ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SEEKING THE AUTOGRAPHS OF JEREMIAH

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO

DR. MARK HAMILTON

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

BY

BENJAMIN COVINGTON

ABILENE, TEXAS

NOVEMBER 30, 2009

1. Introduction

Rather than resolve the tension between LXXJer and MTJer, the fragments found

in the caves of Qumran, especially 4QJerb, have made the inquiry in many ways a

Teumessian fox, seemingly destined never to be caught. Pre-Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship

has often discounted the Old Greek version as an abridgement of the Proto-Masoretic

tradition, deleting double readings and translating away information considered

superfluous. On account of support from 4QJerb for an early Vorlage reflecting the Old

Greek version, later scholarship has favored LXXJer due in large part to “expansion

theory.” When scholars began searching for new defenses for the priority (even validity)

of the Masoretic tradition to balance this trend, it became apparent that text-criticism had

a limited ability to move behind either tradition to a single autograph. Accordingly, I will

give here an overview of critical interpretation of the text and then give special attention

to mediating theories emphasizing the independence of the two traditions. Since most

recent scholarship has dealt with test cases in the text from which to extrapolate broader

trends, I will also draw upon case studies in light of general theory.

2. Features and Witnesses of the Text Forms

The most marked forms of discrepancy between the two traditions are:

1. The text of LXXJer is approximately 14 percent shorter than MTJer, according to

the calculation of Y-J. Min.1 The difference between the two versions of Jeremiah

is greater than that of any other Old Testament book.2 While most of the pluses of

the MT are minor, significant pluses appear in numerous prose sections. The

biographical account includes 39:4-13, the largest plus in the section. The MT 1 Y-J. Min, The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah compared with the Masoretic Text. Their Classification and Possible Origins Ph. D. diss., (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977).2 Jack R. Lundbom, “Jeremiah, Book of,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 707.

also includes several repetitions (8:10b-12; 17:3-4; 30:10-11; 48:40b.41b) and

prophecy headings (2:1-2; 7:12; 16:1; 27:1; 46:1; 47:1).3

2. Many sections of the two versions appear in significantly different orders. Many

of the bisectional differences are touched on by Tov and Thackeray, and T.

Michael has recently produced a more thorough study.4 The most significant

difference is in the placement of the oracles against the nations. Where the MT

appends them to the end of the book (46-51), the LXX places them just after the

oracle against Judah (25:14-31:44).5 In the overall interpretation of Jeremiah’s

origin many consider this discrepancy indicative of a late addition, though many

have reacted strongly against that claim.6

Between the two traditions, majority representation falls to the MT. The Qumran

witnesses which favor it include 2QJer and 4QJera,c,d. 4QJera bears the closest

resemblance to the proto-Masoretic text, with only insignificant differences.7 While the

differences in 4QJerc are more numerous, they consist primarily of the addition of waw

and yod.8 2QJer, though representative of the same text form, differs more regularly.9 In

favor the LXX version, 4QJerb stands alone in the Qumran collection. Note that in

Janzen’s discussion elaborated below ‘4QJerb’ is an umbrella term denoting 4QJerb,

3 A more comprehensive list is available in Johan Lust, “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20/1 (Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven, 1994), 33.4 T. S. L. Michael, “Bisectioning of Greek Jeremiah: A Problem to Be Revisited?” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 93-104.5 Lust, 33. Mowinckel took the placement of the OAN in the LXX to be a later development of the MT’s former redactional. See Sigmund Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremía (Kristiania: J. Dybwad, 1914) 65-66.6 See James Watts, “Text and Redaction in Jeremiah's Oracles Against the Nations,” Catholic Bible Quarterly 54, no. 3 (1992): 432.7 Eugene Ulrich, et al., Discoveries in the Judean Desert: Qumran Cave 4, Vol. 15 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 151.8 Ibid., 183.9 M. Baillet, et al., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân, Vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 62-63.

4QJerd and 4Jere. As the differences between these texts became clearer (dimensions of

the material in reconstruction and style of handwriting), the three came to be considered

separately.10 Nonetheless, Emanuel Tov does admit that certain tendencies of 4QJerd also

parallel LLXJer, from details of language to major recensional trends. Therefore he

suggests that they might have existed in the same scroll as part of a single collection,

though written by different scribes.11 The LXX version is also witnessed in the Vetus

Latina, some of the implications of which have been handled by Pierre-Maurice

Bogaert.12 Tov has produced an excellent overview of the text evidence for either version,

and Ziegler’s critical edition provides more information regarding ancient versions.13

3. The Effects of Qumran

J. Gerald Janzen showed LXXJer to reflect an early revision of the text. Through

conflate readings he characterized the two text forms in response to the generally

accepted position of Otto Eissfeldt.14 In many places he also defended the superiority of

the Greek text and overall evinced expansion theory’s explanation of the textual

traditions.15 As Watts explains, “[he] concluded that the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX was

very conservative and separated by only a few text generations from the original.”16

Much of the scholarly opinion on the subject has followed suit on the subject. Yohanan

10 Ulrich, 171-172.11 Ibid., 172.12 Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “La Vetus Latina de Jérémie” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, A. Schenker, ed., (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).13 Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8. (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) and Joseph Ziegler, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum XV: Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957).14 J. Gerald Janzen, “Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah,” Harvard Theological Review 60, no. 4 (1967): 433-434. The position of Eissfeldt, briefly quoted in Janzen’s article, is further explained in The Old Testament: An Introduction, P. R. Ackroyd, trans., (New York, NY: Harpercollins, 1965).15 J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1975).16 Watts, 433.

Goldman initially contested Janzen’s view strongly. He later changed his mind based on

case studies of key passages throughout Jeremiah, arguing against the assertions that

LXX minuses should be explained through scribal error or interpretive translations.17

Sven Soderlund, in response to Janzen’s work, argued through a limited case study on

Jeremiah 29 that a discontinuity exists in the focus of the Septuagint text, and it must

therefore be a secondary inclusion.18 Janzen later turned the argument around, showing

that it was in fact the MT which bears the discontinuity, further strengthening his original

claim in favor of the LXX.

Sigmund Mowinckel proposed a reconstruction of the text which has long been a

centerpiece of the dialogue, with many variations stemming from it. He divided the book

into four primary sections including the oracles of Jeremiah, the biography, the

dueteronomistic material and the positive oracles. This is not only important because it

emphasizes the different sources contributing to the composition of Jeremiah (labeled by

Mowinckel sources A through D respectively); but it also labels the OAN a secondary

addition to the text. Mowinckel suggested that it circulated separately for a time before

becoming part of prophetic material attributed to Jeremiah.19 Janzen later advocated this

position and explained the inclusion of the OAN in a section of his overall reconstruction

for LXX priority.20

E. Tov and P-M. Bogaert furthered Janzen’s claims by positing theories about how

the conservative Vorlage of the LXX could undergo the patterns of redaction they

collated to become the expansionistic MT. Both evinced two progressive stages of

17 Yohanan Goldman, Prophetie et Royaute au Retour de l’Exil: Les Origines Litteraires de la Forme Masoretique du Live de Jeremie (Göttingen: Presses Universitaires Fribourg, 1992).18 Sven Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis. (Sheffield, 1985).19 Mowinckel, 65-66.20 Watts, 433.

development from a mutual Hebrew precursor. Though not perfectly represented in every

instance, the LXX represents the earlier development.21 While Thackeray believed the

work of many translators helped develop the Greek version,22 Tov argued after Qumran

that the differences were the work of a single translator and an editor working from the

early Vorlage; this would later be developed again in MTJer. Watts further notes an

important emphasis of Tov: “[he] argued that the differences between the two are not

textual but redactional. It is therefore a mistake to "correct" one on the basis of the

other.”23 In respect to the idea of translation, Michael argues that the LXX translator’s

inconsistency with recurring Hebrew phrases across the two sections limits the weight of

evidence which can be placed on redactional studies emphasizing Hebrew-Greek

consistency.24

Bogaert produced one of the most detailed assessments of the redactional process

behind the MT tradition. After his extensive assessment, he attributes the majority of

differences to the work of a single editor/translator. Moreover, he argues also for a date

for the latter of the two stages. Based on his assessment of the texts, he estimated the

origins of MTJer around the third century BCE.25

Discoveries among the Dead Sea Scrolls from the “Babylonian” and “Egyptian”

textual traditions have shown that the differences between the texts are not the poor or

prejudicial work of translators.26 Becking argues fervently, “Even in the explicit 21 Lust, 34.22 John Thackeray, “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah,” The Journal of Theological Studies os-IV (1903): 245-266. Smith has also recently argued against elements of this Thackeray’s view in “Jeremiah 52: Thackeray and Beyond,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35 (2002): 55-96.23 Watts, 434.24 Michael, 104.25 P-M. Bogaert, “Relecture et Deplacement de l’Oracle Contre les Philistins. Pour une Datation de la Redaction Longue du Livre de Jérémie,” in La Vie de la Parole. (Paris: Desclée, 1987), 139-150. Note also Lust’s qualifying remarks about Bogaert’s explanation in “Diverse Text Forms,” 35.26 Adrianus van Selms, “Telescoped Discussion as a Literary Device in Jeremiah,” Vetus Testamentum 26,

differences in content no obvious interpretative or theological tendency can be

detected.”27 Therefore whatever differences exist, they are either informative or indicative

of independent content.

4. Case Studies

4.1 In Favor of LXXJer

Johan Lust gives a compelling argument for the superiority of the LXX in a study

of Jer 33:14-26, the longest plus in the MT. After surveying several perspectives of the

textual data from general theory, he assesses the case with all of them. He attributes many

anomalies of language in the passage to a later hand, including hapaxes, unusual word

forms, an uncommon literary device and a rarely evidenced substitution. Changes in

content and referents also suggest a redactional purpose behind the plus. For example, he

shows that wnqdx hwhy has been changed from the original personal name referring to

Zedekiah for the purpose of refocusing the passage on the revival of Jerusalem, to which

the phrase refers in MTJer. He concludes that the Hebrew of the MT in this section is not

composed by Jeremiah. Furthermore, the expansions change the intended purpose of the

section. For these reasons Lust prefers the Greek version as nearer to the original. He also

conjectures a possible time for the inclusion of this plus by comparing it to a similar

textual focus in Zech 12:10-14 and similar poetry in Sirach 45:23-26. He suggests that

the plus may have been composed around the same time as Zech 12 and of Ben Sirach’s

grandfather.28

Anneli Aejmelaeus also defends the priority of the LXX when considering the

dueteronomistic tendencies and “ideological novelties” of 25:1-14. His basic premise is

no. 1 (1976): 112.27 Bob Becking, "Jeremiah's Book of Consolation: a Textual Comparison: Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah 30-31," Vetus Testamentum 44, no. 2 (April 1994): 168.28 Lust, 31-48.

that dueteronomistic language is easy to imitate in later redactions, and since features of

ideologies from 2nd century BCE Palestine appear often in the section, scholars should be

wary of asserting the homogeneity of MTJer.29 Among these features he notes the regular

clarification of “the enemy from the north,” the change of the first person referent in

25:3a-7 and the identity of those receiving punishment. Aejmelaeus concludes from the

nature of expansions and the sensitivity to contemporary theological concerns in

emendations, that the shorter of the two is closer to the autograph. He further proposes

how LXXJer might have remained unaffected by the further redacted form of MTJer:

“The existence of two so different editions of the text side by side may be explained by

the fact that the Vorlage of the Septuagint (i.e., the Hebrew source text of the translation),

having been brought to Alexandria, remained there in geographical isolation and was

largely untouched by the final Palestinian edition.”30 He claims that this disconnection

would be due in large part to the fact that a work of such strongly Palestinian influence

would not have found popularity in Egypt over the simpler version.

4.2 In Defense of MTJer

From here we will look at a few of the case studies which have been done in

defense of the MT tradition. In light of criticism favoring the LXX, Duane Christensen

defends the textual integrity of the MT in his study of chapter 25. His main point is that

the internal cohesion of the chapter is defensible through prosodic analysis. Using the

LXX in a reconstruction of Jeremiah’s poetry here, Christensen shows that the metrical

integrity of 25:15-38 (which is not present in the LXX form) suggests that the MT pluses

cannot be written of as glosses. Nonetheless, he admits that the parallels between chapter

29 Anneli Aejmelaeus, "Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: the Function of Jer 25:1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah," Vetus Testamentum 52, no. 4 (2002): 459-482.30 Ibid., 460.

25 and chapters 46-51 allow for strong argument in favor of the LXX.31 That is to say that

Christensen does not hope to establish MT priority, simply integrity as an independent

tradition. This trend of emphasizing the dynamic nature of the text over the relative

priority of either version has become more prevalent in later scholarship; it is important

for our final assessment of the issue.

Among the passages assessed by Yohanan Goldman, Jer 27:5-15 (LXX 34:5-15)

has faced able criticism from Arie van der Kooij. Goldman claimed that the internal

cohesion of the passage was better preserved in LXX; this position is primarily based on

linguistic structures that change the contextual function and semantic range of the

Hebrew when translated to Greek. Yet Goldman admits that the structure in the MT is

acceptable, simply less smooth. Concerning the task of weighing the value of each form,

Kooij says, “Goldman (and others) favours the assumption that LXX being the smoother

text is the better and earlier one. However, one can also argue that MT being the fuller

text has been shortened in order to get a smoother and easier text.”32 This problem of two

acceptable explanations for the same problem characterizes much of the text-critical and

redactional-critical research being done in Jeremiah. Kooij addresses the issue by

contesting many of the assumptions behind Goldman’s study, most of them dealing with

homoioteleuton in the LXX translation and translation of Hebrew idioms (a position

which Aejmelaeus likewise considers relevant, though to a limited extent33). Finding

many of Goldman’s supports weak, Kooij concludes that MTJer reflects an earlier text in

27:5-15. These assumptions with which Kooij wrestles are common with many scholars

31 Duane Christensen, "In Quest of the Autograph of the Book of Jeremiah: a Study of Jeremiah 25 in Relation to Jeremiah 46-51," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 2 (June 1990): 145-153.32 Arie van der Kooij, "Jeremiah 27:5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?" Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20, no. 1 (1994): 60-61.33 Aejmelaeus, 461.

preferring LXXJer, and Kooij’s challenge brings their value into question. Having viewed

a number of case studies in both directions, it is important to consider the contribution of

mediating theories.34

5. Mediating Theories

Generally speaking, early attempts to produce mediating theories for the

relationship of the two forms were not well received, but their value in tempering the

dialogue is worthy of note. These theories originally tended to argue that the dynamic

textual traditions made the relative priority of either text indiscernible.35 Some have

furthered that principle by proposing alternative theories of textual origin. Here we will

address the value of some of these theories in establishing alternative questions for

redaction criticism.

A summary of some of the assumptions which preclude mediating theories

appears in the Jewish Encyclopedia by Victor Ryssel. Ryssel admits that many of the

pluses of MTJer may be later additions, but he shows how this does not make the MT

dependent on the LXX version. His qualifying claim is that though the Greek may reflect

an older version, the pluses of MTJer might have been in development even during the

process of translation. He clearly argues that the translation of the Septuagint occurred

before work on the Hebrew version had come to an end, simply interrupting or

representing a specific moment in the redactional process of the intended final copy. He

says concerning the nature of their side by side progression, “the correspondence between

the Septuagint and the Hebrew is too great, and their relationship too close, for one to be

able to speak of two redactions. They are rather two editions of the same redaction.”36 It 34 Kooij, 59-78.35 Lust, 34.36 Victor Ryssel, “Jeremiah,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia edited by Cyrus Adler, et al. (London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1910): 107.

is important to remember that mediating theories do not necessarily attempt to dismantle

theories of when the text forms developed in relation to one another; they simply address

the nature of the relation as non-derivative and therefore non-preferential.

Bob Becking deals thoroughly with the relationship between the two forms of the

Book of Consolation. He addresses the many issues present in this central section,

including zero-variants, corruptions, linguistic exegesis, content variants and arrangement

of units. While he concedes that many arguments made for intentional interpretive

translation and redaction are possible, he reminds us that they are not necessary. He

shows that the majority of the discrepancies between the two versions can be attributed to

linguistic exegesis and/or minor differences in content, and he emphasizes that these

changes do not change the theological purpose of the passage. He says, “the comparison

of the two texts of the Book of Consolation did not suggest that any support for the

hypothesis that the Old Greek version is a text which was intentionally abridged from its

Vorlage or that the MT contains an expanded version of a superior text: the Hebrew text

underlying the Old Greek.”37 Becking admits that his study does not prove different

original versions of the text; nonetheless, if we accept his premise it does prohibit

preference being given to either text form. Though he does not consider it certain, he does

promote the theory of two originals as one of two primary explanations for the difference

in order in the Book of Consolation:

It is possible to assume that two diverging collections of material related to the prophet Jeremiah once circulated independently. The question of the superiority of one text over the other, consequently, is of a literary-critical and redaction-critical nature. An answer to this question relates to one’s overall view regarding the genesis of the book of Jeremiah.38

37 Becking, 169.38 Becking, 164-165.

He cites Christoph Levin’s theory that each developed with an independent

Fortschreibung and in a different location from the other.39 While Carolyn Sharp clearly

shows in her study of the oracles against Egypt and Babylon that entirely independent

Vorlagen cannot be evinced beyond reasonable doubt, she does say that “it should no

longer be assumed that secondary editorial activity, whether reflected in expansion in

individual readings or in the larger literary ordering of the OAN, precludes the possibility

of original variants existing as well.”40

While the scope of this study is limited, we see from what has come before that

the dynamic nature of the textual traditions is in many places so uncertain that

establishing a clear relative priority is impossible. Moreover it is not the case, as Bogaert

suggests, that valid defenses of the MT are few in number. The application of many text-

critical tools provides valuable arguments for either side in a great number of passages,

some of which are very significant pluses or minuses (most notably the OAN and the

Book of Consolation). As Christensen states in the summation of his study:

The LXX and MT represent two different points in time, within separate communities of faith, in which the living tradition of Jermiah was set forth in written form within a sacred context. Both forms of that tradition were canonical in a formal sense, at least within those particular communities of faith. It does not appear possible to move behind either tradition to recover a single autograph as such, from which both the LXX and the MT were derived….Consequently this writer would prefer to see both texts of Jeremiah as inerrant rather than choose between them or apply that term to a scholarly construct called an autograph, which may never have existed as a written entity and which is certainly beyond our grasp so far as Jeremiah 25 is concerned.41

Therefore it is not perhaps a matter of establishing two progressive stages of redaction;

rather we might consider seeking two separate original versions of the text. Before we 39 Becking, 164, citing Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des Neuen Bundes in Ihrem Theologiegeschichtliche Zusammenhang Ausgelegt (Göttingen, 1985), 191-192.40 Carolyn J. Sharp, “‘Take Another Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah's Oracles Against Egypt and Babylon,” Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 4 (1997): 508-509.41 Christensen, 152-153.

noted that much scholarship in defense of the MT has not been to assert its priority, but

its integrity as more than a witness to a tertiary period of development. In the same way,

we may establish both the LXX and MT alongside one another as different, independent

traditions branching during the earliest period of redaction.

A. R. Pete Diamond argues for two original editions of the text in the confessions

based different foci in the readings. Edition 2 (reflected in MTJer) focuses its reading on

developing a portrait of the prophet himself through the confessions and biography.

Edition 1 (reflected in LXXJer) brushes over this prophetic focus in favor of a

community response to the judgment faced in the exile. He attributes these to early

interpretive differences that are not limited to the LXX and MT traditions. Therefore,

from differing communities with similar collections of prophetic material attributed to

Jeremiah, both were born rather than developed through progressive redactional stage in

which one is derivative of the other.42

Adrianus van Selms offers one of the most interesting perspectives on the subject,

which steps further than Becking and Diamond by reconstructing a scenario for the

origins of both versions. In his article, “Telescoped Discussion as a Literary Device in

Jeremiah,” van Selms discusses five examples of multipersonal dialogue in Jeremiah.

Like other scholars, he admits that in certain places more liberty has been taken in the

redaction of one text over another. In our discussion that would generally suggest that the

more liberal or expansive could be considered later; but van Selms argues for a different

interpretation of the extensive differences.

In the samples of dialogue, Selms shows a certain pattern that is not present in any

42 A. R. Pete Diamond, "Jeremiah's Confessions in the LXX and MT: A Witness to Developing Canonical Function?" Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 1 (1990): 33-50.

other biblical or ancient secular literature: the prophet speaks for himself and God in a

direct dialogue with the addressee, where the transition between the prophet and God is

seamless. Selms claims that many commentators have ignored the problem entirely or

have disregarded it as material added later. He, on the other hand, believes it to be a

unique literary device that indicates an individual’s writing style. Since these instances

appear throughout the book, Selms claims that “we have to consider the literary device…

as a strong indication that the same author was at work in all five cases.”43 Since this

stands against traditional redactional interpretation, he suggests a different background

for the text.

Selms posits that the two traditions diverged early as part of the initial redaction

process, rather than that of later generations. He suggests that “[t]he rough draft, which

we could call the ‘Egyptian copy’, was preserved, as a sort of protocol, in Egypt and its

text was translated into Greek a few centuries later.”44 This rough draft was the core of

what was then prepared as a “neat copy” for circulation in the exilic community in

Babylon. Lundbom references a similar theory of reconstruction and suggests that the

isolation of the Egyptian text from the continued redactional process might account for its

extensive haplography, since omissions would have long gone unnoticed.45 Therefore any

redaction between the two copies was part of the original formation of the book. In this

scenario, to argue that either is closer to an autograph would be like saying that a first

edition copy of a novel was less original than the notes from which it was constructed.

6. Conclusions

We have surveyed the basic features of the textual problems in Jeremiah, primary

43 Selms, 112.44 Ibid., 112.45 Lundbom, 707.

witnesses to the different text forms, early trends of scholarship since the discoveries of

Qumran and later scholarship that has responded in both agreement and challenge. We

gave special attention to the contributions of mediating theories. I end with the following

conclusions:

1. The relative priority of either text form, i.e. the longer or the shorter, cannot be

established definitely with the witnesses currently available. Innumerable case

studies are available on either side providing sound arguments for each textual

preference, and they often do so using the same text-critical principles.

2. The relationship between the two texts may be understood as complementary,

rather than derivative. The extensive differences between the two traditions are so

dynamic in their appearances and supposed causes that a hypothesis of two

originally independent forms of the text is clearly arguable.

3. Redactional theories may benefit from inquiring further into mediating theories

and developing sensitivity to the fluid relationship between the two text forms.

While mediating theories may not solve the quandary of Jeremiah’s textual

history, they have already provided valuable insight and alternative venues for

further questions.

Having shown some of the insufficiencies of studies preferring one text form over the

other, the attention paid to mediating theories has emphasized the value of challenging

the questions modern scholarship has asked. Therefore, I encourage the asking of new

questions. As Diamond concludes, “There is a need for comprehensive study of the

formation, redaction, intention, and message of these two editions of Jeremiah.”46 With

such research the study of the book of Jeremiah can move toward concrete, if not perfect,

46 Diamond, 44.

reconstructions of the tradition(s) behind the material.

Bibliography

Aejmelaeus, Anneli. "Jeremiah at the Turning-Point of History: the Function of Jer. XXV 1-14 in the Book of Jeremiah." Vetus testamentum 52, no. 4 (2002): 459-482.

Baillet, M., et al., Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. Vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).

Becking, Bob. "Jeremiah's Book of Consolation: a Textual Comparison: Notes on the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek Version of Jeremiah 30-31." Vetus Testamentum

44, no. 2 (April 1994): 145-169.

Bogaert, Ρierre-Maurice. “La Vetus Latina de Jérémie.” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, A. Schenker, ed., (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003).

– , “Relecture et Deplacement de l’Oracle Contre les Philistins. Pour une Datation de la Redaction Longue du Livre de Jérémie.” in La Vie de la Parole. (Paris: Desclée, 1987), 139-150.

Christensen, Duane L. "In Quest of the Autograph of the Book of Jeremiah: a Study of Jeremiah 25 in Relation to Jeremiah 46-51." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 2 (June 1990): 145-153.

Diamond, A. R. Pete. "Jeremiah's Confessions in the LXX and MT: A Witness to Developing Canonical Function?" Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 1 (1990): 33-50.

Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction, P. R. Ackroyd, trans., (New York, NY: Harpercollins, 1965).

Goldman, Yohanan. Prophetie et Royaute au Retour de l’Exil: Les Origines Litteraires de la Forme Masoretique du Live de Jeremie. (Göttingen: Presses Universitaires Fribourg, 1992).

Janzen, J. Gerald. "Double Readings in the Text of Jeremiah." Harvard Theological Review 60, no. 4 (October 1967): 433-447.

– . Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. (Cambridge: 1973).

Kooij, Arie van der. "Jeremiah 27:5-15: How Do MT and LXX Relate to Each Other?" Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20, no. 1 (1994): 60-61.

Levin, Christoph . Die Verheißung des Neuen Bundes in Ihrem Theologiegeschichtliche Zusammenhang Ausgelegt (Göttingen, 1985), 191-192.

Lundbom, Jack R. “Jeremiah, Book of.” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3 (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992): 706-721.

Lust, Johan. “The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20/1 (Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven, 1994), 31-48.

Michael, T. S. L. “Bisectioning of Greek Jeremiah: A Problem to Be Revisited?” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39 (2006): 93-104.

Min, Y. J. “The Minuses and Pluses of the LXX Translation of Jeremiah Compared with the Masoretic Text: Their Classification and Possible Origins.” Ph.D. diss., (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977).

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremía. (Kristiania: J. Dybwad, 1914).

Ryssel, Victor. “Jeremiah.” in The Jewish Encyclopedia edited by Cyrus Adler, et al., (London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1910): 96-108.

Selms, Adrianus van, “Telescoped Discussion as a Literary Device in Jeremiah.” Vetus Testamentum 26, no. 1 (1976): 99-112.

Sharp, Carolyn J. “‘Take Another Scroll and Write’: A Study of the LXX and the MT of Jeremiah's Oracles Against Egypt and Babylon.” Vetus Testamentum 47, no. 4 (October 1997): 487-516.

Smith, Jannes. “Jeremiah 52: Thackeray and Beyond.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35 (2002): 55-96.

Soderlund, Sven. The Greek Text of Jeremiah A Revised Hypothesis. (Sheffield, 1985).

Thackeray, John. “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah.” The Journal of Theological Studies os-IV (1903): 245-266.

Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8. (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976).

Watts, James W. "Text and Redaction in Jeremiah's Oracles Against the Nations." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54, no. 3 (July 1992): 432-447.

Ulrich, Eugene, et al., Discoveries in the Judean Desert: Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 15 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).

Ziegler, Joseph. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum XV: Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957).