Mato— Mato, xx. 15; asm— asm, xxi. 7; 112— lis,
xxi. 13 ; 1"^31— 1"V31: 0), xxii 7 ; alpai— BipBl,
xxii. 12; ntoy— M©J_r, xxii 15; ^#M1— ^#M1,
xxii. 19; nS« — M^N, xxiii. 10; ill "SN3aV —
it t v i" v • — :- : •
111 ^pa1?, xxHi. 17 ; aMITMQll — aMlTMD31,
xxiii. 32; ttj"«b — ty"N^, xxiii 36; ll© — 11©
• : ¦ t ¦• - t J
xxv. 36; "MllMl — "M'llMl, xxvi. 4; ipjMaPJ —
IMMaM, xxvi. 19; Mliyi— MllJH=ill}fi, xxvii. 11;
t * v: tt-:- t— :— t-:-
lV"— ib^, xxx. 6; ay— By, xxxi. 2; lytpa— iyt?:i,
xxxi. 5 ; nDQ— npQ, xxxi. 8 ; 11M"— 11PP, xxxi 13;
''111 — "131:, xxxi. 20; "MllM — "MUM, xxxi 33;
MJH— Mjn, xxxii. 32 ; nitfy— nfejy, xxxiii. 2 ; «1131
— T T TV T -I
— N1131, xxxv. 11 ; 3©— lt2J, xxxvi 15 ; NJfl- N^l
t- •* •• : tt :'
xxxvii. 4; 1^1— iV^I, xxxvii. 5; 1N&M— INtoM,
xxxvii. 9 ; f]ltoM— f)ltoM, xxxviii. 23 ; "3"y— a^y,
xl. 4 ; M«ipa— MNtpa, xl. 5 ; 1©>1— nt#>l ; iby^—
•\2^, xii. 10; D'niS — a^lia, xii 16; xliii. 6;
xliv. 20 ; «}}"— N2", xliv. 17 ; l»«— ia«, xliv. 26 ;
T T •• T
^toDM— ''toQM, xlvi. 9 ; nai^M— M3T;M, xlvi 16 ; 1. 16;

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 197
Dttf INlp — a©" INlp, xlvi. 17; BBttfe1? — tOBttto1?,
t :jx •• *i. t : * - t : • : ?
xlvi 28; pMn — pMn, xlviii. 9; MIMa — MIMa,
xlviii. 16; llty — 13ty; 123©1 — 133ffl'l, xlviii. 28;
M«a— M«a; an— an, xlviii 29; vii— 1*11 (?),
v ¦• t t -. : t : t— - : '
xlviii. 30 ; D3^a— asSa, xlix. 3 ; itoy— Itoy, xlix. 8 ;
maa— mi-si, xlix. 22 ; nipa— Mipa, L 7 ; im^im—
t: t t : - •¦': • *¦»- : • •
imiM, I- 17 ; liM— 11M, I- 21 ; INI— INI, 1. 26 ;
mi5— M"is, l- 27 ; na"bs— na"^B (?) ; ©lip-Va—
t vt t : • t ¦• : t • : x ' ':
©lip ^N, 1. 29 ; Ittjl^l— 1©1."1 ; 1^MM"-lVVMM",
1. 38; na« — Ma«, H- 13; 13D3 — 13D3, li. 17;
aiya— aiy:a, li. 34; ny:a— nya, H. 38; iiMa—
llMa, li. 50; ma— 1M2, H. 55; M1M1M— M1M1M,
•.¦•• I — • I — t tt:t t::t?
li. 58 ; iay— ia'y, Hi 12.
— T "
An eighth 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 weU 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 him. 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. Moreover, 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 oraUy trans
mitted. Becensional 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 pretty 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 : —
*7y— bit, i- 7, etc. ; 111M— M3MM, ii. 12 ; MM?3—
ISMa, H- 15 ; ix. 9 ; M31toa— Mpltoa, ii 23 ; b&—
by, H. 27; etc. ; Q^sn MiNa— "a^M pNO, iii. 3 ;
iVp'ppMM — I^M^MMM, iv. 24 ; 12M2 — 1M22, iv. 26 ;

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 199
17N13 — l^pra, v. 4 ; VPDM — ITMlM or ll^NtoM,
v. 10; QMltpMa — BMltpa, vi. 19; Ipn3-M3M3,
vi. 29; 13*723—13^3, vii. 10; ^MltlJ— TJM ! 1$, ix. 5;
D^pM— a-'pN, xi. 5 ; iy3— Myi, xi. 14 ; "t'VyM—
"tl^M (?), xi. 15 ; nM"Mtl'3 — MM"to3, xi. 19 ;
T T • : - T ¦ T
D^Ml^toMI — a^MltolMI, xii. 15; xvi. 15; Mlto3 —
1103, xiii 17 ; 1DaM3— 1Da33 (?), xiii. 22 ; BPH3—
B113, xiv. 9; NQipf M3b*a— «B1N M3Na, xv. 18;
T .• .. T •• T -: •• ¦¦ T" T T "
nWi — ybtifi, xvii 8 ; 13"Mll^Ma — 13"M1ltoa,
xviii. 12; 1toM3" — 1toa3", xviii 14; ri3 — INlp
: t ¦ : t* T :'TJ
xviii 20 ; BiaMI — BiaNM1:, xviii. 21 ; yij»*l —
"Mypll (?), xix. 7; py|M — pTON or pMtoN, xx. 8;
M31 "IM — M31M, xxii. 13; tlNl — TMN1, xxii. 15;
™ V T T T t :
BN3 laN^I — B13 iai3>1, xxiii. 31; nlllPf^l —
MGHp/pij xxv. 9 ; MaMM— laMM, xxv. 15 ; fiaiNI—
]1aMM1:, xxx. 18; iVVmI— I^MI, xxxi. 5; ylttto—
nyiato, xxxi. 18; "MpBD— "M1BD, xxxi 19; >ijrD31
•r '. • ': - t • : - t :t:
— INtoTj, xxxi. 24; m^yi — "M^Ml, xxxi. 32;
^N33M— ^MOaPj. xxxi. 38 ; MM1— ttJNl, xxxvi. 22 ;
11MB — llpB (?), xxxvi. 24 ; BM^I — Bp^l,
xxxviii. 11 ; l^ni— I'toNl, xlH. 12 ; sflipi^M— 13"^,
xlHi. 2; na3i — ^a3i (?), xliii 10; nayi — niyi ;
tt: - t : ' tt: tt:
May^— Miy% xliii. 12 ; Ml— Ml, xlvi. 20 ; piVmm—
M^yM, xlviii. 2; nSya— MN^a, xlviii. 5; ly"toyai—

200 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
T-tyai, xlvHi. 7; TN — My, xlviii. 16; PPM311
— M^Mail, xlix. 2; 1D3 — yD3 or Nto3, xlix. 8;
T v t ; " ' T *
"tolBM — ItBM, 1- H; 1"M— "IM, H- 2; nlpTa —
T T T ' T. •
MiaVta, Hi 19.
t : •
A ninth 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.
Without the vowel-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 ambiguity. Hence deviations would
naturally arise for which the Greek translator was
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
been almost as familiar as with his mother tongue.
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 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 201
points than afterwards is unquestionable. This
latter fact should be borne in mind, not so much
to paHiate the translator's errors, as to extenuate
the faults of his translation, by showing that he
was neither culpably nor carelessly to blame for
them. Not only was his derivation in every case
permissible, but also it was in several cases prefer
able. From the following list it will be seen that,
in a few instances, a variation arose from a sub
stitution of letters in connection with a different
derivation of a word : —
MMB-MB3, i 14; bll-^ft ii 13; ttW-ttWN, ii 25;
xviii. 12; bw — bbi, ii 36; llsy - 1^", Hi 6;
viii. 12; bnp-bbp, iii- 9; DD2-D13, iv. 6, 21;
123 — -TO, iv. 16; ]V or pt-M3t, v. 8; ny-tty,
vi. 1 ; ^13-M^3, vi. 11 ; ^3-^«, vii. 10 ; nBD or
?p"— P)D«, vii. 21; pi-nai, viii. 2; ix. 21; xvi. 4;
llty— llty, viii. 4 ; ^3— M^3, viii. 6 ; xv. 10; xx. 7;
SVa-M^a, ix. 10; baM-^ia, xi. 16; rhn-bn,
xii. 13; nty — lty\ xii. 15; xvi. 15; xxiii. 3;
yB3— yiB, xiii. 14; li. 20 seq. ; ]Mn — M3N, xv. 18 ;
MDM — DIM, xvii 17; Mlto — M"to, xviii. 20, 22;
133-113 or Ttt» xx. 10 ; N2"-M!P, xxi. 12 ; niTJ-
nMM, xxi. 13; yyi-Myi, xxii. 22; airn-aW.
xxiii. 8 ; DN3-B13, xxiii. 31 ; Mto3— Nto3, xxiii. 39 ;
rhy— by, xxx. 13; iy— ny, xxx. 20; mi— mim,
xxxi. 13; BM3-M13, xxxi. 15; xiii. 10; NT— MN1,

202 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
xxxii 21 ; Nto3-Nto3, xxxvii. 9; niUT— llttf, xii. 10;
pl-Bai, xlviii. 2; tyi"-tZni, 1. 38; iya-"VB>,
li. 38 ; ni3-M3a, H. 59.
A tenth cause of variation was word -division.
The illustrations of this kind of deviation are
exceedingly interesting. Here again the discrep
ancy was partly due to absence of punctuation. It
was 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 ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 203
ceased to be a spoken language, no two renderings
of an entire book would be in all respects alike.
Some of the variations due to word-division in this
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 : —
Mya mm — My^MN=Myaa«, H. 20 ; oriM Tin —
BMMT mH H. 31; feb — p^b, H. 33; D"311 —
B"ll B"y"l ; B^SM M3Ma — itobsft pSta, ii- 3 ;
Mliiy: - M^i-iy, v. 6 ; wa^ia - Miia-^ia (?)>
viii. 18; ^to — T[M : 1& ix. 5; y$ jlina -
HlMa, xii. 13; ab) Itoy — ikb llttjy, xvii. 11;
]aai — M|aa ;ai (?), xx. 2; p,3i ^in — M3in,
xxii. 13; B"liya— B"Tiya, xxii. 20; l-,p^ "mS>NM
—IIP BVOM, xxm. 23 ; MtoaTta-MM— MtoaM BMM,
xxiii. 33 ; 1y"aiM^— 131M tifci, xxxi. 2 ; i)jy Q3—
lylai, xxxi. 8; m^ia— (PPM) M1M Via, xii 9;
••• t:-:^tt' t
F]Mp3— ?ja(a)D3, xlvi. 15; i^ b"t ly — ijyjn *ny,
xlviii 32; YM""iy — BM"iy, xlviii. 34; toN^ll —
toMll, H- 58.
T
An eleventh cause of variation was word-com
position. A surprising number of deviations may
be explained by difference of spelling. The vowel-
letters i and i, which, before the Massoretic system
of notation was invented, to some extent supplied

204 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
the place of the vowels I and e, o and it, 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 submitted as examples
of cases where Waw was wanting in the ancient
manuscripts : —
1. MlaM^l = MaM!pi-Mah,7i, i 18; fe— 1^ =
^31", H. 13; M^p— nVp = M^1p, H. 23; niMMai
T 1— T I T I V V 1 ~ -
— MhMMai = MllMMai, H- 34 ; nl*?iy = M^iy—
T . - - t:-- : t ;t
rh)y, iv. 4; D3-1D3 = 1D13, iv. 6; MlpM = MJ?M
— HpM, v. 24; Mlai = Mai — Mai, vii. 31;
t-\ T T - T

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 205
TjM3.to— 1TM : 10 = TylMl : llto, ix. 5 ; rbll) — MVl3
= Mlbl3, ix. 21 ; nMltoy = MMtoy— MMtoy, xi. 15 ;
: • t -: t -: t : t
M^M — M"M = Ml"M, xii. 9 ; xxvii. 6 ; nllBl =
M121 — M121 or rilkl, xiv. 1; rfcjN — rfajK=
j-ll^N, xiv. 5 ; niM3 = MllNS — (l OT t) M1TN3,
t - - •• • : - •• : x / t: v :
xiv. 8; 11133 = 1133—1133, xiv. 9; B^MI—
B^Ml = B1^3M1: ; B3M1: — B!3M1: = B13iT, xx. 4 ;
Mlata = Mata — Ma-ta, xxiH. 20 ; niMBtoa =
MMB0a— MMBtoa, xxv. 9 ; xxx. 25 ; nlaato*? -
Maato1?— MaatoV, xxv- 12 ; "MilMi— "MilMi =
"MlllMl, xxvi. 4; Mll^Ma = MltoMa— MltoMa,
xxix. 1 1 ; li. 29 ; M^yM— M^M - M^ylM, xxx. 13 ;
T T : T T T T
Wiai = ^hai— VpTpl (?), xxxi. 4, 13 ; "P111M—
"nilM = "M1HM, xxxi. 33; Hy = iy — iy, xxxi.
39 ; ttVi" = yb^— yb>, xxxii 5; Nlimi = Miail—
B"Miai1, xxxii. 21; nyi— Myi=Mlyi, xxxii. 32 ;
: - : - r r t
ito — Ito = Hto> xxxvi 1 5 ; 12IMM = 12NM —
• • •, T T T T
(co) H^O' 2XXViii- n > MMtoa— M'Mtoa = MlMtoa,
xl. 5 ; 1Mia"=1Ma" (") laM", xiii 17; iniaM=1MaM
T '•. T * ' ~ * T -. T
— (">) iaMM,xHi 22; TTlto = lito— 110, xlviii 18 ;
Ml^to = M^to — M^to, xlix. 14; I^MlltoMai =
— T — *-. T ~ T T . .
IMitoMai — IMitoMai, xlix. 20 ; naii = isn —
-12TI, xlix. 28, 30, 33; "tolBM = 1toDM— («) ItBM,
1. 11 ; n"Ml3a = MM3a— MMsa, l. 13 ; yilt = yi)
TV " TV" T T ~

206 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
— yit, 1. 16; Iiy3-ny3 = 11ly.3, li- 38; n1aM =
MaM— Man, li. 58 ; nni3a = nnaa— nroa, H. 59.
The following are examples of cases where Yod
was absent from the ancient manuscripts : —
"• "iiy3 = iiy3— nys, Hi- 2; B^Bto = BBto— BDto
• t-: - t-: - •• t • t : • t : t t
(B^MBto), Hi 21; vii. 29 ; p^l = ]M1— \\$\, vi. 14;
B^B31 = B^Bill— bS?31, vi. 15; to"M3 = 0M3—
to«3, vi. 23; 1. 42; BM"M0a = B"MMtoa— B^MMlpa,
vi. 28 ; pfiyia = Miy:1a— Miyla, viH. 7 ; a"i"3i
= Bl"ll— BT3M, xiv. 22; ^M— TJM = TpN, xvi. 19;
B"lt = Bit— Bit, xviii. 14; B"Sto3a = B^to3a—
*T -T v.* • t : "-. ¦ T : \
a^toia, xviii. 23 ; ny^— nyai = M"ya\ xx. 5 ;
t : * t ¦ : t *.• ¦ : t •.* * :
p"12 = pi2 — pTC, xx. 12; ^"11^ = T)3M— T}11:,
xxviii. 6 ; Vl^SS — ITHN = 1"T1M, xxx. 21 ;
1"3113 — 13113— 13113, xxxii. 19; VT*M — 1T11 =
tt:* tt:- :-: t: tt:
1"T11, xxxiv. 3; TpN = tjm (>»])— |M, xxxvi. 17;
TMlM = 1M1M — 1M1M, xliv. 7 ; yQiN = -qi^ _
•* t • t : T :
11"M, xliv. 30 ; MIMa— MIMa =Ml"Ma, xlviH. 16 ;
: t-: • t • : t • :
•tVn = M^M— mV«, xlviii. 44 ; ^paM". = ^aM"—
^rpM":, xlix. 11 ; 1"Mll0Mai = IMitoMai— IMitoMai;
tPV$l = Bto^ — BtoN xlix. 20; B"111to = Blllto —
Bill to, 1. 6; M"Ml3a = MM3a — nM3a, 1. 13;
TV - x V - T T -
lasy-ia?y = va^y, 1. 17 ; M^yss— M^yss =
T T -. T T-. ' t T: t : T •.• t: t :

THE ORIGIN OF THE VARIATIONS. 207
M"^yB3, 1. 29 ; ^"JTJpB = ^M"JpB — ^nipB
(or ^Mips), 1- 31 ; ysa— ysa = Y"sa, li. 20.
A twelfth cause of variation was word-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 wTere unacquainted.
Some indications also occur of Aramaic influence.
As Knobel1 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 n^3
is rendered "overcome" in Greek, the meaning
expressed is rather Aramaic than Hebrew. In
chap. 1. 42, where the verb p^ri is translated
" having " in the Septuagint, either the texts were
3 Jeremias Chaldaizans, mdcccxxxi.

208 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
different, or this verb was then given its ordinary
Aramaic meaning of having or possessing. A few
other instances naturally suggest either Aramaic
meanings, or meanings 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 — BM (|M), iii 1; 11T — IMMai (llT), v. 31 ;
iMiiy— iMii'y (iMiiy:), vii 29 • nn— Hm (iim),
x. 13; li. 16; lily— lily (lily), xiv. 4; mVm—
M^IM (rthtii), xxxi. 21 ; 10— 10 (lIM), xxxvi 15.
A thirteenth cause of variation was Greek-
transmission. 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 suffered 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 VARIATIONS. 209
discussion. In the work of retranslation, though,
a 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 be 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 Thesaurus, may be given here.
The foUowing possible cases will be sufficient for
the present purpose : —
avaarpo(prj'i for airoaTpo(f>r)<;, vi. 19 ; KaTevOrjvovTCOv for
KarevdvvovTcov, XV. 11 ; fiavad for fiavva, xvii 26 ;
/M^TVp for f*-vTPV, xx. 17 ; vaos for \a6<;, xxx. 18 ;
eVt fiepov for i<fc' r/fiepas, xxxi. 1 9 ; ot/xou? for w/xoz/?,
xxxi. 21 ; w aBwv for e&>? aZov, xxxiv. 5 ; xeved for
%eped, xxxvii. 16 ; 7% for t?5?, xlvi. 27 ; h tttotjto?
for r] a7rro??TO?, 1. 2 ; iv vol for etc a ov, li. 20 ; aKevos
for c-KOTo?, li. 34.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE CHARACTER 0E THE TRANSLATION.
It has been frequently asserted, and is at present
commonly believed, that the Alexandrian version
of the Old Testament has been very unequaUy
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 original
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
with 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.
the 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 essentiaUy 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
whole work. The narrative portions, though, it will
be found, have been more accurately rendered than
have the poetic portions, of the book. The difference,
which is very perceptible, is significant. It admits,
however, of a rational explanation. While 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 original 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 nearly 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-

2 1 4 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 Hterally
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 foUows 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." 1
The second feature of the translation is its faith
fulness. This characteristic is specially 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
1 "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 masoreth. 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 establish 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 wTas 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 words 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 "\ 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." 1
The third feature of the translation is its purity.
This feature refers to the original of the Greek.

1 " Hiezu kommt noch, dass eine Anzahl der im griechischen
Texte mehr stehenden Wortchen Hebraismen sind. Auf hellenisti-
schem Boden kbnnen diese nicht in den Text gekommen sein. Im
Gegentheil hatte ein Uebersetzer, dem es nur darum zu thun war,
seine Leser mit dem Inhalte des Buches bekannt zu machen, alien
Grund gehabt, z. B. 1 als Zeichen des Nachsatzes wegzulassen.
Dass er es nicht thut, ist uns ein weiterer Beweis der scnipulbsen
Genauigkeit seines Werkes." Der masoreth. Text und die LXX-
Uebersetzung, 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 multiply 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 probabHity, 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 Hkely 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 Abweichungen beider Texte unbe-
fangen betrachten, so lasst sich nach inneren Griinden in vielen Fallen
mit dem grbssten Grade von Wahrscheinliohkeit urtheilen, dass hier die
Alexandrinische Recension uns noch den urspriinglichen Text liefert,
die masorethische einen etwas Uberarbeiteten. Dies gilt zuvbrderst
in Bezug auf etwas grossere Stellen, welche der masorethische Text
hat, nicht aber die Sept., wo iiberall viel wahrscheinlicher ist, dass

THE CHARACTER 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. Referring 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." 1
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.2
Moreover, he quotes, with apparent approbation,
the words of Cheyne in his valuable commentary
dieselben spatere Zusatze sind, als dass sie, dem Text urspriinglich
angehorend, sollten durch spatere Abschreiber oder Sammler ausge-
lassen sein." Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 321.
1 Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 131. (Quoted from Cheyne on
Isaiah.) 2 Untersuchungen iiber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches
Micha, p. 223.

220 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
on the book of Isaiah, where the latter 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 ' or
' 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 which 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 differences 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-
1 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 singular 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
pecuHar. This is the case especially with proper
names, compounded with Jehovah, which have
both a longer 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.

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." 1 Should this
last statement seem too strong, it is safe, at
least, to say that the Greek should everywhere
be consulted in translating the Hebrew 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 einen kurzem, vortreffiicheren Text
vor sich gebabt, und man miisse demnach in alien schwierigen
kritischen Streitfragen den letzten Entscheid von der Septuaginta
holen." (Quoted from Kiihl's Monograph.)

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATION. 225
few interesting and striking examples of superior
text, which 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 before 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 ; " wherefore 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 Holy One of Israel " for
"the ark of the covenant of the Lord," chap.
iii. 16 ; " 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. 16; "the

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 wThich
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 belong to this investigation. 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, because, 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
reading of these versions better than the reading
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 were 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 by
comparing the individual texts themselves, it will
be seen that sometimes one, sometimes two, and
sometimes three of these ancient versions agree
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 combined testimony becomes practicaUy
indisputable, and furnishes an overwhelming argu
ment in favour of the Septuagint.

CHAPTER IX.
THE RESULTS OP THE INVESTIGATION.
After having discussed the 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 but 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 biassed and one-sided, and his 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 discussing 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
we, 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 better reading
than that of the Massoretic text may not here and
there have been retained." 1 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 sonach der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung jeden
kritischen Werth absprechen, so soil damit nicht gesagt sein, dass
sich nicht darin hie und da die Spuren einer bessern Lesart als der
masorethischen erhalten haben kbnnen." Einleitung, p. lvii.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 231
of the first rank can be proved by rational and
convincing evidence. Had Graf devoted more
attention to ascertaining 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 investigation
proves conclusively that the Septuagint was trans
lated from a special manuscript. This manuscript,
though differing 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 Hebrew 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 far 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 RESULTS 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
bet. Apparently, there was a gradual change from
the archaic to the cursive, and from the cursive to
the Aramaic or rectangular form of writing. 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 quite 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 irregular
alphabets. This investigation also shows that the
translation of this book 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 histpry. 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. 235
before the time of the Septuagint, it seems after
wards, as has 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." 1 The
truth of this observation is undeniable. 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,
1 Edinburgh Review, October, 1885,. p. 457.

236 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
it was fixed at first for public and official 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. Cornill, 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
vening 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
1 Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 102.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 237
manuscript belonging to the third century before
Christ, only when there are good grounds for
believing that the oldest and best Greek manu
script that we possess substantially preserves the
original 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 1311, in the 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. ; wrhile 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
" breaking in " mean literally digging through or

238 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
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 fc^prNl^ are translated in the
Septuagint by the phrase Ovk e'er™ raiha, 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, that 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
*
this 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 13pl2 ("our righteous
ness "), the Greek has »i2lM" (" Jah or Jehovah is
' ' tt : x
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 whereby 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 followed
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 righteousness ; " or, regarding the
latter words in the original as a proper name,
after the analogy of " Jehovah- Jireh," Gen. xxii.
14; " Jehovah - Nissi," Exod. xvH. 15; " Jehovah-
Shammah," Ezek. xlviii. 35, it may be better trans
lated, " and this is his name which 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 which Jehovah shall call him, Jeho
zadak." The order of the words in both texts is
exactly alike, the only difference in the readings
being Vpl)£ (" Tsidkenu "), in the one text, for
iTTSlM" ("Jehozadak"), in the other text. As
' tt : '
"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 INVESTIGATION. 241
maticaUy, " 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 this
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 Hebrew
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 JEREMIAH.
that he never for a moment supposed that the
future ruler he both promised and described was to
be a Divine Being.
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. Robertson Smith,1
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 INVESTIGATION. 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 distinguished 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. xii. 8 ; of Jacob, as a synonym for
Israel, in Isa. xliv. 1,2; xiv. 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, Rashi, 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, he explains the
words to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was a servant
of Jehovah only in the sense of being a scourge.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 245
His comment on the expression reads, " he should
do my pleasure to recompense my enemies." 1
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 Babel
(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-
1 'jwd jhe^ 'Jin nc'jm-

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 equivalent to
Chaldea or the Chaldeans. As this is the actual
rendering of the Greek in this verse, the singular
term is proved to be a Jewish cipher, and its
significance is made very plain. Properly, there
fore, the word Chaldea 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 antiquity, 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 Chaldea, because of their

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 247
captive condition in that 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 weU 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 belonged 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.
prophetic 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 corresponds. The words, as
they are found in Hebrew, are exceedingly obscure
and difficult to explain. The variant reading in
the version was due merely to a slight difference of
punctuation, the consonants having been exactly
alike ; but 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 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 249
by the ancient Mosaic 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 idolatry. 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 Revised Version has in the
margin " her trees." This is the rendering, 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 partly because of their usefulness,

250 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
yet they 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 -r^i, and the
Greek translator -pr 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 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 251'
should read "in the year," etc., as suggested in the
margin of the Revised 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 Revised Version, "I
wUl 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 Revisers 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 i for a i 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 Syriac, 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 reading, 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
unpunctua|;ed text, the superiority of the Septuagint
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 with which, under the most
disadvantageous 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
given. These may be arranged 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
exceUent 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, who asks if they suppose that

254 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
prayers and sacrifices can rescue them 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 Revised 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 stiU 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 what 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 folly. The point of the prophet's illus-

THE RESULTS OF. THE INVESTIGATION. 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 readings in the ancient
manuscripts. StUl 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 every 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 by 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. While 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 niSll, the translator apparently read,
with Schleusner, niyi- In ver. 12 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 fruitful 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 pleased with
thee," gives a superior rendering of this portion of

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 257
the verse, and seems to show that 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 having mistaken the
meaning of the Hebrew word for wing or skirt,
which may have been written anciently without
the letter 2, 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 put wood into his food
(bread)," which is supported by the Aramaic
version, shows how the passage may be intelligibly
translated. As the sentence stands in English, 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 usage of the language.
Neither can the word be properly applied to
Jeremiah. His fruit could not reasonably mean

258 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
either his activity, or his posterity, or his words of
prophecy, all of which have been suggested by way
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
Greek reading, " for the crown of your glory (your
glorious crown) has been taken down from your
head," again shows how the sentence should be
rendered. The Hebrew word, translated " princi
palities," in the Authorized Version, and " head-

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 259
tires," in 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 singular
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 bold 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
ing 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 Revised 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 necessarHy
mean to break- bread. It only has this signification
when the word for bread, as in Isa. lvHi 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. xviH. 14
should be reconstructed by the help of the Sep
tuagint. While the general sense of the Hebrew

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 261
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
reading 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
simHar 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 waters borne violently by the wind turn
aside ? "
Lastly, in the middle of chap, xii 9, the Septua
gint reading, " the same is the great pit" 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 essentiaUy wrong, as he also asserts. The words
in the original do not properly admit of either
rendering, and cannot, as they stand, be grammati-

262 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
cally construed. The Hebrew' reading here is
utterly indefensible, and was evidently due to
textual imperfection, or to erroneous transcription,
or, perhaps, to both. The originals of the present
Greek and Hebrew texts are very similar ; and the
one, as scholars know, was easily derivable from
the other by 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 pit 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 by Movers and Hitzig, as
well as by Graf himself, and as man}?- others wUl
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 ; xiii. 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.
Hi. 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. xiii. 1,
instead of " Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah," the
Greek reads, " Azariah the son of Maaseiah." As
the name Azariah occurs in chap. xHH. 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, xii 5, "Salem" for "ShUoh" 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. 13, 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 Ndblus, the modern
name of the ancient Shechem.1 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 ob©
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 was either llpr]l, or more probably,
perhaps, 11N11- This latter name or title denotes
" the son of Adar," which was apparently the
1 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii., p. 1222.

266 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
designation of an ancient Syrian divinity, akin if
not equivalent to the old Assyrian deity, an appel
lation of which appears in the word Adrammelech,
as found in 2 Kings xvH. 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 probabUity more
like the Assyrian original, which, Schrader says, is
written Na-bi-uv-ku-du-ur-ri-u-su-ur in the cunei
form inscriptions, but was pronounced Nabd-kudur-
ri-usur by the native Babylonians.1 Throughout
this book, the word in Greek is almost regularly
Written Naftovyphovoo-op, corresponding to 12N313113
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 the 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.2 According to all analogy, in the Scripture
spelling of Assyrian proper nouns compounded with
1 Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, Zweite Auflage, p. 361.
2 Ibid. p. 416.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 267
" Nebo," the latter term should begin the name, as
in Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, and Nebushazban.
The fact that the corresponding word in Greek
is XafiaywQ, and that the two succeeding words,
each of which begins with " Nebo," are NafZovo-ayap
and Nafiovo-apefc, 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 Ammon, 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 stUl further significance. It proves
conclusively that the mode of spelling and pro
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
bid the precise reproduction of a pecuHarly Semitic
sound, especiaUy 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 wanting in his language, 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 divergences 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 wiU 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 & for an 1, as TaXaaB
for -ry^a (Gilead) ; an e- for an %, as 'Efi/i^p for
112N (Immer) ; an 6 for an &, as ToSoXlai for
IM^VlJ. (Gedaliah) ; an o for an it, as 'A&p for
11-ty (Azzur), and Tlao-yap for unttfa (Pashhur) ;
an e for an # and an e for an «, as SeXkjfi for
Q'pttj (Shallum), it is unreasonable to suppose
that the change 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. In corresponding cases, it will be found,
he has reproduced such vowels with scrupulous
fidelity, as an i in AavlB for Tn (David), and & in
ra/iapto<; for M^IQJ (Gemariah), an a in 'Paxdfi
for 331 (Rechab), an e in 'PayfjX for blT) (Rachel),
and an ft in Hap,ovrj\ for 7S}1tt$ (Samuel). When,
in other books, moreover, the Septuagint writes an
a1 and an 6 in 'Zap.^mv for IIqJOQJ (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, that 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
observe that there are good grounds for believing
that changes were at some time arbitrarUy 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 grammar.
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 ptyjj MM,
t : —
as though they were a verb of the Hithpael species,
My^MN. According to the Massoretic system, this
latter form is not now properly permissible, the
law of euphony requiring MytOSN- As the trans
lator evidently had before 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
1 " Manche scheinen erst nach der Entstehung der LXX. entstan-
den zu sein." Die Israelitischen Eigennamen, etc., p. 125.

THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 271
form not been legitimate. It is highly improbable
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
when his Hebrew manuscript was made. In ver.
33 of this same chapter, there occurs a group of
words, 03 13 Vl'tib (not only, but also), which is
peculiar in Hebrew at the present time, but which
at one time may possibly have existed in the
language. In chap. iv. 5, the verb itf^tt, which is trans
lated " aloud " in the Revised Version, is rendered
in the Septuagint by the adverb tibft, as though
the latter were formerly a synonym for -[tea- In
chap. v. 12, the expression Nin_NlV being ren
dered by Ovk eo-Ti Tavra (these things are not so),
indicates that the word fc^pr, 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 QTlSto> the ordinary Hebrew word
¦ — t ;
for lips. He evidently found in his manuscript a
combination of letters similar to that in the
Massoretic text ; and instead of Q^C®, undoubtedly
read oafc}. Hence this latter word seems clearly
T T
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 nVi are rendered
by the Septuagint el Be fif). The translation is inter
esting, inasmuch as it seems to indicate that the
ancient punctuation may have been nV), a form
that is equivalent to NTDN1, 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 present Hebrew expression Ty "Mtt, the
Septuagint has iy ''Mpiy.
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, wrhere the preposition ft (from) is rendered
in the Septuagint 3 (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 133 rarely occurs with the preposition
ft (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 ft
(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 ^N and by, which are rightly rendered in
the version by e« 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 ^n for an
by 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 airai; Xeyo/xeva, or words
that occur but once throughout 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 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 275
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 i for a -| and of a n for a t ; in the
latter case, it was due to the absence of the letter 1.
Each of these kinds of variation occurs with fre
quency. 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 investigation 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 corrections 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," pr^tt), which is naturally fol-
- T
lowed by the accusative of the person or the thing
sent, is followed by the accusative of the person sent
with the letter b 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 b (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 rendering of
each passage under consideration, therefore, the
present verse should be translated, " Behold, I will
send many fishers, declares Jehovah, and they shaU
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 THE INVESTIGATION. 277
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 : —
•sjrjM— Y"inm; T/iy— iriyrr, iv. 7; ^nfc— ^mnm,
iv. 20; my— Q^iyn, iv. 26; DM^yito— M^yiaM,
tt *tv t ~ :- ~ :- -
x. 21; ^30 — Di33^PT, xii 14; QilTpfc M£M —
D^inkM, xiv. 15 ; DT11M1— QillMlM, xviii. 21 ;
nnMll. — DM1M1., xx. 17; Dvp'N DM — D'nftNM
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 -lo vino-
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 pronoun 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 following
instances occur : —
t£D2M — DEB3, iv. 10; njM M^IM — YVft. vii. 11;
O^IM — DM131 ; MllNiT — DITMllNI ; D^3M1: —
DM^31, vii 18 ; M1&M— DM^lto, vii 20 ; TllM—
•• : v t - v •¦ : ' v v —
^ll, vii 23; DyM — lay; M^lMl — DM^lMl,
— t ; tt •— • — — t • : — :
viii. 5 ; nyil^il — ^Myiltp, xi. 5 ; D^IIMIM —
DIT11M1, xi. 22 ; M^OSl— VvJD/aj, xii 14 ; D^ftM
— DTp^O, xiii. 13; D^lM] MllNMI — DTM13N1
DT331, xiii. 14 ; D^13M— DJTNm xiv. 13 ; 3311
D^DIDll— DTD1D11 DPP3311, xvii 25 ; Dl^M— Ipl"1,
xx. 8 ; DyM— lay, xxvi. 23 ; xl. 6 ; D^13M1—
D3t'«''331, xxvii. 15 ; CJipn — 1ffi~Jp, xxxi 23 ;
M3ylMM— D^Miy/lM, xliv. 22 ; nl3^1DM-DTMl3'np,
xlvi 4 ; n^M^EM— IMDM^E, xlix. 26.
t t : ¦ - '¦•:-:•
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 Greek language 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 Greek translators
made mistakes more frequently than did the

282 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.
Massorites, owing chiefly 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 foregoing
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 will be found to be of the utmost value for
the purposes of text-criticism.

CHAPTER X.
THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

CAPUT L

¦wari-bis rnn iti» rrirrj-iai
ViinaJa bni»i ibs
(lfc»*) 1W«3
(f IBS) pttK 1»
tfnibi-l» V<bs
d(nnx an) nns
T ba-bs bMI
eibs? Tr-ris 'diti
mabfta-bsi Dii-b:?

Desunt
DM»»b '"lai-b? Deest

WTaii iiai 1
mroya iw«
-i«s 2
lias
o'my 3
¦ .' nibi-i?
ibsbSba 4
.ins 6
ba-b? 7
ba ns/i
1-p-ns <j
njn ni^n to
niabaan-byi D^n-b? "oi-inbi
1TBT 11
hnsh ^:s
inwb ¦nai-by 12
n^ffl ¦'bs 13
knsh ->js

0 ut Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Micah 1
.TBJerjS. c ut Ezek. 1:2. d Cf. 4 : 10;
f ut vs. 18. S ut 18 : 7. h ut 24 : 3. ' Targ. "wans.

1; Zeph. 1:1. b Targ. ^ajrt
14:13; 32: 17. » ut Ezek. 2 : 9!
k ut 24 : 3.

284 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [1:14-2:13
ntn nriBFi 14
¦jissw "yisn mabBB-bab miss mabttB ninson-bab 15
ma-ap niainn bo bsi a^ap mnBirrba byi
Deest nmbs 17
bnnn-bsi omasa smn-bs ^nns~]s cmasa nnrrbs
^b^nb "i;s ?jps ia ama'aa nniasb
"mm-asa ' Deest ^asi 18
dn;Tn dit. rata
¦oba-bab Vnisa ni»na ' "nanbi msna nianbi bna HB?bi
mw mini irfcab p-isn-ba-b?
Deest ' manbb
mm -IBs ib^anb ib^snb mm-asa 1 9

CAPUT II.

Desunt j

ibsb ^bs nimnai imi 1
Dbuhm ^rsa nsipi ' sn'bn 2
IB^l IBSb
m-oT 5b "Trot
ibs btnto/? tiiija ^ns ^nab s'b yisa "laiaa "nns inab
nim nsiit
8omby sian n»n nmbs sian nan 3
nim hiBs ' mm-tisa
'nnsraa-ban ninBfflB-ba'i 4
liabsi mas psa nanh niBbari mas psa niwi 6
ba-on ba-on pis. 7
Deest kmm-QS? 9
amnbs 'o^ia ima^nn D">nbs ia 110.^:1 1 1
a ut 15:4; 24:9 etc. b Cf. 23 :4; 30:10; 46:27; Deut. 1:21 etc. *¦" ut
vss. 8, 19. d ut vs. 10.— Targ. "fl Kai\ e Targ. TTO=1. f Cf. 15: 20.
S Ttrg. •jirrts. hTarg.T2N. » Targ. rPSTJ. k Alex. nim Tax. 'Targ.
ipaa k6 k*otm>.
' t i t t - : -

2:12-23] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

285

"isa nann
niisa nnb laasmi
baian bianb ibai-sb "Sami
diatna inyi
(SpB'ttil) BSjb ipi^'i fi?T,
Tn>'s' mm-asa 'ins iafy
d^isb inbi
•jims ia
nws Tnbi
Vriina ia
Tiam insii i^maiaa Tien
mm-asa ins Tar* ia ia
Tnbs
Orns) ia "wina sbi

, inpna . . . ipnara
tfb nays sb
ba-by *fbs ia
gnay py-ba
nar (najtaass =) nysns ao
' (bimaTna ipsH&s)
nas nba (mils iBa)'»iTTpn» ' (?iiab) iaTb
T.niaiya' naroa nim
'by'an t.?T! ¦#11

isa lain 12
n'-isa misa anb a'amb 13
oian;ibai-sb lana 15
nnsra T>iy
ipl^T^T. 16
nya. Tribs mm-ns *pw> 17
5fiia sjabia
mixa Tiib is
lino ia
110s nib
ina ia
inain T^ia-wai iny-i Train 19
mm-ns Taw ia1; yi-ia
Tnbs
T.bs inir© sbi
nisaas nim
inpna . . . irnato 20
mays sb
ba-by ia
]ayi py-ba
nar ny'a ns
nas yir nba pmo 21
imo ib
iaia> anaa 22
nim iahs
aibyan 23

iyi

autGen.l5:l; 41:49 etc. b ut II. Chron. 7:7.— Targ. SWJjA "p^?; K^
N*0. c Targ. fm^V]. d TarS- ^1?- e Targ. ^03? "flfSVi. fCf.Ps. 137:1^
e'ut Ezek. 20 : 28 (Gk. & Heb.)/1' Cf. Ezek. 16 1 15. '» Targ. nwa.

286

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[2:24-33

'mail jnpi»a nbp aiya
laia-iab (nnB=sns)nyiB
(rrna nsnpa) mi nsnp nana
(nwina) noina
' b©pia spiia (?E]?t,,b)
(ib ffisia) tataisns lasm nans nabn
bsiffli Ti?a
aniiini aniabai
nns ias 13 b'iibs pyb
i?nibi
ib'y ias
c°nias
lyiiaiii laipi-as
mini -ps-ibs iin ti* ibdb ia
nisp Bbtiii niasn ibdbi db?ab
(?iaaiin) iiain
ia amaa Babai anycs abba

ain nbas
tansii sbi mnizja niisa
nim ias ns mm-iai eiyai»
iiy T^s siaa-srbi ian sbn
nbina niiy nba nawnn
mnop
(fToro) Tail iatain iiy na
sapb 'niyin ris-as 13 p-s'b
Tairns

:niaii naitoa n>p_ niaa
iaia lab nia 24
mi nssri
nnasn
nfflinu cima 25
sib osia iiasm inans
bsioi nia 26
ami© amaba
nns ias pyb biibs 27
ianibi
ibs'ias Bias
?Jiyi©1i-BS IBIpi 28
Tnbs iin Tna> ibdb ia
mini iaiin 29
ia Brows aaba
inpb 30
Basin nbas
jmiii misa
mmiai isi Bns liin 31
mbs iiy siaa-sib lan
nba niiy nbina na»nn 32
miisp
7311 iaain na 33
-ns Vrab niyin-ns aa-pb
II-' T t V 1 - T
Tan

» Inc. vs. 24. b Targ. Kjaa?l? NTanns&a. c Targ. "prTiBX. d Cf.
11 : 13. e Inc. vs. 31.— Targ. siVag. f*Targ. r^niriisa.

2:34-3:6] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

287

TBaa

Tsaaa 34

a,,Bi

*D1

Deest

Biaiias

ninnaa-sb

ninnaa-sb

nbs-ba-by

n|s-ba-by

niarib isa" ibrn ia
: • t

niatob isa ib|n-na 36

nr nsa aa. ia

nr nsa as 37

bTntaaaa

Tnaaaa

ib imbatn

anb imbarn
v t

CAPUT IK.

On) BS

¦jn 1'asb 1

iiy iibs aiinn airan
* T

ny nibs awn

sinn nissn

sinn psn

aiai bVi

Biai aiyi

(iaioni) iai»m

aiiai

isiB-bs

BIBtD-b? 2

aiann-by

Qiail-by

ciaia(a) aiya

laiaa iaiy.3

T.roiai

isnsiai

d-jb opiab Biai Biyi (vmi/iaaii mn sib

cipbai Biaai iyaaii 3

naiT m»s (nsa) ias

' naiT nias risai

ba(-iaBa)-i3Ba iaban "psa

nban nasa

r-bsi asi ib nsip naya sibn ias ib

insip nnya sibn 4

CainiTiya ,^nimya) V.Ty3

nns iiiya tpbs

n|sn niyin

niyin 5

i> nn»y

nnray 6

(naoia) "natn

na»a

fiabn T

sin nabYi

* Cf. Gen. 4: 10, \l; I.Kings 2:5. b Targ. Tpssnn c Cf.Ps. 102: 7.
d Cf. 23: 1 seq. e Vid. vss. 8, 12. f Targ. ",MK -fW. '

288

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

{3: 7-17

Birran3iaTm aimatm
bntTbTn nntoy n
(iaite) iaiwn o3"1®71
mini nnaa niaa nsim mini nnins niisa nsim
nssa ntesnrites nns-ba-by natep nss'a i»s mis-ba-by 8
barren cnatgi nssa bsinn
mnnbwi mnnb©
"mma dnm-o iso nb pisi nibs mnmia iso-ns fnsi
Deest nnins
nmat *bpa inni nmar bpa mm 9
psn-nsi pmns sjsam -ns asani pisn-ns 5|3nni
prrnsi psn
nst-baai nsrbaa-Bai 10
nnins
nim-asa
bsi©i natea ncsa njjis 1 1
bsi»i naiaa naito 12
Baa 13&1 b^ss-sib nas sb
anyatrsb 13
¦ms 14
biawm nyi 15
aiaia nini-asa psn-by -asa nann aiaia psa 16
nann mm
bsiirn teiip mia nim mia
sbi 1351 sb ab-by nbyi ab lisp sbi ab-by nbyi aVi
ip&i iippi sbi ia
]«inn roai ann aip*a " sinn roa 17
nibs aiian-ba upVi nian-ba nibs npai
Deest Bbttimb nim BOb

Desuntj
bsiisi insa pis
gbsi«i naffii ibs nans
hBaiby 133 Bites sibi
' JBab nas sbi
T nyate-sb kmi-bs
biaima (aiy'i) nyi

a Targ. 'prtM. 6 ut Lev. 19 : 29; Il.Chron. 21 : 13. c Vid. vss. 6,12.
d Targ. ¦pltoB oa niw*. e ut Deut. 24 : 1. f Targ. sMfeg'TC. S Vid.
vss. 6, 8. h ut II. Kings 8 : 11. ' Cf. Nahum 1:2. k fai-g.'ymTj. 1 ut
33 : 15; 50 : 4, 20.

3:18-4:31 THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

289

nisyia
"niasisn bsai n&s psa
^ bBmnias
*i| nim ias
dBinbs nbna
(iaisipn) ib-isipn as
laiirm
enyia nias mwa iaa *[s
niaa
BBtel?
fiaianni smaii
rB«ip inbs
"aaiiao n&isi
'lb (Biaina) Biiay
' niyaan ¦jiam
kBmaa-nsi laaanj

mil©
flBU psa 18
aainias
TS 19
iaas nbna
ib-isipn ias
iai»n
nyia n»s niaia ps 20
bptsi
aiiBte-by 21
iaiann B311
amnbs
Bainaitea nsis 22
"lb lans
myaaa 23
nan
Bmaa-ns 24
laoani 25

CAPUT IV.

aiiai . . . airn
'iibb iiajipra iiai-Bsi
1151 i?btbi
' yaiaai
pbteiiia Binbs-ns ibbm
"Bbicni ia»ibi mini ic^b
Biarp-by

annn . . . awn 1
13BB T3>ip^ man asi
man sbi
nyaisai 2
ibbnm
nbwiiibi mini iji«b 3
Biasp-bs

a ut 16: 15; 23:8 etc. b Targ.^innriax. c Cf. 11 : 5. d ut II. Sam.
20:19; 21:3. e Targ. J^Saa NnfiK Kl^ttSa"] SSS. f Targ. "jinSKntfl.
Ps. 60 : 4 ; 147 : 3.

S Cf. Hab. 1 : 12. h ut 6 : 14;' 8:11; Zech.' 11 : 16;
1 TiJn^ Wan. k Targ. -jirTfla !VH. ' Cf. Zech. 9:7. m ut 11:2, 9.-
Tar'g! aV^ni ianiisi.

290

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[4:4-15

Bairtbsb

nimb 4

("itep ,nibiy) nbiy

nibiy

nnm itjas

nnm ffiis

Bbwiiia yais'ii

siyipten obffiTvai 5

nas

nasi

IBID (psa) psn-by iypn

psar ibii» iypm

(isa) bsba

isba

nas

nasi

ioai (is») (?)cisi»3n

03 ISffi" 6

(sail) ssii yoa

sasi yoa 7

fjwi

S^IS

Biiyni

T15>

¦jna asm psa

aiaii tsb

nbs-by

nsr-by 8

iiboi

iibo

Deest

rhn

B3B

13BB

latsi aianam

aianan ia»ai 9
T 1

dnns

^ns 10

Deest

Q?>

nyaa en?m

nyaai

Btesaiy

BBsn-iy

liasi

'ipsi 11

(nsio) nyin mi

fliste na mi

ni3tb sib

'niijb sib

Deest

n|sa 12

'ipSffiB

Bip&ffiB

Bp»3

aiaay? 13

siai pa

•JIB 15

yaffiii

yipttai

.iina

ib?

a Targ. SttK b ut 12 : 6. c avaXafimTeg. d Cf. 1 : 6; 14:13; 32: 17.
Targ. ¦jSM. f'Targ. i?^ ttDS"fla. S ut Ezek. 38 : 9, 16. Targ. NS3S3.

4:16-29J THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 291

(Bisa) isa nan

nan 16

Bbwiiia

abffiiii-b52

(B113S) Bill's

Biiasa

"pnia psa

pnian psa

bmia

nnia n

T.PTi

fail is

,tj?ai) ram iffisa nam iab ninpi^

iab i^-nain iab niTp 19

¦>ab (tj?am

c(nya«) n'yat)

inyaffl

sipa lain itei

sipa iate-by' law 20

(iyai) lyai Obns) bnsn iiti

inyim y$i ibns ni«

inyim

(Bipa) as-nsis

oa-nsis 21

(isiffi) niisiffi bip yaiffl

iBiin bip nyates

iay (ibis) dib_is ia

iay biis ia 22

Biaiaa sbi

nan twoa sbi

naais nam psn-by imsi inh-

•nam psmns. imsi 23

(r»)

'inai

Biffiyi nam

Biiayi nam 24

Bibnbnna (ibnbnnn)

ibpbpnn

bis r«

Bisn ts 25

eiaia

laian 26

fcsa insra Biiyn-bai

nana iiiy-bai

(iba) nas ibs pin lasai

ibs pn-iasa

ias ns

ias na-i? 27

-sbi inat inana sbi iniai-ia inana sbi inar imai-ia 28
naaa alius naaa aiws-sbi
Bpsn-ba nma naiii nwpi iiyn-ba nnia nap nail 29
B'^ai (niiyaa) Biiha' isa Bisaai fliaya isa
Bisa-byi hiS3.na (flipyai)
' "nairy my-ba naiTy iiyn-ba
* ut 6: 20.— Targ. KJ31TJ1 S^xa. b Targ.PQ^O. " Targ.n?ai2f. d Cf.
II Kings 24: 15. e Targ. S03"!«3. f ut 49: V; 51: 58. 6 Targ. ">arp *!3
WH*. h Targ. S'jaBSJ^.

292

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[4:30-5:8

atm-ps Deest iiyni •Jlpi
aT.aay

"msa ffiism
(aiainmby) aiainb

atm-psi inte 30
iiyn-i3 ''BinnBiaay nia 31
T T
nisa imsn
Bijihb

CAPUT V.

1S11
(i»i-BS=ffiis) ffii-as isaamas inpaai
nini-asa (ias) cBnb nbosi Deest
ip»(b) sb
Deest
(bis) (13SB11) 13SB1
d(ibnia ,isba) ibr-sb ia
eBinbs ta&ffiai
, nam fBinbs asffiai
ma-iy asn lyina nns
Ipffi 1B31
laitai nana Bisatiin-ba giai ia
omniawaa
Bnis "yatesi
(laaibm) 1111am niair inaai
Iin (B13TB ,Bi?TB) 'fliai'T BiDIO

spsn i
©i-as ©is isaamas lapaa
nb nbosi BS1 2

sian 3
(bis) lasa
ibsia 4
omnbs tasffia
nan tjs Bmnbs tasiaa 5
niaiy asr iyip nils 6
ipto laa
fiiai nana saii.-rbs iai 13
Bmmaffia
anis yatesi i
ilium nair mai
iin B13TBB Bia-n'a BiDIO 8
• x - T \ :

a Targ.Tjarn. b Targ. Kmi &«51B>1.
e Targ. ^ dl)3 T")Sp3nn pjiK. f Vid. vs'. 4.
1 Targ. p"nisi*.T '

c Targ.pb. d Cf. Ezek. 19:5.
e ut Ps. 44 :' 13. h Targ. fPSaty.

5:10-22] ; THE CONSPECl'OS OP THE VARIATIONS. 293:
"nrcs-by n«s-bs
niniiffi-by iby mmim iby 10
mm'iio'i (v-iinin) vvsrin ninibsibiamniffiipaiiipn
nan nimb ia b(mni'iffis) ' nan
ma nim-csa ia maa' iiaa mai bsiwima lamanaa n
mini rnai bsitn mni-asa mini
iia'isa «na nima i»np 12
niib iin iaisiaa niib iimaisiaam 13
nim iaii iaim
Desunt J «£ ^ J*
I ^S 14
Brnai 05131
ipina nan •jna nan
ffis ' ©sb
Deest sin Bbiya iia sin ]ms Ti 15
"laiffib bip yawn sb ites 11a yaffin sbi laiob yin/s'b 11a
(inBte) lam-na
Deest nma laps' infeffis 16
ibssi aaianbi Bamap ibasi T^ibas^anVipiapbasi n
aasaa ibiasi aainiaai oaiaa' ppai ^jasa basi mniaai"
B3iai3(B3i3B5)ib3siB3iipai ffiffiii qnasni ipsa basi
iffiffimi BsiniTi 'Baiasm ntaa nns iffis mi^aa iiy
bps ii»s Briaaa iiy (nami) aina nana
aina nana (annoa) Binaa
mm-osa nann aiaia him mni-asa nann Biaia D.31 is
dnbab Bans ntays-sb TD'bs* T nba Bans nttasmb '
aniay i»sa nayni inis onaw iins? 19
psa ' psa
apyi ma-bs apyi niaa 20
•nuni-maa yaffiii nasb numa niyiatem
(oten) Bte-iffis inate-iffis 22
a Targ. nnx !>9. b ut50: 15. c Cf.DeUt.28: 49. d utEzek. 13: 13;
JI. Chron. 12: 12. e Targ. rtVtTV] maTa.

294 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [5:23-6:5
bail sbi ffiyami ibaii sbi i»yamn
111011 ^ 23
iab }ran !«« 24
T mi-. jrm
-lairiii iiap npn aroate nya maffli map nipn nyaffl inya
 iab * "0* _
Cms: Biffipiai) laian oifflipii laian oiffiipi ?T«3 nan 26
•nab*i oifflas bmnfflnb iisbi oifflas mnffia
(nteiiD ntei3) aaa n&s aibaa 27
' ' bpi iiayii yi-iiai nay oa intey isaffl 28
' >i '
Deest imbail
naabs Biai'ias
psn-by psa 30
dip« isaa ipso isaa 3i
tomma nm) oj-pii isn/pi cmm-by nr
ans lans
"minsb nminsb

CAPUT VI.
"wyn iryn i
pa-na (inai) fnain mm -na imai nasyam man 2
' T T TTT T . . . T FT\ ; -J TT~
ttnai niayi) pS
wpfii iypn 3
nia ©is (iymi) giyii im-ns ©is iyi
nanbab niby lisipnn nanba mby ifflip 4
bmby nbyai nbym
Biiibba laai-ia aianbba 1031-13
 ^by nbyai  nbyai 5
a Cf. Ezek. 16: 49. b Targ. S&arfj. c Targ_ atpix iomib-*» sras.
d Targ. ipia laina. e Targ. NBioV f to Ci^oc. e Targ. ywsi'. h vid
vs. 5. ' Vid. vs. 4.

6:6-16] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 295
(mniipia) mniiioi mniaBis
Deest nisaa 6
bin obiaiii-by Sfbffl nay nis obffliii-by lastji nay mia
pffly-ba ipffln iiy iin (bin) ' ipsn myn ' sin nbbb '
naipa naipa pffly nba
o:a na iipna maia iia mpna 7
rnsa-by i?B-by
naaai 'ibna naai ibn
Bbfflim ipin Bbffliii npin 8
mm las-na 13 nisaa mm las-na 9
ibbiy ibbiy ibbiyi bbiy
laiten ^m' atjn
(ibp =) ibobo-by nibobo-by
mais iB-bs. niais ia-by 10
yafflii iyai»ii
oimbai pssnsi insba inan bpnimsba insba nim nan 11
' bbiy-by TBffls * bbiy-by'T&ffl
nfflsi fflis-ia nffls-oy fflis-opa
oiai isba Qiai sba
im omniteai omnnto w 011951 nnte 12
nsin psn iaffli-by * psn iaffli-by
iyaa bob3 "bna-iyi oaopa 13 ibs obna-iyi osopa 13 13
siaa) siaanyi' paa yaa pa-iyi siaaai yaa yaia
cipiB Bitey aba (ipifn ipua ntey iba
dBiiasi Bibpa iay lasb nbpa-by laarna 14
oibffl (]si) msi ' oibffl rsi
(nas) ibs itoy nayin 15
onabaroa iffliai oiiaiaa' sbi oiban-oa iffiiansb fflia-oa
ibsi pb iyii sb (nabsn) ' oibBaa ibsi pb iym sb
nasi enips-roai ob&aa ibffiai oinipB-nya ¦
' isii Tfabiy nim nianab obiy nianab 16
a'lon inn aion rti
' ut 8: 10. b Targ. pV©. c Targ. T£1U ^39 p^D. d Vid. 7:4.
e Alex, dmns-nsa. f Cf. Gen. 21 : 33.

296 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [6:17-29
oainifflsab "isa ostosab yiaia
isiffin bipb laifflpn isiffl bipb lanspn 17
oiiy. iy'ii oiian iyato -ns niy iyii oiian iyato is
oa-itos
bpS iyai» psn lyaffl 19
nyi nin Byn-Cby> siaa 133s nrn oymbs nyi siaa iaas
donaitoa ns ' onatona na
idsb na-iosa*:
liaspi isian saffla naiab aitan napi sian saffla naiab 20
bfflaa r\ir\ oymby )K iaan oibwaanrn oyn-bs pa iaan 21
ibfflai oaibfflai
nasi nasi
epBsa fiaa psa 22
ps napa Binyi '01.13.1 ps-irdma nyi biia iiai
-by nani 013 ibip onm sbi nani o*3 obip ianm sbi 23
nanbabfflsa'ji^ aaiiQioio t*i? laam * oioio-byi
Tbs Tby'nanbab ©isa
hoyaffl-ns iyaia-ns 24
''oiban bin
(nifflmbs) mira isan-bs -bs ^mai niffln °»sambs 25
am ia ' isbn-bs opiiai liaa aisb am 13 »abn
aiaaa nan Qiai'sb aiaoa
mm bas mm bas 26
o?iby na sai iaiby liisn sai
(inaa) inaa ipya Tnna yini laaa vasa two 27
ianaa iayini ' njnai
Deest i^q 28
aitopya iabn bpi isbn
ainnca obs Bmnffla obs
nisy on fflsa nsa (1133) ins m&y onfflsa nsa " ma 29

a Cf. Job 33 : 24. b ut Isa. 1 : 2. c Targ. *>?. d Targ. piiais. * ut
4:6; 6:1; 46: 20; 50: 3, 41.— Targ.&OIBBs. f Targ. 'pBBSl. ff Targ.ttrV"
h Targ. psattj. ' Targ. pan.

B: 30-7: 11] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 297
nama sb "onyn ama spa sifflb ipna sb oiyn spa pa siob
osa ia onb isip osas cpa' osa ia onb isip/osaa spa 30
mni ana o'na mm

CAPUT VII.
imam-bs mn-itos lain 1
'iasb nim nsa '
nsipi nim ma '1503 lay 2
Desunt I 'miasi msi lain ns bra
nbsn ' oiiVffia oisan
T nimb'ninnfflnb' nisaa 3
ipffln nai-bby oab imaan-bs nai-bs osb inoan-bs 4
oab ibiyii sb naisa 13 ipffln
"qiib's iBsb
mm bsin mm bsinnimbainnimbainmnibsin
ii»yn ifflyi ' ifflyn iffly-as 5
aimi lai mm ia 6
psa," psa 7
os-13 r^sn 8
ibiyii sb itos biyin inbab
lyatoni 1aaa.n1 issani insini ipfflb yatsni sisai n'ai aaan 9
^bm b'yab ntapni ipfflb ' ifbni by'ab itapi/
foab eyib :oroii-sb oron-sb
Deest mn 10
niffly inbab labasa niffly fyab labs?
oaia&b do iBffl sipa iffls ima sipa ios mn man mn 11
imsi iaas nani 133s oa 0313153 libipaffl '
imsi nsn
a Targ. K^bTa p^aiSl. b Targ. £?. c Vid. 6: 14. — Targ. 'pl^^l.
4 Cf. Exod. 20:*13, 14, 15;' Deut. 5: 17, 18, 19. B Inc. vs. 10. f ut 7:6;
25:7.

298 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [7:12-27
pb 13 aaiab 13 12
Deest nim-DS3 13
ibs oroaia sbi oroao sbi lam oston
ntoys las-oa pb ',mtoyi 14
-bsi (?)aon's pb" oaffinn bsi nbfini nai oiya ston-bsi 16
ia oiya la-yasn-bsi bbsnn yao 1331s 13 la-yasn-bsi
yates ifcb *pn's
onifflsi . . . omniasi ' .' '. omaa oitoam . . . niasm . . . oiaan 18
' oiaoa 13011 oiaffln saab Diao'a sjoni oia'ffln nsbab
omaa bifflia: omas nffl> 19
nim nim ij'is 20
nm oipamby nana inani nm oipambs nana inam
oismbyi oismby
omito p-ba-byi niton p-byi
Deest bsifei. inbs nisaa 21
oainaray i&ps * bainafb? iso
oainias-bs oainias-ns 22
inibyn 0113 Sisin oiia
"nlbiy na-rby nbiy namby
pimbaa * sjiirrbaa 23
doars naifflpn sbi ibs lyaffl sbi oars-ns itsmsbi lyaffl sbi 24
Deest mutea
omnias ovinias 25
nm oiin lyi nm dim iy
nbosi oaoni nbtoi oaon
-ns ifflpii "oars nai'topn sb -ns lopii oars-ns ion sbi 26
oisia ' osiy
* * " t : t
iyin
Desunt D^?™ WT*» WT&T. 27
spbs iya©i sbi nbsn
naiayi sbi' ombs nsipi

1 Vid. 11:14. b Targ. ^nttpr. <= Targ. )•$$. d ut Ps. 10:17.
e ut Ps. 10: 17.

7:28-8:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

299

Ijn i^in-ns ombs masi
* yaffl-sib iffls
Deest
npb sbi
Deest
DBto-by isffli
•nbs ntoy nts'mn-ns
°n&nn bnaa isai
(Qirma) ans imia sb ios
nann dnaa iiy nasi-sbi
eDi3inn sia
ornate bipi oifflffl bip
psmbs mnn nainb

onibs masi 28
iyaffl-sib iffls
linbs
mpb sbi
n'niaai
DiBpbyisffli 29
ima'y limns
nsnn niaa laai 31
imia sb iffls
nsnn iiy ipsrsbi 32
nainn sia
nnato bipi 'p'offl bip 34
psn mnn namb

caput m

isiaii
oisiaa
oboiiia oiafflim
oiasismbsbi nmbi
Tfoa ip'ai ifflsi
giiBpi sb
naisn i3B~by hpaib'iini
misffln babikonna Vnaa una p
Deest
¦oipan-bsa Deest
nini ias na p
sb aaiffin Dipi sb b&ian
aiffli

isiaiii 1
oisiaan
obffliipafflii niibi 2
aifflii ifflsi
ibcs: sb
11m naisn i3&-by •jaib
misffln bab ouna nia ma;3i 3
nyin
oiisfflan niapa:mbaa
T nisaa nim dss
mni ias na ombs masi 4
sbi ananas laipi sbi ibem
aiffli

a Aram. !Prta9=!|S-H39. b Targ. tiaa. c Vid. vs. 32. d Vid. vs. 31.
« Targ. K^iBp. Tf Cf. Deut. 10:20; 30: 20. S ut 16:4. h Vid. 9: 21;
16:4. » Targ". Khiaa pIPPl. k Cf. Deut. 30: 19.

300

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[8:5-14

(nr) nm ia? tabteim nm B?n 5
lasai amaina ipimni issa mams ipimn
aifflb (issaii) sifflb
lyatei sapaifflpn yatesi ''Pecpn 6
inanaa fate) 05 nbs oniaiaa ate nte
(nbnaaa) inbnaaa nanbaa
niyia nyii Biaoa mionn'-Ba miyianyiioiafflamionoa 7
naffl nay biite oipi nn -ns iibib mayi oipi 11m
(nT) nm iayi "psa niny-ns ns iyii sb iaan nasa ny
mni irsffia ns iyii sb mni asffla
lanas Qiasn p ian3s Qiasn 8
Deest nan ps
oiisob ipffl ay nm ipob diibd ipffl ay ntey ipfflb
°iosa mm'nn'n p nabii inm mm-iaia nan nabii inn 9
dana na-nasm Dnb'na-nasm idsb
onimiffli aninno 10
ya'a n'bs biia-151 foga p
h"b3 pariyf siaaa * ys3
laia-ns i&mi. sipte nisi 11
oibte ibsb nbps-by' lay-na.
Desunt I p iteah : oibte iisi oibte 12
-sb teia-oa itoy 'nayin
pb iym s'b obani iteiai
onips 'nya Qibsaa ibsi
:nim ias ibtesi
.DB1CS 1BCS1 'OBIDS 5|DS 13
aiasn 'jisi aiaiaa' aay '11s Bi3sn ^si paa Dps? ps
(iba;) aibais aibyni Biasna bais nbyni nasna
Deest Diiayi onb insi
laaibten ombsn 13 offl-naiai lainbs nim 13 oia-naiii 14
T • ; • t v T" 1 - t 1 t i- (
(isain) laain
ib lasian ia nimb lasan ia

» Aram. S]iU. b Cf. Ps. 50: 11. cutAmos2:4. d Cf. I. Kings 3 : 28.

8:15-9:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 301
oibfflb 8iaiip oibfflb nip 15
rnbna nam nnya nam
bipa 11010 (?nina) mm? bip nibnaa bipa void 'mm 16
(iiips) ipio aai nbn'aa inps
basil siaii ibas^i' isiaii
Dinipa aifflna oia'ysa oifflna 17
Deest nim-osa
pi iby (?nnpbaa) maibaa pb iby pi iby ipa'ibaa 18
'111 oaab in
°pnia'psa Dipnia psa 19
laioysn p ote ps dijba-BS laiayanynanapmsba-Bs
133 ibanai laa'ibana
nap nba yy iay fip nba iiap iay 20
Deest ''niaten 21
(aiban) aina lanprnnnaoa lanpmnnaffl
enibip
lybaa ns nani lybaa ps nan 22
yna yna p
npa spyb! bib ifflsib fpi-ia npa wi oia ifflsi pi-ia 23
kn:m iay-ns naasi niyai " masi nyai

CAPUT IX.
(pirn) pins pa Bmi's pa 1
sbi ipffl 'nop3B3ifflb-ns'iaiiii ipffl ontep osifflb-ns '131111 2
psn-by (laa) niaa naias psa naa naiasb sbi
mni ias mm-asa
amns-byi ns-bs-byi 3
niab naii sb nas bnm nab naii sb nasi ibnm 4
OSlfflb D31fflb
a Vid. 14: 19.— Targ. KVTSO. b Cf. 15: 8. c Targ. KJ=irn d Targ.
KaVa. e Cf. 49: 24. f Inc.. cap. IX. S Targ. T?> h Cf. II. Chron. 1:10.
4 Targ. xnB'aa.

302

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[9:5-18

:(aiffl)ate isbs sbi anyn
naiaa naia nna bpi
mm ias
Deest
iay-na cnyi iasa noys 13
nai eniaia os'ifflb donite pi
oibffl iaii inyi-ns 'cms
(inais te:) naisn Qiffli laipai
glpBS~sb 113 iste
sb fflis-ibaa (ibs) isna 13
lyaffl
oian p7abi (nibab) oibib
pan fflisn-ia
(aaiaii) a?b 151 libs mm-is lai
ns iay ibaa
ibs mm ibsii
Deest
hym aab nisn
T T- - "! -
Deest
Cnpy) ijy obiasa
iy ainn-ns oniby innbffli
ns oniba
isip mni ias' na
(misyni) knay3ni
naiini nrp 'osiby nasoni
-ibfi 03187871 'niyai 031317 'oia
psa 7B»3

nsba ni7n
naiaa naia ima ^ina'te 5
mm-bsa nisaa 6
iay-na iasa noys spspa
131 naia oaifflb amte p 7
ism inyi-ns oibffl vsa
isis Qiffli laipai
osnpss-sb 8
mai pa stos 9
sbi iaiy fflis-ibaa niaa ia
lyaffl
oisn pya oib?b 10
Dann fflisn-ia 11
Rip libs' niniiB isi
iay ibaa
•> mm ibsii 12
na labmsbi
oab.'niiite 13
nissa 14
myb nm oyn-ns obiasa
ammns" onnns' innbffli 15
onis iniba iy
lasiann nisaa mni tos na 16
lSlpl msisni
ins isiby nsoni nsinani n
ny'ai 131317 naiini
OiB-lbTi 131B7B71
piaa 7Bffl3 is

* Targ. sibJBH'Wl b Cf. Ps. 55 : 12. — Inc. vs. 5. c Targ. . . . lain a^-ja.
— Cf. Hos. 10:15. d Targ. Cpno "«l TV53. e Targ. pM. f Targ. palsa.
S at 5:9, 29. h ut 7:24. l Vid. 23:15.— Targ. N£S.'. k ut Ps. 119:171.
1 Targ. "|i?W.

9:19-10:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 303
issbfflm psn lsary-ia laibcn p ps laary-ia
* lamiaaffla lsmiaaffla
npni nim-iai oiffla naya© mm-iai oiffla myaffl-p 19
iiB-biiai aD3i3ts iisnai osars npni
sa oapibna nia nby-i3 sa la^ibns' ma nby-ia 20
"aibbiy mianb asnaisa bbiy nnanb lainisaisa
mania Bninsi' p'na mama onins p'na
Deest nim-os? nia iai 21
i3B-by dpaib oiffljsn nbsa imi -by paia oisn nbaa nbsai
mans (osna'is) oaais nite ' nays! niton 138 '
(stoys)
iiffly bbnni-bsi mffly bbnm-bs 22
yini baffln mis 71111 bsffln 23
psn-b7npiaiaBfflai ionnffl7 psa npiai asfflaion n«7
psn nbsa-ia ¦'nasn nbsa-ia
Dnbi7 ibia-b3-b7 nbi73 bia-ba-b7 24
"Diaiis-byi ' mim-byi 25
nsenpap-ba byi'asiaisa-byi nsa piap-ba byi asia-byi
gitea-ibiy oibiy
, (abn) oaab-ibiy apbiy

CAPUT X.
iai iffls mni 151 mni -qi tcs lain 1
aiian pii-bs Biian sjiT^s 2
(ompBb) onisBa nan inm-i3 nana D^ian inni-i3
win' no7a mia 171a sin p nfflya ima iyia ys-^ 3
anrai aoaa Kmsai) paai anrai spaa'nayaa fflimni 4
nnaoasi niapaa (ibii) Dpia nppaai nnaoaa insii
('iBiai)ipiBisibihDiaia::DipTm pisi sibi oipTm
aTarg.p''3'i!lSt bTarg.^a!?. c Targ. -pp??. d Vid. 8: 2; 16:4. eTarg.
ixapt. f Targ. isaxia. S Targ. pltaa pi?. h Inc. vs. 5. » Cf.
Isa. 41: 7.

304

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[10:5-16

Deest
cnis isnmbs
Dna ps aioi

Desunt

tioa i3?ni sb sin m»pa spa
sisi fflifflina sin ypia
apiia 1:1 (aTBia) rsisa am
nban oba Bipin ifflya
offliab ]aaisi Desunt

paan binas psn noyn nim
ias inaianai inaana ban
oiaffin
qib pam
psn napa
°iis sari
ipffl 13 iibpE-by qms-ba fflisn
' oa mi-sb 5fca
oiynyna ifflya nan oibsn
(Bpnyna) *
Desunt \

nan, sbi nan ntepa ,iaha 5
' ana ismn-bs
cnis ps sipm-Bai
nns biia nin: TB3 psa 6
ia smiaaa 'riate biiai 7
rib ^ oi'sn Sfba'^KT. sb
oi.ian ipan-bsa p nnsi
:n'a3 psa 'bnisba-bpai
ipia' ibcpii iiTsi ' nnsai 8
'rsm'p oibpn
saii fflifflina 7pia apa 9
tein ni»7B rsisa anri
•jaaisi nban qua ini
oiasn n«7B Dffliab oba
om'bs-sin nas ombs nimi 10
isapa obi7 ' tjbai mm
dii:3 ibsnsbi psn oyin
• • t 1 I v t t -;*
iayr
ban paa inaa pit nffly 12
naa waiansi inaana QiBffl
oia pan inn bipb 13
ps° napa
nn saiii
ipffl ia bp&a cpis-ba fflian u
oa mnsbi i:pa
oiynyn noya nan ban 15
Bate bsiteii 16
nisaa

Muipal;. '' Cf. 51 : 15. c Vid. 51 : 16.

10:17-11:7] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

305

apoii (sjgiaj?) inysa pia qps
msaa
(ayibaa) ybia issn
Deest
mas
b!rn3a saan pab
sjnaa nbna spuis-by ''is
trsfflii *pbn nr is
Tiniyin-bBi ias iiffl *fbns
ny ps 'bsis iss'ai isa lpns
miyni Bipa ibns (ni3)Bipa
nyasBiyin ia
laissi myian-ba nbisffln sb
01351 pyai' "naafflb
pail fa: fflis-sbi
him i3ioi
isayan-p asa-bsi Deest

msteii in»3a psa pps 17
' 11'aaa '
ybip'iaan is
oysa
onb in'iani
isaai pab
in3a nbna nain-bV ibpis 19
lasfflsi ibn nr is
ipna nma-bai' 'iiffl ibns 20
npa ps oaisi i3sai isa
i'ni7ni oipai ibns' ny
oiyin nyas 13 21
naiss aniyia-bai ibiaon sb
Bi?n pya naa© 22
pani Tb" fflisb-sb 23
mni 131D1 24
isoyan-p rj&ss-bs dmb3si 25

CAPUT XI.

imam-bs mni nsa
-bsi mini ite?s-bs man
"Bbffliip apfflm
anis (imbyn ites) mibyn
bs Bmfflyi
myisffl Dips
nbsn onsimns
obfflimb final
Desunt j

mni nsa iniaii-bs 1
-byi mini tjis-bs onisn 2
Dbfflim pffli
Dnis-ispin 4
bas anis amfflyi
nyiaffin-ns Qipn 5
nbsn Bnsin-brns 6
Bbffliii niarpi
D3iniss3 miyn i?n 'p 7
psa anis mibyn 'oip

a cKskt%u. b Targ. piain rmsm
Vid. vs. 9; 4:3. U

c Targ. >11SV d Cf. Ps. 79:7.

306

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[11:8-19

Desunt •

"obiaiip opffipi mini iteass
opb'n nan nam
(n&ii) lisp
oniasb mna ios
cniyi nm aymbby sisa iasn
iyifflii-sb los
Deest
nanns Biya [slab] ostenmbsidnbsnai eonyi nya
iniss (mini) nnnn nab
,oi33in) Diain hnar(a) hntey
Tbyaiiayifflipnfflsi (onisn
ons iabnn (os) is lamy'i
isns pyi hsi mT
niby ffls nam nbian bipb
mrpbi 171 fspb7 ^ifr n^a Deest
anb iffly p
byab oiopa
isymn mm
(nsis) imsi
Di'an ©ass
Pnyi nafflna ison iby myn sb
(bnaibtea_i) nmteai iab iasb

oaten nm oim-iy onaa
:ibipa lyate iasb i?ni
Djrsms lon-sbi iyate sbi s
okV nnnteB 'ans' iab;i
-bV-ns omby spsi 7in
ntes ' nsmmnsn nai
nite5b miia
obffliii pfflpi mini ©ias 9
isbn nam 10
n&n
onias-ns mia iffls
nyi ombs sisa issn n
iyifflii-sb yteim 12
ntesb ninsra 13
nai 0173 ' stem bsi 14
nbsni
onyi 153
nniffly iniss iimb na 15
fflip-ifflsi opin nnaran
ts ianyi p nbya 11351
ifbyn
isn-ns ns: p7i mr 16
ffls man nbi3 nbian bipb
imiibi 1711 nib7 nisaa 17
onb iffly ites
bysb lopb
13511m mmi 18
pmsin
5|lbs ffl333 19
isffln iby-p in7ii sbi
nmntes nisfflna

a Vid. vs. 2 ; 4 : 3. b Targ. pi)??.. c Cf. 3 : 5.

wiwa iwa.

Targ. T^§. S Targ. y&& painfflS

d Vid. 7: 16. e Targ.
h Targ. ten.

11:20-12:11] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 307
nipia osffl mni p^2 QBttl ^mii nimi 20
(niasbi) niabi abi
•onasn itess-ns'Difflpaan -iasb ^tess-ns oifflpsan 21
mni Dffl-b5 mni tmz
131ns man (bsb-osi) sbi isms man sbi
"ommns onib7 ipss ' nan ism nissa nim las-nb pb 22
cnmsai omsai imai sins miai oninsn ombV ipb "
d37is iam inai omnssi anias ams 3713
cmp&en3ffl3nin3y3opteim-bs omp& nm ninsy itess-bs 23

CAPUT XII.
ilbi iabi 2
crb offlipn ins iab nsnsi Dpnn ins 13b nsnsi issin 3
(Viainn) onain oiib oinipni nnaab ]s'aa '
' nam'
men affly-bai nifflmbs afflyi 4
ismhisms ombsn nsii sb lsmmsms nsii sb
nsi Tsbii lain rpbai nns nsbii nnai' Bibanns p 5
?ris?nn ' nmnn tsi
(Bibisn) ^aibte pssi ' Bibti pssi
' nfflyn lis nwyn tsi
(isbann) isba Tinsa isip sba tiis isip 6
gnbip iby nana nbipa. iby nans 8
yisa myan yisa apn 9
nb 313&B myan mby siso apn
hnbasb wis.ii niffln Prrba nbssb win mron nm-bs
niss naafflb (natein) nate iby nbss naafflb nate 11
naaffl iby' (niss) % napffl
B Targ. Vi^X"!. b Cf. I. Sam. 2:16. c Targ. paifew. d ut 14 : 15;
44:12. e Vid. 23: 12. f ut 7: 32; 19: 6. B Targ. PWattin*. h Targ.
Piiaa^>.

308

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[12:12-13:11

psn napn7 psn napa
cmnibna nap oiapi Dion iyir
camssna 10a onb ibyii sb
mni psb ama
mm ias na p
"DpaiBn
mbnas oiyaan
nmmmsi
(ainateini) omaoini
i'b7 "srii'ms mssi
isitei sb bsi
Deest

psn napn7i ps. napa 12
ibns nap Qiapi oibn 171T 13
osm'sisna ifflsi ib7ii sb
' nim-tis pirns
mm ias ns 14
133©
nbna3 Di7aan
mini np-nsi
omsiteni 15
iB7 pirns 16
" 13331
17Bffl: Sb DS1 17
' nim-Dss

CAPUT XIII.

Deest
sisi sb DiBSl
Desunt j
nms ibi
mni iriis nia iiasa
Dffl-]aab
inan nms ibsi
cbab nbai-sb ites nnffls nsm
jobtom psamsi
nm psan dsin
cinbs nns oisbni
anns eimi
©is isna-b7

''bs 1
inssn sb qibsi mste 3
msp ites 4
nms ib
mis mni ma i«S3 5
Dffl-iaaab 6
nms T^si 7
b3b nbai sb n'rsn nm»3 nsm
:sin obffliii psamsi 9
7in nm oyn 10
i3b::i oa.b nnitea Qisbnn
onns ombs nns imi
fflis isna-bs 1 1

* Targ. Np5a. b Targ.rpNa. c utvs.10. d Inc. vs. 10. e Targ.
vimi.

13:12-24] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 309
bsiffli mams bsiffli ma-bams
Deest nim-oss
sbi nbnnbi mssnbi bid oyb nissnbi nbnnbi offlbi' oyb
ibs lyaffl lyaia'sbi
nm oyn'-bs niasi ombs masi 12
nim lasmia nm lainms

jnin
Tbs 8nasi-i3 mm 'iibs nasi
T T > T

Desunt { bsiffli mbs

psn iaffli-ns psn laim-banns 13
mb 0133 oi3fflm onpba-nsi -bymbDiafflmDpbanmsi
bDni'saa-by 'isaa
-ba nsi niimmsi Bis-osnmsi isoi-ba nsi Bisiasn-nsi
late Bbfflii'p opom pate abfflim
amniasi imsi ©i^ amiaisni niasmims-bsfflisBinaESi 14
irs n'ans-sb" im amssi -sb mm-ass lim fliaani
(mm-asa) mm bia'ns
inaambsi insan-bs 15
bsiyb intei °maba natei baiyb mofniabab natei 16
"lyaffln sb dsi myBffln sb bsi 17
Dafflsa man i©sa naan
Deest ypin 5B11
1303 13 dniyai oapy naiini ny nates ia nyai piy nni
mni Tiy mni
(oniaabi) on.iaabi T>Bb ias ibison nmaabi ibBb ias 18
oateisiB inn 13 laiai ibisffln oainos'ia 111 13 iao
oiaibffl nban nba o'laibffl nban nba 19
isn Qibteni ^p7 isffl »sn 031517' 'Sffl 20
*Tb7 npsi-ia p7 ipBi-13 21
Tap7 (eian ,isia ,iob33) istena T^P? i^ana 22
'(niyin) yin onab yin i?ab 23
'isiab mia iaiy opa laia nnb isiy opa 24
a ut 15:2; Exod. 12:26. b Cf. Ps. 122:5. c Targ. . . . n/*",
p"u3n. dTarg.']iSabi. ' jrapaleiyix.aTia%^vai.— Targ. 1.THPX. fTarg.K12g3
sna-tals ann tnp ¦ia -<m.
r i i s t t'tj ' • •* t :

310 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [13:25-14:9
ms Dsna-naai W W«« 25
(1331) mni ainbnaai"iBS3i iniar nar T.tf^ai T.bss 27
" ""niifflsi mysa'mby mist mos niysa-by
iy many nns nnan sb 13 iy ma nns nnan sb

CAPUT XIV.
mm-isi mil nimnsi nm ites 1
(miasn) masn-by niiasn nsmby
'" psn-by nip: p*^ iTip 2
mmisi ominsi 3
doia is'aa-sbi ma isaa-sb
isffli laffl
Deest otes'i ism labam, itea
bin naisn (n)eiisyi ' nnn naisn iiaya 4
Deest pSS
isjyi nbi niffls nib^s-oa siryi nibi niffls nb^s-oa p 5
QiSTB ' ' QiSlSl 6
mi ibsoi Dpnp mi isso
a«y Vim s'b-ia' a©7 pspa
13b nffly mni isa iap laiaiy no7 mm isa isy isisiy-os 7
T?Bb 131315 131-13 iwab lamhitea 131-13 late ]5ab
lasan ib p (paab) issan lb
nys yifflini gnim bsiffli "mpa nia nys iyifflia bsiffli mpa 8
psmb5 ias mnri nab bnyi msai psa iaa nmn nab
iibab nob nirspi pbb nps
(isaai) 1353 is DTp'fflisa naaa Dn'ia ffl^sa 9
laa nnsi i33ips nnsi
isretembs sip's iBffli isnapbs sips is'iby laffli
a Targ. tpMBUJil ^TfilSQa. b airakXoTpiaaig. c Cf. 17:8. d Targ.
N*a T&a& kVi. e Aram. lOSl.. f ut vs. 5.— Targ. p Kb. S ut 17 : 13.
hCf. 15: 11. } Targ. NHaaT? Satl.

14:10-19] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 311
sbi amb3i (yianb=) yiab lans ison sb ombai yi3b lans p 10
,aDitesi sb ombsn laffln Dai sb nimi
Deest bnston'ipBii
laai os 13 ' laaii's 12
bonbBpbs onai-bs
oms nbas iaas oms nbsa 133s
°nini nns nim 131s nns 13
onasi dois33a Bmsiss onb oiias'aisisan
"oibtei nas ib'bbs mm-sb syn oibte 13 cab mm-sb syn
Dipasi psmb5 ms Dipa3 Dab' ms nas
nm nm
tenai Qiappi ipia nisiim p maim bibsi oppi ipo pm 1 4
Dab 'maim ' oab
ipte iaoa oisssn iaos Disasn 15
onasn onas nani
nsm psn-b5 nw sb nsm psa mm'sb
(ibn niaa) ginai oisbnn miaa aina
Disiasn nann oisissn
Diabffla vmi Dis'bffla imi 16
lapa psi hsyim sinn issa ispa psi ainm syin isbb
onifflsi onis amies nan nanb
oaii niyai Dspy-by iinin nbib nyai 13'iy nsnn 17
nbibi dbiii'
naai iayma niaffls isffl" 13 nbins nisffls biia isic'ia
isa nbns isa nbro naa iayma
S133-B3 pa 13 p3-B3 Si33"Ba 13 18
iyii sb ites 1711 sbi
£10B3 7pn piaai "pss nbya piaa-as 19
oibfflb ki3iip ' bibob nip
sbib nyb ssia nybi

a Alex. BS1! nTj. b Targ. pnfts. c Vid. 1:6; 4:10; 32:17.
''Targ-iaanan. T'e Cf. 33:6;Isa. 39:8.' f Vid. 23:26. Sutl6:4. h ut
16:4. 'Cf. 6:8; Ezek. 23:17. k Vid. 8: 15.— Targ. K3130.

312 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [14:20-15:9
misiy ismiyffli mni isyn i3miss )^ isyoi mm wm 20
bmsBb"i3san 13 ismiss ^ ™an "^
(?a,s3mbs) ain rs3mbs2i
(issn) bann-bs basmbs
lans ites mna isn bs ians inns ismbs
Qioaa oiian (ibpss) ibpsa oipfflaa oiian iban-j 22
(omn ,dsi) bsisi ism op^si ism
" " ' mm'ibmipsi irmpn ism'bs mm

CAPUT XV.
oyn-ns nbffl ombs ifflss ps nbin nm oymbs ifflss ps 1
nm VBfiyia
p;snmnmsipabDiabanmsi qiymsi shpb oisbsmnsi 3
oiaten spy-nsi psn nans-nsi Diaffln
°(?)niyiTb ' nyirb 4
nfflynffls-ba-by nfflynffls-by
sin iai obffliii n^ bBni-ia obfflin Tb9 bam-ia p 5
"rana Ctt*0 ^ ^ 'w
'' "".f bsteb
Desunt | ^ 6
iiy omss sbi Dim imsbs
iayms nss ibao ia? nyffls mias mbaffl psn nyea 7
' onyi iasa late sib omsna iayms
domniaabs iaay " inisabs ib-iaay 8
1© riBiiin3 Bs-by mssn 110 una os-by onb msan
onnas annas
nbnsi iiy nibnsi my
nysffl mbi nyson mbi 9
01m pn iys nb teaten nss dbii iys nteate nss
' bmisia 'bmisffli

a Targ. iap. b Targ. Tfilfc.. c dvayxag. d Targ. prta-is.
" Targ. pitffco. '

15:10-21] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 313
Deest nim-csa
on fflisa iambi os ibms an iehs iambi p ias' ibm'sio
piai o pia teisi
laibbpaa nbp ins teis ismffls-sbi isibbpa n"ba> ia-iffia-sbi
onteiab) aons onteib isi's ps tiniite sb-os nim ias 11
' (?Knab ' siab
siob oma nysi omniyi'nys ms nia nysi nyi nys
sismbs t sisn
psaai bris (yiim) yim p'saa bjia bria yim 12
nom (iisai) mfflnsi
imas msrab bTmaisi nbm sb ]ns rab Tmiaisi ^n 13
Tmsombaa' imiKambssi imas
psa T^sb spp "mnisym sb psa Taisms miaym 14
nyii' dsb iffls nyii
Deest nyii nns 15
''Spsi 'ib bpani
S]S psb-bs isnprn *ibs Tisb-bs
nam Tby 'emste3 p nsin 'Tby mste
f"psi '•mi oba pal ''isba mp. obasi pis-i isaaa 16
ib  ib Ti^i '
nissa mm nissa mbs mm
pysi "r'bysi 17
insba nia-ia iansba aypa'
iamaai pisaa'nab nas psa nm nab is
sbis nasa ssin nssa
Qiaasa sb arss ip3 laass sb Dip srss ia3
layn iasbi layn iasb 19
nan isirni nan 1301
Deest nlT-0sa ^bpnbi 20
ibpnbi x'mnbani2i
Disibnn t|3B op1'"!? spa

a Karev%vv6vTQV avr&v. b Inc. vs. 13. c Cf. 17: 4. — Targ. paywpl
pisai i)?9a>. d Targ. »\\ e Targ. rvtajai. f Targ. TjlOsia.

314 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [16:1-14
CAPUT XVI.
Deest iasb ibs nimnai imi 1
nin: ias n»s npn-sb nnsi i> imi-sbi nffls' qb npn-sb 2
nsi p ib imi-sbi bsite: mbs niaai Qiaa
naisn las-by "paib naisn iss-by ]aib 4
aiybi imi psn nanabi nnmi ibai ayisi sinsi
37131 ibs: sma oiaffln oiaton sjiyb basab onbaa
ibai psn nanabi
mni Ta8 na mni ibs na-p 5
(nnan) annas nna ma
-nsi lonnms mm-osa

Desunt

Dianin
psa oiappi oibia, ' inai 6
nap: sb ns-n
sb: nmam sbi Dnb n&oi-bsb 11am sbi onb nsoi-sbi
inipi onb nipi sbi
na-b7 onsb obass onb oi&i'-sbi iamb bas-b5 onb loipi-sbi 7
' inis ipffli-sbi 'oms ipffli-sbi na-b7
nns sisn-sb nnffla-ma ' sismsb nnffla-mai 8
Deest nissa 9
pfflffl bipi nnaffl bip nnaffl bipi pfflia bip
na nbsn mnn-ba ns nsm nbiian n7in-ba ns 10
13317 iaViy nai
oamias mis i3Ty-ios b7 mis aamias larynos by 1 1
Deest niffl5b 12
7in-B33b °nisn 7imiab nmte
dpsmbs psn-b? 13
Deest nbp oaP
ism-sb * ' ¦jps-sb
nbyan mm-m "my nasi-sbi ites mm-m ny ipsi-sbi 14
bsiffli Tarns ' bsiffli i;a-ns nb'y'n
a Vid. 8:2; 9 : 21. b Inc. vs. 6. c rflv dpearav. d Targ. SSnsfc.
e Targ. 113 wmja 'pi «Vi.
O It i : • I ; ti

16:15-17:5] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

315

bsiffli npms
-bs Dinistem naw imm ii»s
"anais Deest
bonmi3iy issaa-sbi
omnsom omnP naira maboi
"ib'bn ites-by ' "nbaaa
ona isba ites onmisiyi
C^t?!) ''"it?! '1W nr^
' nyi iap
psn 'napa
oibsn ismiss ibns 'ypv sps
nsrn (nya) oysa oynia issn
mna3 ns oynisi inms

bsioi i.pms 15
omistem nao onnn i©s
onais-b5
ijsba nnpa sb 1 7
baiy pau-sbi
osiy nsffla naitesi. mabffli is
obbmby onsom
. T - T Tnbsss
isba onmisyini i-Tyai iTy' 19
nia Dip
ps'-ipssa
bsn ismiss ibns ipffl-sjs
nsrn oysa oyniB issn 21
mnaamsi nnns oyms

caput xvn.

Desunt

05a naina nnm nsan 1
-b5nteiiniiate']i55aa bna
josminara niaipbi osb nib
Bmitesi'bninsripbnia'aiiaTp 2
: n'inhan niysa b5 1551 p-by
Tniiais-ba ^bm nitos nin 3
-ba'a. nstsrp spnas' ]'ns rsb
^n'b'naa qai nnpatei :*pbiaa 4
ms 'mniayni sjb mna ites
pyn-sb ites ' psa Tans'
a'biy-15 psa annip tes-is
nim' ias nia :ipin 5

a Targ. pS!S>. b Targ. plain fiaaa »\\ c Vid. 18:23; 31:34;
36:6.— Targ. Ami is pisoni pi?in. *

316 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [17:6-21
ites DOi diss ib nasa iffls ites Dffli diss nas: i»*
lib? 171T i^T
nnba pssi isiasi oinba pffli nnbapsiaiasDiiin pffli 6
awn asb ites awn sbi
iaan nisi issn ins 7
nil's pa T"*3 §
(ami =) s^i sb iteiffl sjibte: &n sbi fteiffl nbffli
naffla pyi nb? Cvby) imby mni mas nsicsi py'i mby mm
?(sn':') insi sb mas asm sb
iai sin "teas: baa bsbn pay ia sin teasi baa sbn spy 9
1»li w
liana fflisb nnbi miba rnsi 13113 fflisb nnbi niiba pa 10
iibbya nsai iibbya nsa
ibi sb ites (ias) iai sip sip itey noy ibi sbi 131 sip 11

asfflaa sb iitey nffl7
Desunt |
isnai psmb? (no) nio
doim npa sisi
ciii Tins naba eimsb3 sb oiii
ftei'3s

asfflaa sbi
pfflsia 12
oipa
isnai psa nio°: 1 3
Diin-oi.B npa
S3 S13i 15
Tins nyia mas-sb 16
teiss

Tssb msffl isaia
g(i|b) laab ib-nmmbs Deest

Tss nab msffl saia
nnnab ib-mnmbs 17
nns

plain nsffla
Deest

plate nsfflai is
ibs 19

qa? 133 nyffls
(bis) ons
Deest

D7°-iJ3 15fflS
(bis) is
pp 20

Dsmioss nate
obffliii nyoB isapbsi

camifflsaa naten 21
dbfflim ii7ffls onssni

a Targ. &Al. b ut Ps.64: 7 (Gk. &Heb.). c Vid. vs. 16. d ut Ps.
36: 10; Prov. 16: 22. e Targ. niaas &6. f Vid. vs. 9. S eig ak\oTpiua,v.

17:22-18; 8] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 317
iteip ontiipi 22
mbsb onmiasa osiy-ns ifflpii mbab asiy-ns ifflpii 23
ibs yate yaite
pyaffln-os pyaffln 5'ate-os 24
Deest na
omcioi omaai-by oiaan opioai apis Qiaai 25
obffliip Dpfflimi 'mini 1©^' oboiii pum niim teis
nsm ii?n (nateiai) stiim ' nsm ii7n nstep
obiBin 313BBI obffliii nisi'soai 26
nbsffln psai nbBfflmpi
333b iteipai 333miai
(?) nnsai nibpi omsri'miby issai misbi nnsai nsp nby
mmmis-bsminissansisbi mni nia nim
sb-os mm sb-osi 27
sa mbsbi soa ns© mbsb nyos sai sffla nso mbabi
obffliii nyws obffliii
obfflim °niain Dbfflin nisais

caput xvni.
imaii-bs mni nsa nim nsa imam-bs 1
iisims yaian iisims rjyiaffls 2
Dpssn-by oisssn-by 3
' i^ns iaim ma' iaha 4
iisiys ibi less iaim ipys iffli ifflss
Deest nim-osa 6
1113 ons iaim iaim ins ons p iaim ma iana
bsito: 'np
otenab nsbaa-by is y^l teinsb nabaa-byi 7
' " Dmniyi-bsa liby'miai ites inyia 8
onb nifflyb msisn iffls ib niteyb msffln iffls
* Targ. I^S. b Targ. niab. c apcfiola.

318 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [18:9-21
ypanbi niaanb nabaai yhabi niaab nabaa-byi 9
"issb'nyin i©yi ispa nyin nfflyi 10
"' onb niteyb 'inis sipmb
bisfflii-bsi mini itess-'bs ias ~b5i mini teis"bs srias 1 1
'obfflin obffliii isfflii
Deest nim ias nia iasb
S3 aiffli S3 iana
oaibbya laiumi Daibbyai oapii laiami
teteisn? nasn tesis nasi 12
ismiatea ismistena
cnisn nnite
(abffli)abffl-os ante naa ispm pssb abto nte naa stym 14
Diip'oiTOiaitep3i-DSp3sbB onp diit qib iterp-Ds
Dibris oibris
ibtepi.i Dib©3:: 15
135b pi anb'ps nbibp sb pi
obiy npiiffli bbiynpiifflie
111311 iai»i niby onsiyn ba 11311 doi niby isiy ba
Dfflsia ifflsis
oii dsis domaiis issb oaiss oias-sbi aiy a:is iasb oai&s 17
oias ' OliS Dip osis
nsfflna " nisfflna is
-ba-bs naifflpai pfflba inaai -bs naiopa-bsi pfflbs inasi
msi ' mai-ba
bipb 7affli mm ibs naifflpn bipb yaoi ibs mm naifflpn 19
8pn 13111
ifflsab nnite (nai) isippa ifflsab nnite '113-13 20
ib laata obtepai
ain-ni-by (csosni) ' oissm nsmni simnPy oiani 21
oniffls mmn' omwa
sin-ibsa oninai Bin-pa omnia
a Targ. ia^., b Targ. latiiVi. c to. dpsard. d Targ. piaan pa.
c ut 20:12.— Targ. i?aVw.

18:22-19:7] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 319
Dmby sisn anmss npyr mn siamp Dnmsa npyr yaten 22
(Dniite) aDnii3 1113 omby '
isiabb nnite '(na) biaiy 13 isisbb nnite 113 13
ib isaa ibaib laaa
"omnstam omniaiy ons'oni osiy 23
' T3sb obteaa im T3sb oibtesa im°i

CAPUT XIX.
dibs mni ias rs mni ias nia 1
ispra (ensam) nnpbi fflin up pptai oyn isprai oin lap
oisn3n-]'ai D7n oismn
(osp 13s) omss 133 Damp 2
fmpinn'i7ffl nioinn 170
nbsn oiisin-bpms onainms
nimnai lyais ombs niasi mm-iai iyao masi 3
mim itessi mini ' i^ba pfflii mini i3ba
Disan: Bbiniip opfflmi Dbfflim
mb^sn onytea ' hini nisaa mni
nyi nm Dipamby siaa i33n nm oipamby nyi siaa i3sn
ism-sb iffls oiyn-sb iffls 4
nm oipanms isba nrn oipanms isbai
Dps iai Dips 01
byab mas byan niasms 5
Deest b?3b nib?
isbs msten sbi isb~b5 nnby sbi miai sbi
nay: mini nay-ns (?jmyp3i mini 'nay-ns ' mpsi 7
obfflii: ' Dbffliiii
ms mnai offlss ifflpaa npi ms mnai offlss ifflpaa nsi

aTarg. pBM. b hexelpyjaav. c Vid. 16:18; 31:34; 36:3— Targ.
tarn piaia d 1
e ut 7: 2; 17:20; 22:2.

piNarVi plain! d Targ. ii ii la$. e Targ. lap. f rijg xapaei%.

320 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [19:8-20:3
oiaffln nisiyb bssab srftaa oiaon spyb basab onbas
psn nanabi psn nanabi
nnsa-ba-by nnaa-ba-by s
ibssi ombpsni 9
piaaai naaa pisapi iiaaa
Deest Dtesa ifflppBl
masi ombs niasi 11
mm , nissa mm
tom-iba istei loss iaim ibams lap loss
' Deest lispboipapsaiiBpinB'nsi
nm oipab mni-asa n«ys-p -osa' nm' oipab noys-p 12
iiynms nnb ia Dpfflipi -ns nnbi ipffliibi mm
nsna nsrn" nsm' nsrn iiyn
iaba mai obffliii msi iaba mai Dibcm ma imi 13
nsnn oipaa :m: mini nsnn oipas mini
iffls oman baa omnisaoa iffls oman bab Disaan
nop ona nap
"Q13D3 (13011) 13iB:i D13D3 Sfpni
mni bsite: mbs nissa mni 15
-byi miy ba-byi nsm biiyn-b? -b3-byi' ' nsrii iiymbs.
(mtema ,mniito) nn&a-bp nny
' T(?)miaa-bs yiBfflinbab nsims yiaw mbab
^ / t i * T T J

CAPUT XX.
mni nia 1133 lips nm sim mm mas 1135 iips-sini 1
mssnambs ins ^btp'inpi span imam ns'iintesnpii 2
nasn npn'iyffla nmn nns nns' n3Bnan-b5 ins 'ipi '
' (?naaa 7133) pibam npb pibyn paip i7ffls
Deest mnaa imi 3
sip nim sip
naa-os ia spaa n'aa-bs ia
a Targ. 'pas; siaiDJil. b Targ. KPIp *>S. c Targ. KPfiial?.

20:4-12] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 321
ias pb ias na-p 4
Tans-b3-B5 naab T^ns-bsbi #> liaab
^ ms mim-ba-nsi qnisi nba ip ms mim-ba-nsi
niama Dam Dbsm basnba ' sins Dpi nbas obambss
nnais-ba* nsi njpi-bamsi nipppmsi' ' nypi-bamsi 5
Disiam lpis ima mini ^a nii'm pba niiais-ba nsi
nbas Dirrai onpis ip ins
nbss oisism oinpbi
TH33 Dpfflm bai nnsi nma pirn bai nntes nnsi 6
man baaai man otei sian baai
Bppte 'ip^a
baim npm baini ianpm 7
a3?^?(n) nbp oiin-ba ib 35'b nba Dim-ba
(nsi nas) ism naa-ia pais isis na-ia 8
(pntes) pnas
ib nsmb nsinb ib
laii-ba oiipba
ii7iais-sbi nim do lars-sb laoanyisis-sbiiaiars-sb 9
ipi mya fflsa mni iao-b5 ia? mys osa pbs mm
(baba) biba misbai maaya sSibaba misbai maaya
(nste) sites bpis sbi bpis
isipsi nia baiaoa oniaa isnasi man aisoa'Taaio
iteas' ba (?iiby niaai 11a) : nate' ia"bte teiss ba
inay nate liyia' '(ia'bte) 15b?
(inatena)
ibai sb baton:' isii ibai sbi ibtep: pi'i 1 1
sb obiy onmiabo iyii 'sb-ia sb obiy nabs ib'pton sb-ia
narpffln npffln
nsi (nipia) pia pis mm nsi pna ms nissa mmi 12
inaps nsis nisiabi niiba inapa nsis sbi niiba
ona ana
(misn) pnms pnms
a /j.vK7yipi%6fjLsvog. b Targ. lint? lin&a psjjana.
X

322 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [20:13-21:7
(inis ibbn) imbbn nimms lbbn 13
T>ibi iasb issms itesan -ibi nasb iss-ns ites ites 15
mate lar ' :innate nate iaT p lb
fflisn m:m fflisn mm 16
bS]S3 mni Tjmios mm Tsn-iffls
np7T °7ate: np7T 7atei
onnaa onna n53
ib-mm oms lannia-sb iffls Pmni onia ianniB-sb iffls 17
abi7 mn onini nsp iani obi7 nin nann nap ias
onia msai nr nab msai oma nT nab is

CAPUT XXI.
iman-bs mm nsa mni nsa imam-bs 1
dmfflya moya
-pa 13 mni-ns isnya ten 13 mni-ns 13173 sa-on 2
laiby op bas onbs baanba lasnaisa 13ib7
Deest ianis
iman ombs ibsii ombs imam ibsii 3
nim: ijba impia-bs inipia-bs
nim ias-n3 • bsi©: mbs mni iasma 4
Deest Dalp ites
onfflamns onfflanmsi bas ?fba-ns
nbiia. nanai s,sa biia qapsi naroi a,ssi 5
ms nsrn nop ' Dpoim-ba oisnm'si nsm myn pum 6
iaia niansnmsi Diteasn biia isis nansnmsi
(man) inai biia inai
' mmiasm'3 mm-'oss 7
isin-ja nsm nya ons'fflan -ja nsm nya ansfflsmnsi
"sinn-pai syimpi ayin pi sinn-p lain '
a Inc. vs. 16. b Cf. Deut. 29: 22.— Targ. WnSflia 11 "SHX c Targ.
ya'p. d ut I. Chron. 6: 25. e Targ. stann "pM.

21:8-22:4] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 323
Deest bs3-^ba lasmaias na
omnite&a ifflpaa omais np Offlssiopaaipi omsis ipi
oniby oins-sb sin-isb Dpi oim-sb sin-isb opm
"aams sbi onn sbi ban: sbi omby
nm oymbs nm oymbs:. 8
mns issn pb isan
Deest 13131 9
onfflamby bssb onfflamby bsai
mm bbfflb bi»ss nnmi nm: bbfflb ifflss ibmmm mm
nsm mymb5 ias mao-ia nsm nya ias mao'-ia 10
baa-pa pp basnba ms nim-osa
nnm i>b ms mimSba ma'bi' n
ciptey ma bira ibiani ntesi -p pteiy iia bira ibiani 12
osa dnapp' osa san
Deest Dmbb5B 51 iasa
ifflian eiia ' iirnan iia 13
Deest npi-Dsa
i33iyaa sisi iai lamiaiyaa s'isi iai
Desunt { D?^?* *$S B3ib;7 mipsi 14
I mm-Bss

CAPUT XXIL
'ill Srb 11 1
Dissm iayi *inpi Disan 7021 Tn5i 2
Biptey iia pite? 'na 3
' oimi Dim
-by 013311 bni sea-by oisoi Diaai ispa-by nib Diaoi 4
nan oioioai niaaia nayi sin Dioioai aaia
oayi onnsyi iayi
a Cf. 13: 14. b Vid. 38:2; 39: 17. c Vid. 22:3.— Targ. S^ D3OT.
d Targ.pVli WaVa. e Zo/j. f ut Exod. 19: 24; 32: 7. S Vid. 21:12.—
Targ.PT> 6i»X,' h utvs.2; 17:25. » Targ.^ainia.

324 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [22:5-18
iteyn sb dsi lyaten^b osi 5
'isfflis sb ' nsfflis sb a
nmoa nby C^lpBi) msani o*s omnoa mby moipi 7
(isbiai) Pal fflis pbai
""fflsmbs fflsmb5
(nya) iiyn spina mia nayi iiyn-b5 Dpi oiia nayi 8
ibsi nsm nasi nsm
nbiian nsm iiyb nsm nbiian 117b
lb issipmbsi ib nm-bsi 10
bobffl-b5 Bb'ffl-bs 11
Deest niim srba
imban-iffls nm oipa3-cBs ia ibannffls aipaa 13 12
lmiibyi pias'-sb ima dnaan pia-sba ims nas' iin 13
obobs sb asffla sbs imiibyi
*ib maa ibmaas iasn 14
'ni'iby ' ' niibyi
BinioainsaBisiBpiisibiBiyip nsa pspi iaibn ib yipi
looa ' iffl©3 niteai
Tas emsa ninna nns 13 Tas nss nmna nns ia 15
•fb* aio inte: sb: ibpsi sb asffla nteyinntei bas sibn
npiai asffla nte5 ' ib aio' ts npiai
piaspis'bii37pii3isbi7nsb pissi 137-pi ]1 1G
Deest sia rs
ins ^nynsbn ms nyin sm-sbn
ia aio iab psi p*^ ps nan -by-as 13 labi ms"1* ps ip 17
ipsn-Bi-bsi ^yas-bif-DS TBfflb ipsmambyi "p-aa
fnai-bsi nipteya-bsi iasteb nanappi pfflyn-byi
' onifflyb nifflyb
Dipiim-gb5 Dipiim-bs is
nm ©isn-byi mini Tjb mini -pa
ib lis ib nsoi-sbi ns iin iism-sb nins iini ins im
pis nin Pni pis iin ib
a Targ. sOwTj. b Targ. Dilki bv. c Targ. 'jn\x. d Targ. iJM.
e Targ. nxaij? &ol?aa. f eig <j>6vov. e Targ. is.

22:19-30] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

325

ibom sino nspi nan nnsp
oboiii iy©b nsbna
ifflsmbsi ipyai paabn-ba. iby
ibtip isn
(om-iayb) opiaya
masi inibtea T's'misi nyain-sb
isa.i isffls
(T.yi) im^i ^bb
(mssn) nnsss
ni'bis oibsn
imaai nmi mmas
Tpns boa
10s less ifflpaa pp nnnsi
omssa nai nns Deest
onoan pp
mbi-sb ias aps-'bs.
Dffl
bpsmbsi laiffli bab
pn ]is "ibaa inisai mas'
ps-bs Sfbfflni bain ip ia
7ii-sb IfflS

ps ps
aha
Deest
171TB naai sb ia
bfflia

iboni aina iapi nan nnsp i 9
oboiii 1150b nsbna
isn pspi ip7ai pssbn ib7 20
Tbip
D113?B
mas T.Oibos Tbs misi 21
n7ao-sb p
13bi 1303 22
inyi baa
msn'sma 23
nibia bm' oiban
ims3 nmi-os p 24
Tpns dob p
ipi 10&3 iopsa ip pnna: 25
on^sa 1131 nns '10s
baa-Sfba lasnaiaa ipi
on'osn ipi !
-sb 10s nins psn b? 26
' 00 on'i'bi
psn-b?i 27
isioi sb nate do siteb
nm teisn psa nW'sayn 28
is pn ps ibs-os ini33 '
iyip. sin ibain 511a
-sb iffls psn-by isbfflni iyii
ps ps ps 29
isnp nim ias nia 30
lips' nbai-sb
©is lyiTa nbai «b
boiai

a Targ. SlNi. b Targ. NSIxil. c Targ. X3aa.

326

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[23:1-12

CAPUT xxni.

•jsams "oiasani onssan
' bomyia
mm
lay-ns oiyimby
oaibbya yia
cia5 nnsoms
psmba-by ' d]nii3-bs
oiyn ites oiyi onb mapm Deest
mini 7©mi
piaim
bsiffli mams'
bsiffli y-irba pp iffls
-bs oaifflii do onnn 10s
'onais Q1S333
pi (? cna5) nay 13331 mate fflisa
niaa iinpssai Deest
n|s 13BB-13
isian ms3
p onnsai
81331 p3"i3
(onyi) 'onmiyi imsi
nipbpbnb imp
omps Bn3ffls

¦jsa-ns Diasai onssa i
nim-oss miyia
'bsiffli.' m'bs mni 2
iayms oiyin oiyimby
nim-oss osib'bya yims
issa nnsoms 3
m'aisn baa
pii3-b5
oiyii Diyi onpy inapm 4
np&: sb:
mim'yoin c
ispis
bsiffli pa-n's 7
ms spn itesi nb?n iffls s
bsiffli rip 'tit
-by istep. oia omnin iffls
onais DiS33b 9
pi iisy isasi n'ate ansa
iteip 1131 13BB1
psn nsba oissaa ip 10
nbs iSBB-13
iaia mss
p-sb omi33i
p3"D3 S133-D3-13 11
nim-oss on?i msaa
'mpbpbfp 12
imi
nim-oss omps ns©

"Targ. "ii'i'naal "ipxa*. b ut 1 0 : 2 1 . c Targ. 1J3S1 &ON12J H\ d Targ.
pipxi. e auvexop-svog. ! Targ. prima ia*j;? ps. S Vid' i 1 : 23 ; 48 : 44.

23:14-26] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 327
ciprnai onptes opbhi opssa iprni iptes rfbm a,isa 14
01s "site-mbsb oipi pi' ' ©is iste-mbsb opia ni

nyin iana
T I - ¦

inyia

mni

oissan-b? nissa mm 1 5

bi?y

' 137b

psmbaa
laib i7aon bs

psn-bsb
Bissan nsi-by iyaon bs 10

Deest

Dpb oissan

nsii osba prn onb oibsna p osb ^rn oans nan oibsna
mni ias abi mni" iSa sb nsii
mni »o1; p^ab donas mm 131 lasaabiiasDnas 17
ibn babi omas'na oiabhn bbbi ' iab routes ibn bai
' isb niyna
mb? sis'n-sb o?ib5 sismsb
sifflpn-ia nsi-ns smi -ia iisims yatep smi is
yafflii yairm nsi rnfflpn'
nam emm nsa niyp itoi nsai nan mni rnyq 19
oiyfflimby bbinna iyob nsai ' Qiy©i tesnby bbinna '
sai b;,ni
(ny aiffli) aiirn iiy sbi awn sb 20
iab fnaTa iab niara
na 13313m nap na issiann
iaymsi nsi (lyatei) iyate: dsi oisfflp iayms nai lyiatep 22
Dmbbya 7ia oiaoi ombbya yiai yin oana '
gias sup ombs ias aiipa'mbsn 23
pima oinbs sbi pinia mbs sbi
Deest nim-oss 24
Disa3-itesDisssnhDiiasifflsns oissan oissan nas-ifflsns 25
*oibn mabn mabn mabn
(mn:) kffli many ©in'many 26
» Targ. anai xii biia . . . psprwi ^giaa •pa^nasi p«3T. b Vid.
9:14. cTarg.iaSnai. d Targ. pasj. ' e Targ. 11 dl|3 TO. f Targ. nauina.
s Targ. nuaxiaa 'sais nna xnilS;T&»K. h Targ! VlBOT ni. » Targ.
ii s?nnx xaina ns*«: nana' k Targ. nis nais 1?.

328 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [23:27-38
(?bnain)iaBn0BS3a3ipteissa nain ispsi ipten issa
'  ": osb tasb
miinms n'ateb iate iB5_ns nptenb 27
iaibn isoi Bibnn insno's Bibn isoi Dibn insnos 28
nsi IBOi ^Bl ISli
Deest Slip-OSS
nan sbn nimmss cnai na -ass osa nsi na sibn 29
nim-osa osb nai nim
131S-DS3 aisiaambs pb iaan -asa oisiaan-b? iasn pb 30
nin: nim
pob ambten Bisisambs issn nini-ass Bisiasmb5 issn 3i
ois ibisi (p'teb nisisa) dnsis3 dss lasp oaifflb omp/bn
oissaan oissambs' 133V1 'pb ip© mabn isarb? isan 32
' biiBBi sbi ipiz) mabn diibdii nip-ess
Deest nim-oss
ibsffli iai ?ibsoi-i3i 33
siss-is^na-is i'^ isi^-is si'san-is
soan "ons soamams
Dpnam siasn mam siaani 34
nasi nos ibsi 10s
sinn oisnms ' mipsi -b5i sinn oisn-b? mipsi
imai ims
'inyi-bs 01s inyi-b? 01s 35
nsi nim fflisb swan nai fflisb mm soan 36
aim ombs iisims onpsni
: iambs nissa nin:
rfsy-na spambs'iasn "ns 37
nim
iambs mni nai na-byi mni iai-nai
iambs mni nas na pb na pb nasn nim stea-osi 38
mni nas

Desunt

a Targ. lajnan. b Vid. 14:14. c Targ. iaShB. d Targ. laanan.
B Rasohi: iai rv'apni Kirai ddk ,siaan na nai' di-iais. f Targ. 'ias

wiani

23:39-24:10] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 32(J
moasi (npi) sob issn mooai stea Bans iroteaipan 39
Deest is's-bya

CAPUT XXIV.
130 mm. issin mo nam mni i^in 1
-nsi Bioinmnsi Bnomnsi oinnmsi nnm. nffl-nsi
Dinteynmsi "andean iaoanmsi
msn nin ins mn 2
psn mm ins mm
pia nabasn-sb lias 51a nabasmsb iffls
pia nabasn-sb iffls 51a nabasmsb 10s 3
oniby 1517 maffli omby py maoi 6
naiob nsrn bpsmbs nsm psn-b7
Dpins sbi oins sbi
ms onyib ins' n?ib 7
ias na pia nabasn-sb ites na-p 51a nabasmsb lias 8
mni ni!T, nas
mbiiamsi interns!
onaaa onaa' psa
(nirb) dn7i:rb omnai nyib nyirb omnsi 9
n&mb :im: nsmb
nsjteb npateb
bib "omnin-iffls oipambaa do omisnos niapan'-bas
-nsi isimnsi 37in-ns -nsi 37in-ns ainn-ns 10
sinn isin
onb mnanffls amnissbi onb mnanffls

a Targ. 8JS11J nil K'JalX nil. b Targ. i«nsi. c Targ. paiai.
d Vid. 34: 17. T(!'ut 8:3. *

330 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [25:1-11
CAPUT XXV.
iman-bs imam-b5 1
A rostesin mten sm
Desuntj ¦ ^^^^Ofr
-bsi mini oy-b3-bs isi ibs -by sia'an/imam isi iffls 2
obffliii iaffli isoi-bp'bsi nnm D7-ba
oboiii
nso moy obos nao niffly obo-p 3
(pas) "ps-p p'as-p
na© onfflyi vbv naffl onfflyi fflb© nj
Deest ibs nimnai nm
iaii Biaffln onyate sbi iai! o'laos
oissan "nay-ns oaibs nbtesi inpy-bp-nsoBibsmmnbtei 4
nbffl oaffln' ' nbffli oaffln oissan
oaiarsa onatepmsbi yateb oaars-ns Dmomsbi
isiia' 01s iao iana' ©is spa© 5
naismb7 isteni naisn_b7 istei
oab mm 03b nim )n
I3bn-bs labmbsi 6
Oab 7inb D3111 iffl7B3 03b 71S Sbi 03ni lffl7B3
D . f isipyan pab nim-oss 7
\ opb yib opin nteyaa
mni nissa nim 8
nsib onaasmsb naims onVapsb
(psaa nnsffla) psa nnsffla ni'm-osapBaninBffla-ba-ns 9
Deest naybaa-Sfba issiiaiaa-bsi
nb 3130 aiiamba ' 3130 nbsn mian-ba
°Bbiy nsinbi obiy niainbi
pfflffl bipi nnaffl bip nnaffl bipi pwo bip 10
iia mi ami bip
na»b psn nafflb nainb nsm psn 1 1
oii3p nayi bapsjbpns'nVsnDiisnnsyi
» Vid. 1:2. b Cf. 35 : 15. " Cf. 23 : 40.

25:12-25] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 33-1
oiysffl (nisbaai) nisbaai nao oiya© msbaa mm 12.
ii3n-ns ipss nson -byi baa-sjba-b5 ipss"
sinn ' sinn iian
Deest f T^t] wiy-ns nim-asa
I Bptea %
Bbiy "naaob Bns maoi obi7 niaafflb ins maoi
Diian-b7 oii3mb3-b7 13
I Dpi opa namoa oa-iis? p 14
onb inabteiDibiiabpbai
Bnn: ntoyapi Dbysa
bsiffli inbs mm ias na bsiffli'mbs nim lasmp 15
lann )^n oiams np nann pm 013ms np ibs
-bsms nnipfflm nia bnp inis nmpom nia nsm
Diian Diian-bsms
°ispi ite5iinni ir
oiianms Dipmba-ns 17
nnffl-nsi nnni pba-nsi mioms mabamsi is
npifflbi' nafflb nmoipnbbpbinpiobnafflb
nyismsi nyisms 19
iay-ba-dnsi jiibiiamsi lay-bamsi mtemsi
Deest pyn ps pba-ba nsi 20
omfflbs iaba-b3 omobs ps i3ba-b3
oilsmsi. ' 'onsms 21
isba nsi ia isba nsi i3ba-bp nsi ia i3ba-ba nsi 22
lays iffls opban nsi pna 10s isn pba nsi pna

am

am 1373

pimsi

pms 23

m'nnsi

rismsi

aiymba nsi

-ba nsi 315 pba-ba nsi 24

' ai7n pba

Deest

nar pba-bp nsi 25

ois iaba-b3 nsi

na iaba-ba nsi

T T

T T

a Targ. nrisi. b ut Ps. 75:9 (Gk. & Heb.). c Cf. vs. 27. d lac.
vs. 20. e 'Pag.— Cf. Judges 5:23.

332 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [25:26-34
cpmn oipn iaba-ba Diaipn pan iaba-b3 20
aoisipm Dipmni
m3baan-b3 nsi psn ni3baan-b3 nsi
Deest onnns nnte: S|tete sjbai
naten inter nisaa mm ias-na m;bs 'nissa mm lasma 27
ibam ispm ibsaippinpte/nnte bsiffli
masi ombs masi 28
mni nisaa mm
niby ibid sipsnfflsa nya 13 iao sipsnffls iiya nan ia 29
npan ensi yinb bna 133s onsi yinb bna 133s mby
lpan sb ipsn sb ipan npsn
psn-by Dpfflm-ba-by psn'pffli-ba-by
Deest nissa nim dss
onsinms omb5 sssn nnsi -ba ns onibs sssn nnsi 30
oiiaa mm niasi nbsn ombs masi nbsn onsin
mi (loipaa) loipa isn pyaai asp dubb mni
iaipa-by ' 1am iai lbip aste: 3'ste ibip mi ifflip
isyi ' ai3ii3 (iim) ' nam myi 013113 inn inis-by
:psffl sai psn iaffli-b7i :psn iaffli-bp bs
psn nap-bb5 psn napn? psffl ss 31
ians Diyfflini loa-bsb sin aste aiyoin loa-bab sin astes
ainb smb Dana' '
t t :
mm nispa mni 32
bna iyoi ip-b? 113a nsai nyi iyoi iia_bs iiaa nsai nyi
°sai iiyi bna
mm Dip mm ibbn imi sinn Dip mm ibbn imi 33
psn dniapa psn napa
napi sb napi sbi isps: sb:nsp: sb
Diyi lbibm ' 'oiyin ibi'bm 34
nianm i'teb:snni
Deest opiniaisni
man (ib/sa) nap man iba's
a Cf. 48:24. b Inc. vs. 31. * iKirope-hrat. d Targ. ifipa.

25:36-26:11] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 333
Dnnsm ^san Tsan nnsa 36
mni iifflpo nini iiona
iasa oibon (im) roiste laiai pin iasa oibon niss laiai 37
ps pin nimps
(isb ,iroiste) nm. 130 3 s
bnbiianaainn 133a issp'in iasa: naim pin iasa

CAPUT XXVI.

oipiim (?*i"ba) tfba
Deest
mni nsa
-05) onimn-ba-bs man
mnnonb Disambpbi (? nnm
nim-misp
myin-ja mbim masi
mnns mbb
"nsi-bs yaob
ibs onyao sbi nbtesi fD3on
T ¦• - .... T Deest
psmbp 1113
ipten i'sisai
inis mni nianos-bs
ipten isissi
' nias p
(3011a) QpOliB
Biniaii-b5 nm isin
oinn iy© mnss
ipten isissi

oipiim msbaa 1
mim ifba
iasb mm' nsa
siTm npba-by man 2
mia ' ninn'fflnb Disan mm
nyimbs manai 3
onibs masi 4
mnna nabb
nsi-b? yaob 5
onyao sbi nibtei oaom
nnsp 6
psn nia
Disiaani 7
mni nianffls-ba 8
Disiaani
maa 511a 9
Sfflii psa
imam-bs
nbsn Dn.sin 10
©inn nim-iTO nnss
Disiaani 11

a Targ.ain Dl|3 la. b Vid.46: 16; 50:16. Cf.Isa.27:l. cTarg.ni32.
d Targ. xnpa ^a air'ijtl . e Targ. lasnai. f Targ. d?pa. S Targ. pa-p is.

334

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[26:12-22

Deest
nsrn anymb5 ssa 13
onfflmbs
nsrn myn-0b?i nm nisn-bb5 Deest
anyimp mni bimi
oanp isshi
oab aioai 1013
ip3 01
na Dpoim-'byi nsm myn-eb5i
D3ibs mni ijnbffl
ipten is.iss-bsi Deest
iniprn iaia mn
Deest
mop pia mm lasma
nateb oiboim fflinn nmn
innan nann
Deest
ibn sb-pi mni-ns isn sb pn
myin-]a mni bnrp
isiffl? isns'si
mn fflisi
nsrn psn-by Deest
iman itepaii msi-bp-ns
' bBnaa-bs sail
-bs oifflss T^Bn 'nbfflii
anaa

iBSb
nsrn mymbs_ sss 13
onfflmbp-bs 12
nsrn nymbsi nm msn-bs opm'bs 13
nyimbs mni onap
D31p issn 13S1 14
DBppa "iffliai 3103
ip3 Dl-ip 15
npoii-bsi nsrn nymbsi
D3ib5 mni ijp©
oisisan-bsi 16
iasb 17
impm ian sas mn 18
'iasb
pia nisaa mni iasm3
Dpy oiboini omn mo
mnn
innan nann 19
mim-sjba
bmi mni-ns sn sbn
nyin-bs mni onap
oi©y isn's'si
mn ©is-oai 20
nsrn psmbyi nsm ipn-by
lniaa-bai 21
iman -rban teppii inai-ns
onaa sail map smi
Dioss Dippm i>Bn nboii 22
onaa

a Targ. Kpp is. b Targ. is. c Targ. isi. d Targ. fa n awn
NPffiia. * Targ. isi. f Targ. isi. S Targ. xnpa ",a p ar\ ' "i Targ.
qinsai. ' Targ. di^iSai.

26:23-27:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 335

Desunt! **& ^"^ ?$***
I onaa-bs ms

Desunt

dob inis isiaiii onaaa innisms isian 23
ibambs oipPni iban-bs
133 npp-bs inis ibwi ^b npp-bs m'bssms ^ton
iay D?n
oyn-ina ayri-ma 2 1

CAPUT XXVII.-p Dppm nabaa rotesia 1
nm niim -[ba imteisi
nsa ni'aii-bs nm isin
:iasb nim
mni lasms ibs mni iBsma 2
psia-by nnsi nsia-by onnp
Dnsipb Disan onpsba ins Dissn opsba ma 3
oboni obfflin
mni ias-na nisaa mni las-na 4
miffly 133s ip irooy 133s 5
msi oisnms
psn i3B-by
lassiBiasb psn-ns mm niaismbpmsinropssnn^i 6
nimmsi iipyb ' bss TbB nba lasaiaias ip nbsn
"::isyb mon nionmnmsBaiiia5b3s : nsyb ib pins
issmsi Biian-b3 ins nayi 7

„ , f ites nanam
Desunt I ¦-¦ -••

Desunt

iais n5-sa 15 isa-p-nsi
Dpi op'a is 11351' simaa
jBibi'ia Bpbai
-sb 10s nabaam iiam -sb ites nabaam iian mm 8
I V "S T T J
a Big to fivypux.

336 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [27:9-18
l.ba bys Disia-ns ism lasjipiarns, ins 1135:
baa ip-sb 10s tisi baa-Sfba
bas iba bys'iisiams
Deest 13131
omb? smn Pan-b?
-oan-iy ons ianny
osb Diaopn-bsi bipten D3'isis3 -bsi opiaop-bsi D31S1SS 9
cD3iten3absiD3bDiabhn-bsi oaiaapbsi opmbbn
Dnasn iasb opi'bs anas omites
Deest oniasi cans wnini
(niayi) iiayi ' niayi nim-Dsa' 1 1
ibams nayi DBisiams isian iba bya oansisms' isian' 12
ba3 imi ia'51 ins 11371 bss
si np rjayi nns iman nab 13
nim isi ites'p ipisi 3713
ms ' lappsb ' ites" 11'amb's
-bs lyatembsi " :'baa -jba 14
opibs onasn bispasi nsi
bp3 ?jbams na?n iib iasb
pab ipo-eb5 iaoa Qissa om pab ipob ' ibos disss om 1 5
dmin imin
DpTaipo-b5oabDis33no3isi33i D3b oisasn Disiaani
Dianan-bsinTnoyn-ba-bsi apb nm oymba-bsi Disnambsi 16
Disiaan nsnbs opisiaa nanbs
Deest siina nn?
omnbte sb ms ns? onibs lyatemb's 17
nmn nab pm bpa irba
: nam nsp'ipn
p-i73Bi -mbsb nissa ninp sp73Bi is
mpp'onnian mbaniss
sinni rfb/g npi nim
: nbs3 obtemai

Desunt

a ut 24:10. b Targ. NIpCT pi.p?. c Cf. Gen. 44:5. d Cf. vs. 10.
e ut 28:15.

Desunt

27:19-28:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 337
im b7i mni n^ ns 13 -bs nisaa mm ias na 13 1 9
Qibsn -byi Dm-b?i Dnayn
oiba'n im byi nisisan
:nsrn m?a onnian
ms nibsa bss iba npb-sb iffls iba lasaipisa bnpb-sb iffls 20
obffliiia V113131 -p msisi-ns' inibVa bas
minpiba aippm
nh-bpnsi'nbaa aboi'ma
jobteini nnm
( m"bs nisaa njmiasmb p 21
Dnriian oibamb? bsite:
nnm-tfba mai nim roa
:bbteiin.
nps oi'i 15 imV natei 22
' ons' '
-bs cmstem Dmi'b5ni
nm oipan'

CAPUT XXVIII.
-lba mpiab niyiain nsffls inii mtesis sinn nstea imi 1
mini niim-iba nipia npbaa
niyiain niffls
pyssa "ipten sissn pysaa ites sissn
mm iasb bsipmbs nissa mm 2
siffla issi si'ob 13s 3
mm nia ibams mni nia iba-bams
Ibap-^fba iassi?i33 npb'ites
osisii ' nm' ' oipan -p '
' ' '*»
mini nibamsi mssi-nsi -sjba Dipp'm-p msai-nsi 4
mini mbrbp-nsi nnm
a Targ. KIplB Kjaa.
Y '

338 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [28:5-15
_ . f -bs sitea iss nbsp Qisan
Desunt j • nim-QS? nm oipan
-b3 isiyb mssmbs iman ibsii mssmbs' span maniasii 5
oisnan piybi oyn isiybi D^nsn 1317b span
D7mb3
niaii ibsii span man ibsii 6
piaims Dpi insims nim Dpi
nimnsi iyate mn isin ss-yate 7
D313TSS T3TSS
osiaebi TSBbl 8
nsi ps-bby nisi niais-bs
nanbab ipibi nyibi nanbab
isin sss Dibfflb sasan siaan sas oibfflb ' spa: 'ites sissn 9
ombs nbte iffls sissn wn sisan yip span ipi
nass mni nass mni inbtenffls
oymbp pps mssn npii naianms span mssn npii 10
nia'ii'isia bya m'oianms span niaii isia bya
pafflm umafflii
, f iaS3133S 11
Desunt \  „ _fct.«"«i'Ji»U
[ dibi omsffl nys
Diiamba nsis bya oiian-ba isia bya
'nian sipan man
bya niaiamns mssn nsffl nns ms span mssn ns© nns 12
iisia mam isp bya naian span
(nteysi) mifflyi pffl7i 13
mm bsitei mbs nissa nim 14
iayb oiismba isia-by mns nbsn biismba'isia-by mns
bas ibams bs's-lbaiassisaa-nsisyb
Desunt ( n^ TO *\ ""W
nissmbs nian ibsii nissmbs span nianiasii 15
 siaan
a Targ. Tjaars. b Targ. is.

28:16-29:9] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 339
Deest mssn sryate
nm oyn-ns nnasm nm oyn-ns nnosn' nnsi
na nns ms-m nsiss na nns nsinn 16
Deest nim-bs mai mp-p
iyiaffln wins nai: smn nstep'span mssn nai: 17
tiffin 'inns

CAPUT XXIX.
man span mam 1
nbisn isprbs nbian ispi im-bs
-bs nbsa isp ipten isias-bsi Disisan-bsi
nbian
Dbtenia iasai3isa nban ites

Desunt , nbps
laoan: (oninn) bih-b3i fflinmobteini nnm' nte 2
fflinni moani
bss iba-bs bss iba lassipiss-bs 3
mni nissa mm 4
nbi3n-b5 nbismbpb
obonia nbsa Dboima"
oiffls inpi 'oiffls inp 6
lan ote-1311 nissi qi?3 nsibni
psn oibfflb ifflin ipn bibffl-ns iffliii 7
' D173 ibbanm ni7S ibbsnm
Dab oibffl oibffl oab mni
isiffli-bs mm ias na 13 m'bs nisaa mm ias na 13 8
iffls npten isiaa oab D3b" isiffli-bs bsip
03b isiffii-bsi D331p3 D331pS IfflS DpiSiaa
oaiaop OBiaopi
(onpte) ipffl ia ipfflp ia 9
a Targ. xnn Jtnaa. b eke&e'pov. c Targ. SOJpi.

340

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[29:10-19

Deest
ms onsaai
osb (irosmi) imbasi

Dmnbffl sbi silT"13^? Bmnbo sb
(nsbab) nsbas 13 nsba pb 13 10
sionb B3iby nsnns mapni sion nsnns aaiby mapni
D3B5 D3ns sionb
"oibffl nstena oaiby stensi nistenanms mym pas p 1 1
osb nnb niyi sbi " -ass' baiby aten ipss ites
nbs sbi 'oibffl niatena nim
mpni nnns D3b nnb n5ib
onpbm ms onsipi 12
onsaai 13
D3b msaaai 1 4
oprostems -<p\^-0) nip-asa
opan-bpa opns maapi
mnin ites niai'pambpai
mhteni Tpiass ate op'ns
mibmntes oipambs opns
: bob opns
trbambs. nim ias nb-p 16
-bs-bsi 111 s'op-bs stei'in
opms nsm ipp steim oyn
mbias oans isapsb ites
Desunt { pan nispa nim 'ias nb 17
syinms sinnmi* os nbtea
Dpsnp onis mnsi laimnsi
: 51a nsbpsmsb ites onyten
3513 aina onnns ms'in. is
bab nyirb o'mnsi isipi
na'tebi nbsb psn mabaa
Di.iambpa 'nsinbi npitebi.
ntesnnii :ote'oinninntes 19
nim-oss nsmbs iyate-sb
ipy'-ns onibs mnbte' ites

a Targ. saiiii nadna.

29:20-31] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 341

Desunt

sbi nbtei oaten oispan
onsi minpDsa Dnyate 20
nbian-bp 'nim-iai lyate
i'nbss obteima mnbtentes
inipia-bb?i ssns-ab5 ssns-bs bsitei mbs nissa 21
-p mpia-bsi mbip-p '
laos oab oisaan mteya 'ipte
bss-lba iip bsspba lasiiaiaa ip
mini niba baa nbbp ana inpp niba bab nbbp ona npbi 22
bsss bass ites mini *
10s snssi mpiab ntey itesp nbBDbp-ifflssnsajiimpiaB
oss nbp bss'-'iba ' ©ss bss
iBfflS 1131 1311 Ipffl iBfflS 131 llSlp 23
17 133S1 171 7liin 133S1
Deest iasb 24
-p masa-bsi iates mnrrbte & *,&& nispa nim lasmia 25
ias pan mffl7a nns" ites pi iasb bsite':
-ba-bs bnsp naiptes nn'bte
-bs: obtenp 'ites 'o'yn
pan mcya-p' 'mass
:iasb opnambp-bsi.
ois-bsb mm niaa cmps nimb -bab mm nia "onps roinb 26
yaiaa teis-bpbi sa'sna sssnai ysffla' 01s
dn'aambsi pPambsi
Dmy3 nab mya sb nab 27
n:m teins p nbo p-by" sbn bss isibs nbo' p-by p 28
' iasb "nbaa Dpibs nbo iasb
nissa pbn nissa 29
isomns nm isonms
iniaii span miaii
nbism^s nbo nbismba-by nbo 31
» Targ. is. b Targ. isi. c Targ. N*?na 'jSp fcWaa. d /caTapd/cryv.
e Targ. iaai. f Targ. nii.

342 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [29:32-30:1
myaffl-aby myao-bs
myaffl-by ''abnan myaffl-by 32
«is (ona) onb mm-sbi -spna sffli fflis ib nmi-sb
-iffls sion nisib oppins siap nsipsbi nm oyn
sb oab" n«y ' 'iss -dss laybmffly iss-iws
isii nim-by ipi mp-p nim

CAPUT XXX.
sha ^O3 2
iBB_bb5 iso-b's
°mimi bsiffli-b? niim-bsp bsiffli-bs 4
nais bip mni -mm na nim bip mm ias n3-ia 5
I7aten is?ate
niinn-byiiBTibpDSisnibsffl ibi-os isn ss-ibsffl 6
y'te'11 Di.s'na iti'si na ites iar
diss ''iB&ns' liabn-b'y mp lsansi mbp'p nabn-by mi
ppnb ' ppnb Qiso-ba
bi!3 rm 13 bii3 13 iin 7
ina3'dpsi mas psa
ia«s mni dss sinn Dm mni dss sinn am mm s
ommioiai oisia b7B byn b7a ib? isffls nisaa
117 11371 -sbi pnss pnss rpnnoiai psiai
onrb :Dnni7 is-iis7i-sbi
onb D'ps onb Dips ites 9
' aj?5: 1135 sim-bs nnsi 10
p bsite: nnn-bsi nim-oss'
'esunt I Wnsipnia^yteWpsn
aptei spy: atei opte psa
rms'-p :inna psi pstei n
13' syiteinb nim-oss 13s"
a Targ. is. b Targ. is. c Targ. npii isntai is. d Targ. nii.

30:12-22] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 343
ites Dp'an-bps nbp nteys
Desunt l ^'^ W Bte imiaisn
asteab tiiniBp nbp nteys
:T1pss sb nps:
iso msos mni ta8 na pateb teiss nim ias na p 12
(nsBis)nsBi mrab isn p-ps nissi nj'ab isn p-ps 13
lb ps nb?in ib ps nb?n
iBin sb ifflin sb inis 14
pybbby Tiyai'by
[ teiss sriste-b5 pyrrrna 15
Desunt < iaa? Ip? Si b5 p'SSB
i Sfb nbs mite? spnstan
13i73i b5(ib3Si)i3nbiDi03-b3 iab: iptea obs 10
lb nbs itoy imson iaa?
nbm npaai srnais nbys' 13 imiaaai sib nais nbys ia 17
bissis issis
p sm Dpip nsipa nma 13 sm pa ib isip nma 13
nb ps on ' nb ps on
ipoi aipyi ms© sirnasn aipyi ibns nia© aia-issn
oms (iniatei) oms imispteai
(05m) panni ; paisi
(m'nn) "ann'tea ona isan bipi nn'n ona san 19
oipnffla bip Qipnffla'
• Deest 115a: sbi omippni
omsa (labm) isai ' nss iini 20
oniyi ' imyi
dDnian'b-b7 iianb-bp'b'7
ibfflai Dmb7(nps) imisimi iaipaibwaiisaaiinsmm 21
ibs 6isiop omappi sai i&qq i'3S ©|31 ^p^^^ ^i
ibs siteb isbms ps ibs nteab isbms 317
Desunt f nms pssi oyb ib on^ni 22
:ombsb oab
v. . .. ... T
a eig dXyyjpov. b Cf. vs. 12. c Targ. Krvrin iisa. d Targ. "jiniglrfl.
B Targ. "pspni •jisa^!*!.

344 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [30:23-31:10
"nans nsai nim myo p nsai nan mm myo nan 23
oiyoi-by mana 170 sai Qiyffl-itesTby inana iyo
sisi bim

CAPUT XXXI.
bsiffli nnsfflab bsiffli ninsffla bab 1
nnte-D? laias on saa sin iinfflD7iaiaa' psaa 2
bsiffli lain sbi i3bn am bsiffli i7pinb sn'bn
nsns ib 'nsis piiiia mni nsnsi ib nsis mni pmia 3
pnaoa p-by pnans abiy mnaffla p-by imans obiy
ionb ion
isas p isss iiy
b1&n mpn ipn nam
DpifflB °bnps Dipnwa binas
Dials lyan ip Diaia i5on iiy 5
ibbni lyos ibbni opps iyos
laip onss pins Dnas nsnp laip onss ins onaa isip e
oambs mm-bs pia ib?i ' iambs mm-bs pia nbyai
main apyib mni >ras n'a-*o spyib iai mm ias na'-ia 7
(naii) ibnai ibnai nnaffl
ms mm yitein ' nas ibbni ms mm ytein nasi ibbn
diay » *jay
psaa psa psa 8
mbn npte(n) lyiaa 11m mbinnin nesi 1150s
mn lsifflii nsn laiffli
elS3|i 1333 1S31 1333 9
dib ibns-fb5 (opbis) pibna qib ibns-bs oapbis
ns 17m sbi ns ibtea: sb
mni-nsi nimnai 10
nas nasi
a Targ. K^a; pa. b Cf. Exod. 15:20. c Targ. nsna?. d Targ.
pths ni. e Targ' ^aa iin ia pisaa. f Targ. is.

31:11-20] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 345
isaspn :5Mpi
isaa aoiprn iia lbsa isaa prn na ibsai 1 1
issi pia-bins issn issi nnsi pia-oiias' 13311 isai 12
-by mm 310-bs (nnai) -by: 'pi-by mni mtrbs
isai ipsi nsi coimi pi ps isa-i.sa-b5: inai-byi 01m
-sbi ns pp boss nroni mi pa 0033 'nroni ipai
dii7 (?npyib) 1371.: ' '1:7 nssib iBpP-sbi
anna bnpa nibina nsnaonrs onnai binaa nbinsnaonrs 13
nm Dispri ' 11m Dispri
Dmnaoi osiaia amnaoi omansi
Di3nanoB3iniiii(inbi3n)inpi 'pi onmn ©83 mnii 14
'**k ^p "
Deest nim-DSS
nssa bm onnani 1331 -b5 nssa bm Dnnan' 133 15
13 ms3-b7 nisb nssa ms3-b7 onanb nssa ross
'ops laps 13
T.nPa-a 113171 issa ibip 73a: nyaia iispi 133a ibip psa -i 6
eTn'byBb iso ©1 13 ' ninposainbyBbiaoona :
bDpps psa T sps psa
(1:53b pipr) innnsb mpn nip-ass iroinsb mpn-tep 17
' obisab Dps istei
inyao nyiate. my'ao yiate 1 8
Naiab sb baya (ps) 'pss iab sb bays
pate. iins-i3 ipi'te nns-13 19
noa oii-by (misoj mress -oai moa Tp-by mpsp
nsm msos 13 'rprosini "' nsin msos 13 mabps • T
kniyaa niys
Diyifflyia ibi ib onss npi p ibi os onss ib npi pn 20
nr is 'nsi iia-i3 is 1131 na-13 oiyifflyffl
1313TS ll'y 1313TS 13T
(lb) nbs mina ib iya ian
a Targ. VBfKrn Iia. b Targ.llaa. c Cf. Deut. 33:28. d Vid. vs. 25.
e Cf. 33 : 18. f Targ. ii? ilK. S Targ. i^aisi. h Targ. piaa": iisa S'iNa.
1 Targ. WS|K Nil. k Cf. Ps. 129:1. ' Targ. inpx iaJns.

346 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [31:21-33
a(?)oniian ia» ps isamn ib laffl Dp*a lb isian 21
(?)nsn3b isb mia ' n'bpab isb mo onnan
bnbps piy-bs 130 nbs inybs no
ypab (yte:) n?'iteii mni sis-i3 psa ntein' mni «ia-ia 22
'ansa ssioi nyitens tein isa ssion nsps
' mm iasma p m'bs nisaa mm las-na 23
bsio:
mm (ina) psi irosffl-ns niffls mm pirn omaffl-ns laiffls
ifflip in pia-b? ffl'i'pn in pia-nis
iais-baai nnm i-pp opten iny-bai 'nnm na la'fflp 24
' nys istosi ibs-b? 11m iiya'iypp onas nni
esa-bai nsaa oss-ba mnin ia oss-bai nsp obs mnin 13 25
msba np5i msba nasi
nnm ib mi^'m'soi ib nsi? insoi 26
mss Diai nsn pb diss dibi nsn 2?
nnni-nsi bsioms niininpmsibsioinpms
Deest Ipsnbl Oinbl pinabl 28
iswi ids ib3S mssn nasi-sb ids ibss niss 11'7'iiasi-sb
nampn onsn nsinpn 0133 isffli
basni bssn Dismbp 30
(-ns lapn) na? sb nan p mnams nsn namites 32
°ds mbrp i33si inns(a) ' oa mb?a isssi '
inns nsr ia nnan nsr 13 33
m'mnms ps pro mnnms mns
pnas omroab-byi siasnss opb-byi
iiabi sbi 'iiy nabi sbi 34
niroms yi mni-ns iyi
Deest nim-DS3
doronisonbi amnisiyb onsonbi bsiyb
Dim nsb fflBffln ps oan iisb oao'ps 35
Deest npn
nbibn nsb nbib nsb'
a iroiTiaov Tip.apia.-j. b Aram. nii«(?). c Cf. 14:19. d Vid. 16:18;
18:23; 36:3.— Targ. piSBni ppni!

31:37-32:5] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 347
op (rail) ten: am ya'i
nbyab aiao (ian) ibT-ds dibo napos mni i^ nb 37
(bstep) pnm dsi nim ias ps-npia npnn nbyaba
sb iss-oa noab psnio» -bps osas iss'-oa noab
mni-Dss bsioi yirs osas io's-b3-by bsioi yir
ioy i©s-b3-by nmi-oss ioy
BiSS DiBi CPSS ° 38
iiy nrossi iiyn nroasi .
absasn bi3aa bsss'n bmaa
snniyssiyDiasnmaipsan iias man nip iiy san 39
nilpl DpSSS 3pD 3031 3031 313 na>33 by
(ysmpssa) nnya
Deest pirn onasn pay'n'-bai 40
broaifflmb3i ' maifflmbai
obiyn5 oini-sbi 0031 iiy sbi obiyb n'y oini-sbi ©roi-sb

CAPUT XXXII.
iniaii-bs mni nsa mni nsa iroan-bs 1
msaffl nsffln sm cinipia ibab sm miro iba lropiab
Iba lasiisiss ibab niffly rote niffly'-naaffl naon
bss lasmaiaab
bss iba'bmi bss iba bm tsi 2
(nate) sibs imam siba nm span iroami
lba-dni33 iffls nnm ib'a-ros i»s
lnpia iban isb3 'ifflss nnro-ibairo'pia isba nss 3
bsspba pp bss-iba ip
inipiai nnm iba iropiai 4
baa-pa np ' baa-pa ip
eliB"bs 118 1311 118-D? ns 1311
ate: oia: (nbas) bss impiaibn mmflffliiropiamsTbiibssi 5

aut32:9. b Ka) irdvre g 'kaap^p:ah c Vid. vs. 3 ; 34 : 6. d Targ.
niaa n. ¦ Cf. Num. 12 : 8.

348 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [32:6-17

n f 13 nim-oss ins npsn?
uesunt | ^^^biiteanmsianbn

inian- bs nm mm-isn nimnsi nm iman iasn 6
iasb iasb ibs
nspab nnpb asffla nispb nbsvan osoa 7
m'obte-p nim isip m-p 8
"lb nsp iasn ss n'sp ibs iasn
piroysnos paias 'pss iffls pans pss iffls mroysnos
nnsi inispb osoa ib ia rp ntemn asoa lb 13
(nbian ibi) biian ' ' ' ib-rop nbsan
bsasn moms napsi bsaan nsa nitenms nipsi 9
Deest ' nhS53 iffls
moyi Dibp© nys© ib-nbposi nysffl ippmns ib-nbpfflsi
t|D3 span moyi oibpffl
iBD-bs anasi isop anasi 10
Deest nbanmsi oipnm niaan 11
(ins nsi) ins psi nspan ison'ms'insi 12
oiteasn isiyb: m-pbsasn isiyb onyn 1317b: ni bsasn 1317b
Disnsn: anaim onnan
iana ites on:mn 'niybi optem Dniromba 1317b
moan moan ians
nissa mni bsite: m'bs nissa mm 14
Deest nbsn ansomns
-ibss innsi snjsn ibo nsi nban iso nsi'oinnn nsi
lB7i' pab oin pab ©in->bos onnsi nm
nayi
mm bsip. m'bs nissa 'mm 15
omsi nil© " roiffli oma
bniro nns nan nim pis nns 17
dsbai-sb maim nnosn I'yirsi iaa sbspsb nnosn I'yir'si
lai'-ba' iaa (nnpi) lai-ba
a ut vs. 7. b Cf. 1:6; 4:10; 14:13. c Targ. Saana. d Vid.
vs. 27. e Targ. pani xi.

32:18-32] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 349
niss miaiy niss py is
Deest iate nisaa nini
bsn nibibyn sn nayn bia nim ntes nibibyn sn nayn bia 19
nini do biai nispa biian' ' issiaiTba-byninpBTsiy
nnb Disn 13a iambs Ts'i7 lpiia o'isb nnb' ' dis
iana oisb ^bbsa nsa:.
(naisn inbpij Dis papi bisai 20
nprn in npm nsi 21
caibna boisiB3i bna siiasi
Deest onb nnb 22
nns inpn nns iteni 23
imiinsi iniinai
onb mna ios-ba ns niteyb onb nroia los-ba ns
n^sn niyimbs ns onb isnpp nsm nyimbs nson'ssipni
sa (bmn) pann nsn iss nibbbn nsn 24
Dpfflan np onoan na
Deest IBini
nm p mai losp nsi sjani nm mai ifflsi
ibs mas nnsi nim pis' ibs mas nnsi 25
ony -psi onnsi isp ahpsi ony 15m
bniron pp onosn np
iasb ibs iasb iroan-bs
mm iss mm iss'nan 27
i3i-b3 (insi) dsb3i isaan isnbs sbsp naan
^sio: m'bs mm ias ns pb pb pan nini ias' ns pb 28
np'smn iiyn epan pan Dntesnnansmiiynms
baanba bss-pa lasiipiss nai
Dmsnms isitei omsn nsi niBioi 29
D ' *f m's Dip5pa is bsitepiss'p 30
esun { nim-Dsa Dron ntoyaa
nsrn iiyn nmn ' nsm nyn ib nnm 31
nnnn. bsioi-na nynba b7 minpsaibsiffli-nanynbaby 32
a Targ. pin. b Targ. Kiimai. c Cf. Exod. 3 : 3. d Vid. vs. 17.
e Vid. 34:2.

350 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [32:33-44
oroanai oroiffli Dmabai orosna anno oroaba
mini ' ioss 'omsiasi laonnnmoisiDmsissi
obonp opfflmi obffliii
iyate sbi oaon ons miabi Epsi labi ason ons labi 33
101a nnpb m'y ioib nnpb opao
"Dmsaoa, isaab 34
onmisamsi Brosams anpnb -nsi Dross -ns naynb" 35
Iban ibab ibab oroniss
bsiffli mbs nini i'a's-na nnyi mbs nini ias-na pb nnyi 36
nns ias nsm nymbb5 ios nsm roymbs bsiffli
' bas-iba pp pan °ias baspbans nsns anas ons
(nnbtea'a:) dptes: ipisi
psn baa niaisn-baa 37
Dpa'a bmsfflm nasb omsfflm
ins sbi ins in ins i'm ins sb 39
onb siabi onb'siob
Deest onis piamb 40
ibya diio mbsb ibya 110 mbsb
mipsi Dmb5 mtotei 41
tess-basi isb-b'aai itesrbbsi isb-bss
ns nm Dyn-eby inssn iidsb nm oymbs' mssn ioss 42
nbsn nibiian niyimbs nsm nbmn nyimbs ns
nisiombB-ns nsiambB-ns
'nil© ny ispsi niten nspsi 43
nas nns anas ons
on»3n ins isroi oneon ma. nsns
isos ainani epas roiffl ispn isoa ainai iapi apsa' niio 44
ony ipni Dinnni o'ny 15m ainm
obffliii s'isosi obffliii ipispai
ba3sn nysi nbsffln nysi sssn nysi nb&wn nysi
Deest nim-DS3
 » * \.
»Cf.Lev.l6:16. bTarg.iS. c Vid. vs. 43. d Iv diroeroljj. e Targ.
is. f Targ. pp yoapi. S Vid. vs. 36. h Iv xokeai rr4g Sf^Xa
tea) iv irSkeni T-ijg vayi/3.

33:2-13] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 351

CAPUT XXXIII.
anros lain ps noy nms ian pro noy 2
(°?niiasi) banyii sb ites'nnaai • Bnyii sb nnsai 3
nini bsite: m'bs mni 4
nnm iba ' ' mini pb«
pnni nibbon-bs Binmbsi mbbon-bs
Deest qisb 5
nsbabi osbabi
ona ias minoni nsproynaiasimnonitesi
-ca miteyi ronssm onb irob3i niny onb irob3i onssii 6
nas-aa Dib» nasi Dibffl
dDroni3iy-b3B ' Daiy-baa s
tronw'b ibrs-sbi Dromsiy-bipb 'mnboi
ia iyfflsi 13 iyffl& itesi
pfflfflb nnmi po© oteb ib nroni 9
psn 113 psn pia
133s 10s niaiamba ns noy 133s 10s nsiombams
noy ' onis
fonb noy 133s ios nb noy 133s 10s
manai bis psa nana psai bis psa 10
abfflim ¦pnai obffliii nianai
nansi ois psa psai steii psai dis psa
nans
mni hnisb (nisnajninsaisisp nini nis niin bissb 11
smn psnmiso-bpms psmmsoms
iny-bss 5nan3i dis psa iiiy-bBsinansnpiBis-psa
dpi nis oiyi np
ksasn nysi nbson nysi aasn nysi nbson nys 13
nsianpby nsia npby
a Cf. Isa. 45:18. b Targ. •jisnsni kVi. c Targ. pBS!|=nil«M.
d Targ. piain. c Targ. piain. f Targ. iini nias s»!>n.T s ut 32:43.
h Targ. npi. ' ut 32 : 43. k Vid. 32 : 44.

352

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[33:14-26

Desunt

nim-oss oisa Dpi nan 14
ites 'sibn isinms mapm
np-b?i bsitei. np-bs miai
sinn n?ai unr} Dpp : nnm 1 5
no?i npis nas nib mass
oiap :ps3 npiari ostea 16
pbteimi niiro ytein onn
nb-sipipte's nri nppb paten
nim'iBsnb-p iiapisinim 17
-by btei 'teis nib niapsb
opniabi ibsitopnp 'sop is
psba teis nippsb opbn
niisa napai 'nbiy nb?a
mn :Qiam-ba na:T nteyi 19
niasb iroan-bs nimnai
ms nspos nini ias nis' 20
nbpbn innamsi bim mna
: anyp nbibpDBP nim mbpbi
11.3? linn's isn inna-oa 2 1
msiispa-b? ibBiaib-nPna
ites" tmitea Dpnbn opbn 22
ia:' sbi'oi'aten sss isopsS
111 yij'ms nsis p om bin
:m's mite'a bnbn-nsi np?
iroan-bs nimnai ' mp 23
oy'nma rosi sibn'siasb 24
ninstean mte'iasb liai nm
Dpsap ona nim ina ites
na iiy nimapssp. iay-ns:
sb-os nim" ias na jorossb 25
Di.ate ro'pn'nbibi oan mna
B°ip5: P|-ba 'imao-sb psi 26
nnpa osas. 1135 1111
omps yirbs oibtea iyi-ro

34:1-10] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 353
Desunt { "n* a,*T» =TO P^T-
I :amam: ornate

CAPUT xxxrv.
-by lanba inbteaa ps-ba: in nbteaa ps niabaa-bai 1
nnm ny-ba-byi obfflim -by oianba oiayn-'ba:
iasb iasb miy-ba-byi obffliii
-bs ibn mm las-na bsite: 'm'bs nini las-m 2
iropis iropia-bs masi ibn
pba pp nsrn iiyn apan pan ns nsm nymns' pa pan
mabi'bss' bssnba '
pan mm osnn osw pan imi osnn osn ip 3
baai naisin npyms 113171 ' baa-Sfba piyms 113171
sian isn npns. imsi nsisin
sisn bssi
Deest ama niamsb nb? 4
ms (nnsoapi) nsp itespi Dpban proas nisiteaai 5
Tssb laba-nns 'imias' ' p Ts'sb nmiffls Dptesin
bnn ib-oa' iispi (pfflsia) pis nni ib-isiipi
Ib-nsoi biste-171 pi's ib-nsai
Propis ibambs imam ism -bs span imam iq-jp 6
nnro iba iropis
nnm ny-byi obffliii-b7 onb3 -ba b7i 'obfflin -by oianba 7
npry-eb?i ffli3b-db?i: -bs niinian mini ^y
' npry-bsi ©13b
1111 sipb oyn-ns obtenp ites oyn-bpms 8
nil onb sip'b
nnroa ©is isy mbsb inms nima D3-i'sy mbsb 9
T • T • * T T 01s
mi33Dissn-b3ioiion-b3isiten oymbai onfflmba lyatep 10
"¦ Vid. 32 : 28. b Targ. il. c Vid. 32:1,3. d Targ. is. e Targ. is\
Z

354 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [34:11-20
ms 101s: nsyms uns nbfflb vnm nbfflb nnss isantes
mbfflp innsffl innsffl-ns fflisi nsyms
iiy op-is? mbsb oitesn
' inbffln' lyatep
nin&fflbi onsyb aonis ms isiten p-iins isiten 11
ites ninstemnsi onayn
oiteipap Difflsn inbte
ninsfflbi onsyb
Deest nim nsa 12
nini bsite: mbs mm 13
ms nbffln , ois© tete nsbap teis inbon ono ypte pja 14
mns ' nnsms
ibs iyaffl-sbi ifflsn innbffli -sbi ia?a iosn innboi
ibs opmiss iyao
nioyb onn nop 107m 01m ons isfflni ie
nns imap nns imsni
nsyms ©is sionb 1137ms ©is isfflni 16
Deest ons itepari
sip issn inyib wis nn sipb fflisi imsb teis 1111 sipb 17
oab nn mi oab sip 1331 inyib
Deest nip-DSS
nsimbsi isimbs
, psn roabaa baa cnyirb psn mabaa bab nypb
inns-ns roisn nsims 18
ib-is?b ito? 110s bayn npyn optob ima 110s' bayn
innp pa
(aioiDm.) dBnnsm mini 1-1© obtein ntei nii'm nia 19
nyni' onnani 0? bbi onnbm Dpion
nna ip Dns?n psn bain
nmm omsisb oms innai nsi onisis lis oros mnai 20

aIno. vs.ll. b Targ. Jttiia ftfi. c eighasiropdv. Vid. 24:9. d Targ.
siaia^i.

34:21-35:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 355
basa onbss - onbas nnm: otep? ''tepaa basab
oroais nn ps onnffl-ns: onisis ms ps lnirrnsi 21
oibynb bss iba bip ipi doss ' ifflpaa nai
orobya Dpib7a oibyn bas iba bm
nsm psmbs omaom nsm ipmbs omsom 22
niaaite (pnsi) pis psi naate ps

CAPUT XXXV.
Qipnni Ian irotesi-p Dipnro ibis 1
cnissni 8oi33in nn-bs iibn man rossin nia-bs iibn 2
nns-bs mni nn-bs mro ros onissm Dip's
nnsnn matebn nns-bs
nppi ns (spsi) ip'si n'prs.ims nps: 3
'nss-nsi ' nss-bsmsi
mni Yns-bs mni np 4
inibiai-p roaamp pi 133 inibiai-p pn iss
onon np onon nateb
irooya roab lnioya natebb
isnn ia© asn iao
pi 5133 brossb Dpa3 Dpainmp ps issb 5
pi Disba
ibsi onibs IBS!
issn-sb omsi isan-sb npi 7
oab nini sb oiai 03b mni sbi iyon-sb disi
nib? D113 ons 10s naismby on3 ons ios naisn ps-by
(na) ote
aisini Banp siaini 8
Deest isis ites bab
131331 laifflSl '13133 13iffl3
a 'Apxafa'v. Vid. vs. 3. b Targ. npi.

356 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [35:9-18
Dtempteb isftsteb 9
isb nm'sb isb-mro'sb
"psmb7 lasnsiss nibys bsa-lba iasil3ias mbya 11
psmbs
bDbffliro-bs sisal s'sb Dbfflin sissi is'3
ote sfflsi (Dn.ites) ntes bm nsai obtenp siosi 01s bm issai
iasb ibs lasbiman-bs 12
mni bsn»: m'bs nissa mm 13
Deest ^iT"08?
csis:ni pa iai :aipn sisini nsnns bpin 14
' ' "f ns i7ate 13 nm Dimny
Desunt | •• ' Drops niaa "
Dn7Bffl sbi D3i»n ibs on7Bffl sbi ipii osinn
ois is© iasb oisissn 1137ms opten oisi33n nsT-bpms 15
n7in 1311a fflis ss-iso iasb rfbtei
n7in ibiib
dnaismb? laoni naismbs isffli
onyaio sbi DBprsms ibs onyao sbi oasTsms
laipni iapn ip 1 6
Deest Dia IOS
ibs yao sb ibs iyao sb
mm bsip in'bs nisaa m'bs' mm 17
obfflni maii-'b?: nmro-eby nffli'i-ba-bsi ' mim-bs oboiii
~ , f :yate sbi onibs miai pi
Desunt { - r ¦.,*--,¦¦-• ' -
\ is? sbi onb sipsi
10s pi mm lasma pb mBinpaiiiasopainniabi 18
spnp 3is:ni 133 iyao ' in'bs nissa 'mni ias
nioyb' oross niaa (-by) -b? bnyate'ios pi bsip
' crops oia ifflsa iiateniDpisssisimniaa bbp ifflyni imiaa-bams
Dan's 'ma-'iffls
a Targ. NS1X is. b Targ. tailpii. c Cf. vs. 16. d Vid. 25 : 5 —
Targ. SS^iX is. * ' e Targ. is. f Targ. isi.

35:19-36:8] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 357
Desunt / "^ "fr ^ nis 1?* 19
I bsitoi inbs

sisn paa aisnb
psn iapba oiam-bs

CAPUT XXXVI.
nymn n3«s nymn nsios mn 1
iasb ibs mni ^ nm iroambs nm isin mn
iasb mm 'nsa
broby nsnsi nibs nsnsi 2
Dbtenpby bsifflpby
miro iba inios'i iaia irofflsi ima
'mini nn yaffli ibis mini nis iyaoi ibis 3
mnboi nyin "opna isiffli pab nyin Pna teis isiffli pab
dDronson'bi anmisiyb onsonbi asiyb mnboi
smn ins anan 4
isombaa-bs i&o-nbaa-b?
nasr ns nay ns 5
nini °nia-bs .mm' ma
nsm nbaaa nsip: nbaas nsip: nns nss: 6
Deest nin: mims isa nsnantes
mni Vna mm nia
mini-ba nrsai nnnnba nrsa oai
onb sipn osipn
bm-ia nyin BD3iia' laiion -ia nyin i'3iia«is laion 7
b-by nniws mm nam asn -^©x nanm &sn bna
nm oyn nm oyn-b's mni -qi
ins i»yn n»ia-p ina i»7n s
imam sipan imam
aut Gen. 8:22. b Targ. nis. c Vid. vs. 7. d Vid. 16:18; 18:23;
31:34.— Targ. pijtaniil piaini.T' e Targ. niai. f Targ. npa. SVid.
vs. 3. h Targ. is.

358

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[36:9-21

nini niss
oipnro ibab ropaten nsios
mini npi
innaa nps mni n^s
isin mnsp
Dymba istssi
isan np-bbs iban-aros-bs in:
isffli ono-ba
psinn. iroabte-p Deest
fpriB IHB-bs CS31
1113
onibs lip
sip d(site) ste
ins sipn
(ia?is) ia?mn na'sn
nsna (is) lis
Deest
ilia iasn
imp: ibs sip
iso's mans ias:
' nasn
inon: ib
yii-bs bus
yafflibs nips
nbsn onsimbB ns ibab
sipn yaioibs npa nnpn

mni nis
-p oipiirob roteann naios 9
nnronba irotesi
mini inya 'oisan b?n-bpi
obteiip
inna3 nptebs mni nn 10
iy© nns
oymba nrsa
iBonnpteb-byibanmnim 12
oipffli'i oiiffln-ba
psbsi inpate-p 1S03 13
Tis-bs 14
inns-p 1113
onibs' san imp
nasipi'ss ate 15
onprsa ins sipn nns 16
liis-bs nasn
nsna lis isb ssnan 1 7
ipa
im anb iasn is
ibs sip:
ins isomb? anb issi
onten nasn 19
' inon ib
7mbs ffliSl
isbn 7ai»ibs npteba 20
Dnaimba ns iban pfss
issn 7Bfflibs npteba nnpn 21
nsipn

» Targ. npi. b Targ. naisii. c Targ. »n»l. d ut vs. 28.— Targ. Ml.

36:22-32] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 359
pnn rosp atei ibam ami ma ateP ibam 22
Deest pitenn teiha
nasb (nsn tesi) tes nsi ni?sa nssb nsn-nsi
©sa ibfflp ison iy'ns pipi ibom ibbsi iyns rpipi 23
nsn-b5 110s nsn-bs iffls fflsm'bs
nsn-by iins i»sp nsmby iios ©smby
(item) nps-sb'i iins:sbi 24
ms7: msy-bai
Ibab ia?i lrobiai psbsi iroiaai irobii psbs bsi 25
spfflb p,iffl mbab 'ibaa lyasn
Desunt { , '^ ^ **!
[ bsia?-p imabo-nsi 26
nnpp iniaii nsi insms imaii nsi ison'm'sms
nini oinpp span
Qnsimbp bnsin'msi 27
snai nib? sn3i 2 s
onsimbs optesin oiis'in-bs
nbaamby nstosin nbaan-by
Qipnni pban niim-pa Dipnm
mas: iBshnnn{pbaDipp'ro-b?i 29
' n'ptei np'teni
nbibn mpbi Dim ainb nbibp nipbi Dip sinb 30
Deest 03i?ms 31
nb? mssm oroby msani
nnm' pi$-bsi mini ©is-bsi
mns nbaa ins npn nmiimnsnbaanpbinpaip 32
' isbn roia-p iiis-bs '
Deest ' tess nnm-iba
disi onsi rob? "ispia nyi oisi anai Drob? tfpis' m'yi
nana ' nanp
a Targ. <lBDinS.

360

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[37:1-14

CAPUT XXXVIL

iropia iban
Dipnro
minp Ibab
lyaia sbi
iniaii ms
imBm-bs mni-bs
ipn 11ns sap ss
siban aro'a-bs Deest
Dbfflin-by ib?p
iasb biniaii-bs nini
iasn na
mbs nbion
Dnaa psb isoi
Dnoan nan isoi
isten-bs nini ias 'na ip
cD3moss3 (istesn)
' oroamosi llSfflSl
laipi nan laipaa ois
onosn bm'mb?a
inian sai
(?npbb) nnpb
(ia?) ibas pte ites teis oioi
'(nnia) nnte
mianms
ias dono3n-bs sb ipo iasn
baa

impia ibapban i
oipiinpa inn?
mini yp»3, baapba
' yao sbi 2
span iniaii m
span miaii-bs
ismbs mni-bs
o?n iins" san ss 4
siban nn
pbtein-b? onan 5
obffliii bya iby'p
iasb span iroan-bs 6
bsip. m'bs nmi i
nasn na
ibs oans nbian
Dnaa iaisb ate
Dnoan nffli 8
isten-bs mm ias ns 9
oamoBS
oroamos p 10
Dp-nsosi
laipi ibnsa fflis
Dnioan bm'robyna i i
inian s'an 12
P^nb
iatei nips b?a di»i 13
*psT.
span iroaroms
bss pps ipffl iniai: iasn 14
oiifflomby

a ut vs. 18.— Targ. niaa.
d ut vs. 13.— Targ. Wpai.

Targ. laiai Spali as. c Vid. 44:7.

37:15-38:1] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 361
(mns) mite nps-n
psiro roa-ss :'n:s inbtei nia mosn np inis imsi 15
psiro ''
asba nnb ioy sban niab ioy
iman sap iroaro sa p 16
offlman Yimmbsi iroan offl-sion ni^snn-'bsi
inbsinn insipn impis'nbon innpn mipis iban"nb©ii 17
isin ism la'sb inos iban inos^nps iban mbson
inp ffli iasn nini nsa nini nsa isi 10m iasn
msn bss iba iasn ffli iroaro iasn
pan bas'iba-na
ibambs iropis ibambs 18
csba roa-bs mis nrom sbsn nn-bs inis onns-ia
nisi nsi 19
psmby bas iba sisi-sb p -byi Dpib? bssnba sni-sb
nsm nsrn psn
Deest ss-yate 20
msnn bsn msnn ss-bsn
ison psiro dro3-bsi33fflnnabi ison pairo nn nsfflmbsi
' oi» mai" do mas sbi
iban iropis iban 21
moan roa-bs ins laibten isna iroaro-ns ' npsn
oiib ins bnb ib eianp ' onbnpp lb ' "jr-iai moan '
onb
nynpa onbn onny mymia onbn-ba onny

CAPUT xxxvni.
ps-p (npso) rosas pTP rooste 1
Deest mpba-p mntesi
iasb oyn-b? ni iasb oymbp-bs isia
a Vid. vs. 18. b nai eig tvjv xsP&- '' Vid. vs. 15. d Targ. niai.
Targ. "paipl.

362 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [38:2-11
ayiai aina isisi syis sins 2
abbfflb ifflss nmm mm bbfflb :ios3 ibmrom mm
mni -,as na p nini ias na 3
bas-iba bm pp bsspba bm in

sa nan iban-bs nasn

nan pan-as onon nasn 4

sm 13 sinn imsnms

p-b? 13 nm fflisnms ss

ssia

ssia sin

iiya onsfflan

nsrn iiys onsfflsn

ombs isi

onibs 131b

oibffl saa issis

oibfflb teii 13S1S

oanp simnsn iban ' iasn

sm-nsn iropis iban iasn 5

onb iban bamsb 13

ban iban ps-o oans

isi opns

Deest

iroanms inpn 6

bini3ba na-bs

iroabamsn-bs

liaa inis mbon

oibsna iroanms mbon

ana mn

' oma imam, yapp

Deest

ono teis 7

nm ibam

steii i'bani

nbs sail

Iban roaa ibana? sail 8

' iasn

iasb

nianb rooy 10s ns niyin

Qitessn iyin iban pis 9

ayin issa nm teisn -ns

iroarob ite7iffls-ba'ns nbsn

iiys onb ny ps 13

-bs iaibten-ites ns siaan

37in nsa imnn nan iian

117a nVonbn'ps ia

elbansy-ns

iteian iba-137-ns 10

IT3 nP

ins np

(p) sbi. nsmia inis robym

"ia span iroanms rob7ni

mai

mai'oips nsn

Deest

iin 11

ps(n) nnn

laisn nnn-b's
T T

a Vid. 21:9; 39:18. b Targ. Npiai Nawi. c Targ. Naian IffpS ni
n^pis.

38:12-23] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 363
oiban nba: roano nba omba nba: roanon i-ba
Dabtep onbtep
Deest bibana
nnna Diffl(n) nbs iasn -bs iteian lba-ia? iasn 12
aibanb isibs ss aio iroan
nnn' ombani nisnpn
oibsnb nnna spn nibps
inis laoan iroanms laioan 13
iban nbion iropis 'iban nbian 14
"biDibffln roa-bs libs insipn nbs span* iroanms npn
ifflibio'n siaa-bs
iban nbs iasn, iroaipbs iban iasn
iai naa ss inan-bs: ' iai naa marobs
iban-bs iropis-bs 15
iban ib 7aion -bs iropis iban' yson ie
' inop iroaro
isbmffl7 iffls i3b-no7 ios'ns
^ isnsnsi in isns-osi
Deest ^essms oi'teppa ites
iroaii nbs iasn iropis-bs iniaii iasn n
nini bsite'i 'm'bs nisas m'bs nini
nsrn nyn pan ssn-sb dsi baa i'ba nte-bs'ssn-sb dsi is
antes! np na nsm 'nyn nsnsi
onfflbn
aban-sb nnsi ona oban-sb nnsi
iban iasn iropia iban iasn 19
barons ms lani-p ona ms isrops
ii»s mni <pa^ yaw iisro sb mm bips sa-yaio isro sb 20
libs isi iss libs isi 13 s IfflSb
1ibai(nipbpbns)nipbnsibitepn 1303 ^b3i ps napn 22
iaa 1303 ' n'ns '
' Tfflsmsi iios-bamsi 23
* 'Asekeiayk. b Targ. pina. c Targ. 115 ^P?^-

364 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [38:24-39:4
Deest Dna
piton nsm royni tess pip nsrn roynmsi
7mbs fflis iban libs iasn' iroan-bs iropis iasn 24
nbsn (oimn-ja) -o'nsia -onsis ' ymbs fflis
nbsn
i7aoi onon 131 onon 17001-131 25
nbs nnna iab nnan -bs nisi-na iab sa-nroan
iban iban
lib? isi-nai libs mmai
iban npb iban nsb 26
do proanb psiro nn-bs do mab psini nn
-sb is ifflinn iban ima iffls laaa ifflinn iban ma 10s 27
nironsi yaios isin yaios-sb 13
n?ny Dnny 28
Deest obteiro niabs itess roni

CAPUT XXXIX.
iyionn fflins mn iiffl5nfflins...niyfflnnmstea 1
obffliii-by Dbfflin'-bs
nsio mo7-mo73i nso niffly-mfflya 2
-nsi iptenssi naaoi ias33ia 013010 ns-iaao lasitebais 3
roisoimiaaiassteaiasDno ' ni lasite ban ono'-si
bssnba no nba no roiso-bsi aa
"baa
_1ba iropis osi itesp mp 4
nanban itess' bai' 'mini
Desunt \ ipmpa nbib issn inisp
pp ' i?tep ' ' iban p i'11
insiyn pi san omahn
a Mapyavaadp kou 'Zapiay<xi% xai Na/Sovadxap na) Napovaapefg,
Nayapydg, Haaep^a^apid%.

39:5-16] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS.

365

Desunt ¦

missip
Desunt I
mni las-m

onnns antes-bin isiip 5
inn nisiya in'niams 13'ten
-bs" mbyn * ins 'inpp
nnbsi bps-iba iassipiss
ins ' lain ' nan " pss
bss Iba anon' jons'tea 6
ip^?b iibsis inipia 153ms
iba ante niiro.iih-bp ns:
n? mjhs' ppmsi 'ibps 7
ins spbomtenas inicsn
-nsi iban npmsi mbss 8
tesp'ontepn isito b?n np
nsi iisn'sDbten'i'n'ainmsi 9
msi nya onstean a?n iro
nsi'nby'ib&s ites Dibsan
nban onstean o?n iro
sb'pa' ompp'-si iisitia?
-ps ites'oib/in D'ytipai 10
lisirias' nsten naisa onb
pp'niiro pss bmso-si
: sinn bip oppi oiai'a onb
-b? baa-iba lasiipiss lap 11
-31 11S1T133 ip' iroan
oitemsiyi.iarip tiBsbompa 12
p yi naisa ib teyn-bsi nb?
nte?' p 'libs isn ites? os
-31 = 11S1T13S nbten iia? 13
onp-sV ' ipTteissi' ompp
ni'bai 3ani lasite bani
' ibsp-lba
rosmbs insainb 14
nay irons 15
iasb 16
nissa nini lasms

366 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [39:17-40:5
nsm aroymb? nsm royn-bs
Deest smn oin mssb imi
Diossn ina ips sbi in pan sbi ninp-oss 17
Diossn
bbbob i©83 nnmi bbob ioss lb nnmi is

CAPUT XL.
iroaro-bs nini nsa nini nsa iroaro-bs 1
ins innps nam -pa ites -sini ins innps nainpa
mini nibs iins oprss ' ' mbs-'ba ims oipTss nos
nnnn. pbtein
oinsoni (inis npn) innpn iroanb omsoni npn 2
nm ca!pan-b? ' nm oipambs
ib Dnson-i3 nini 10711 iai itesp nini ©71: spn 3
' nirob onson-is
Deest nm 131° opb mni
ios Diprsn-p imnns ron pa Dip imnns nsn nn?'i 4
ini-b7 11i"b7 110s DpTsn
Tb7 ip7-ns oifflsi Tb7 pn ms Difflsi s's
ms-sisb msps yi-osi

Desunt

psmbp nsi bin bss
item-bsi sia-bs' mssb
":1b nate npbb ipp'a
nibia-bs aio lb dsb-asi -bs naioi 'siiin-sb ' laiiyi 5
robia
ayn iina ins soi mini p$s -pns ins soi mini py^
siomba-bs nnro psa' Tsiyaitemrba-bsisoyn'
ibi naterob'b TSiya' lb nabb

msioa nsi»ai nms T V-

a Targ. Kin NIVip is. b Vid. 21:9; 38:2. c Targ. pin tons is.
d Targ. ps ns'riii OKI. c Targ. -,3133.

40:6-15] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

367

robmbs sai:
isfflsn ia? iina sion
pss
bmn n©-ba Deest
orotes: Brotess ins npsn
"bas ibamsb 110s sail
bsyaoi
"nip-p Deest
anoan ns? issa
nsaas oppsb aoi i:a nani
(opib?)' opibs isa ios
onosnn©s onyp isoi
oninm-bBi
psn-baa iosi ansa iosi
Deest
nnro-ps irobmbs isan

patei isa nain
niioa ios bmn no-bs:
.ms i^s nbo pay-p iba
Titeps (ms) nanb bsyaffli Deest
pnn iasn
Desunt]

-p nibi3~bs inian san 6
Bpms
ansfflsn Barn pna ins aten
psa
Qibmn nio-ba 7
opins-p
Diteai Qitess ins ropsn 'iai
-sb ifflsapsn nbiai t|pi
bas iban issn 8
bsyaioi';
nip-pa psPi
pte-p opins-p 9
'bnoaniiaya
nsaas aoi pan nsi 10
isibs isb; iiss
anosnnos opi-pa' isoi
aniromba oai n
niaismbaa iosi anssi pte-p
-bpa Dinnm-bp la'ten 12
Dtennis ntes n'iapan"
-bs nnro-ps isan
irobia
isa nam .
moa 10s Dibmn no-bai 13
bsyaoimsnbo'pBy-isaiba 14
tess rpanb rosnspp opins-p
ias mp-p pnni 15
iasb
Jptpp

Targ. rrp-Q. b Cf. vs. 10.

368 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [40:16-41:5
*itess (ms) nai nab osa. naai nab
" L f Dpms-p 16
Desunt { pir*
isin nioyn-bs nm isinms ©yn-bs
bsyaffli-'by isi nns bsyaoi-bs isi nns

CAPUT XLI.
iban yira yoibs-p npiban yiTa yapbs-p 1
Iban nil
opins-p nsaas
nnnps 2
nan smp pte-p opins-p 'ins'
psmb? psp
Deest irobiams 3
oniDBn-bp-nsi onfflBn-nsi
nanban itess ns

Desunt

¦n , f nan n
Desunt i T " ,
[ bs?a«i

irobiams (inbnb) iroanb inibiams nianb 4
obffiai ibo'a 5
nitess onao ffliS oisaia
bDron's' nsnbi ons nsisbi
nan bsyaffli onsipb san roans-p bsyao'i' sail 6
onibs iasn laai iabn ib'h 'naaan-ia onsipb
» ans teasp iro: nps: ibn
o'robs ibsi:
Deest opins-p
nsmbs oonon -bsnpn3-isbs?Bteibonon 7
oitessni' sin nsn iin
irsntes

a Targ. is. b Targ. pina.

41:8-17] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 369
Dte-isaas oa-issas 8
ptei fflpi ©ail ptei
Deest Diteasn nas 9
(nm) sin bia iia sin irobmm
Deest iroanpa
oyn-ba-ns bsyaioi aten roiste-bp-ns bsyaffli pop 10
nisa-nsi nssas onsosn'' mssms nssas ites o?n '
ni ropsn iffls iban onsosn oy'robamsi iban
omao iipsn 10s nssas
omso-si psiriss
Deest roana-p bsya'tei oaten
pay na 135b ibn pay ns-bs is?b ibn
bmn 'no-b3i Bibmn no-ba: 1 1
Deest ' romps
anbnb iabn onsna-bams inpn i3bn oitessn-bB-ns'inpii 12
iay npnrp bsya'tepay onbnb
pyaas Dm Dia-ab5 " pyaas-ites om oia-bs
Deest HIPPB 13
bmn no-ba Dibmn no-ba .
Deest inaton
pnn-bs iaon nate -ites D?n-ba iabn 14
non nssan-p bs5ate:
mp-p pnn-bs iabn
Desunt ( ™H? i»
I PTtp ^3SB
bmn no-ba: pmi Dibmn no-bai mp-pproi 16
Desunt ( "?™ nsaamia roms-p
uesunt j opms-p robiams
roistemDifflaninanbB3boii3a Dioa: nanban itess onsa
pyaaa iaion 10s Dioioni sion 10s dibibi soi
pyssa
mnaa (?)nnaaa oniaa nnaa 17
a Targ. is. b Vid. 43:6. c hTa^yjpax^H-da.
2 A

370 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [41:18-42:11
onaa nabb onaa sisb nabb
f roanapa 18
Desunt \ -JL.2-.Z
opms (a

CAPUT XLH.
roiryi anm bmn nw-ba loan pnin oibmn nffl-ba iiean 1
aroto?B-p npteimp nprn. nip-p
nbs nasn sissn lmaii-bs sissn iroaro-bs nasn 2
bbsnm isi?s bbsnni
nbsn onsioan iys nsrn roison-bp iys
' nisi T3iy ifflss isns nisi inn? ifflss
iniaii span iroaii 4
-bs D3i?a (bbsns) bbsna nsn apmbs mm-bs bbsna nsn
ismbs nini lain iain-b3
ombs nini osns nini
isi dbb ronps-sb isi dbb ysas-sb
lassi pia iyb pssi nas iyb 5
lsibs nini pte iffls nibs im'bs mm ^nbtei iffls
nini bipms ynosi sio-osi niro bipa yroosi aia-os 6
mronsi ron ' nininsi inn 7
Dee'st nip'IB 8
bmn nia ins ites oibmn nffl-ba
bna-iyi bpopa ' bna-iyi popab
~ , f in's onnbte ites bsitei in'bs 9
Desunt { ¦¦¦¦<-¦¦ ¦¦¦ -¦ - . ¦ • - «
[ ipsb opnann bpnb nbs
osns rops oans mpsi 10
cnyinpa mbin ia nyimbs mans 13
lsirobs laaa lsimbs n
osns yifflinbi D3ns bianb 03ns bianbi cans yifflinb
ona ina
'* Vid. 43:2. b ut vs. 1. c Targ. snpa p nian nx.

42:12-20] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 371
-bs D3ns siosi 03ns mann -bs osns sioni oans Din 12
, oanais ' osnais
mni bips b?P'^ "IT1 ^ipB 13
nsis-sbi sias onaa ps ia siaa onaa psia sb iasb 14
nanba nanba nsis-sb ites
ayis-sb onbai syis-sb onbb:.
nmi-isi :yaffl pb roronsi iyao pb nn?i 15
Deest nnm nnso
nini bsi©: in'bs nisaa mm
Dnsa: "onaab oans paon onaa 'sab dbiss pa'onoio
113b do 'do 113b onsai
3ion rossa oisn ons 10s ote naaa oisn ons 10s 16
oans cans 3ion
pan ipsa onsi ons- 10s ote isaa oissi onsnos
onaas 0311ns opns onaa 031ms pan
(on-m) onparobpi Qiossn-bs ms ibo-ios Diossn~b3 17
onaa psb brosa'ms oiaon do 113b onaa sisb onns
syisi siri's biaro do 113b nipi syis sins' iniai
"ia aibs Dnb nmi-sbi aib'si mo onb roro-sbi
nyin nyin psa
nini bsitei. m'bs nissa "nini is
man nans losa mam ps ins'ioss
"anaybi naob naobi nbsb
nini iai ites mm iai 19
diyin yii nn?: Baa mipn-p :ym yii
aim
ms ambte aam:fflBsa oniyin ia ons-p oamifflssa omynn ia 20
niro-bs Psib? bbsnn iasb opmbs niro-bs ms onnbte
mm nbs ibsi 110s b33i niro-bs iai?a' bbsnn iasb
nte?? nini ibsi i»s b33i ism'bs
isioyi isbnan p iambs
• T | T V - I -
a Targ. DpSai. b Cf.l4:15; 44:12. c iiroxet'pioi. d ut vs. 22.
e Targ. Stsi? ife?.'

372

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[42:21-43:9

-iffls niro bips onyaffl sbi onyaffl sbi Dim opb iasi2i
03ibs nnbio bsbi Dpm'bs mm bips
' DBibs nnbfflnffls
aiann syisi sins nnyi syis sinsp iyin ?n nnyi 22
inian isisi

CAPUT XLIH.

niro nsi-bsms oymbs isib
nini mbffl 10s
brote?a-p Deest
-sb ipo lasbiroaii-bsonasn
nibs mni mbo OS 13
onoBn-np Deest
bmn no-bs: Deest
bmn no-bs: Deest
pss nab
"oniaa'nms
onstean aonmsi
nnn 10s dniosan nsi
Iisims Deest
onaa issn
elbmp

nsi-bsms oymbp-bs isib 1
mbo 10s onm'bs mni
omnbs niro
royteimp 2
' Dnm
nns ipo iniaii-bs onas
ism'bs nini ^nbo sbipia ' 13 3
onoBmns nip"1B 4
oibmn no-bsi mp"^ 5
Dibmn no:b3i
¦ ao-inis ites op'an-bpa
niiro psp n'ab
ansanms 6
fionmsi
msn 10s osan-bp nsi
omao-ai' psinas iste-p
onaa ps isan 7
ins np 9

a Cf. 14:15; 44:12. b Vid. 42:1. c Vid. 41:16. d Targ. ttMUBS ia.
Targ, 7|fiiJ> 3D.

43:10-44:6] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 373
mn i?te(a) 8Diabss aroaoi ites pbas abas onaaoi
' nyia ' nyismn nn&s
mini itess Dniro oitess
masi onibs masi 10
nini bsip m'bs nissa nini
bssnba lasnaiasms mssni pba ia'snaia's-ns'mnpbi
isos Dton :sb3 pate: ns? bss '
ptean (sioai) bos: nsaa ios imi&tems nps: msao ios
ss: hss: 11
oronbs mss os npn: onaa mbs mss os mam 12
nosa onaa psms bniyi nosa onaa psms nayi
san naa-ns nyin cniyi' san ins-ns nyin noyi'
aibios oibos oi$a
msi pss 10s oao in onaa pss ios oaonp.13
DnmB "oiiaa'-mbs msmsi

CAPUT XLIV.
biaas oisiomi biaaa Drnrun 1
Deest f|33!
mni nissa nini 2
psa niain asm mini ny-byi nain osni mini i-i?-ba byi
aion sioii ons ps:. nm Dim
Deest 13?b 3
onyn sb 10s ons nan Diyn sb 10s
'opinasi
nsy-ns nsy-bpms 4
nbtesi i wbtei
ioyn-bs ioyn ss-bs
ibs iyao sbi iyao 'sbi 5
Dbom dpnai mini -n7©3 oboiii niansi mini iiya 6
a iv irpo%vpoig. b Kai i<5seipiei. — Targ. plil. * wairep tj&eipi%ei.
d EJfaftcv.— Vid. vss. 9, 17, 21.

374 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [44:7-17
naaobi. nisinb naaob nainb
nissa nini bsitei mbs nissa m'bs mm 7
'B3noss(a)-ab? oanoss-bs
teis (oaa) 03b inin inbab nnste oab imin mbab
iman pab ' oab nnpn pab 8
(oBnto) obisi'os niyi nsi namyi nsi ntes ro'yi nsi 9
obtem "final ' obom nianai
"lbin sb ispi sb 10
miaas (laan) ipprin'-sbi mn'ns labmsbi isn sbi
' aromas' nab * opmias nsbi oais&b
ns do nsn niro ias-na pb m'bs nisaa niro ias-na pb ii
nyibDpa'issoo nsn bsip
* niinpbpms nnpnbi
iiss onsfflan-bp-ns iasb nnro ' rois'ffl-ns mn'pbi 12
ayisi sin's ibsp onaas ' -ps sisb Dross latenias
^mny ppa laroi bb'iani ote'mib onaa
sins ibsi 'onaa psa
b:i3nyi. ppa iaro ayis
Deest mai 37131 sma
nbbpbi naiobi nsmb imi nbbpbi naiob' n'bsb imi
nsinbi
Deest 13131 13
roisoa aibs-bp roro sbi nnsobintoi. aibBromsbi 14
do -113b oisan nnro
ps aiobi onaa psa
disosb namios nnro
do nateb siob oosams
isioi'-sb p
onns Dinbsb 15
niiayn
isibb sapiffls" isisa sapios 17
lsiabai isiaba
a Targ. is. •> Vid. vss. 6, 17, 21. c Targ. IpOS Ni. d ekiri%oijei
Taig \pvx<*.~tg avrcbv

anaa

pS3

onan

nnro

-iios

mini

ps

siob

dDronio8sa

nan

DiSOSB

laioi-sb do aiob

Desunt

44:18-28] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 375
"oboiro pnai oboim nianai
nbm itespi isbin rs-pi is
Deest opps nb"1pni
isippn " onopa' 19
oiaos nb bopp3ai oibos nb ipnbi
Deest naa?nb
oiaos nb isppi oiaos nb'ioni
-ba-bsi "aiosn-bsi onaambs -b?i oiosmb?i onaan-by 20
onsi ins onyn oyn iai ins onyn oyn'-ba
obonib pnai obom nianai 21
oaiBbai ' 03i3ba
nini nr nini iat en's
(nayinnpai) opina?inBi nsyinn ps'a 22
dnisinb oaais mm nsinb oaais mni
Deest son ^a
(inn?ai) ininai nnpnsi nnpnsi imnsi 23
nbsn niyin Dans nssipni ns-n nyin oans nsip p-by
Deest nm Dip
Diosmbsi oymbs oiosmbp bsi oymbp-bs 24
Deest Dnaa psa ites nnro-bp
ps bsioi mbs nini ias-na mbs nisaa'miro iasms 25
pinsi pisi piss Ditean opitesi ons 'iasb bsioi
psba DBnisi 03183 nsiaini onsb'a
nsioyn noyi Danisms nsioyn noyi
nnro-bs isa ia© ny nirons isa sips'iao in ronnas 26
ninpin ias -m ias mini ths-ba
niro pis
onb yinb oniby ipo ns p sbi nyib oniby ipo nan 27
mi'ro-bV iaro sipmb sbi mini Ps-ba iani naiab '
onaa psa Dpteim onaa psa ites
Deest onaa pspa 28
a Vid. vss. 6, 9, 21. b Targ. ^Mflffl. c Targ. Kiwil KJiasi. d Vid. vs. 6.

376 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [44:29-46:2
ona'yn nnro roiso iym oissn nnro roiso-ba ittoi
anaa-psa onaa-psb
Deest onai paa
D3ib7 issipsm 03b nisn nsn -13 nipmss n:sn D3b nsr: 29
n7ib nm bip'aa oaiby ns ips
laipi Dip p iyin pab
nyib Dpib? nai
yisnms yisn nyisms 30
ioss lopsa npi isis pp loss iopsa ipi ipis in
lasmns ina lasnaias na

CAPUT XLV.
isoa iB8-b5 1
Deest iasb
n:ro ias-na bsip mbs nini ias-na 2
13 ib lis ib 11s mas (p:) 1? mni 5]bi-n ib ss-ns mas 3
inyai (?) ib assa pi nini api press myap pS3'a-b5 pi
sb nmsa nirosa ' (mspo) ' msaa sb nmsai
msaa
.nbs ias nbs iasn na 4
Deest sin psn-bamsi
DipambBS bbob ioss-ns nnsi b? bbob lossms'^b innai
DO"ibn 10s oo~ibn 10s niapan-ba

CAPUT XLVT.
nnni-i^airopianiBbamtesia -bs roro-isi nm ites 1
obpb' nm nin nm opan-b? span imam '
aoai3S oapiaa 2
Nasaiana lasiibiaa
a Iv Xapp.eig. b Targ. 1S3l3!ia5.

46:3-141 THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 377
Qipnrob irotespa oipnnib
miaai (ptes) pa (ltesn) ipprin ' naai' pa :aiy 3
Difflisn iby oioibn nosi oifflisn ibyi bioion nbs
(ipnn)ipiTD3i?ai3aiaainni '- lpia opaiaa namni
opmisno loabi amain nisnon iosb amain
nns oniosi omn nan yna omos omn nan irosi yna 5
oisa insi Dnni33 p oisai insi arousal n'ns
IBS IDS
ibffla nis ii-by psa-b? iboa ni&nns mby naisa 6
boi.a iioysni nnnsai nma loysro minss 7
nbyi i:^i3 tmaa ia 'nbyi ^m Dnaa 8
Deest o:a iteyaro niinapi
nroasi psn-noasi nbys ip nnas psmoas nbys
ns-nioi ' namon
cni33iania33nnioiDiomb?iby spin ibbhnni Dioian iby 9
ifflBnbpibidaiffli3-iii33isa aisi'fflis' onisan isan
131V ib?" onibi pa itesh ombi ' pa ifflpii
mop n»p pii
ism'bs nirob nisaa niro pisb 10
miro am nbasi lpp'sa op'snb sin nbasi lnsa'opsnb
nn3-*b? p&a psa msb psa ps3 nispa nim nisb
nis nisnns-bs
mnin siiob onaams nbinsb mnin sifflbonaama nbina 11
ia ps nbyn ipissi ib ps nbyn ros&i
ibip ons lyaia ipbp ona iyao 12
iro ibioa 'niro ibffla
sias iroannn niroiai 110s -bs niro isi 110s' isin 13
bss iba sisb snap iroaro *
' bss iba laspaisa
-bs lyiaoni biiaa(s)b npn lyiateni onaas' ' :nan 14
eqa(s) spa 'pyiaom' bnsaa
oresnnai
a Targ. p&pn-l. b ut vs. 8. c Targ. Kpn"). d Targ. iSBQ.
e Cf. I. Chron. 21:12. f Targ. is. S Vid. vs. 19.— Targ. OiSaa.

378

THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH.

[46:15-27

Ipao am nbasm
ba? ops (Tia =) qaa os yna
lima
oisi. bss-oa bop (npin)inpiB
oips' ias inyi-bs
(nppn) nsim am nsa
anaa-iba nb3 ny'is ote isip
nyia(n)'(n)pten pso
niro nisns3
¦ ™ t i. ~.
bS|B-i3
na aon psa lis sips:
cna ss psaa pip
npins oibi3a psia iba73
niro iosi
nyi. aroby sa ns on 13
omps
labi bina-ia bbi »133 obip
diaoi3 :rob? iss nianps Diay
nsisa si 13 naii sb 13
p&any ina nsns
nyis-by nsa pasms ipis nsn
n omoan byi

Desunt

QiSfflB

lipipo sin nbas-13
Tips sinps yna 15
-bs ©is bss-oa bfflia nain 16
naip nasp inyi
nsiin am nsa
onaanba nans ote isip 17
iyian nayn ps©
iate nisaa niro ibamoss 18
spa 19
awn psa nnasi
sa ss psaa pip 20
psia ibaya 21
niro ibs
ny oniby sa ons on ia
' omps
labi bma-ia ib: tens3 nb:p 22
now nb :sb roanpsi •.any
nsisa m ia ipro sb ia 23
psa-oy na nsns 24
bsitei in'bs nisaa niro ias 25
-byi 'saa pas-bs ipis'iasn
-b?i Dnaa-byi nyis
-byi ropba-b5is nmbs
is'ombsn byi nyis
ns: otesa itepaa in omnsi 26
mi bpa- iba ' is'siiaias
-iap ibten p-nnsi inay
miro-bss bip
oiaffl'pSB 27

a Zauv 'Esfieie Maifi. b Vid. vs. 14. c Targ. nis yinii. d Inc.
vs. 23.

46:28-47:7] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 379
inis mna psi i©n mna psi psoi
smn-bs snn-bs niis 28
nsnyni nno'an ns ins ia nba noys ia ns ins ia
noys'ia niap (naayani) opambaa
iiii-baa nba b?b
osoab imioii osoab imion

CAPUT XLVII.
Dmobs-ab5 iroan-bs ninpisi nm ites 1
Dioa' Dinobs-bs span '
n-ry-ns n'yis np:
pon b3 ibbmi bDitessn ipyri son b3 bbmi oisn ipyn 2
'cpsn "psn
nioisa (isiste) P070 bipa nips niois npyo bipa 3
dnaaib oyiai nba,! * isaib oyia
insia onp's-bs nns issh-sb pisia ops-bs niss issn-sb
Dron din
-bsms (nibpb) ipsb ssn bip -bsms n'lteb ssn Dim-by 4
ia (nbpsi) ronsi' omobs proabnabronnbDmobB
air? Dnnter! ^b'i pnai ¦ niro' 1110-13 iry'mteba
m's' nini 1110-13 (onir?) is nnsio omtebs-ns
opsn nnsio ' iins?
nnais nr7-b? n'mp nsa nnais nr7-bs nmp 'nsa 5
f_l7 e:Dips7 nnsoi pbpos n7 bpa? roiso pbpos
gi?i3n ma :niiann ma
niro am nirob am n'n 6
iaii 173m ibii 173m
opon lis ippon lis 7
a Targ. is b Targ. SWJJX iia. c Targ. K5ns< pni ia V&iiil. d Targ-
pairni. e 'Evour/>.— Targ. ps'ipn. f Inc. Vs. 6. 's Aram. nan.

330* THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [48:1-12
-b? om ismbb?i pbpos-"b? do om qimbsi pbpos-bs
niyi iste WJT

CAPUT XLVHI.
13 is3-cb? nn mni iBS-ns m'bs nisas mni -nasma 1
noian omnp niabs niio miffl ia n's-bs nn bsiffli.
d(n3m) mi nan omnp mabs nteph
nnm sateen nionn
psfflnsnbnn ssia nbyn nyps paions'ssia' hbnn ny ps 2
onaa renins nyi rob'7' aten nsnnas: isb n7i roby non
iain oil. iain laiana naa
Dpya bip" p npya bip 3
eni?ia lyiaon rpi?s npyr lyiaon 4
naa -nbyi iaas ninbn nsba -nbyi i^'a ninbn nb?a ia 5
ibo-npys onnn pia" * ns onnn iiiaa p ps
ony'ate lyate laiompys
namni oamifflBa lob'ai ics nsmni dbo'bs iaba ios 6
" naiaa una liias i?ii?p
T-pas nniiaissi Ttoas 7
113ml nsna
iiy-b3-Bb5 110 san n?i ny-b3-bs 110 san 8
nini ias 10s? mm ias 10s
nan n'as 13 asiab pn isn san sss ia asiab pa-isn 9
psa n3imn naob roiy-bpi psa nannn naob nnyi
na aon" p.s son
Deest Ills:. 10
i?aa iniyaa 11
(?iate) ilisa-b? sin opoi inate-bs sin apoi
bDiss nai-nan ' diss Dpii-ron 12
'(lyip) isapi ipipi ipn.i nbai issp orobsp ipin iibai
"Targ.isi. bTarg.iS. cCf.50:27. — Targ.is. d 'A/xa& Kal Aje&. e Cf.
Isa.l5:5.— Zoyopa. fCf.Job39:5. S Targ.is. hCf.50:27,31. •Cf.vs^.

;48:13-31] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 381
ona (nbas) onops onosa onosa 13
nianbab bm oisi nanbab bm itessi 14
(iip) an? p? roiap 15
Deest iate nissa? niro ibamoss'
aninainyiisisb3siam?3iip inyn sisb' ssianis slip 16
isa nsa nina
iao lynin ba iao pp ba: 17
b(n)na psn nsp naps 13101 psn-ns nsioi saas 'isfci is
rontea ia nby asia lite ia ia" nby asia Trite 13
lissa 1Ptssb nnte
diyiiysnsfflii issi nay imcby mion issi nay in-bs 19
-na nasi oba3i os-ibsioi npbasi os-ibsio niiy
nrons nronsma nas
psiss man ipyn ibpbn p3is3 man °nyn °*bibn 20
-b?' "ifflia ps-bs sn osioai -bsifflian ps-bs ssosioai 21
n7siai nsni pbn n78ia-b?:. nsre-bsi'pbn
Dmbi'ros-b7: ' ombpi ros-b7i 22
ss:a n7-ba b7: as:a ps ii7~ba b7: 24
Deest nin: bss 25
f:spa as:a pso: ispa ss:'a psbi 26
bsiffli ib ron Bpniob s:b osi bsiffli ib ron pinon sib osi 27
nanbs ia ssas ipsaai nam nssas opsas-as
n in'snn is nisi
iSffli OpbpS ISBffll Dil7n 1ST? iSffli 7bB3' 133101 Dn7 'iST? 28
pbps resp'n onip nn asia ppn nsna nro asia
nns-is (nisa) nns-is na?B
nsa ssia-]isa (yatesi) myaoi isa nsa ssia-psa isyao 29
. "nb on misai isisa isa ' isb dii inisai isisaiinsa
ins sbn nms? inyn nsi inn? nip-ass myii''ns 30
nffly p-sb 'noy p'-s'b nia p-sbi
ansa sibibm asiab p-by asiabi bibis asia-by p'-b7 31
a Targ. Spa. b eKTpi^vjserai. c Targ. KIpM is. d Targ. 151193.
e M-iiausp, { Kai etriicpovaei Mtadfi iv xl,p' txurov. S ut vs. 26. b Targ.
pi.;a-ai nais. » Targ. pipj?.

382 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [48:32-40
,temnipioss-bb7(ip7r)aipi?Tn nip ifflss-bs p?TS. n'ba
°©m nam om
psn ib-mss iT7i di3sp pan ib-reos ir'yi 133a 32
enaiT? naste
1sip-b7i7as(ir7ia 115) 1T71115 -by: isip-by nas iryi b; 1?
bss no T.iS'3-by bss 110 pps
pi: ss:aa bm nnaio' nsos3 baipa bm nnaffl nsbssi 33
(inten) opten ippp nm oppia pn ssia psa:
fnan itoy sb siysi 1311 sb inninni'in-sbinsten
(nm) inn sb
obip nns oroiy orosny obip nns ppiy nbybsny 34
onss ib-d3 13 "roobo (?')nb3yi onas ia-D3 13 roobo nb3y
nro nisioab w niateab
ssiams msteni ssiab msioni 35
nnbsb oniopai nas oibya iinbsb napai nas nbya
nb biani oibbns ssia sb p-by nani oibbns ssiab pbp-by 36
nanibibnpkteinnipifflss-ib? teimrop iioss-bs nbi
oisa nss nioy mni ppj7 rnro p-b7 nani oibbnp"
'(fflissa) nas n«7
imp: Bipa-baa ffl'snbs nmp fflsnba ip 37
oisna-bp-b7: m'13 ' bm-bs: onna-b?: mn'oni-bs b?
pia pffl
nmam-b5: ss:a n:aa-ba byi ronanisi ssia maa-ba by 38
ms ib33 mni-DSs miaio-ia ' ms iniai»-ia ispa nba
is pn -dss is props ibas asia niro
Deest ibibm 39
nini -ma ria-13 iteap nan niro ias mm 40
-bs nssa ois: nsnssia
a Targ. TniXa. b Targ. is. c iceipdoag aixp-oO (iBin=Oin).—
Vid. vs. 36. d Targ  Naa. * 'Aaep^p.a. f atle. S ayyekiav
Zoikaaia. h Targ. lan snisaa ixa&tia paia *(3 is. » Targ. is. k Vid.
vs. 31. ' Cf. Deut. 32:26; Hos. 9:12.

48:41-49:4] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 383

Desunt { Di^ ^ 7* A-
I nisa nos aba si

roro 41
ntes sba sinn '
nnsi msi ns 'nsi nnsi ins 43
Deest nip-Oss
*b? nbs siasm nsa iabn -bs nibs sns-ia nsa labi 44
amps Voios ssia ' niro-oss amps nsio ssia
Dps' nsa na? listen bss 45
nsnbi listeria' san ' ios-p
ssia iiss bpshi pn psa
ssiaip-n's ip'stensipipi 46
Desunt \ pss inpb-p teiaa-b? ips
ma'tei :roatea imssi ntep 47
Diam roins3 ssiamiste
osto'b nan -15 niro-oss :ssia

CAPUT XLIX.
ps fflin-os bsifflp ps onsn lom-os bsifflib ps onsn 1
"(abba) bbba 011 yiia onb ms oaba on 7iia ib ps
301 orons oa7i i?ba-ns soi p73 ia7i ia
nianba ii7iin nsi-b?'m7Bfflni pay-pa nsnbs inyaom 2
ronapi nbpbi naaob iini bnb nnmi nanba nynn
ms bsioi'oin rensn losa nsnsn ioss ronssi naaio
(inbteaa) niesi ias momms bsioi om
niro
ibi (oaba) bbba 13 nsisoi 13 ninas reppitenm nsisa 3
dnbias ' ib'i'nbi33 bpba
nsn "opay ipays ibbnnn-na ipay sr oipays ibbnnrona 4
nisss nnosn ' nssion nnosn' nssion nsn
ny sisi ia masn ibs sni ia nmisss
T T : T - T : 
a Targ. is. b Vid. 11 : 23; 23: 12. c MeXxoX. Vid. vs. 3. d Vid.
vs. 1. " 'Evaiceip..-^ Targ. TjStp. f Targ. lis itt>i p pax.

384 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [49:5-16
niro-oss Tby i™ siaa n3n pis-oss ins iiby snansn 5
nissa niro
ppa psi iiabVspapsi
_, . f -iaa nntems sites p-nns: e
Desunt | ~ ¦ ¦ ^.^ ^- ¦
naan ny ps mni -,as ns psn nissa ' nini ias ns 7
lams iams nasn ny
ipayn (?nasn) oaipa astes pffli nsiob ipayn nsn ids a
lis 13 pip opom nsob ' mssn 10? lis 13 pi
nys nby mssn (10?) no? imips ny nby
l'mips
msioi sb ites iss onas-p msffli sb ib isa onaans 9
iroten nbibs 013333 mte lb nbibs onsa-os nibbiy
bDn' (inte=) on mmten
nioy-ns (msno) 'msno' issn miba nfflyms msion ns-13 10
sb nsns: onnnoams iroba bsn sb nsns: ninoams
1330 nns pip 1110 iban npoi imsi iyir 110
ronsi 'roro" pab' pro sr?b ronsps nam npry 11
Deest nan 12
npan sb nps nnsi mo np3 sm nnsi inp in©
nhte 13 npan sb npan
nnten
nmn nbbpbi nsinbi nafflbn nbbpbi aihb nsinb naob-n 13
nny-bai (naipp) nains nny-bai map nmn
"obiyb 'nisir; naimn obiy msmb nsunn
issi laspnn nbo onas oniai issi laspnnnib'o anas nai 14
nanbab laip nibs nanbab laipi rob?
Deest namp 15
oiybon nan pte isb pbp ybsn nana pa© iab p'ir 16
oiia n?aa (iasa)' riya te&n rosan-ianyaabnaiteBh
1033 nnan 13' (nyaa olio) irons dob nap losa
imis dob iap niro-oss
a vjiraT-^t!. b Cf. Exod. 23 : 1. ' Targ. Disi (nisi).

49:17-30] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 385
piffli niby isy bs -by pion ate: J"^? "fly b3 17
nniaa-bp
nnaoi niayi 010 npsns itesp roaaoi niayi bib npsnaa is
nisaa niro' ias ' niro ias
ois-p aate nai-sbi Dis-p ns nai-sbi
boros nis-bs pinn lina inis nis-bs pirn psaa 19
cnib? oninpi nibya oans nibs nns iai nibya laans
(np&n) nps ipss
Osnyi) nai ia?: ia: pipi ia:
"instena: ons-db5" pi ' 10s imistenai ons-bs pi 110s 20
pm noi-fb5 son 10s pm ntsi-bs son 10s
bipi psn noyi obss bipa p npys psn noyi obss bipa 2 1
yaos sb Dm (npyai) ' nbip yaos siio-Dp
apsa oisn nsii losp 'nsn oisn nsip nbyi i©» nsn 22
(?niaa) roiaaa-by ' map-by nssa
lasi iaas nyi nyaio' iyaon op laas iyao nyinyao-13 23
Bib3n sb opion bail sb opian nasi
npnnn 001 nppnn taan 24
Deest nibPa nnms oibam ma
00:0a roip n.iy ary-sb 11s nnp nbnn 117' nary'-sb lis 25
(ians nnp) 'iteioa
-ba: imams on.ms :b'si pb prisms ronna :b&i pb 26
(ian) ibs: inanba i©as ian nanban ioss-b3i
nini dxs mni nss' sinn Dip
nissa
nmp mnais nbss: nn-p nnais nbas: 27
ian nisbab iian nbbaabi 28
np-'b? ibyi laip "np^s ib7 iaip
3130a (?ii3B) knb3orob7isipi sisoa n'aa oroby isipi 29
loa 11a ids 30
'iana 01301 niro-oss iian nan
...... T . v 1
a Vid. vs. 33; 50:40. b Ai%dpt.. c Targ. nis. d Targ. is. e Targ.
ninapan. . f Targ. is- e Targ. n;ai pisi xi. ' h aptpoia. ! Targ. is.
k d7rukeiav. l Vid. vs. 33. 2 B

386 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [49:31-39
som nay bss-iba D3iby pirn pba lasiipiss osny fyna
nsiena nroby sioni nay bss
nsiona
nbio ana-b5 ibyi laip rbffl na-bs iby laip 31
Deest . nironss
omna-sb ambmsb onb ites ib nna-sbi ombmsb
bona-sb '
(oaieb) nbab bbteb 32
msy-bBB insy-b3ai
naaioi 01351 pya nan nnmi naafflonnpyab iian nnmi 33
obiyny abiyny
ois-p date nai-sbi ois-p ns 1131-sbi
' obiy-bs inpaii-b^ninpsinmites 34
rotesia 'obiy-bs 'span
niinpiba iropia niaba iasb
nop istes nini iB» na psn nisaa mni i^s na 35
obn nbiy niopms iate
obiy-eb5 mssm obiy-bs mssni 36
-sbi nbsn nimn bap omin -sbi nbsn ninin bob omin
fn3 roni nsn'roro
onis innnni Dbpms mnnro 37
Deest psbi
mnbffli iss pina oniby mssni pimns n5i oniby mssni
onbp iy pin omms mnbioi niro-osa iss
mbp iy ainnms onnns onis
onioi iba oioa misyni omoi iba didb missni 38
ninposa'
obiy msffl ns siosi obiy rosioms sfos 39
T
a Targ. Has is. b olg ovk eh) %vpai, ov §d\avot, oi ^coxXo/' c Vid.
vs. 30. d Vid.'vs. 18; 50:40. e Targ. is. f Targ. OS iTTj ail.

50:1-12] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 387

CAPUT L.
bss-^b? isi nss nimnai bas-bs nini iai lies isin 1
' iroaii m ontop ps-bs* '
sipan
nnan-bsi nrem-bs lyiaten os-istei 2
mayaro (nnpan) nmibs mn npa? iteph ina nn
' ilia niab (nsnyni) nibiba
Desunt f ** ^ 3
[ mro-ass 4
mroms labi opisi opbin in: ms: labi iba: iibn iiro
Qitepaa onmbs ' iteps: onmbs n:ni' '
Dni3Bpnsniiin:bsoibpia-i5 cross nsn' 111 ibsffli pia 5
-bs nbs: issn (laitei) isro nna niro-bs nbsi isa
sb obiy nna ip niro pis ' 'naion sb obiy
"ns'ion
croyi ny nm nnas isa oniyi iay nm nms isa 6
ina oasiffl Dnmb5 oiynn ina onsno oiin oiynn
iabn nysa-b? isbn nys3-bs
(ostes) onbte3 sb nas onna otess sb nas oroiai 7
oroniss nipab nip onmiss ropai
oitensp nni isai onioa psai nni isai " nnfflB psai 8
isa-nsb (Dppnp) isa-nsb onin?p
mibnp bas-by iiya 133s nsn 13 -by nb?ai nya ibss nsn 13 9
D113 oibia ona-bnp bas
bisioa dnaa pja biaioa map nan
Deest niro-oss 10
(ibbnnm) irbyn: annate 13 °*rbyn p maton is 11
masnni steia nbaya "irsn 13 ibnani stei nb3y3 °*fflisn 13
D113S3 D113S3
naiab D3mbn os nisn 03nibn nisn 1 2
a Targ. is. b Targ. ipi. c Targ. •jlnii. d Cf.Ps. 120:4. e Targ
pxiin iix.

388 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [50:13-26
isia ona roins roa isia ona roins nan
naiyi T T -! -
baas iay bai nbamaaob nroni isy b3 nbs naao nnm: 13
-ba-by ipion offli (basins) -ba-by pion offli bs3-b?
nnaa roroaa
-by ibann-bs nib?" m pps lbann-bs robs m 14
D3ian nspn nimb 13
bron ibi nitesni nn rem s'pp nib? iynn 15
' nnain noirei roniain loins
nib? lapsn sm 'ombs naps' na lapsn sm' niro naps
"baa osn basa yir inn baa osni bssa yiir inn 16
(rosim) cnsim sm nsa ' nsim sin nsa
oisi'iaisb oisi 10131 laisb fflisi
(ininnn) imin nms innn mns 17
bss iba iaa? bss iba lasiipiss iaa?
niro bsito: m'bs nisaa mni i$
iais-eb?i bss iba-ab? ips nsn lais-bsi bas iba-bsips issn
110s iba_fb? mips ioss 110s iba-bs mips ioss
onss inanybaai Bbana nyn insi itesni bann nyn 19
ioss ysoro iioss yson iybani onss
bsiffli py-ns bioppi bsioi py-ns opn niro-oss 20
onsoab nbos'nj rosios itfsb nbbs 13
niby nby nnna niro psn-by niby nby omia psn-by 21
am lips rob? Dponn-'b?! omni sin mps pffln-bsi
oinni Droin's
Dptoppsabiisisoinanbabip bna laoi psa nanba bip 22
basp nyii sbi pb? (ib?) isp nsi bss nisbroai lb mtepi 24
niabsmai nyn sb'
mni i;nsb nasba-13 mni i^isb sm nssba-iB 25
nissa
(mnin?) roap iss 1? ppa nb'-iss 26
a Targ. ifisi. b Cf. vs. 43; 6 : 24. c Vid. 46 : 16. d Targ. is. e Targ.
ii"). f Targ. is. S Targ. Nial? KSIxa. h Targ. parr;. * Targ. isi.

50:27-37] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 389
ni?a-iB3 (nnpn) nun oiaiy-ias robp
(?Dnya)
nn nsob 11111 nns-bs isin nn nsob iin nns-bs nin 27
"orobs ' 'onib5
omps nyi omps ny
Deest Pop nap? 28
pl-bB 0131 bss-bb5 piaon -bs 0131 bss-bs ' lyiaon 29
nop nop pii
(oibs nbpro-bs) noibs iro-bs nb-iab© noibs °-mi-bs
robysa nb-iab© nbys3
bsiffli ffliip bs bsiffli ioiip-bs
nini-oss ian nironss sinn Dip ian 30
-dss pirn "pb? nsn niro nis-cs3 pn Tbs nsn 31
nini nisaa
inips rip imips ny
opa psi bssi (pirn) isii'r boai opa lb psi bssi pij boai 32
n'lyn os mam' lb nns os mam
mni nisaa mni 33
oroao-bs nro anno-bai nro
onbio nsa p onbte nsa
(bbsama) obsai obsa 34
(innab) lnirob sni sn osnms sni sn
Deest niro-DSS 35
-eb5i nnffl-eb?i bas isioi-eb?i -bsi roiffl-bsi bss nici-bsi
niaan roasn '
Deest ibssi oiismbs sin 36
-b? sin mm roii33-fb? sin nnm ronaa-bs sin
gsin :bDnp3i-b?i onpio -bsi iaanbsi npio-bs am 37
lies' aiyn-'b?! Dro1.13.a-b5 nro naina 110s 'siymbp
Jb7 am nifflsa nni naina romais-bs sm oiesb
(iini) lirsi niisisn irrsi
¦ Cf. 48 : 1. b Targ. is. c Targ.. lis. d Cf. 21 : 14. e Targ. isi
f Targ. i?. S Inc. -vs. 37. h Targ. pani isi pnpD is. ' Targ.
isi. k Vid. 51:30.— Targ. Ki'i::a. 'Targ.is.

390 THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH. [50:38-51:
itesn roaia-b7 nasn roaia-bs ain 38
Pbnro [ites] apsai 'lbbhro Bipssi
bhs3 (flina) Bnn' isffli pb laionBiisms Bpa isoi pb 39
-sb (?)bqitep nns ns ison 117 aonrsbi reyi nisa na
nasb 117 aon 111 iii-15 i'aon sbi nasb
Bmbs eiiBnp ambs nasnaa 40
ois-p dote 1131-sbi Dis-p np 1131-sbi
sbi sm nras onb pni nop nan nrss ippro pia: nop 42
ditto iami sbi
°OS3 1117 13311 01DID "by 01S3 1117 1S311 OniO^yl
bssms libs nanbab bssms Tb? nanbab
fps sp-bs pna nb7i ims nn-bs pron psaa nb7i 44
ipBSBrob? nna-bpi 'ipss robs lina iai
(pm?:) nas ia?: ni w iai
bss-bb? pi 10s bss-bs pi 10s 45
eno3 'pten-b? 011103 ps-bs
ossa npa (iron©:) nnoi sb-os isan npa onnoi sb-os
orobya nn biffli sb-os n:s omby oiffli sb-os
psn teyin bss ntopn bipa p nteps bss ntesns bipa 46
yaten onas 'npyn yates anas npy'ri 'psn

CAPUT LI.
'ninfflBiyBniinntopisffli-byi romoa nn nap sbnoi-bs: 1
m'nni: onr nnn onr 2
nnyi ons sisoa bsp-b? nn nyi ons 3130a rob? im-p
spyro (no?:) miop riin pn -bsiinfflpiiiniiniimbs 3
roms-n? lbanmbsi nnos -bsibann-bsii3no3b?ro
nssa-b3 lannni nssa-bs lannn roins
1
a Targ. Iinanpa. b aeipyvuv. c Targ. pnil Naa. d Vid. 49:18, 33.
e Vid. 6:23. * tai%dv. S Targ. mis i|a«.T ' >» Targ. is. "Targ.
iani is. k Targ. 1OTM StSlK ian; isi.' " * Cf. Isa. 4:4. m Targ. plira
iwrTap. n Targ. is.

51:5-16] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS.

391

"oronbsa
bsiffli iffliipa
bnb pna onpiai
lain-bsi
sm biaa mnib nnapa na?
nb'ibaai
(ibnbnro) iiiiaro p-b7
osnsi
(nnpab) mipteb nasi??
d31p 13
Dp3i3-17 SfflS
iosteams
nini iffl7ams
nistesn isba onnn ispn
(man) ia7T'bas-bs-is na iba
sm ia? naps-is
bas nain-eb?
(npn) iapn nistesn laipn
13 (npaninn n^n bnaffl
roro nio7-B3 dbt
bas isffli-°b?
(pa©) opp©
'romais aTb?i
T?'a-bs nas
gi7iira nini 73ies p
oifflis
(onim) iim iib7 1S71
bps n«7 niro
insia'na
ps bipb
psn napa

nnbsa 5
bsioi oiipa
roniains onpiai 4
' laimbs 6
sin bias mrob sm napsn7
nb obte'a
op'3 lbbhro p-b7 7
osns s
naispab 'niST? 9
733 13
Dipnti-!7 s'os:.
ismjaiams' 10
roro nopa-ns
oipbten :sba oiann nsn n
inara' bss-b?-i3 na pba
lbpm naps-'i3
bas naimbs 12
onao laipn latean ippnn
Dar-oa 13 oisis'n isisn '
noy-D3 nini
bss noi-bs mspo 13
mais nai
1?'aa nas
itesaa nisaa nini 7^103 14
ois
iim iiby is'y'i
ps T\V1S> 15
insiansi
inn bipb 16
fismapa

a Targ. "(innixa. b IfaSrfv airijg. e Targ. Ipani. e Targ. i1«

anp. ¦'t

e Targ. is. f Targ. xnjaa nia. e Cf. Isa. 62:8. ' h Vid. 10:12,

392 THE TEXT OP JEREMIAH. [51 : 17-29
"lis san: <P sam
os mnsb bi3ps ipo 13 nbipsa osmnsb: iaps ipo ia bpsa 17
oiynyn ioya nan mbon oiynyn n'oya nan bsn is
:ai» nini inb'ns ibid nissa mni mbre osioi 19
ib nns-°psa ib nns-pa 20
laa mnon: ona ia dmasm is mnoro ana is masp
opba (is) nisbaa
dfmasni ns3iioiBisdinasni masp isbii 010 is masp 21
8onp3ii nnaia is isan sai
dinaBninbin3iiin3i's'dinasni massi niosi 101s is masp 22
niosi 101s is is massi 1531 ipr ip
nbinsi'nns
dmasni inyi nyi is dmasm massi 11171 ron is masp 23
is dmasm nasi ns is is masp naai ibs is
maaoi mns opaoi mna
pis-b? iffly 110s oroniynba ns pna noy 110s onp-ba ns 24
Deest niro-oss 25
inp imnsi oiyborob? imbabai nnnsi oiybon-p nnbabai
nsiio nsiffl inb
nmn naatebm iciab psi obiy niaate-13 niioiab psi 26
obiyb nmn
01133 iypn psn-by os-iso isio iypn psa os-isio 27
isiio ' onaa
nps bDirs3Si na iain opba rsatesi na oiis nbbaa
'nna roby ipso niby nps '
nap pbia did rob? ibyn iao pbis oio-ibyn
na ibams ona niby' ibyn na pba-ns'oiia roby iteip 28
msi nninsms psrobsmsi ' ropo-bs-nsi ronmsms '
lnao-ba inbteaa ps-bs nsi
psn noyi psn te?ini 29
nini nateiia' nini niatena
a Vid. 10:13. b Targ. pttpx. c Targ. 1?aa. d Targ. I^asy.
0 sk <ro0 vel iv ao). f Inc. vs. 22. S Targ. piaail pairn. h 'Axava\eoig.
' peXoardaeig.

51:30-42] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 393
(na aon psi) stein sbi aten psa
bas n'sa bin bss niaa ibin 30
niaas ote is©i niiaaa isoi
mnaaoa (inain)ina3aDiffl3pim ronsBioa iman biosa nn
:niy niabs-is snapa my nnbsns 31
msi nosns nnnsya bnapa oiassmnsi iosns nnpyani 32
ntessi oss isio ' oroass nanban itessi oss isio
isai (inanba iossi) oiarfbn ibnss
Oobn)
bss-iba ma nini ias na 13 in'bs nisaa nini ias m 13 33
ssi aya ny itein ny p33 ny p33 'bssms bsitei
nnsp my nsai aya ny npnin
nb nap'n .
bss ipten (ppnn) ppbn nbss iba issiians isaan pbas 34
iba issiisias "pi (sba) i?yba pn Pp ippn bss
iffliB sba pna pybs bss pna 11013 sba pans
:°niya nsroin
-bs (nte) nstei nan diainnn bss-by nsoi nan 35
bss
Dnos noi-fb? ian onto nioi-bs ian
isni-ns snnsn isn-ns si-nsn 36
stein sbi naiob bss nnmi Dpn pa 0133b bss nnmi 37
step psa n'pitei naio
inaai ny? DiiiB33 nni p -nys ^soi Dni&aa nro 38
mns nms niaa
onb nniea ins oronoams rotes 39
(ibyn ,ibiyi)' iftaii.i pab ir'byi pab
o'mini om:s 40
QibiSBl DibiSB
Deest Itete 41
onaa naiob bas nnm 11s onaa bss naiob nmn lis
nnoasi nnoss 42
1
" Vid. 50:37.— Targ. 8J1BW. b Inc. vs. 32. c Targ. pN aiaa.
d Inc. vs. 35. c Targ. ilia*. * f Targ. is.

294

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[51:43-55

-sb nam nia psa nny nn
pbpsbi ins-oa a.ia soi
ois-p bn3
bsa-by imps:
onan my nbs nrei sbi

Desunt

-ba ibbn clbSi bS33-D3 psn
-bsi iabn (psa) aina oiobs
(Dipimn) pinia ites nayn
mni-ns tot
isnsin isyao-i3
niro roa-bs isioipa-bs onr isa
doibbn ibpp
13: onoa bas nbyn-os ia
msa nrys "niahn lasn-os
' nns omo issi
pss bna is©: baaa npyr b:p
' onoa
msob ins om ons :an
nbip (nso)

nia ps naob nny iin 43
-bp ps sffli-s'bps nsni
Di's-p pa layi-sbi teis
b3sp bVby mipsi 44
na ona m nbs nnsi-sbi
nbss bps nain
teis labai iay n'pina isa 45
: prop's pina 'itessms
n?iatea isroni opaab lipsi 4 6
ns'tep ' spi ' pss' n?atean
nstea 'innsi' ' nyiaion
btea psa' cam nyiaten
oisa Diai'nan'i'pb ;btea-b? 47
-bpi' bas' ibppB-b? mipsi
ibsi nibbmbpi'teian nais
oi.ate 'b33-b5' iaan mains 48
psaa p bna ites'bbi psi
: niro nsa bniiten nb-sisi
-oa' bsitei pbn' bsab b'ppna 49
psrobb ibbn ibas bssb
naymbs isbn sina Dmbs 50
niroms pima tot
nsin isyaio-13 51
mni nis i©ipa-b5 onr iss p
bbn pssi 52
131 onon baa nbyn- 13 53
isai insa nTy oiia iaan
nb "omo
bna isoi bssa'npyT bip 54
onoa p8>Q
ins am qib3 oroba lani 55
obip psis

aTarg.na. bTarg.Pia. c Targ. pip d Targ. Njipp pin\ e Targ. ",1313.

51:56-52:3] THE CONSPECTUS OP THE VARIATIONS. 395
ronaa nsbs no bas-by sa 13 111© bas-by rob? sa ia 56
cb©i bs 13 onop nnnn nnnn nnna' "nabs:.
5 aonb nini nibaa bs 13 oninop
• Bbio'i Bbte
nno ipo: i§tii obtei bnini roasro, nno mnoni 57
nnsai roaBni nnsp rosaoi nmins
isipi iibi obiy-nste isten
bss nan niro las-ns nian nisps nini' ias-na 58
namn ' nsmn bss
iyai sbi insi Qinsan nn'yoi insi tess omsan "roiyioi
tesis Qiasbi pnb oiay aiasbipii-iipoiayiyan
(ib'pi) isyi isyn. tes-na
iniaii-ns nini nis-iias iain sissn roan nis'-iies isin 59
nnffl-bif iasb sissn roiiems
"nnsano nnoi nnisano nnoi
isBS bss-db? sisnnos ins i&D-bs bss-bs snnnos 60
bss-db? Disnan bss-bs onnan
nni nns (niro pis) ni.ro niro oiparobs. msi nns mm 62
inbsbnnnanb nr'noipan-db5 -mm mbab ironnb nm
-iy oisa Dipioii nmnn nans-iyi Disab sion is
nmn obiyb nabon nans nmn 'obiy niaate-is
lopni iopn 63
Deest iniaii nsi nanny isyn

CAPUT LII.

nao nnsi onoy nm nso nnsi onoy-p 1
yin te?p 2
nteyntes 3

Desunt { **. "^ W *|3
[ fis-b? p :oippni nt

Targ. iini. b Inc. vs. 57. e Targ. Knaijp. d Targ. is.

396

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[52:4-17

Desunt
pterin oiis
ibm-bai
aisa a(?) p^i niby issn
oinb ny©ns
nbib iss:
bnni nainn-ps'
bnsiy (-bs) in isbn
onos-bm proi
imi (niip?3) ipyp inis warn
nbya lass insy-bai
obiob3 nbs isni'nnbsi
nnbsis onio mini nffl-bamsi t
omroross msroi
Desunt \
baanba nsb lay
nyn ma-bamsi
f ns bibb oboiii naimba-nsi
onoa bm

Desunt

-ai nson oyn iro-nsi
omso '
nini-0roas ios

nnnn. obteiroa nnm nip
iis's-b5B onis iaibtenny
":b?a ibap iropis iian
' n.itopn fflins 4
l'bm-b'ai sin
ano p^ roby nan
loinb nyona pnin temp 6
nbib ro?na isan iniai 7
omann-pa
naiyn in iabn
Diioa-bm isim 8
nsiya iropis -ns. upon
nby a issa'ibimbai inii
ins iam nan psa nnbai 9
oiaBoa
ano mini nio-bsms D3i 10
nnbsis
nipsn-ross insnn i i
nate nitoy-yten nate sin 12
bps'pba iasiipisa ibab
bss-iba'iSBb'ia?
oboin ma-bamsi 13
3130 dbfflin hian-bamsi 14
onoa bm-bp lans
o?n iro-nsi oyn nibiai 15
oibsan-n'si "ips' 'onstean
nsi' bpa Iba-bs ibss 'ites
psitisa' nban p'asn iro"
jom'sani
psinss nsffln psn nibiai 1 6
omsoni
nini-rosb lies 17

reTpaneloig X(%oig. ' b iig "Apa^a. c Targ. niaa.

52:18-27] THE CONSPECTUS OF THE VARIATIONS. 397
(ispn) ison ononsms inpn nbss onore-bams ison
nbss '
-nsi oiynanmsi inan-nsi msi oiymmsi niitnmsi is
mi3bran nipiramnsi niiaran
nisanms:.
Deest iinpb
-ns: niiarams: nispnmsi -nsininnan-nsiDpon-nsi 19
-nsi misanmsi bnnion msinnpnmsinipiran
msi (mssn) ninnan -nsi nisanmsi roisan
nnpsan nnpsan
ms ami ano oniaym insn Din on© oniayn 20
om nnn' nisaan nnnntes
Deest rfasn Qibp-ba
team oitebo ' nito? reao 21
3pp 3133
mas ©am nore oniby mnai nimnnaipinoreipymmi 22
nnsn nimn naa naip ma's oan nnsn
nasa amai relate ison iiayb oniai:. non nayb
nasn i'to?-amteb
oisiBimbDiinn nns(pbn)mi dmain-ba nnn 23
naiaan psmsi losin psms msi fflsin p3 nntems 24
pin naio mobiomsi -nsi nsoan p3 ros's'a
son nao nob©
onoi ona npb ipropi 25
iban nsa ites ote itess nyaoi iban-iSBisiBoiteasnysoi
07b isbn ' "" nissan 1&0 07_ns saaan span 10 iso
' psn ' psn
iban insoni amsoni 26
nnbsi nnbsi
nbsn nbsis onan 27
Deest l'nais b5p nnro bpi
a rag xpedypag. b nai rag ajr^wSr na) rag p.aap.apx% km raig
CiiroXvTijpag Ka) rag Xuj£v/af Kai rag %utnKtxg km roiig Kvd%ovg.

398

THE TEXT OF JEREMIAH.

[52:28-34

Desunt

oipnni mbab
oinb nyais: onoys
'nana bns
nnni-iba oipnni fflsims
pan-pa :ns san b:nnbsan
(is nate) is sibp ron ites
biBban byaa
onb bssi isbs isa ns nsoi
insb iian
iian nsns ib nmsi
ona on na
Deest

issiipias nbsn ites' o?n nj 28
ntebte' oiiiro ypte-nstep
nates mtebtei bntoyi opbs 29
*issiipiasb nite? ' n?ia'te
nisa" spate teMBbteiroB
tebte nstep ' : ontei oitebte 30
nbsn issiipiasb" nnteyi
aniro nmaa-ai nsmiss
apsis nisa s>2t ' tess
oisb's n?sis tesrbp nteani
"misawtei pnro mbab 31
fflinb nteam onioya
ilia bns
miro-iba ppnni ©aims
s^bsn npa ins san
oiaba° sppb byaa 32
onb bssi isbs nap ns ns©i 33
iian insb
ib-nsns inn nms innisi 34
iain onnpi
nm iai ba

» Ovhaip.ao&xaP- b Cf. Gen. 41:14.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In demy 8vo, Ninth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
TOttfj Progrtsssi&e <&xmms in Seating ant) W&vitin$.
. Bt A. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF 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 AUTHOK.
In Preparation,
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.
'SCrattsIatcb from Ike Siflklk ferman ffitotron
By JAMES KENNEDY, B.D.
' The work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, written
with a profound analysis of the laws 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
Beview. In Two Vols., demy 8vo, price 18s.,
A NEW EASY AND COMPLETE
HEBREW COURSE:
Containing a Ijtbnto (grammar, toitk Capiims ijjitato ano ffingliak
(gxndsts, strictln graimafrb, toitk a ^txkan.
By Bev. T. BOWMAN, M.A.

WORKS BY PROFESSOR C. A. BRIGGS, P.P,
Just published, in One Volume, post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
MESSIANIC PROPHECY.
By Professor C. A. BRIGGS, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF HEBREW AND THE COGNATE LANGUAGES IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, NEW YORK ;
AUTHOR OF ' BIBLICAL STUDY,' * AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM,' 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. Franz Delitzsch.
' All scholars will join in recognising its singular usefulness as a text-book. It
has been much wanted. ' — Rev. Canon Cheyne.
' 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 7s. 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 7s. 6d.,
AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM :
ITS ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY.
Together with an Appendix of Letters and Documents, many of
which have recently been discovered.
' We have no doubt this volume will be read with intense interest and gratitude
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
• An honest and valuable contribution to ecclesiastical history.'— Glasgow

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

PROFESSOR GODET'S WORKS.
(Copyright, by arrangement with 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 Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d.,
A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
A New Edition, Revised throughout by the Author.
1 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, 8vo, 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 in 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 8vo, Second Edition, price 6s.,
DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.
TRANSLATED BY THE HON. AND REV. CANON LYTTELTON, M.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
home the appeals to the heart as well as the head.' — Sword and Trowel.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Eight Volumes (or more at the same ratio)
from the Volumes issued in this Series previous to 1884 (see below),
At the Subscription Price of Two Guineas
(Duplicates cannot be supplied in such selections).
Non-Subscription Prices within Brackets.

Alexander (J. A., D.D.)— Commentary on Isaiah. Two Vols. (17s.)
Baumgarten (M., Ph.D.)— The Acts of the Apostles ; or, The History of the
Church in the Apostolic Age. Three Vols. (27s.)
Bleek (Professor)— Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Christlieb (Theo., D.D.)— Modern Doubt 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 Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 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.)
Dollinger (J. J. Ign. von, D.D.)— Hippolytus and Calllstus ; 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. 6d.)
Ebrard (J. H. A., D.D.)— Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol.
(10s. 6d.)

 The Gospel History : A Compendium of Critical Investigations in support
of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gebhardt (H.)— Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One VoL (10s. 6d.)
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. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
Ooebel on the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Hagenbach (K. R., D.D.)— History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
 History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Harless (G. C. A. von, D.D.)— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Haupt (E.)— Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Havernick (Professor).— General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol
(10s 6d.)
Hengstenberg (E. W., D.D.)— Ohristology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary
on the Messianic Predictions. Four Vols. (42s.)
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (83s.)
¦  On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended : Treatises on the Son?
of Solomon ; the Book of Job ; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacrifices 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. 6d.)
 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— Continued.
Keil (C. F., D.D.)— Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
 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. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
Kurtz (J. H., D.D.)— History of the Old Covenant : or, Old Testament Dispensation.
Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Lange (J. P., D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark.
Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 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. 6d.)
Macdonald (D., M.A.)— Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.)
Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Christian Ethics. General— Social— Individual. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
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. (67s. 6d.)
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. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Epistles to the Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.)
 Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Philippi (F. A., D.D.)— Commentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
Ritter (Carl)— Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols. (26s.)
Schmld (C. F., D.D.)— New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Shedd (W. G. T., D.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. Two Vols. (21s.)
Steinmeyer (F. L., D.D.)— History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord.
One Vol. (10s. Od.)
 The Miracles of our Lord in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol.
(7s. 6d.)
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. 6d.)
 The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Tholuck(A.,D.D.)— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. One Vol. (9s.)
Ullmann (O, D D.)— Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. (21s.)
Weiss (B., D.D.)— Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
 The Life of Christ. Vols. I. and II. (10s. 6d. each.)
Winer (G. B., D.D.)— Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Vol.
(10s. 6d.)
The Series forms an Apparatus without which it may he truly said no Theological
Library 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.
London : (For Works at Non-sitbscription pi-ice only) Hamilton, Adams & Co.

WORKS BY PROFESSOR FRANZ DELITZSCH.
In Two Vols., demy 8vo. — Vol. I. now ready, price. 10s. 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 Fifth
Edition, thoroughly revised, and in large part re-written, of this standard
Commentary. The learned author, who has for a generation been 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.
1 Thirty-five years have elapsed since Prof. Delitzsch'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 ita welcome help and guide.' — Professor S. E. Drivek,
in The Academy. In crown 8vo, 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 be 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
completed in Twenty-seven Volumes, price £7, 2s. nett. Any Eight
Volumes are now supplied for £2, 2s., or more at samo ratio.
Separate Volumes may be had, price 10s. Get. each.
' Very high merit for thorough Hebrew scholarship, and for keen critical
sagacity, belongs to these Old Testament Commentaries. No scholar will
willingly dispense with them.'— British Quarterlu Review.