Jeremias

JEREMIAS (Hebrew Yirmeyāh[â] = "Yahweh Exalts or Establishes"). - The second of the 4 great Hebrew prophets.

I. LIFE OF JEREMIAH

His life is known through his book, which often takes an autobiographical form, sincere, of great psychological value. Born into a priestly family, J. spent his early years in his Anathoth (v.), a village 3 or 4 miles northeast of Jerusalem. He must have been born around 650 B.C., since in 626 - when he began his prophetic mission - he describes himself as a "youth" (Heb. na'ar, which, however, could also indicate a mature young man).

Nothing is known of J.'s youthful activity, but from his confessions one can 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 the prophetic vocation give us a glimpse of his gentle soul, averse to easy enthusiasms. It has been said that J. was the most "bourgeois" of all the figures of any importance in the Old Testament. The divine vocation (1, 5), by which he was proclaimed a "prophet to the nations," was received with reluctance, but supernatural strength 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 does not intend to resist (20, 9). When the difficulties of his mission multiply, when he feels nostalgia for a tranquil family life, which he had to renounce at God's command, J. protests vehemently, not without lyricism (15, 10; 20, 14-18), speaks of "seduction" and "violence" on Yahweh's part (20, 7), but does not for this reason fail in his vocation. J.'s prophetic call came in the 13th year of Josiah, king of Judah, that is, in 626 B.C. While the last years of Jeremiah's activity are very 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 poses a problem long debated. What was J.'s attitude regarding such an anti-idolatrous and centralizing reform? Some make J. a fervent supporter of the reform; others a stubborn opponent, because he condemned every exaggerated legalism to the detriment of the religion "of the spirit"; others, finally, posit an evolution in the prophet's soul. From a supporter he would have become, if not an opponent, indifferent to the work of the reform because of its petty effect and its deviations (thus J. Skinner; W. O. E. Oesterly-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 is to be rejected outright, as it is based on an overvaluation of certain texts (7, 21, 22; 8, 8; cf. W. Rudolph [v. bibl.], 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 which, rediscovered or composed at that time, would have determined Josiah's reform. On the other hand, it does not seem legitimate to deduce from the few texts akin to Deuteronomy the profile of a J. enthusiastic promoter of the new movement. The last hypothesis appears somewhat complicated and resting rather on more or less probative conjectures than on objectively convincing arguments. From the whole picture it seems one can conclude that J., who for unknown reasons was not directly involved in the deciphering of the rediscovered book, must have welcomed with sympathy every effort aimed at eliminating idolatrous cults, at arousing a religious revival for true Yahwism, and at advocating greater social justice. But in his prophetic mission he did not bind himself to any legalistic or authoritarian initiative. More than appealing to the precious "rediscovered" text, J. bases his activity on direct inspiration from God. When, with the death of Josiah (609 B.C.), the reformist action of an official character ran aground, J. continued to communicate that "fire" which he could not contain in his breast and to invoke a sincere return of the nation to God.

Only one allusion is found in J.'s book (22, 11) to Jehoahaz (or Shallum), elected king after Josiah but soon deposed by Pharaoh Necho, who sent him prisoner to Egypt, replacing him with his elder brother Eliakim, upon whom he imposed the name Jehoiakim. The latter's reign, of a skeptical, fickle and brutal character, was marked by a profound religious indifference and by a continuous political wavering, determined by the more or less prevailing of the pro-Egyptian party or of that favorable to an understanding with the Babylonians. After the defeat of the Egyptians along the Euphrates (609 B.C.; according to others at Carchemish in 605), when Palestine passed, at least theoretically, under Babylonian high sovereignty, the pro-Egyptian party lost ground because of the fear of reprisals; but it immediately recovered, dragging even the King into a progressive anti-Babylonian opposition. J.'s activity at this time was intense, as appears from the fragmentary documentation of his book. J. insists against the idolatrous cult again spreading (11, 13; 12, 16; 13, 10; 16, 18; 25, 6) and against vices (21, 12; 22, 13, 14; 23, 14), without sparing the delicate political field. Following his thesis, by now traditional in prophetism, J. proposes the logical consequence of Hebrew theocracy. The small Kingdom of Judah, strong in its religious idea, must trust only in Yahweh, not in precarious political alliances (2, 36). In a particular way J. attempts to check the pro-Egyptian movement, which would have fatally led to a clash with Babylon, by now most powerful as far as the Mediterranean. His vision, even political, was much more realistic than that of the exalted nationalists and pro-Egyptians, who by their stubbornness determined the collapse of the Kingdom. J.'s warning remained a voice lost in the desert. The prophet was hindered in every way. A conspiracy was even resorted to against him (11, 18-23). Nevertheless J.'s ascendancy was so great that no one dared adopt extreme measures against him. Jehoiakim in his skepticism will evade his contempt by giving a book of J. to the flames (36, 23), but will not dare to silence forever the importunate herald of Yahweh. Having come true the prophecy of G. regarding this King (22, 19; cf. 36, 30), following his open rebellion against Babylon, there came the ephemeral reign of Jehoiachin, who was immediately led away prisoner by Nebuchadnezzar, who three months after the death of Jehoiakim had stormed the city. No oracle written by G. is to be attributed with certainty to the reign of this son of Jehoiakim.

G.'s activity appears instead very intense during the reign of the weak-willed Mattaniah, last son of Josiah. The latter, having come to power under the name of Zedekiah by the will of Nebuchadnezzar, soon showed himself to be the laughing-stock of his courtiers and of scheming politicians. Despite the progressive ascendancy of the anti-Babylonian faction, peace lasted in Jerusalem for a decade (598-588). To this state of affairs contributed the policy of neutrality followed by Necho and by Psammetichus II in Egypt. When the young Hophra (Hebr. Hophra') became pharaoh, the policy of non-intervention was abandoned, so that the hopes of the many Palestinian nationalists were rekindled, who saw in Egypt the decisive factor against Babylonian predominance. Around the Pharaoh a league of various small states of the Mediterranean coast and of Transjordan was formed. To the hostilities begun in 588 Nebuchadnezzar responded with decision and rapidity. Having established his headquarters at Riblah on the Orontes, he attacked the Kingdom of Judah outright. Soon only a few fortresses remained (Jerusalem, Lachish, where the famous letters were found, and Azekah). During the siege of Jerusalem, which dragged on with a brief pause for 18 months, G. lived his most dramatic hours. Repeating to the point of monotony his predictions against the senseless policy of the pro-Egyptian party, he did not cease to advise timely negotiations with the Babylonians. For this he was several times imprisoned by his adversaries and treated inconsistently by the weak-willed King. In the conversations that Zedekiah had with G., whom he had summoned purposely from prison without the knowledge of the courtiers (37, 17-20; 38, 14-26), the prophet insists on the macabre prophecy concerning the fate of the spineless King and of the unhappy city; Zedekiah wavers, raises objections, promises better treatment to the prisoner; yet soon he falls again under the influence of the extremist nationalists. But even in the darkest days G. in his prophetic mission shows with a symbolic action a light of hope to the people: while the Babylonians were conquering the Judean positions one by one, he carries out a contract of purchase for a piece of land in the village of Anathoth, because "houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this region" (32, 5 ff.).

When the city fell in the 11th year of Zedekiah (587), G. was treated with consideration by the Babylonians. But afterwards he too was put in chains and taken to Riblah at the general headquarters. There the King, who had certainly been informed by Jewish deserters about G.'s activity, gave him the power to choose his future: to go to Babylon with the deportees or to remain in Judea wherever he wished. G. preferred to join Gedaliah (v.), who at Mizpah was trying to begin the laborious moral and material reconstruction of Judea (40, 4 ff.). There he hoped to be able to carry out his work to shape the new Israel, which would inherit the new Covenant (cf. chaps. 30-31). But, once the Babylonians had withdrawn, fanatical nationalists regained the upper hand in Palestine, who had already dispersed or taken refuge in the neighboring kingdoms. Ten of them, headed by a certain Ishmael, assassinated Gedaliah after only two months. Then, in a state of agitation for fear of Babylonian reprisals, they insisted with G. that he make known to them the divine will concerning the future. The

The answer came only after 10 days; but, since it did not correspond to their wishes, it was not accepted. Indeed the prophet was accused of misrepresenting the divine message at the suggestion of his secretary Baruch (43, 2.3). Then the group of assassins, in the hope of finding a safe refuge far from the Babylonian arms, forced Jeremiah to follow them together with Baruch into Egypt. In their perversity such men did not want to separate themselves from the herald of God, even though in practice they paid little heed to his oracles. In Egypt Jeremiah continued his mission (43, 8 ff.), exhorting and admonishing the scattered group of Hebrews and foretelling by a symbolic action the future fate reserved for the land of the Pharaohs. The end of the prophet is unknown. According to late traditions (cf. Pseudo-Epiphanius, De vitis prophetarum: PG 43, 400; Roman Martyrology, 1 May), Jeremiah was killed by his own people in Tahpanhes. Perhaps Hebr. 11, 37 also alludes to this tradition.

If during his life Jeremiah was a continual "sign of contradiction," always opposed and persecuted, a Cassandra whom no one or very few followed, after death he grew ever more in veneration among that people which stoned the prophets but which also hastened to raise mausoleums to them (cf. Mt. 23, 37). Already in Eccl. 49, 8-9 there is honored remembrance of "him who was consecrated a prophet from his mother's womb." His memory is venerated even more in the Maccabean period (II Mach. 2, 1 ff.; 15, 14-16). In the times of Jesus Christ the possibility was entertained that the Messiah would be none other than a revived Jeremiah (Mt. 16, 14). And indeed there is no lack of resemblances between the tormented life of the prophet of the ruin of Jerusalem and that of the "man of sorrows" (cf. Is. 53, 3). Among the Fathers of the Church the comparison between the life of Jeremiah and the Passion of Jesus Christ is almost a commonplace, 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 JEREMIAH

The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes J. as the author of the book that bears his name. The work of J. "is not a book in the ordinary sense of the word... It is called a 'book' today by practical convention, but strictly it should be called a 'collection of writings'" (G. Ricciotti [v. bibl.], p. 39).

For this reason it is difficult to give a brief summary of the book of J. Generally, beyond 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, of its fall, of the action carried out by J. in Palestine and then in Egypt among the group of fugitives 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 of the prophet of Anathoth have attempted to point out the progressive agglomeration of the different passages, to identify their seams, to establish the authorship of the individual parts. In such a delicate field subjective elements, principles or prejudices capable of leading to very different, if not opposite, conclusions may come into play. For several years the case of B. Duhm caused a stir, who, applying his metrical system rigidly and sniffing out interpolations and additions everywhere with his Stilgefühl ("stylistic sense"), believed himself authorized to reduce the Jeremian authorship to barely a fifth of the traditional book. Duhm did not have the success he hoped for. Even in the field of independent critics a symptomatic return toward tradition has manifested itself. Nevertheless, even among Catholic scholars there is greater willingness to acknowledge the presence of different strata, not all of which can be attributed with the same certainty to the prophet of Anathoth.

Among the most recent investigators of the composition of the book, 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 great sections: 1) oracular poetry; 2) biographical or historical prose; 3) autobiographical prose and literary poetry. The three sections, recognizable by the presence of the various literary genres, would have been united not by juxtaposition, but by intimate interpenetration, so that in a single chapter traces of the three primitive genres can be found. The first and second sections would be of "different dates" and the work of "various hands," which aimed to treat of the life and fortune of the prophets. Only the third section, although it has come down to us after undergoing the intervention of redactors, could be considered as the original book (Baruch's roll) and accepted in substance as "the work of the same J." (loc. cit., p. 221). Rudolph, in his recent commentary, following in part the complicated genealogical scheme proposed by O. Eissfeldt in his Einleitung (Tübingen 1934, pp. 390-411), also proposes three main sections, which he names: 1) oracles (Sprüche) of J.; 2) biographical accounts (the work of Baruch); 3) discourses (Reden) of J., reworked by the Deuteronomistic school. Moreover he indicates several spurious passages (unechte) and not a few late glosses. Thus also for Rudolph the strictly Jeremian part is limited to the first section (somewhat larger than Robinson's third). While for Duhm several passages would have been from the Greek or Maccabean era, for Rudolph "the redaction took place during the exile." Only a few verses (23, 34-40; 33, 14-26) would constitute small subsequent additions ([v. bibl.], p. XIX).

Among Catholics, Podechard (Revue biblique, 37 [1928], pp. 181-97), much followed by Nötscher and by Gelin, studied in particular the composition of the book of J. He too distinguishes three main parts, which, unlike what happens in Robinson and in Rudolph, coincide almost with three successive sections by chapters (1 = chs. 1-25; 2 = chs. 26-35; 3 = chs. 36-45). The first part would comprise predominantly oracles in the first person; the second similar oracles, interspersed with biographical notices in the third person; in the last part there would be a kind of biography with a certain chronological order. The change of method would invite one to discern in it 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 there, while the last chapters would be the effect of two later additions (chs. 18-20 and 21-24). The intrusion of these 7 chapters would have determined the transposition to the end of the volume of the oracles against the nations. Even for this first part, however, one must admit some change "at different dates and to a variable extent" (p. 190) following the introduction of more recent prophecies. The third part would be "the true book of Baruch on Jeremiah" with some prophecy of the master. It too did not remain 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 accounts of this second part were composed while J. was still alive, indeed they were dictated directly by him... But the definitive redaction is not earlier than the ruin of Jerusalem" (p. 193). Therefore "the three parts were united at a date that we cannot determine, but which is certainly earlier than 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 effect of a fantasy fond of novelty, the scholar is invited both by the chronological disorder of the various parts of the book and by the not a few duplicates (about thirty, generally of 2 or 3 vv.). Moreover the book itself seems to indicate or at least suppose a multiplicity of sections united together at a later time. In the first verses (1, 1-3), in fact, there is a chronological indication, which embraces almost the whole activity of J. (up to the fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jewish notables); in 40, 1 we have a new supplementary indication (introducing the events after the deportation); in 44, 1 the chronological notice introduces the activity of J. in Egypt. Finally a clear sign of displacement or of the existence of small separate collections is found in 45, 1-5, where a brief oracle is dated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that is, is connected chronologically with ch. 36, while in practice it is placed at the end, after the activity of J. in Egypt.

Another serious reason for such investigations of textual and literary criticism is offered 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 fact of the notable quantitative difference. According to accurate calculations the Greek version is an eighth shorter than the Masoretic text. Are these omissions by the translator or expansions by later editors in the Hebrew text? 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 do not alter the content of the book in the least. Nevertheless the problem remains and must be resolved with great caution in individual cases. For this reason the positions of those who systematically always give their preference to the Hebrew text or to the Greek version must be declared critically untenable. An even more serious difference between the two texts is found in the arrangement of the material. Leaving aside certain minor differences of the least importance, that of the oracles against the nations is glaring: in the Hebrew text they occupy chapters 46-51, whereas in the Greek they appear after v. 25, 13. That is not all; the order of the oracles is different as well. Out of 9 cases there is agreement in only 2 (the oracles against Edom and against Kedar). This diversity of internal arrangement is explained with some plausibility by observing that the Greek version seems to follow a certain hierarchical order or order of importance among the various nations, whereas the Hebrew relies rather on a geographical arrangement, from south to north.

Various ways have been devised to account for the displacement of this section of the book. In general today there is a tendency always to admit the hypothesis, already more than a century old (Movers), of two recensions circulating independently, that is, one with the oracles in chapter 25, where they appear in a proper context, and another which had relegated the chapters in question to the end. From the first recension the Greek version would have derived, from the second our Masoretic text. Such is the most common opinion, with different nuances, more or less perceptible, among Catholics (R. Cornely, A. Condamin, I. Höpfl, 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 necessity of this hypothesis (cf. Rudolph, loc. cit., p. xix). From the philological examination of the Greek version Thackeray (v. op. cit. in bibl.) concluded that at least two different individuals translated G. into Greek. Precisely, one would have translated chapters 1-28 (= 1-25, 13 = 46, 50, 51 of the Masoretic text), the other chapters 29-51 (= 25, 15-45, 47-49 of the Masoretic text). This fact, together with the gloss of 51, 64, "Thus far the words of G.," perhaps corroborates the hypothesis of the two recensions; but it is undeniable that a certain haze still envelops the very delicate problem of the textual criticism of the book of G.

Up to this point no mention has been made of chapter 52, which closes the book, for the simple reason that it constitutes an epilogue, added to show how the prophecies of G. had been fulfilled. It is taken almost verbatim from II Kings 24-25.

All this work of redaction must have been carried out in part already during the lifetime of G., as can be deduced from the symptomatic case described in chapter 36. Much must have been done in the years immediately following his death, making special use of the work of Baruch and gathering the various membra disiecta of the oracles. In the Greek period some uncertainty still reigned, as can be seen from the existence of two different redactions as regards the arrangement of the material and somewhat also as regards quantity. But the alterations in that era must have been minimal.

The book of G. presents many literary genres, among which the oracular discourse with all its nuances, determined by the subject matter treated, stands foremost, along with poetry, itself subdivided according to the different themes, and the autobiographical or biographical narrative; the epistolary genre is not lacking either (cf. 29, 4 ff.). Someone, such as P. Volz, exaggerated the qualities of G. as a writer, proclaiming him the greatest biblical poet. It is certain that such an honor remains with Isaiah; but all recognize in the Jeremian poems a psychological element and an exceptional pathos, which make them very pleasant and elegant. Less fortunate is G. in his prose, which tends toward prolixity with its many repetitions; this is characteristic of the Oriental style in general. The language is generally pure and is still considered to belong to the classical Hebrew period. Nevertheless several Aramaisms are already noticeable.

The theological teaching of G. is perfectly in accord with that of the other biblical writers: existence and uniqueness of God, creator of all things; divine Providence toward men; nullity of pagan mythologies. Yahweh is the true author of history. He announces his oracles against the various nations, which, willing or not, carry out his designs. In a particular way he cares for Israel, with whom intimate relations exist, symbolized by the union of human marriage (1, 16; 7, 17-18; 31, 2; 44, 7 ff.), as in Cant. and Hos. 6, 7; 8, 1.

Constant in G. is the insistence on the value of a sincere repentance and on the moral character of religion, based more on love than on ritual actions (cf. 2:6 ff.; 3:19-4:4; 7:21 ff.; 12:17; 13:17). The most extensive prophecy of G. (chaps. 31-33) has as its theme precisely the intimate relationship that will be initiated between God and the adherents of the new Covenant. Another messianic prophecy is the one contained in 23:3-8 (cf. 33:14-16) concerning the "righteous branch," that is, concerning the kingdom of justice, salvation and peace, which will be inaugurated by the Messiah. Now it is generally no longer recognized that there is a prophecy of Mary's virginal childbirth in the well-known verse "femina circumdabit virum" (31:22), 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 Jeremias, Regensburg 1875; H. St. J. Thackeray, The Greek translators of Jeremiah, in Journal of Theological Studies, 4 (1903), pp. 245-66; S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremiah, Oslo 1913; P. Volz, Studien zum Text des Jeremia, Leipzig 1920; Th. H. Robinson, Baruch's Roll, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 42 (1924), pp. 209-21; E. Podechard, Le livre de Jérémie, Structure et formation, in Revue biblique, 37 (1928), pp. 181-97; W. Rudolph, Zum Text des Jeremia, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 48 (1930), pp. 272-86; H. Bickeland, Zur Kompositionsfrage des Buches Jeremia, in Le monde oriental, 31 (1937), pp. 49-62; G. R. Driver, Linguistic and textual problems: Jeremiah, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, 28 (1937-38), pp. 97-120, Angelo Penna

III. ICONOGRAPHY

In the mosaic biblical cycle of the basilica of S. Ambrogio in Milan, the prophet G. was represented beholding the apparition of the angel in the form of a lamb, as is learned from the illustrative distich (v. V. Forcella, ed. E. Seletti, Iscrizioni di Milano anteriori al sec. IX, Codogno 1897, n. 227).

Also in mosaic is the haloed image of the prophet in the basilica of S. Vitale in Ravenna (6th century). The prophet is likewise depicted in a miniature of the 8th or 9th century in the codex of Cosmas Indicopleustes (C. Stornaiolo, Le miniature della topografia cristiana di Cosma Indicopleuste, cod. Vat. greco 699, Milan 1908, pl. 38), and in the Syriac manuscript 341 of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (7th-8th century); there, to the right of G., the divine hand is raised on high, while below is represented the "rod that watches" (Jer. 1, 11).

The prophet is also represented in the mosaic of the front of the apse of the basilica of S. Clemente in Rome (12th century; Wilpert, Mosaiken, p. 522) and in that, also Roman, of S. Maria in Trastevere (G. B. De Rossi, Musaici 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 comes to be individualized through the addition of his name and of some passage from his own prophecies. Among the single depictions, in the field of sculpture, mention should be made of the statues of Claus Sluter (Dijon, Well of Moses), of Donatello (Florence, campanile of the Cathedral) and of Andrea Sansovino (Loreto, S. Casa); in that of painting, besides the canvases of Perugino and of Moretto, first of all the unforgettable figure of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel, the painting of Rembrandt (Moscow, formerly Stroganoff collection) and, in the modern age, a painting by Lesser Ury (Berlin 1897) in which G. lies prostrate on the ground beneath the starry sky. As regards the cyclic illustrations of the Bible, the Catalan Bible of S. Pere de Roda alone (ca. 1000) adorned with miniatures the entire text of the book of G. from its invocation to the stoning. - See pl. VII.

IV. LETTER OF JEREMIAH

An exhortation against idolatry in 72 verses, absent from the Hebrew canon, which in the Greek Bible is found after Lamentations, with the title Ἐπιστολὴ Ἱεραμίου. In the Vulgate it appears as the last chapter (6th) of Baruch (v.). In a realistic, sometimes witty manner, it describes the worthlessness of idols. The urgent warning would be, 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. These generally consider it an apocryphon written originally in Greek (rather elegant) in the Ptolemaic period (W. Naumann, E. H. Gifford, E. S. Artom).

For Catholics it is easy to prove the canonicity of the Letter of J., from the allusion in II Macc. 2:1-3, from the presence of the writing in the Septuagint version and from the use of the Fathers. Internal reasons in favor of a high antiquity and of the probable Jeremian authorship are: 1) the Greek text presupposes a Hebrew original, as even independent critics acknowledge (Naumann, Artom, O. Eissfeldt); 2) the accuracy in describing Babylonian idolatry hardly accords with an origin later than the disappearance of the Babylonian Empire; 3) a certain stylistic similarity between the letter and the book of J. However, while canonicity is defined in a dogmatic manner, the question of literary authenticity is open. It was denied already by St. Jerome (In Ieremiam prol.: CSEL, 59, p. 3) and recently by A. Robert.

Angelo Penna

V. PARALIPOMENA OF JEREMIAH (PARALIPOMENA OF THE WORDS OF BARUCH)

An apocryphal book, probably composed around the middle of the 2nd century by a Jew, but which in the form in which it has come down to us bears traces of Christian interpolations, especially at the end. Besides 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 draws near, G. receives the order to hide the sacred vessels, and then to go to Babylon with the deportees. During the preparations Abimelech (the name is taken from the Ethiopic Abdemelech of Jer. 38, 7) falls asleep and remains in lethargy for 66 years. Finally Baruch, by divine command, announces to G. the restoration of Jerusalem with the return of the deportees. In the little book the usual anti-Samaritan spirit shines through: it is asserted that Samaria was founded by Jews who were refractory to the divine law, especially with regard to the prohibition against marrying foreign women.

Angelo Penna