THE GREEK TEXT OF JEREMIAH

The two best witnesses to the original wording of Jeremiah are the traditional Hebrew text (abbreviated as MT, or Masoretic Text, named after the group of Jewish scholars who preserved the text over the centuries) and the early Greek translation which is part of the Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX after the legendary 70, or 72, Jewish scholars who were said to have translated it for the benefit of an early Egyptian ruler). In fact, the translation process for the OT took place from about the 2^rd century BC to the 1^st century AD.

For most Old Testament books the differences between MT and LXX are relatively minor, but that is not so with the book of Jeremiah. Comparing the two versions, we find three categories of disagreement: differences in the understanding of individual verses, the length of the overall texts, and the order in which the material is presented. It is assumed by most scholars that many of these differences between the Greek and Hebrew text arose from LXX utilizing a somewhat different Hebrew text from the one we possess. Each of the three types of categories listed above will be discussed in turn.

Variant Understandings

It is obvious that the book was originally written in Hebrew. And since any translation of a written work into another language is bound to result in some liberties being taken with the wording, in general it is wisest to stick to the original text. Textual scholar Wurthwein states that “today we recognize that [LXX] neither was nor was intended to be a precise scholarly translation. Many other factors and interests played a part in its formation.” And Brotzmann and Tully say, “Most differences from our Hebrew manuscripts are of the sort one would expect when translating (somewhat freely on occasion) from one language to another.”

However, when the details of the historical process of creating and translating Jeremiah are lost somewhere in antiquity, as is this case, then our earliest copies in the original language may not necessarily reflect the original wording as well as equally old manuscripts written in Greek. This is demonstrated by fragments of Jeremiah written in Hebrew found among the Dead Sea scrolls. Some of them agree with the wording in MT while others are closer to the proposed Hebrew original of LXX. So most translators today chose one text over the other on a case-by-case consideration when examining individual passages.

For example, Hulst, in his book Old Testament Translation Problems, discusses over fifty verses of Jeremiah in which the translators of the RSV and/or those who produced the Dutch New Version (1951) preferred the reading in LXX over that in MT. In many of these cases, resorting to the LXX was done because the Hebrew text of the MT was incomprehensible as it stood.

Length of the Book

Somewhat related to the above differences is the fact that MT is roughly one-eighth longer than LXX, with the latter missing approximately 2,700 words found in MT. Thompson identifies the major missing passages as Jeremiah 33:14-20; 36:4-13; 51:44b-49a; and 52:27b-30. It is a general rule in textual criticism that the shorter text is to be preferred since it is usually more likely that a scribe would add his own explanatory comments than that he would purposely delete words of Scripture. But that is not always the case, as D.R. Jones explains:

“The easy conclusion would be that LXX witnesses to the primary, or at any rate more original text, and the expansions in MT should be ignored. But the fact that the two versions held their position for a lengthy period is now shown by the existence of four fragments found among the Qumran texts...One of these fragments may date to as early as 200 BC.”

For example, in the case of Jeremiah we are comparing a Hebrew text with a translation. And in those cases, as Bright says, “Although the Hebrew text is in general greatly to be preferred to that of any ancient version, and certainly ought not to be recklessly emended, it is not sacrosanct.” He adds, “Where they diverge, it is often impossible to decide which of them is to be preferred. Did the tradition behind MT add, or did that behind LXX subtract? Possibly both processes were at work.” Thompson expresses the same thought in practically identical words.

In terms of the nature of the “additions” in MT, Janzen says that it contains “frequent attention to names, with titles and epithets and the making explicit of what is implicit. There are many interpolations and some must be called deliberate scribal notation and harmonization.”

Order of the Text

But perhaps the greatest divergence of MT and LXX from one another is in terms of the way in which they present whole blocks of material in entirely different orders. The major dislocation occurs with the oracles to the nations, which one can find in Jeremiah 45-51 in our standard Bible translations, all of which retain the MT order. By contrast, this same material appears in the LXX sandwiched in the middle of our chapter 25. Most scholars feel that in this case the MT is vastly to be preferred.

    D.R. Jones: “In particular the [previous] discussion of chapter 25, in relation to the oracles against the nations, suggests the superiority of MT.”

    Allen proposes an early Hebrew text which was adapted by LXX (especially in its order). Then MT later kept the original order but made “a significant contribution to the book, often demonstrating insight into the text.” For one thing, “The text perpetuated in the MT has created a structural shape for the book that gives a large role to its positive content. It mainly does so by moving the oracles against the nations to the close of the book, before the epilogue, thus establishes a literary parallel to Jeremiah 10 and Jeremiah 30-43.”

    “The major effect of the Masoretic order is to maintain the close connection between the oracles in chs. 1-25 and the biographical events in chs. 26-45. Moreover, the final chapter which describes the destruction of Jerusalem 'by the nations' is closely linked both with the preceding oracles and the initial call of Jeremiah in ch. 1. The result emphasizes the claim of Yahweh, the God of Israel, over the course of history, including the nations...The Masoretic text appears simply to have preferred a more logical position within the total book [over that in the Greek version].” (Childs)

My own literary analysis of the text indicates that there is a purposefully symmetrical organization to the whole book, at least in the Hebrew version. Such a symmetry (found in almost every other book of the OT and NT) is totally disrupted in the LXX ordering.

            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)

It is mainly thematic considerations that link sections II and II' together. Section II begins by commissioning Jeremiah as a prophet over nations and kingdoms, but it then becomes clear that one of those kingdoms affected will be Judah itself. This order is reversed in II', which begins in ch. 45 with a prophecy against Judah, followed in ch. 46 with a series of woes pronounced against “the nations.” Similar language is employed in both sections to describe God's activities.

Specific verbal correspondences between the two units include the following:

Parallels and Contrasts                                                      Section II             Section II'

people or enemy from the north                                       3x                          9x

“Do not be afraid...for I am with you...says the LORD” 1:8,19                    46:28

“hand of the LORD”                                                        1:9                         51:7,25

“word/mouth/Jeremiah”                                                   1:9                         45:1

“destroy(er)”                                                                    1:10                        46:8; 49:38

“almond tree”                                                                   1:11                        48:17

“set a throne”                                                                    1:15                       49:38

“against the walls”                                                           1:15                        51:12

“judgment...forsaking”                                                     1:16                        51:9

“Do not be dismayed”                                                      1:17                        46:27

“Gird up your loins” vs. “on the loins sackcloth”            1:17                        48:37

“princes and priests” // “priests and princes”                   1:18                        48:7; 49:3

“against the land...the people of the land”                       1:18                        50:1,45; 52:6,25

“ made you a fortified city” / “make you a burnt mound.” 1:18                     51:25

“fortify”                                                                           1:18                         51:53

“They will not be able to” // “He is not able to”             1:19                         49:10

But there are yet other differences in order between MT and LXX. Not only does the latter move the position of the oracles to the nations within the book, but also it reorders the individual oracles themselves. Figure 2 shows the Hebrew form of the text to also be symmetrically arranged.

Figure 2: The Structure of Section II'

A. “To Baruch the son of Neriah” (prose) (45:1-5)

B. Egypt (46:1-28)

C. Philistia (47:1-7)

D. “Concerning” (48:1-49:33)

                                                    1. Moab (48:1-47)

                                                        2. Ammon (49:1-6)

                                                            3. Edom (49:7-22)

                                                        2'. Damascus (49:23-27)

                                                    1'. Kedar / Hazor (49:28-33)

C'. Elam (49:34-39)

B'. Babylon (50:1-51:58)

A'. “To Seraiah the son of Neriah” (prose) (51:59-64a)

Arrangement in the above manner is mainly informed by the similarly chiastic order of the corresponding opening phrases of these sections (see Figure 3). At the same time, there is a rough geographical movement from the southwest to the east in this series. The one exception to the pattern is that the opening to a sub-section of B is included in place of the introductory phrase in 46:1, which applies to all the nations (not just Egypt) and may have been added to bring the total references to “the word of the LORD” up to seven.

Figure 3: Opening Phrases in Jeremiah 45-51

A. “The word that Jeremiah the prophet spoke” (45:1)

B. “The word which the LORD spoke to Jeremiah the prophet concerning” (46:13)

C. “The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning” (47:1)

D. “Concerning” (5x)

C'. “The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning” (49:34)

B'. “The word which the LORD spoke concerning...by Jeremiah the prophet” (50:1)

A'. “The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded” (51:59)

Egypt and Babylon (B and B') are naturally placed parallel to one another as (a) the most politically important nations that impacted the Divided Kingdom and (b) the locations where most of the exiles would be settled. Specific thematic and verbal parallels between these two oracles include:

Jeremiah mocks the efficacy of medicine                 46:11          51:8-9

“declare and proclaim”                                             46:14          50:2

“says the king whose name is the LORD of hosts.” 46:18          51:57

cities turned into wilderness                                     46:19          50:26,39

“daughter Egypt/Babylon”                                       46:19           51:35

armies and locust are equated                                  46:23           50:41-46; 51:14, 27-33

“the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel.”                 46:25           50:18

Bright and Thompson both see similarities in the oracles addressing Moab and Hazor with the prophecy concerning Edom. If so, this would suggest another example of symmetry within the “Oracles” section with its center (and thus the center of Section II' itself) as the Edom prophecy. The center of this prophecy, in turn, contains the key image of the nation being forced to drink the cup of God's wrath, an image which will appear elsewhere at key junctures of the book.

In contrast to the symmetries seen in Figures 2 and 3, these are completely absent in the LXX order of the oracles: Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Amos, Kedar, Damascus, Moab. “Logical justification for the LXX ordering is difficult to find, apart from the placing of Babylon next to Egypt, its fellow world power.” (L.C. Allen)

Conclusion

Thompson ends his discussion of the subject by saying, “The wide variety of views suggests that we are not yet in possession of the kind of information that will allow a definitive solution.” My own view coincides with that of most modern translators: We should take the conservative approach and adopt the general reading of the Hebrew text in terms of its ordering of material since it results in by far the most logical and structurally symmetric presentation. And when it comes to the actual wording of individual passages, the Hebrew text should only be emended in light of the LXX reading if it appears to contain obvious duplications, grammatical problems, and incomprehensible passages.