JEREMIAH (Heb. Yirmĕyāh[1] = “Yahweh uplifts or establishes”). — The second of the four major Hebrew prophets.
OUTLINE:
I. Life of J
II. Book of J
III. Iconography —IV. Letter of J
V. Paraleipomena of J.I. Life of J
His life is known through his book, which often assumes an autobiographical form, sincere and of great psychological value. Born of a priestly family, J. spent his Anathoth (v.), a village 30 to 40 miles northeast of Jerusalem. He must have been born about 650 B.C., since in 626—when he began his prophetic mission—he describes himself as a “youth” (Heb. na’ar, though this could also denote a mature young man).Nothing is known of J.’s early activity, but from his confessions one may conclude that he lived in the tranquility of Anathoth, far from the political life of Jerusalem. Pathetic allusions to the beauty of family life (cf. Jer. 6:11; 9:20; 16:9; 25:10; 31:4-5, 20; 48:33) and the psychological struggle provoked in him by his prophetic vocation reveal his gentle soul, averse to facile enthusiasms. It has been said that J. was the most “bourgeois” of all the important figures in the Old Testament. The divine vocation (1:5), by which he was proclaimed “a prophet to the nations,” was accepted with reluctance, but supernatural power triumphed over the pacifist character of the “Bourgeois of Anathoth,” and then he set about fulfilling the grave task of herald of Yahweh. He feels a “fire” devouring his bones, which he cannot and will not resist (20:9). When difficulties to his mission multiply and he feels nostalgia for the tranquil family life he had to renounce by God’s command, J. protests vehemently, not without lyricism (15:10; 20:14-18), speaks of “seduction” and “violence” on the part of Yahweh (20:7), yet does not falter in his vocation.
J.’s prophetic call occurred in the 13th year of Josiah, king of Judah, i.e., in 626 B.C. While the final years of J.’s activity are well known, almost nothing is known of his beginnings. One would expect, for example, that J. had been consulted on the occasion of the reform begun in the 18th year of Josiah (621 B.C.).
This silence raises a problem long debated. What was J.’s attitude toward this anti-idolatry, centralizing reform? Some make J. an ardent advocate of the reform; others a stubborn opponent, since he condemned every exaggerated legalism to the detriment of the “spirit” of religion; still others posit an evolution in the prophet’s soul. He would have gone from being a supporter to, if not an opponent, at least an indifferent observer of the reform’s work because of its meager effect and deviations (thus J. Skinner; W. O. E. Oesterley-T. H. Robinson, in Introduction to the books of the Old Test., London 1934, pp. 305-307; R. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Test., New York 1941, p. 495). The second hypothesis must be rejected outright, as it is based on an overvaluation of certain texts (7:21, 22; 8:8; cf. W. Rudolph [V. BIBLICA.], p. 53) and on the arbitrary elimination of others (11:1-14; 17:19-27), attributed to a tendentious revisionist school called “Deuteronomistic” from the book then discovered or composed, which would have determined Josiah’s reform. On the other hand, it does not seem permissible to deduce from the few texts akin to Deuteronomy the profile of an enthusiastic J. favoring the new movement. The last hypothesis appears rather complicated and rests more on more or less probative conjectures than on objectively convincing arguments. From the whole, it may be concluded that J., who for unknown reasons was not directly involved in the decipherment of the discovered book, must have welcomed sympathetically every effort aimed at eliminating idolatrous cults, awakening a religious revival for true Yahwism, and promoting greater social justice. Yet in his prophetic mission he did not bind himself to any legalistic or authoritarian initiative. Rather than appealing to the precious “found” text, J. based his activity on the direct inspiration of God. When, with the death of Josiah (609 B.C.), the reformist action of an official character stalled, J. continued to communicate that “fire” he could not contain in his breast and to invoke a sincere return of the nation to God.
[...]
If during his life J. was a continual “sign of contradiction,” always opposed and persecuted, a Cassandra whom few or none followed, after his death he grew ever more in veneration among that people which stoned the prophets yet hastened to raise mausoleums to them (cf. Mt. 23:37). Already in Ecclesiasticus 49:8-9 he is remembered with honor “who was consecrated a prophet from his mother’s womb.” His memory is even more venerated in the Maccabean period (2 Macc. 2:1 ff.; 15:14-16). In the time of Jesus Christ there was thought to be the possibility that the Messiah would be none other than a revived figure (Mt. 16:14). Indeed, there are no lack of resemblances between the tormented life of the prophet of Jerusalem’s ruin and that of the Man of Sorrows (cf. Is. 53:3). Among the Fathers of the Church it became almost a commonplace to compare J.’s life with the Passion of Jesus Christ, applying the exegetical rule of type and antitype (cf. Cornelius a Lapide, Commentarius in 4 prophetas maiores, ed. Paris 1866, pp. 8-10).
II. BOOK OF J
Jewish and Christian tradition recognizes J. as the author of the book that bears his name. J.’s work “is not a book in the ordinary sense of the word... It is called a ‘book’ by practical convention, but strictly speaking it should be called a ‘collection of writings’” (G. Ricciotti [V. BIBLICA.], p. 39).For this reason it is difficult to give a brief summary of the book of G. Generally, in addition to a prologue (ch. 1), five parts are distinguished: 1) 2, 1–20, 18: oracles against Judah pronounced between the 13th year of Josiah (626) and the 4th year of Jehoiakim (605); 2) 21, 1–29, 32: oracles on the disastrous end of Jerusalem and Judah; 3) 30, 1–33, 26: the future restoration of Israel; the messianic era; 4) 34, 1–45, 5: historical-biographical narrative of the siege of Jerusalem, its fall, and the activity of G. in Palestine and then in Egypt among the group of refugees after the assassination of Gedaliah; 5) 46, 1–51, 64: oracles against the nations (Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar and other Arab kingdoms, Elam, Babylon); finally a historical epilogue (ch. 52) on the capture of Jerusalem and the various deportations carried out by the Babylonians. Many commentators on the prophet of Anathoth have attempted to trace the progressive accumulation of the different passages, to identify the seams, and to establish the authorship of the individual parts. In such a delicate field, subjective elements, principles, or prejudices can intervene, capable of leading to conclusions that are very different, if not opposite. For several years the case of B. Duhm caused a stir, as by rigidly applying his metrical system and sniffing out interpolations and additions everywhere with his *Stilgefühl* (“sense of style”), he felt entitled to reduce the traditionally German authorship to barely one-fifth of the traditional book. Duhm did not achieve the success he hoped for. Even among independent critics, there has been a symptomatic return to tradition. Nevertheless, even among Catholic scholars, greater readiness has been shown in recognizing the presence of different layers, not all of which can be attributed with the same certainty to the prophet of Anathoth.
Among the more recent investigators of the book’s composition, Th. Robinson (in *Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft*, 42 [1924], pp. 209–21; cf. W.O.E. Oesterley–T. H. Robinson, *op. cit.*, pp. 299–307) distinguishes three major sections: 1) oracular poetry; 2) biographical or historical prose; 3) autobiographical prose and literary poetry. The three sections, recognizable by the presence of various literary genres, would have been united not by juxtaposition but by intimate interpenetration, so that traces of the three original genres can be found within a single chapter. The first and second sections would be of “different dates” and the work of “various hands,” which aimed to deal with the life and fortunes of the prophets. Only the third section, although reaching us after undergoing editorial intervention, could be considered the original book (Baruch’s roll) and accepted substantially as “the work of G. himself” (*loc. cit.*, p. 221). Rudolph, in his recent commentary, partly following the complex genealogical framework proposed by O. Eissfeldt in his *Einleitung* (Tübingen 1934, pp. 390–411), also proposes three main sections, which he names: 1) oracles (Sprüche) of G.; 2) biographical narratives (the work of Baruch); 3) discourses (Reden) of G., reworked by the Deuteronomistic school. He also indicates several spurious passages (*unechte*) and not a few late glosses. Thus, even for Rudolph, the strictly Jeremian portion is limited to the first section (somewhat broader than Robinson’s third). Whereas for Duhm many passages would date to the Greek or Maccabean period, for Rudolph “the editing took place during the exile.” Only a few verses (23, 34–40; 33, 14–26) would constitute later additions (*V. BIBLICA.*, p. XIX).
Among Catholic scholars, Podechard (*Revue biblique*, 37 [1928], pp. 181–97), followed closely by Nötscher and Gelin, studied the composition of the book of G. in particular. He too distinguishes three main parts, which, unlike Robinson and Rudolph, almost coincide with three successive sections by chapters (1 = chs. 1–25; 2 = chs. 26–35; 3 = chs. 36–45). The first part would comprise predominantly first-person oracles; the second, similar oracles interspersed with third-person biographical notices; in the last part, there would be a kind of biography with a certain chronological order. The change in method would suggest a chronological succession of the three sections. Podechard supposes that the first part contains substantially what was written in the “scroll” of 605 (Jer. 36, 1 ff.). The oracles against the nations would be missing, while the final chapters would result from two later additions (chs. 18–20 and 21–24). The intrusion of these seven chapters would have led to the transposition to the end of the volume of the oracles against the nations. Even for this first part, however, some changes “at different dates and to varying degrees” (p. 190) must be admitted, following the introduction of more recent prophecies. The third part would be “the true book of Baruch on Jeremiah,” with some prophecies of the master. It too was not immune from “various additions” (p. 192). The second part, more similar to the first than to the third, rather than an organic composition would be “a collection” of writings (p. 192). “All the narratives of this second part were composed while G. was still alive; indeed, they were dictated directly by him... But the final redaction is not earlier than the ruin of Jerusalem” (p. 193). Therefore, “the three parts were brought together at a date we cannot determine, but which is certainly before the translation of the Septuagint” (p. 194; cf. J. Göttsberger, *Einleitung in das Alte Testament*, Freiburg im Br. 1928, p. 300).
To such investigations, when they are not the result of a novelty-loving imagination, the scholar is led both by the chronological disorder of the various parts of the book and by the not inconsiderable number of doublets (about thirty, generally of two or three verses). Moreover, the book itself seems to indicate or at least imply a multiplicity of sections brought together at a later time. In the opening verses (1, 1–3), in fact, there is a chronological indication that spans almost the entire activity of G. (up to the fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jewish notables); in 40, 1 there is a new supplementary indication (introducing the events after the deportation); in 44, 1 the chronological notice introduces G.’s activity in Egypt. Finally, a clear sign of displacement or the existence of small separate collections is found in 45, 1–5, where a brief oracle is dated to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., it is chronologically connected with ch. 36, yet in practice it is placed at the end, after G.’s activity in Egypt.
Jeremiah – The prophet G. in a mosaic in S. Maria in Trastevere (1140) – Rome.
Another serious reason for such textual and literary-critical investigations is provided by the comparison of the Masoretic Hebrew text with the very ancient Greek version of the Septuagint (v.). No other biblical book presents so many question marks after such an examination. First of all, there is the matter of the considerable quantitative difference. According to careful calculations, the Greek version is one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic text. Are these omissions due to the translator or to later expansions in the Hebrew text by subsequent redactors? It should be noted, however, that the difference is more material than conceptual. Many of the omitted words or expressions consist of very common terms, such as “prophet,” “of hosts,” “oracle of the Lord,” etc., which in no way alter the content of the book. Nevertheless, the problem remains and must be resolved with great caution in individual cases. For this reason, the critical positions of those who systematically always give preference to either the Hebrew text or the Greek version must be deemed unsustainable.
An even more serious difference between the two texts is found in the arrangement of the material. Disregarding some minor differences of little importance, the most striking is that of the oracles against the nations, which in the Hebrew text occupy chapters 46–51, while in the Greek they appear after verse 25:13. Moreover, the order of the oracles is different. Out of nine cases, there is agreement in only two (oracles against Edom and against Kedar). This diversity in internal arrangement can plausibly be explained by observing that the Greek version seems to follow a certain hierarchical or importance-based order among the various nations, whereas the Hebrew relies more on a geographical arrangement, from south to north.
Various explanations have been proposed to account for the displacement of this section of the book. Generally today, the tendency is to accept the hypothesis—already over a century old (Movers)—of two independently circulating recensions: one with the oracles in chapter 25, where they appear in their proper context, and another that relegated the chapters in question to the end. From the first recension, the Greek version would have derived; from the second, our Masoretic text. This is the most common opinion, with varying nuances, more or less pronounced, among Catholic scholars (R. Cornely, A. Condamin, I. Höpf, G. Ricciotti, E. Podechard, F. Nötscher, A. Gelin, etc.). Independent critics who admit the generic authenticity of the oracles (such as O. Eissfeldt, Rudolph) do not see the need for this hypothesis (cf. Rudolph, loc. cit., p. xix). From the philological examination of the Greek version by Thackeray (v. BIBLICA), he concluded that at least two different individuals translated Jeremiah into Greek. Specifically, one would have translated chapters 1–28 (= 1–25:13 and 46–50:51 of the Masoretic text), and the other chapters 29–51 (= 25:15–45:47–49 of the Masoretic text). This fact, together with the gloss in 51:64, “Thus far the words of Jeremiah,” may perhaps corroborate the hypothesis of the two recensions; yet it remains undeniable that a certain fog still envelops the exceedingly delicate problem of the textual criticism of the book of Jeremiah.
Thus far, chapter 52, which closes the book, has not been discussed, simply because it constitutes an epilogue added to show how the prophecies of Jeremiah were fulfilled. It is taken almost verbatim from 2 Kings 24–25.
All this editorial work must have been carried out in part during Jeremiah’s lifetime, as can be inferred from the symptomatic case described in chapter 36. Much must have been done in the years immediately following his death, especially utilizing the work of Baruch and collecting the scattered fragments of the oracles. During the Greek period, some uncertainty still prevailed, as can be seen from the existence of two different recensions regarding the arrangement of the material and to some extent even regarding its quantity. However, alterations during this period must have been minimal.
The book of Jeremiah presents many literary genres, among which the oracular discourse with all its nuances—determined by the subject matter—stands out, along with poetry, subdivided according to different themes, and autobiographical or biographical narrative; the epistolary genre is also present (cf. 29:4ff.). Some, like P. Volz, have exaggerated Jeremiah’s qualities as a writer, proclaiming him the greatest biblical poet. It is certain that this honor belongs to Isaiah; yet all recognize in Jeremiah’s poems an exceptional psychological element and pathos that render them very pleasant and elegant. Jeremiah is less successful in his prose, which tends toward prolixity with its many repetitions; this is characteristic of Oriental style in general. The language is generally pure and is still considered to belong to the classical period of Hebrew. Nevertheless, several Aramaisms are already noted.
Jeremiah’s theological teaching is perfectly consistent with that of the other biblical writers: the existence and uniqueness of God, creator of all things; divine providence toward humanity; the nullity of pagan mythologies. Yahweh is the true architect of history. He announces his oracles against the various nations, which, willingly or unwillingly, execute his designs. In particular, he cares for Israel, with which he has an intimate relationship, symbolized by the union of human marriage (1:16; 7:17–18; 31:2; 44:7ff.), as in the Song of Songs and Hosea 6:7; 8:1.
Jeremiah constantly insists on the value of a certain repentance and on the moral character of religion, based more on love than on ritual actions (cf. 2:6ff.; 3:19–4; 4:7; 21ff.; 12:17; 13:17). The most extensive prophecy of Jeremiah (chapters 31–33) has as its theme precisely the intimate relationship that will begin between God and those who adhere to the new Covenant. Another messianic prophecy is that contained in 23:3–8 (cf. 33:14–16) regarding the “righteous Branch,” that is, the kingdom of justice, salvation, and peace that will be inaugurated by the Messiah. The verse “a woman shall compass a man” (31:22) is now generally no longer recognized as a prophecy of the virginal birth of Mary, although the messianic character of the mysterious expression is still maintained because of the context.
Critical Studies: F. C. Movers, *De utriusque recensionis vaticiniorum Ieremiae indole et origine commentatio critica*, Hamburg 1837; A. Scholz, *Der masorethische Text und die LXX Übersetzung des Buches Férmias*, Ratisbon 1875; H. St. J. Thackeray, *The Greek translators of Férmia*, in *Journal of Theological Studies*, 4 (1903), pp. 245-66; S. Mowinckel, *Zur Komposition des Buches Férmia*, Oslo 1913; P. Volz, *Studien zum Text des Férmia*, Leipzig 1920; Th. H. Robinson, *Baruch's Roll*, in *Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft*, 42 (1924), pp. 200-21; E. Podechard, *Le livre de Férmine. Structure et formation*, in *Revue biblique*, 37 (1928), pp. 181-97; W. Rudolph, *Zum Text des Férmia*, in *Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft*, 48 (1930), pp. 272-86; H. Birkeland, *Zur Kompositionsfrage des Buches Férmia*, in *Le monde oriental*, 31 (1937), pp. 49-62; G. R. Driver, *Linguistic and textual problems: Férmia*, in *The Jewish Quarterly Review*, 28 (1937-38), pp. 97-120. Angelo Penna.
III. Iconography
In the biblical mosaic cycle of the basilica of St Ambrose in Milan, the prophet J. is depicted seeing the angel’s appearance in the form of a lamb, as is learned from the illustrative couplet (v. Forcella, ed. E. Seletti, *Iscrizioni di Milano antiche al sec. IX*, Codogno 1897, no. 227).In Ravenna’s basilica of St Vitalis (6th century), the prophet is likewise shown in a nimbed image in the mosaics. He is also portrayed in an 8th- or 9th-century miniature in the codex of Cosmas Indicopleustes (C. Stornaiolo, *Le miniature della topografia cristiana di Cosma Indicopleustes*, cod. Vat. gr. 699, Milan 1908, pl. 38), and in the Syriac manuscript 341 of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (7th-8th century); in the latter, to the right of J. the divine hand rises on high, while below is depicted the “rod that watches” (*Jer. 1:11*).
The prophet also appears in the apse mosaic of the basilica of St Clement in Rome (12th century; Wilpert, *Mosaiken*, p. 522) and in the Roman basilica of St Mary in Trastevere (G. B. De Rossi, *Mosaici cristiani delle chiese di Roma anteriori al sec. XV*, Rome 1899, pl. 30).
After having been introduced, together with the effigies of the other prophets, into the iconographic program of the monumental Gothic portals from the beginning of the 13th century, his image is individualized by the addition of his name and some lines from his own prophecies. Among the individual depictions, noteworthy in sculpture are the statues by Claus Sluter (Dijon, Well of Moses), Donatello (Florence, cathedral bell tower), and Andrea Sansovino (Loreto, Holy House); in painting, besides the canvases by Perugino and Moretto, foremost is Michelangelo’s unforgettable figure in the Sistine Chapel, Rembrandt’s painting (Moscow, former Stroganoff collection), and in the modern age a work by Lesser Ury (Berlin 1897) in which J. is prostrate on the ground beneath a starry sky. As for the cyclical illustrations of the Bible, only the Catalan Bible of St Peter of Roda (c. 1000) adorned the entire text of the book of J. with miniatures from his invocation to his stoning. – See pl. VII.
Jeremiah – The prophet J. Painting by the Master of the Annunciation of Aix (first half of 15th cent.) – Brussels, Royal Museums.
IV. The Letter of Jeremiah
An exhortation against idolatry in 72 verses, absent from the Hebrew canon, which in the Greek Bible is found after the Lamentations with the title “Επιστολὴ Ἱερεμίου.” In the Vulgate it appears as the final chapter (6th) BARÙ (v.). In a realistic, sometimes witty, manner it describes the futility of idols. The urgent admonition is, as the Greek subtitle explains, directed by J. “to those who will be led captive into Babylon.”Its authenticity is denied not only by the Jews but also by all modern rationalists. Generally these scholars consider it an apocryphal work originally written in elegant Greek during the Ptolemaic period (W. Naumann, E. H. Gifford, E. S. Artom).
For Catholics it is easy to prove the canonicity of the Letter of Jeremiah from the allusion in 2 Macc. 2:1-3, from the presence of the writing in the Septuagint version, and from the usage of the Fathers. Internal reasons supporting a high antiquity and the probable Jeremian authorship are: 1) the Greek text presupposes a Hebrew original, as even independent critics recognize (Naumann, Artom, O. Eissfeldt); 2) the accuracy in describing Babylonian idolatry scarcely accords with an origin later than the disappearance of the Babylonian Empire; 3) a certain stylistic similarity between the letter and the book of Jeremiah. While canonicity is defined dogmatically, the question of literary authenticity remains open. It was already denied by St Jerome (In Ieremiam prol.: CSEL, 59, p. 3) and recently by A. Robert.
V. PARALIPOMENI. (Paralipomeni delle Parole di Baruc). – Apocryphal book, probably composed around the middle of the 2nd century by a Jew, but in the form in which it has come down to us bears traces of Christian interpolations, especially at the end. In addition to the Greek text, perhaps the original, there are Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic translations.
The subject of the book is very simple. As the catastrophe of Jerusalem approaches, G. is ordered to hide the sacred vessels, then to go to Babylon with the deportees. During the preparations, Abimelech (the name is taken from the Ethiopian Abimelech of Jer. 38:7) falls asleep and remains in a deep sleep for 66 years. Finally, Baruch, by divine command, announces to G. the restoration of Jerusalem with the return of the deportees. The booklet reveals the usual anti-Samaritan spirit: it is asserted that Samaria was founded by Jews who refused to obey the divine law, especially regarding the prohibition of marrying foreign women.