The genuineness and canonic-ity of the writings of Jeremiah in general are established both by the testimony of ancient wiiters, and by quotations and references which occur in the N. T. Thus the son of Sirach refers to him as a prophet conse crated from the womb, and quotes from Jer. to, the coinmission with which he was intrusted (` akar 141-peit irpop-kn)s elipti.otiv KCLICOOV Kai droXX6etv, 60-fitt5TCOS 0/K0o0tLEIV ICaTCCOUTEVELP,' Ecclus. xlix. 7). In 2 Maccab. 1-8, there is a tradition respecting his hiding the tabernacle and the ark in a rock, in which he is called lepeAlas pocb-km. Philo speaks of him as irpoctykrns, ,tdrarris, iepocpcirrns, and calls a passage which he quotes from Jer. 4, an oracle, xpin.iov (Eich horn, Einleitung, vol. p. 95). Josephus refers to him by name as the prophet who predicted the evils which were coming on the city, and speaks of him as the author of Lamentations (p.eXos Opnpn ruc6v) which are still existing (Antiq., lib. x. 5. i). His writings are included in the list of canonical books given by Melito, Origen (whose words are remarkable, lepel.tIcir cria, Ovkvocs Kul TT) E7110-7-0X21 bi), Jerome, and the Talmud (Eichhorn, killing, vol. iii. p. 184). In the N. T. Jeremiah is referred to by name in Matt. ii. 17, where a passage is quoted from Jer. xxxi. 15, and in Matt. xvi. 14 ; in Heb. viii. 8-12, a passage is quoted from Jer. xxxi. 31-34. There is one other place in which the name of Jeremiah occurs, Matt. xxvii. 9, which 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 hook (Fabricius, Cod. Fseua'ip.i. 1103); but there is no proof that that book was in exist ence before the time of Christ. It is probable that the passage intended by Matthew is Zech xi. 12, 13, which in part corresponds with the quotation lie gives, and that the name is a gloss which has found its way into the text (see Olshau sen, Commentar nber N. T., vol. ii. p. 493).
Much difficulty 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 conjectures have been hazarded respecting the occasion of this disorder. The following are the principal diversities between the two texts :— 1. The prophecies against foreign nations, which in the Hebrew occupy chs. xlvi.-Ii. at the close of the book, are in the Greek placed after ch. xxv. 14, forming chs. xxvi.-xxxi. ; the remainder of xxv. of the Heb. is ch. xxxii. of the Sept. The following chapters proceed in the same order in both chs. xliv. and xlv. of the Heb. forming ch. li. of the Sept. ; and the historical appendix, ch. lii., 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 fol lowing table:— 3. Various passages which exist in the Hebrew are not found in the Greek copies (e.g., ch. xxvii. 19-22 ; xxxiii. 4-26 ; 4-14 ; xlviii. 45-47)• Besides these discrepancies, there arc numerous omissions and frequent variations of single words and phrases (Movers, De utriusgue Vaticiniorum Yerenzi,n recensionis indole et ongine, pp. 8-32). To explain these diversities recourse has been had to tbe hypothesis of a double recension, an hypo thesis which, with various modifications, is held by most modern critics (Movers, ut supra ; De Wette, Lehrbuelt der Hist.-Crit. Einleitung in A. p. 303 ; Ewald, Propheten des Alt. Bund.
vol. ii. p. 23).
The genuineness of some portions of the book has been of late disputed by German critics. Movers, whose views have been adopted by DP Wette and Hitzig, attributes ch. x. 1-16, and chs. xxx., xxxi., and 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. xxxi. 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 contempormy 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 addition. By an elaborate comparison of the peculiarities of style he endeavours to shew 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 prediction was placed among his writings. These similarities he accounts for by assuming that the later unknown prophet accommodated the writings of the earlier to his own use. Every one will see how slight is the external ground on which Movers' argument rests ; for there is nothing in ver. 7, S, 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 re jecting the exordium, without a.ny positive ground for suspecting its integrity, is a strong argument against the position of Movers. Hitzig (7eremia, p. 230) is induced, by the force of the,se considera tions, 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, the existence of which Movers himself acknowledges, quumque indicia usus loquendi tantummodo Jeremim peculiaris hand raro inveniantur ' (p. 42). And this evidence becomes absolutely nothing, if the authenticity of the latter portion of Isaiah is maintained ;* for it is quite likely that prophecies of Jeremiah would, when relating to the same subject:. bear marks of similarity to those of his illustrious predecessor. We may mention also that Ewald, who is by no means accustomed to acquiesce in received opi nions as such, agrees that the chapters in question, as well as the other passage mentioned ch. x. 146, are the work of Jeremiah. The authenticity of this latter portion is denied solely on internal grounds, and the remarks we have already made will, in substance, apply also to these verses. It seems, however, not improbable that the Chaldee of ver. is a gloss which has crept into the text— both because it is (apparently without reason) in another language, and because it seems to inter rupt the progress of thought. The predictions against Babylon in chs. 1. and li. are objected to by Movers, De \Vette, and others, on thi ground that they contain many interpolations. Ewald attributes them to some unknown prophet who imitated the style of Jeremiah. Their authen ticity is maintained by Hitzig (p. 391), and by Umbreit (pp. 290-293), to whom we must refer for an answer to the objections made against them. The last chapter is generally regarded as an appendix added by some later author. It is almost verbally the same as the account in Kings xxiv. IS ; xxv. 30, and it carries the history down to a later period probably than that of the death of Jeremiah : that it is not his work seems to be indicated in the last verse of ch. li.