JEREMIAH, BOOK OF 1. Difficulties and DiVersities. Much diffi culty has arisen in reference to the writings of Jeremiah from the apparent disorder in which they stand in our present copies, and from the many disagreements between the Hebrew text and that found in the Septuagint version; and many con jectures have been hazarded respecting the oc casion of this disorder. The following are the principal diversities between the two texts: (1) The prophecies against foreign nations, which in the Hebrew occupy chapters xlvi-li at the close of the book, are in the Greek.placed after ch. xxv:14, forming chapters xxvi-xx xi; the remainder of cll. xxv of the Hebrew is ch. xxxii of the Sep tuagint. The following chapters proceed in the same order in both,chapters xliv and xlv of the Hebrew forming ch. li of the Septuagint; and the historical appendix, ch. Ili, is placed at the close in both.
(2) The prophecies against the heathen nations stand in a different order in the two editions, as is shown in the following table: Hebrew. Sept.
Egypt. Ela m.
Philistines. Egypt.
Moab. Babylon.
Ammon. Philistines.
Edom. Edom.
Damascus. Ammon.
Kedar. Kedar.
Elam. Damascus.
Babylon. Moab.
(3) Various passages which exist in the Hebrew are not found in the Greek copies (e. g. ch. xxvii : 19-22: XXXiii :14-26 ; XXXiX :4-14 ; xlviii :45-47) • Besides these discrepancies, there are merous omissions and frequent variations of gle words and phrases. To explain these diversities recourse has been had to the hypothesis of a double recension, an hypothesis which, with va rious modifications, is held by most modern critics.
2. Genuineness of Writings. The genuine ness and canonicity of the writings of Jeremiah in general are established both by the testimony of ancient writers and by quotations and references which occur in the New Testament (2 Macc. ii:1-8; Philo. vol. i. p. 95; Josephus x:5,1; Matt. ii:17; Matt. xvi:14.; Heb. viii:8, 12).
(1) The text in Matt. xxvii :9 has occasioned considerable difficulty, because the passage there quoted is not found in the extant writings of the prophet. Jerome affirms that he found the exact passage in a Hebrew apocryphal book (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. Izo3) ; but there is no proof that that book was in existence before the time of Christ. It is probable that the passage intended by Matthew is Zech. xi :12, 13, which in part cor responds with the quotation he gives, and that the name is a gloss which has found its way into the text (see Olshausen, Comnient upon New Testament.)
(2) The genuineness of some portions of the book has been of late disputed by the critics of the so-called advance school. Movers, whose views have been adopted by De Wette and Hitzig, at tributes ch. x :1-16, and cc. xxx, xxxi, and xxxiii to the author of the concluding portion of the book of Isaiah. His fundamental argument against the last-named portion is, that the prophet Zechariah (ch. viii :7, 8) quotes from Jer. xxxl: 7, 8, 33, and in ver. 9 speaks of the author as one who.lived 'in the day that the foundation of the house of the Lord of hosts was laid.' He must, therefore, have been contemporary with Zechariah himself. This view obliges him, of course, to consider ch. xxx :1, with which he joins the three following verses, as a later addi tion. By an elaborate comparison of the peculiari ties of style he endeavors to show that the author of these chapters was the so-called pseudo-Isaiah. He acknowledges, however, that there are many expressions peculiar to Jeremiah, and supposes that it was in consequence of these that' the pre diction was placed among his writings. These similarities he accounts for by assuming that the lafer unknown prophet accommodated the writ ings of the earlier to his own use.
(3) Every one will see how slight is the external ground on which Movers' argument rests ; for there is nothing in verses 7, 8, of Zechariah to prove that it is intended to be a quotation from any written prophecy, much less from this portion of Jeremiah. The quotation, if it be such, is made up by joining together phrases of frequent recurrence in the prophets picked out from amongst' many others. Then, again, the mention of prophets is evidence that Zechariah was not referring to the writings of one individual ; and, lastly, the necessity of rejecting the exordium, without any positive ground for suspecting its integrity, is a strong argument against the posi tion of Movers. Hitzig (Jeremia, p. 23o) is in duced, by the force of these considerations, to give up the external evidence on which Movers had relied. The internal evidence arising from the examination of particular words and phrases —a species of proof which, when standing alone, is always to be received with great caution— is rendered of still less weight by the evidence of an opposite kind.