and for the most part they proceed from the same time (comp. xlvi. 2 with xxv. 1). Nevertheless they neither stood just after ch. xxv. in the original collection, nor yet do they belong to it; for ch. xxv. does not form the introduction to them, but has the theocracy itself and its fortunes for its centre and immediate object. The transposition in the Septuagint is a wilful alteration of the original order.

§ 75. Genuineness and Integrity of Jeremiah's Prophecies.

As Jeremiah's prophecies bear very distinctly the stamp of this prophet's strongly marked and easily recognised individuality, their genuineness has generally remained unassailed. It has been only in the most recent times that the integrity and genuineness of the following single passages have been disputed.

I. Ch. x. 1-16 is said to contain interpolated additions in the Masoretic text, which are wanting in the Septuagint (vers. 6, 7, 8, 10); and besides, the whole is said to be the work of the pseudo-Isaiah, since the warning against heathenish divination and idolatry, vers. 2–5, and the Chaldee of ver. 11, betray a writer who lived in the exile, and also the style is that of the pseudo-Isaiah (1). On the contrary, this section at once manifests itself to be genuine, because it merely gives the proofs which establish what Jeremiah had said, ch. ix. 22-25 [English version, vers. 23-26], of Israel's glory, and of its being placed on the same footing as the uncircumcised heathen. The discourse is not at all about the astrology of the Chaldeans, but solely the deeper foundation of their idolatry which is discovered to the people; and along with this, the necessity on God's part for scattering them among the heathen (ix. 15) is shown to them (2).-The style of these verses certainly reminds one of the last part of Isaiah (3): but this is sufficiently explained by Jeremiah's characteristic practice of attaching himself to the utterances of the older prophets (§ 73, Note 6); and when combined with the ideas and expressions which are peculiar to him, not only in vers. 6-8, 10, which on insufficient grounds are said to be later interpolations, but also in other verses, they furnish a striking proof in favour of the genuineness of the assailed passage (4).

(1) So De Wette, § 217, c, following Movers, de utr. recens. Jer. p. 43, and Hitzig, p. 81 ff.-On the contrary, the genuineness has

been defended by Küper, p. 175 sq., Umbreit, pp. 83–4, Häv. p. 222 ff., and Welte on Herbst's Einleit. ii. 2, p. 61.

(2) Comp. Neumann on the place.-Somewhat differently Häv. pp. 223-4, with J. H. Michaelis, Umbreit, and others. Also the rejection of ver. 11 as an interpolation, by Houbigant, Venema, Rosenmüller, and Maurer, is a violent stroke of criticism.

(3) See them in juxtaposition in Küper, i. c. p. 134 sq.

(4) Comp. 7, of the idols, vers. 3, 15, with ii. 5; Dis for DAN, ver. 5; and app nya, ver. 15, with viii. 12, vi. 15, xlix. 8, xi. 23 [all but the first a little varied].—The expedient resorted to by Ewald, ii. p. 63, and Umbreit, p. 83, saying that the pseudo-Isaiah imitated our prophet, is merely a consequence of the false assumption that the last part of Isaiah is spurious; and it is to be rejected equally with the assertion of Movers, Hitzig, and De Wette, that vers. 6-8, 10, are later interpolations, an assertion which is in no way justified by the omission of these verses in the Septuagint, considering the thoroughly arbitrary conduct of these translators. Comp. Häv. pp. 224–5.

II. Later interpolations are said to be found in ch. xxv., vers. 11b-14a; in ch. xxvii., vers. 7, 16-21; in ch. xxxiii., vers. 14-26; in ch. xxxix., vers. 1, 2, 4-13: and besides, ch. xxvii.-xxix., xxx.-xxxiii. have been retouched in various places by a later hand (5). But in ch. xxv. 11-14, offence is taken chiefly at the prophecy of the seventy years' duration of the Chaldean servitude being too definite; and in accordance with dogmatic prejudices, this is held to be a vaticinium ex eventu (6). It is just so with ch. xxvii. 7, a verse omitted by the Septuagint, because not suiting the opinion which this translator had previously embraced as to the duration of the exile. Again, in xxvii. 16-21, the circumstance that the Septuagint altered the utterance of the prophet in accordance with the legends prevailing among the Alexandrians, can furnish no solid reason for admitting interpolations (7). Next, the rejection of xxxiii. 14-26 as spurious, by the Septuagint and the recent critics, is connected with a crude literal apprehension of the passage; as the rejection of xxxix. 1, 2, 4-13 is connected with imaginary historical inaccuracies, the burden of which falls not upon the text, but only on some of its expositors (8). Finally, the retouching of ch. xxvii.-xxix. is inferred partly from the shorter form of the proper names, ie, my, my, and others; and partly from the predicate often subjoined to the name of the prophet (xxviii.

5, 6, 10-12, 15, xxix. 1). This latter argument is urged without considering that the contents and the tendency of these chapters demand the use of this predicate, in order to designate Jeremiah, in opposition to the false prophets, as the sole rightful owner of the official name "prophet." And the argument from the forms of the proper names adduced immediately loses all its importance when we take notice that they may proceed from the author, and are not once used constantly, but are interchanged with the fuller form, and this not in these chapters only, but in all Jeremiah, and generally in all writers of the middle and the later age (9).-For the retouching of ch. xxx.-xxxiii., weight is attached to "the style of the pseudo-Isaiah." This however ignores, instead of refuting, the explanation, which is not far to seek; namely, that when these chapters lean upon Isaiah, and accord with it, this is due to Jeremiah's reading and using the prophecies of Isaiah, as he did in other instances (10).

(5) Comp. Movers, p. 26 sqq. v. and 38 sqq.; Hitzig, pp. 193 ff., 212 ff., 219 ff., 227 ff., 238 ff., and elsewhere; De Wette, § 217, a and b. [Bleek, p. 491, agrees with the Septuagint in rejecting xxix. 16-20; at p. 493 he reckons the Septuagint the better text of ch. xxv. generally.] Against this, see Häv. p. 225 ff.

(6) See Hitzig, pp. 194–5, and the refutation in Häv. pp. 226–7, and Umbreit, p. 169.-Ver. 13 itself, which was held to be spurious so early as by Venema, Schnurrer, and others, is neither interpolated nor spurious. For even though in the fourth year of Jehoiakim there were not yet in existence any book of Jeremiah's with prophecies against all the nations (and this cannot at least be proved from Jer. xxxvi. 1); still there is nothing of importance to prevent our adopting the opinion, that Jeremiah did not write down the prophecy in ch. xxv. till a later time, and that he added the reference to this book of his prophecies at the time he so wrote these prophecies down, or at the time he edited them.

(7) Comp. Häv. pp. 228-9.

(8) See in Hengstb. Christol. ii. p. 513 f., the right interpretation of xxxiii. 14-26, with a defence of its genuineness against J. D. Michaelis and Jahn. Comp. also Umbreit, p. 211, and the refutation of the objections to ch. xxxix. in Häv. pp. 232-3. [Owing to the omission in the Septuagint, Bleek, p. 492, thinks xxxii. 14-26 is either not genuine, or not in its proper place; and pp. 491-2 he pronounces xxxix. 4-13 spurious.]

(9) Comp. xxvii. 1 with xxviii. 5; xxvii. 3 with ver. 12; xxviii. 11 with ver. 12, xxix. 30, and others besides; and on the whole subject, see Küper, l.c. p. 201. [See also the refutation of a similar argument about Jehoash and Joash at § 57, Note 7.]

(10) See the affinity of thoughts and expressions to those of Isaiah, and the borrowing from him, in Küper, p. 149 sq., and Caspari, ib. p. 48 ff.; also see the refutation of Movers' criticism in Küper, p. 171 sqq. How arbitrary and groundless this criticism is, is proved at once by the great difference of opinion between Movers and Hitzig as to the alleged interpolations. On this, comp. Häv. pp. 231-2.

III. Ch. xlviii. is said not only to be interpolated by the pseudoIsaiah, but also to be enriched by additions from the pen of a second elaborator. But the alleged want of acquaintance with historical and geographical circumstances, and also with the Hebrew language, which are the proofs of these interpolations, is an unfounded charge made by a criticism almost blinded by prejudice [these geographical details, on the contrary, being regarded as of the highest value by recent explorers in the land of Moab, which is still very imperfectly known]; and there is no other reason than this for the pretended interpolations, that Jeremiah has taken up anew the prophecies of Balaam and Isaiah against Moab, and has freely wrought them up anew, and reproduced them (11).

(11) See more precise details in Küper, p. 83 sqq.; Umbreit and Ewald on Jer. xlviii.; also see the refutation of Hitzig's reasoning in Häv. p. 233 ff.

IV. The prophecy against Babylon, ch. 1. and li., is said to be either spurious or interpolated by the pseudo-Isaiah (12), and this on account of

(a.) "The many repetitions, in which Jeremiah's own peeps through only at individual places, although these are pretty numerous; and the repeated passages are often entirely wrought up afresh and altered." Yet "as Jeremiah is not unfrequently accustomed to repeat himself elsewhere," this fact can only excite "a presumption in favour of this prophecy being his own composition." And it will do so all the more that the assertion is added without proof, that Jeremiah, on the whole, repeats himself more, and is not untrue to himself: on the contrary,

the same freedom and independence in the use of earlier utterances are manifested here, which are elsewhere a distinguishing mark of Jeremiah; and further, in general, all these repetitions of older utterances are suitable, and are applied with wise consideration (13).

(b.) "The new thoughts and words, entirely foreign to Jeremiah, which point to a later age,-Babylon already conquered by Cyrus, although unexpectedly spared instead of being destroyed,—a kingdom entirely degenerate, and no longer able to resist its final destruction, -the prophet's impetuous rebellion against the Chaldean tyrants, and the public summons to all the brethren living in Babylon to flee from the city which is irretrievably lost, and to return to the Holy Land, -the designation, without any disguise, of the Medes and other northern nations, as the deadly enemies of Babylon ;-in Jeremiah all this is strange, contradictory, yea impossible."-Strong assertions, wanting nothing except proof. Of the destruction of Babylon already accomplished by Cyrus, the oracle knows nothing; but it depicts this as still impending (14).—The impetuous revolt against the Chaldean tyrants, and the summons to the exiles to leave Babylon (1. 8, 14 ff., li. 6, 45, etc.), only prove that the prophet was no mere common philanthropist speaking in accordance with subjective fancies, but a prophet of the true God, who recognised enmity to the kingdom of God in the tyranny of Babylon, and who represented its ruin as an act of divine justice, yet free from the zeal of passion, simply because Babylon was the arch-enemy of the kingdom of God, the redemption of which demanded the annihilation of its enemies (15). The designation of the Medes as the principal enemies of Babylon, speaks, not against Jeremiah's claim to be the author, but in favour of it; for a poet living after Cyrus took Babylon would have named the Persians, according to the standing designation of Cyrus, by the writers after the exile, as king of Persia (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; Ezra i. 1, 2, iv. 5, etc.).

(c.) "The play upon words in the names 'heart of those that rise up against me,' for

for 2, li. 44; pp 2,

e, li. 1; and similar

paraphrases of Chaldean names for a like purpose, in l. 21." But Jeremiah is partial to precisely this play upon words (comp. xx. 3) (16); and already, at xxv. 26, he names Babylon "Sheshach," where it is entirely arbitrary to set the word aside by assuming that it is interpolated (17).