JEREMIAH, THE El'ISTI.E OF; one of the apocryphal writings, purporting to proceed from the pen of the prophet Jeremiah.
1. Title ana' position.—This apocryphal piece, which derives its title brLo-ral elepeulov (Sept., Vulg., Syriac, etc.) from purporting to be an epistle sent by the prophet Jeremiah to them which were to be led captive to Babylon,' bas different positions in the different Codd. It is placed after the Lamentations in Origen's Hexaplas, according to the Syriac Hexapla codex in the Ambrosian Lib rary at Milan, in the cod. Alex., the Arabic ver sions, etc. ; in sonic editions of the Sept., in the Latin, and the Syriac, which was followed by Luther, the Zurich Bible, Coverdale, the Geneva Version, the Bishops' Bible, and the A. V., it constitutes the sixth chapter of the apocryphal book of Baruch, whilst Theodoret, Hilary of Poitiers, and several MSS. of the Sept. entirely omit it. It is, however, an independent production, and has nothing to do with Baruch.
2. Design and contents.—The design of this epistle is to admonish the Jews who were going, into captivity with the king, to beware of the idolatry which they would see in Babylon. It tells the people of God not to become idolaters like the strangers, but to serve their own God whose angel is with them (1-7), and it exposes in a rhetorical declamation the folly of idolatry (8-72), concluding every group of verses, which contains a fresh proof of its folly, with the reiterated remarks seeing that they are no gods, fear them not' (vers. 16, 23, 29, 66), 'how can a man think that they are gods ?' (vers. 4o, 44, 56, 64, 69), how Call a man not see that they are not gods?' (vers. 49, 53)• 3. Author, date, original language, canonici0', etc.—The inscription claims the authorship of this epistle for Jeremiah, who, it is said, wrote it just as the Jews were going to Babylon, which is generally reckoned to be the first year of Nebu chadnezzar the Great, i.e., A. M. 339S, or B.0 6o6. This is the general opinion of the Roman Church, which, as a matter of course, regaids it as canonical. But modern critics, both Jewish
and Christian, who deny the power to any church to override internal evidence, and defy the laws of criticism, have shewn satisfactorily that its nal language is Greek, and that it was written by Hellenistic Jews in imitation of Jeremiah, chaps. x. and xxix. This is corroborated by the fact that this epistle does not exist in the Hebrew, was never included in the Jewish canon, is dcsirmated by St. Jerome, who knew more than anyfather what the Jewish canon contained, as NI,Eafri -ypaOos (Proenz. Comment. Hieronz.), was marked Nvith obeli by Origen in his IIexapla, as is evident from the note of Cod. Chislianus (Bapax aos d.,NXL0-rat Kara robs 6), and was passed over by Thcodoret, though he explained the Book of Baruch. The date of this epistle cannot be defi nitely settled. It is generally supposed that 2 Maccab. ii. 2 alludes to this epistle, and that it must, therefore, be older than this book of Islacca bees. Ilerzfeld (Geschichte d. V. Israel vor Zer stoning d. ersten Tenzpels, 13runswick. 1847, P. 316) infers from it the very reverse, namely, that this epistle was written after the passage in 2 Maccab., whilst Fritzsche and Davidson are utterly unable to see the appropriateness of the sup posed reference. It is most probable that the writer lived towards the end of the Maccakean period.
4. Literature.—Arnald, A Critical Commentary 071 the Apocryphal Books ; being a continuation of Pafrick and Lowth ; Eichhorn, Einkitung in a'ie apokzyphische Schriften des A lten Testaments, Leip zig 1795, p. 39o, ff. ; De Wette, E./rile/tuns in d. A lte Testament, sec. 324 ; Fritzsche, Kuregefasstes exegetisches Handbuch z. a'. apokr. d. Allen Testa mentes, part i., Leipzig 1551, p. 2o5, ff. ; Keil, Einleitung in a'. Alte Testament, 1859, p. 73r, ff. ; Davidson, The Text of the Old Testament considereac London 1556, p. to3S, etc.—C. 1). G.