Figure 1: The Structure of Jeremiah
I. Historical Introduction (1:1-3)
II. Prophet to the Nations (1:4-19)
III. Prophecies Concerning Judah and Israel (2:1-13:27)
IV. Woe to the Leaders (chs. 14-25)
III'. Prophecies Concerning Judah and Israel (chs. 26-44)
II'. Oracles to the Nations (chs. 45-51)
I'. Historical Conclusion (ch. 52)
Sections I and I': Historical Framework
The concluding portion of the book, I', is very important from the standpoint of structural analysis in that it provides a clear-cut case of an historical account (that we also possess in II Kings 24:18-25:30) being transformed by some minor editorial additions and deletions into a brand new literary entity. If one compares the II Kings passage side-by-side with Jer. 52, concentrating on the differences, an enlightening picture emerges. First to note is that the “editorializing” does not do damage to the historical picture portrayed in II Kings. One passage (II Kings 25:22-26) concerning the governor Gedeliah is deleted, but those events are covered in detail elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah. The only other changes are the addition of a few verses enumerating those sent into captivity (Jer. 52:28-30) and some summary phrases. The structure resulting from these minor changes is seen to be the five-part chiasm shown in Fig. 2 below, with the Jeremian additions underlined.
Figure 2: The Structure of Section I'
A. The Fate of King Zedekiah, ending with “and put him in prison till the day of his death”
(52:1-11)
B. Nebuzaran carries away the people and temple goods, ending with “all the...were #”
(52:12-23)
C. Those in the city are killed, ending with “So Judah was carried captive out of
the land” (52:24-27)
B'. Nebuzaran carries away people captive, ending with “all the...were #”
(52:28-30)
A'. The Fate of King Jehoiachin, ending “and brought him out of prison” and “until the
day of his death as long as he lived” (52:31-34)
This chiastic (i.e. mirror-image) structure is created mainly by providing matching phrases to close the corresponding sections. This serves to highlight the contrasting fates of the two kings of Judah in a more obvious manner than in the II Kings account, even though both end on a cautiously positive note. Since Section B deals mainly with the temple goods and B' with the people, equating the two may imply that God is going with His people to Babylon or just reinforce the utter destruction of Jerusalem. In either case, the point is that Judah's future, for the time being, lies in Babylon. The chiasm also points clearly to the conclusion of Section C as the center of emphasis, with a phrase that reminds us of the words “until the captivity of Jerusalem” in Section I. Other phrases tying together I and I' are “the eleventh year of King Zedekiah” (1:3; 52:5) and “words of Jeremiah” (1:1; 51:64).
One would suppose that, as in many other OT passages of a prophetic nature, there would be drastically different interpretations of Jeremiah 52 depending somewhat on the theological stances of the commentators. But in actuality, there is a surprising amount of agreement.
For example, the rather liberal scholar John Bright writes: “Why this account should have been appended here (it has already been encountered in abridged form in ch. xxxix) is not certain. One recalls, of course, that the collection of Isaiah's prophecies found in Isa i-xxxix likewise concludes with a historical appendix drawn from the book of Kings, or one of its sources (Isa xxxvi-xxxix // II Kings xviii-xx). But whereas these chapters contain various authentic words of Isaiah, and describe events in which that prophet played an important role, in the present chapter Jeremiah is not even mentioned. Perhaps the editor felt that an account of the fall of Jerusalem, an event that brought vindication to Jeremiah's lifelong announcement of the divine judgment, would furnish a fitting conclusion to the book because it would allow history itself to give its silent witness to the truth of the prophetic word. Perhaps, too, he saw in the account of the release of Jehoiachin from prison with which the chapter closes (vv. 31-34) some hint, some foreshadowing of the hoped-for future which Jeremiah, at the bidding of his God, had promised beyond the tragedy. In its present context the chapter seems to say: 'the divine word both has been fulfilled – and will be fulfilled!'”
In a similar manner, D.R.Jones proposes multiple authors or redactors who edited the book of Jeremiah into its present shape. For example, he says that “the redactor, living sufficiently distant from the period of the Babylonian oracles, attributed them to Jeremiah in the time of Zedekiah. From his point of view therefore there was nothing incongruous in placing this limited historical tradition at the end of the prophetic collection. But he had deeper reasons which retain their validity. The book of Jeremiah is predominantly prophecy...In restricted measure he allowed himself to look beyond judgment to ultimate salvation. The effect of this historical appendix is to show how completely the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled and, in the last section of Jehoiachin's release, how even the prophecy of hope received at least an anticipatory fulfillment. The redactor's self discipline is exemplary.. He does not attempt to gild the lily. He simply quotes the final section, probably an appendix, of the Deuteronomic history as though to say, 'Draw your own conclusions. The facts speak for themselves.'”
J.A. Thompson's commentary on Jeremiah is much more liberal than most other contributions to The New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. At one point, he comments, “The future lay with these exiles [of Jeremiah 52:24-30]. The compiler of the book was able to bring the lists up to date although we are not certain how the count was made.” Note that he also posits the presence of at least one later editor who pieced together Jeremiah's prophecies into their present shape.
And even the generally conservative Bible scholar C.H. Bullock. who treats all of Jeremiah 1-51 as coming from that prophet's hand, with perhaps some added comments from his scribe Baruch, feels compelled by the evidence of chapter 52 to state that it comes from yet someone else: “The final installment of the book is a historical narrative briefly summarizing the reign of Zedekiah and relating the stages of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, the number of the captives taken to Babylon in the three exiles, and the release of King Jehoiachin from prison. The narrative of 52:1-30 parallels and generously supplements that of 2 Kings 24:18-25:21, whereas 52:31-34 is more or less a parallel account of 2 Kings 25:27-30. Because the scope of this appendix extends to the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 562, Jeremiah could hardly have written this narrative. In fact the editor has given us the cue in 51:64 that Jeremiah's words were ended ('Thus far are the words of Jeremiah').”
And just as telling is the fact that Chisholm, a similarly conservative scholar, states that “Jeremiah's prophecies end with the oracles agaimst the nations (see 51:64b), but the Book of Jeremiah concludes with an epilogue (Chapter 52) that parallels the account of Jerusalem's fall in 2 Kings 24-25. This epilogue was probably included to demonstrate that Jeremiah's ministry and message were fully vindicated by history.”
Charles Dyer from the same theological background as Bullock and Chisholm goes one step further in definitely identifying the unknown author who penned Jeremiah 52 as “the same writer who compiled the Book of Kings.” However, this supposition is far from being proved as many other scholars note the differences in detail between the two accounts. As just one example, Cawley and Millard say, “It is taken from the same source as 2 Ki. 24; 5, from which it diverges little probably with the intention of reminding readers that Jeremiah's words had been partly fulfilled, and of encouraging, by the final paragraph, the depressed exiles.”
Childs: “A...feature of the canonical shaping of the present form of the book of Jeremiah is the perspective provided by the Deuuteronomic flavored prose sections which now frame the entire Jeremianic corpus [see Figure 1 above]. The decision to attach a verbatim [sic] excerpt from II Kings 24 to the book of Jeremiah, following the explicit conclusion to the prophet's own words (51.64), is a further confirmation that his words are viewed as a prophecy leading up to the events reported in II Kings.”
Cogan and Tadmor explain that “Jer 52:1-27 parallels 2 Kgs 24:18-25:21, except for a few textual variants (in vv. 10-11). The Deuteronomistic evaluation of Jehoiakim (Jer 52:2) and the manner in which the punishment by exile is presented (Jer 52:3, 27) are the hallmarks of the book of Kings and not Jeremiah. Thus the composition of the unit is certainly attributable to the late Deuteronomistic editor, Dtr(2).”
And adding to this general consensus, the Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown states: “This chapter is a repetition, with some complementary material, of 2 K 24:18-25:30, and is in part parallel with Jr 39:1-10; the three passages draw on the one source. It has been added to Jr as Is 36-39 were added to the first part of Is. It shows how the prophet's threats came true, and ends, like 2 K, by offering a hope for the future, such as Jeremiah too had entertained.”
