Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

1 There is still less ground, with Hitzig, Graf, and Nagelsbach, for assuming that "ijfen *311 is a gloss that has crept into the text. The fact that <D*:n, which is used here, is elsewhere applied only to Chaldean nobles, his table. While at meat, Ishmael and his ten men rose and slew Gedaliah with the sword. On account of inx HOJ, which comes after, Hitzig and Graf would change *3?1 into ^35, he slew him, Gedaliah; this alteration is possibly warranted, but by no means absolutely necessary. The words '131 irix nw, u and he killed him," contain a reflection of the narrator as to the greatness of the crime; in conformity with the facts of the case, the murder is ascribed only to the originator of the deed, since the ten men of Ishmael's retinue were simply his executioners. Besides Gedaliah, Ishmael killed u all the Jews that were with him, with Gedaliah in Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found there, the men of war." The very expression shows that, of the Jews, only those are meant who were present in the house with Gedaliah, and, of the Chaldean soldiers, only those warriors who had been allowed him as a guard, who for the time being were his servants, and who, though they were not, as Schmidt thinks, hausto liberal ins vino inebriati, yet, as Chr. B. Michaelis remarks, were tunc temporis i ti imparati. The Jews of post-exile times used to keep the third day of the seventh month as a fast-day, in commemoration of the murder of Gedaliah; see on Zech. vii. 3. — Ver. 4 ff. On the next day after the murder of Gedaliah, "when no man knew it," i.e. before the deed had become known beyond Mizpah, u there came eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria," having all the tokens of mourning, "with their beards shaven, their clothes rent, and with cuts and scratches on their bodies (Dnibnp, see on xvi. 6), and a meat-offering and frankincense in their hand, to bring them into the house of Jahveh." The order in which the towns are named is not geographical; for Shiloh lay south from Shechem, and a little to the side from the straight road leading from Shechem to Jerusalem. Instead of iV> the LXX. (Cod. Vat.) have HaXrffi; they use the same word as the name of a place in Gen. xxxiii. 18, although the Hebrew a?W is there an adjective, meaning safe, in good condition. According to Robinson {Bill. Res. iii. 102), there is a village named Sdlim is insufficient to show this; and even Ewald has remarked that "the last king (Zedekiah) may well be supposed to have appointed a number of grandees, after the example of the Chaldeans, and given them, too, Chaldean names."

three miles east from Nubias (Shechem); Hitzig and Graf, on the strength of this, prefer the reading of the LXX., to preserve the order of the names in the text. But Hitzig has renounced this conjecture in the second edition of his Commentary, "because S&lim in Hebrew would be DW, not D^'f." There is absolutely no foundation for the view in the LXX. and in Gen. xxxiii. 18; the supposition, moreover, that the three towns are given in their topographical order, and must have stood near each other, is also unfounded. Shechem may have been named first because the greater number of these men came from that citv, and other men from Shiloh and Samaria accompanied them. These men were pious descendants of the Israelites who belonged to the kingdom of Israel; they dwelt among the heathen colonists who had been settled in the country under Esarhaddon (2 Kings xvii. 24 ff.), but, from the days of Hezekiah or Josiah, had continued to serve Jahveh in Jerusalem, where they used to attend the feasts (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9, cf. xxx. 11). Nay, even after the destruction of Jerusalem, at the seasons of the sacred feasts, they were still content to bring at least unbloody offerings — meat-offerings and incense — on the still sacred spot where these things used to be offered to Jahveh; but just because this could now be done only on the ruins of what had once been the sanctuary, they appeared there with all the signs of deep sorrow for the destruction of this holy place and the cessation of sacrificial worship. In illustration of this, Grotius has adduced a passage from Papinian's instit. de rerum divis. § sacrce: u Locus in quo aedes sacra? sunt cedificatce, etiam diruto cedificio, sacer adhuc manet" — Ver. 6. Ishmael went out from Mizpah to meet these men, always weeping as he went (f\?J\ rolH!j*>rt, cf. Ges. § 131, ab; Ew. § 280, 6). If they came from Ephraim by way of Gibeon (el Jib), the road on to Jerusalem passed close by Mizpah. When Ishmael met them, he asked them to come to Gedaliah (to Mizpah). But} when they had entered the city, " Ishmael slew them into the midst of the pit" (which was there), i.e. killed them and cast their corpses into the pit. Ver. 8. Only ten men out of the eighty saved their lives, and this by saying to Ishmael, " Do not kill us, for we have hidden stores in the field — wheat, and barley, and oil, and honey." D^foBD are excavations in the form of cistern?, or subterranean' storehouses in the open country, for keeping grain; the openings or entrances to these are so concealed that the eye of a stranger could not perceive them. Such places are still universally employed in Palestine at the present day (Robinson's Palestine, i. pp. 324-5), and are also to be found in other southern countries, both in ancient and modern tim see proofs of this in Rosenmuller's Scholia ad hunc locum. It is remarked, in ver. 9, of the pit into which Ishmael threw the corpses, that it was the same that King Asa had made, i.e. had caused to be made, against, i.e. for protection against, Baasha the king of Israel. In the historical books there is no mention made of this pit in the account of the war between Asa and Baasha, 1 Kings xv. 16-22 and 2 Chron. xvi. 1-6; it is only stated in 1 Kings xv. 22 and 2 Chron. xvi. 6* that, after Baasha, who had fortified Ram ah, had been compelled to return to his own land because of the invasion of Benhadad the Syrian king, whom Asa had called to his aid, the king of Judah ordered all his people to carry away from Ramah the stones and timber which Baasha had employed in building, and therewith fortify ( reba and Mizpah. The expression Ktfya *3BD certainly implies that the pit had been formed as a protection against Baasha, and belonged to the fortifications raised at that time. However, Ti3n cannot mean the burial-place belonging to the city (Grotius), but only a cistern (cf. 2 King- x. 11); and one such as could contain a considerable store of water was as necessary as a wall and a moat for the fortification of a city, so that it mi<rht be able to endure a long siege (Graf). Hitzig, on the other hand, takes ~\)2 to mean a long and broad ditch which cut off the approach to the city from Ephraim, or which, forming a part of the fortifications, made a break in the road to Jerusalem, though it was bridged over in times of peace, thus forming a kind of tunnel. This idea is certainly incorrect; for, according to ver. 7, the "ditch" was inside the city (Tjn #H3). The expression *njr7l T? is. obscure, and cannot be explained with any degree of certainty. "P3 cannot mean " through the fault of" Gedaliah (Raschi), or "because of" Gedaliah — for his sake (Kimchi, Umbreit), or "coram" Gedaliah (Venema), but must rather be rendered "by means of, through the medium of," or " at the side of, together with." Nagelsbach has decided for the rendering Mby means of," giving as his reason the fact that Ishmae] had made use of the name of Gedaliah in order to decoy these men into destruction. He had called to them, u Come to Gedaliah" (ver. 6); and simply on the authority of this name, they had followed him. But the employment of the name as a means of decoy can hardly be expressed by T3. We therefore prefer the nu-aning u at the hand = at the side of" (following the Syriac, L. de Dieu, Rosenmuller, Ewald), although this signification cannot be established from the passages cited by R isenm. (1 Sam. xiv. 34, xvi. 2, Ezra vii. 23), nor can the meaning ''together with" (Ewald) be shown to belong to it. On the other hand, a passage which is quite decisive for the rendering M by the hand of, beside," is Job xv. 23: "there stands ready at his hand (VTO, i.e. close to him) a day of darkness." If we take this meaning for the passage now before us, then tflvia T3 cannot be connected with nsi vj;s in accordance with the Masoretic accents, but with DP T?~;n, "where Ishmael cast the bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah;" so that it is not stated till here and now, and only in a casual manner, what had become of Gedaliah* s corpse. Nothing that admits of being proved can be brought against this view.1 The &on wdiich follows is a predicate: "the ditch wherein.... was that which Asa the king had formed."

The motive for this second series of assassinations by Ishmael is difficult to discover. The supposition that he was afraid of as the original reading, inasmuch as one codex of De Rossi's also has 112. But apart from the improbability of pil-i 113 or 71131 being incorrectly changed into }!T713 T3, we find that N*1 stands provokingly in the way; for it would be superfluous, or introduce an improper emphasis into the sentence. The LXX. have but been attempting to guess at a translation of a text they did not understand. What Hitzig further supposes has no foundation, viz. that this " ditch" is identical with that mentioned 1 Sam. xix. 22, in \y*\ and with to (ppkotp to tusyoc of 1 Mace. vii. 19; for the ditch at Sechu was near Ramah, which was about four miles from Mizpah, and the large fountain 1 Mace. vii. 19 was iv Br^id, an unknown place in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

being betrayed, and for this reason killed these strangers, not wishing to be troubled with them, is improbable, for the simple reason that these strangers did not want to go to Mizpah, but to Jerusalem. For the supposition of Thenius (on 2 Kings xxv. 23) and of Schmieder, that the people had intended going to Mizpah to a house of God that was there, is very properly rejected by Hitzig, because no mention is made in history of a place of worship at Mizpah; and, according to the express statement of ver. 6 ff., Ishmael had enticed them into this city only by inviting them to come and see Gedaliah. Had Ishmael wished merely to conceal the murder of Gedaliah from these strangers, he ought to have done anything but let them into Mizpah. As little can we regard this deed (with Graf) as an act of revenge on these Israelites by Ishmael for the murder of his relations and equals in rank by Nebuchadnezzar (lii. 10), because these men, who had now for a long time been living together with heathens, were Assyrian and Chaldean subjects. For we cannot comprehend how he could look on these Israelites as friends of the Chaldeans, and vent his anger against the Chaldean rule by murdering them; the mournful procession which they formed, and the offerings they were carrying to present, proclaimed them faithful adherents of Judah. Nagelsbach, accordingly, is of opinion that Ishmael had simply intended robbery. As it is evident that he, a rough and wild man, had assassinated the noble Gedaliah from personal jealousy, and in order to further the political interest of his Ammonite patron, he must have been seeking to put himself in the position of his victim, or to flee. u When we find, moreover, that he soon murdered a peaceable caravan of pilgrims, and preserved the lives only of a few who offered to show him hidden treasures; when, finally, we perceive that the whole turba imbellis of Mizpah were seized and carried off into slavery, Ishmael proves himself a mere robber." But, though the fact that Ishmael spared the lives of the ten men who offered to show him hidden treasures seems to support this view, yet the supposition that nothing more than robbery was intended does not suffice to explain the double murder. The two series of assassinations plainly stand in the closest connection, and must have been executed from one and the same motive. It was at the instigation of the Ammonite king that Ishmael murdered Gedaliah; moreover, as we [earn from the report brought to Gedaliah by Johanan (xl. 15), the crime was committed in the expectation that the whole of Judah would then be dispersed, and the remnant of them perish. This murder was thus the work of the Ammonite king, who selected the royally-descended Ishmael as his instrument simply because he could conveniently, for the execution of his plans, employ the personal envy of one man against another who had been preferred by the king of Babylon. There can be no doubt that the same motive which ur^ed him to destroy the remnant of Judah, i.e. to frustrate the attempt to gather and restore Judah, was also at work in the massacre of the pilgrims who were coining to the temple. If Ishmael, the leader of a robber-gang, had entered into the design of the Ammonite king, then everything that might serve for the preservation and consolidation of Judah must have been a source of pain to him; and this hatred of his towards Judah, which derived its strength and support from his religious views, incited him to murder the Jewish pilgrims to the temple, although the prospect of obtaining treasures might well cooperate with this in such a way as to make him spare the ten men who pretended they had hidden stores. With this, too, we can easily connect the hypocritical dealing on the part of Ishmael, in going forth, with tears, to meet these pious pilgrims, so that he might deceive them by making such a show of grief over the calamity that had befallen Judah; for the wicked often assume an appearance of sanctity for the more effectual accomplishment of their evil deeds. The LXX. evidently did not know what to make of this passage as it stands; hence, in ver. 6, they have quite dropped the words u from Mizpah," and have rendered H2ai?pn ^]<?n by avrol iiropevovro teal e/cXcuov. Hitzig and Graf accept this as indicating the original text, since Ishmael had no ostensible ground for weeping. But the reasons which are supposed to justify this conjecture are, as Nagelsbach well remarks, of such a nature that one can scarcely believe they are seriously held. — Ver. 10. After executing these murderous deeds, Ishmael led away into captivity all the people that still remained in Mizpah, the king's daughters and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had committed to the care of

Gedaliah, intending to go over with them to the Ammonites. As the object of 3^5 is very far removed through the intervention of a relative clause, the connection is resumed by D2HW. " The king's daughters" are not only the daughters of Zedekiah, but female members generally of the royal house, princesses, analogous to ^P"l?, king's son = prince, xxxvi. 20, xxxviii. 6.

Vers. 11.-18. The struggle against Ishmael; intended flight to Egypt. — Ver. 11 ff. When Johanan and the rest of the captains heard of what had taken place in Mizpah, they marched out with all their men to fight Ishmael, and came on him at the great water at Gibeon, i.e. by the pool at Gibeon which is mentioned 2 Sam. ii. 13, one of the large receptacles for water which are still found there; see on 2 Sam. ii. 13. Gibeon, now called el Jib (see on Josh. ix. 3), was situated only about two miles north from Mizpah; from which we may conclude that it was soon known what had happened, and the captains quickly assembled their men and marched after Ishmael. — Ver. 13 ff. AY hen those who had been carried off by Ishmael saw these captains, they were glad, since they had followed their captor merely because they were forced to do so. They all turned, and went over to Johanan; but Ishmael escaped from Johanan, with eight men, — having thus lost two in the fiiiht with Johanan, — and went to the Ammonites. — Ver. 16 ff. After the escape of Ishmael, it was to be feared that the Chaldeans would avenge the murder of the governor, and make the Jews who remained atone for the escape of the murderer by executing them or carrying them away to Babylon. Accordingly, Johanan and the other captains determined to withdraw to Egypt with the men, women, and children that had been carried off by Ishmael; these they conducted first to Bethlehem, where they encamped for the purpose of deliberating as to the rest of the journey, and taking due precautions. The account given in ver. 10 is clumsily expressed, especially the middle portion, between "whom he had brought back" and u the son of Ahikam; " and in this part the words " from Mizpah" are particularly troublesome in breaking the connection: u whom he (Johanan) had brought back from Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, from Mizpah, after he (Ishmael) had slain Gedaliah," while it is more correctly stated in the second relative clause, "whom he had brought bark from Gibeon." llit/.ig and Graf accordingly suppose that, originally, instead of n«0 anpta x-s, there Btood in the text nap igfa, "whom he (Ishmael) had Led captive from Mizpah, after he had slain Gedaliah." Tims the whole becomes clear. Against this conjecture there only stands the fact that the LXX. translate ov$ uTTt-aTpeyfrti' utto 'Iafia/jX; they must thus have read ^UNi 1L"S ~n"-, and omitted merely n7*-n as unsuited to the passage. However, the error may be oven older than the LXX., and M>n nKO may easily have arisen through a scribe having glanced at the words M*n n'J'S of the last clause. The words from "men " to "chamberlains" form the more exact specification of the general expression "all the remnant of the people:" "men, viz. men of war, women (including the king's daughters, ver. 10), and children and chamberlains" (D^pnp, guardians and servants of the female members of the royal family). — Ver. 17. "They marched and stopped (made a halt) at the inn of Chimham, which is near Bethlehem." WIS, air. \ey.y considered etymologically, must mean dicersorinm, kospitium, an inn, khan, or caravanserai. Instead of the Kethib Dmoa, many codices read □npp (like the Qeri); nor have any of the old translators read i or i in the word. The Qeri is evidently correct, and we are to read D$B3, the name of a son of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, 2 Sam. xix. 38, 41, who is supposed to have built or founded this caravanserai for the convenience of travellers. The words " because of the Chaldeans" in the beginning of ver. 18 depend on " to go to Egypt " at the end of the preceding verse: " to go to Egypt for fear of the Chaldeans," on account of the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael.

At the halting-place near Bethlehem the captains and the people whom they led deem it necessary to inquire through Jeremiah as to the will of God regarding their intention; they betake themselves to the prophet with the request that he would address God in prayer for them regarding this matter, and they promise that they will, in any case, comply with the message that he may receive from God (vers. 1-6). Whereupon, after ten days, the word of the Lord came to the prophet, vers. 7-22, to the effect that, if they remained in the country, the Lord would take pity on them and protect them from the Chaldeans, and establish them; but, should they go to Egypt, against the will of the Lord, then the evil which they feared would follow them thither, so that they would perish by the sword, hunger, and pestilence.

Vers. 1-6. " And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Ver. 2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Ver. 3. That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz. Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, xliii. 1 ff., insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in xl. 8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in xliii. 2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the LXX. also have in ver. 1 of this chapter. Hitzig, Ewald, etc., are consequently of the opinion that STOP in our verse has been written by mistake for ^")n\ But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the nnry of xliii. 2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (xl. 8); and the assumption that FTOP is incorrect in two passages (xlii. 1 and xl. 8) is highly improbable. They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (xli. 16). 'nn fcO~S>2n as in xxxvii. 20; see on xxxvi. 7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, wrhich they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; — this request Niigelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet " a mere farce,"

since it ifl quite plain from xliii. 1-6 that the desire to go to Egypl was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet. But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in vers. 8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, lie certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God. We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord's reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, — not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. " The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, — in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them. — Ver. 4. Jeremiah replies: " I have heard (i.e. acceded to your request); behold, I will pray to Jahveh your God, according to your words; and it shall come to pass that whatever Jahveh answers you I will tell you, I will not keep anything from you." Ver. 5. They said further: u Let Jahveh be a true and faithful witness against us, if we do not just according to all the word which Jahveh thy God shall send thee (to declare) unto us. Ver. 6. Whether it be good or bad, we shall obey the voice of Jahveh our God, to whom we send thee, that it may be well with us when we obey the voice of Jahveh our God." HEX *W, Prov. xiv. 25, and p«3,

Isa. viii. 2, Ps. lxxxix. 38. Both predicates occupy emphatic positions. God is to be a faithful witness, not in regard to the truth of what they say, but as regards the fulfilment of their promise, so that, if they would not obey His word, He might come forward to punish them. I^'f! is construed with a double accusative: to send away a person with something, i.e. to give him a commission. After " whether it be good or evil," there is no need for supplying " in our eyes " (ti*y#3), as Hitzig and Graf allege: "whether it please us or not;" the subject is -linn: " we will obey the word, whether it be good or evil," i.e. whether it announce good or evil to come (cf. Eccles. xii. 14). The Ketlub WK occurs only in this passage in the Old Testament; the Qeri accordingly substitutes wn3K: the former, however, is taken from the vulgar tongue, and should not be altered here. P?W *? does not mean " because we obey," but " when we obey." The hearing is the condition, not the cause of the prosperity.

Vers. 7-22. The word of the Lord. — At the end of ten days, the reply that had been asked for came from the Lord. Hitziix and Graf think that Jeremiah had lingered ten days with the answer, in order to obtain strong and clear conviction, " matured through his own meditation, probably also in part confirmed by the arrival of further news." This opinion is characterized by Nagelsbach as u in harmony with modern science, but unhistorical; " it should rather be called unscriptural, as resting on a denial of divine inspiration. The reason why the Lord did not make known His will to the prophet for ten days was a disciplinary one. By waiting, those who asked would get time for bethinking themselves, and for quietly considering the situation of affairs, so that they might be able, calmly and collectedly, to receive and obey the answer of God, which was far from satisfying the fears and wishes of their heart. Ver. 8. Jeremiah called the captains and all the people together, and announced to them as follows: Ver. 9. " Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, to whom ye have sent me, that I might bring your supplication before Him: Ver. 10. If ye will indeed abide in this land, then will I build you up and not pull down; and I will plant you, but not root out; for I repent of the evil that I have done to you. Ver. 11. Be not afraid of the king of Babylon, whom ye fear, be not afraid of him, saith Jahveh; for I am with you to save you and to deliver you out of bis hand. Ver. L2, And I will get pity for you, so that lie shall take pity on you, and bring you back to your land. Ver. 13. But it' ye say, We will not remain in this land, so that ye will not obey the voice of Jahveh your God, Ver. 14. Saying, Nay, but we will go to the land of Egypt, that we may not see war nor hear the sound of a trumpet, and we shall not hunger after bread, and we will dwell there. — Ver. 15. Now therefore hear the word of Jahveh, ye remnant of Judah: Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, If ye do indeed set your face to go to Egypt, and go to sojourn there, Ver. 1G. Then shall the sword, of which ye are afraid, overtake you there, in the land of Egypt, and hunger, which ye dread, shall there follow hard after you, in Egypt, and there shall ye die. Ver. 17. And all the men who have set their face to go to Egypt, to sojourn there, shall die by the sword, and through hunger, and from the plague; nor shall they have any one left or escaped from the evil which I will bring on them. Ver. 18. For thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: As mine anger and my wrath were poured out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so shall my wrath be poured out upon you when ye go to Egypt, and ye shall become an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach, and ye shall not see this place again. — Ver. 19. Jahveh hath spoken to you, O remnant of Judah. Go not to Egypt: ye shall know for certain that I have warned you to-day. Ver. 20. For ye err at the risk of your souls when ye sent me to Jahveh your God, saying, Pray for us to Jahveh our God, and according to all that Jahveh our God shall say to us, so tell us, and we will do it. Ver. 21. Now I have told you to-day, and ye have not obeyed the voice of Jahveh your God, nor in anything for which He hath sent me unto you. Ver. 22. Now, therefore, ye must surely know that ye shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence in the place whither ye have been pleased to go to sojourn."

The Lord's reply extends as far as ver. 18; the last four verses (19-22) form an epilogue, a further address by the prophet, in which he once more specially impresses God's resolution on the minds of the people. The answer of God consists (1) in the promise that, if they will remain in the land, the Lord is willing to build them up, and protect them from the wrath of the king of Babylon (vers. 9-12); and (2) the threat that, if they will go to Egypt against the advice and will of the Lord, they shall certainly perish there by the sword, famine, and pestilence (vers. 13-18). On the expression runri ^an see on xxxvi. 7. M (ver. 10) can only be inf. abs. of 3B*. for 3lB*; if we view it as coming from 3*8^ we get no suitable meaning, for the thought si revertendo illuc manseritis in hdc terra (C. B. Michaelis) could not be expressed by OBJn 2ic\ Certainly there is no other instance of such a form as 2Su being used for 2iU;;; in a verb like 3B*J, however, which drops the * in the inf. constr., a like omission in the inf. abs. is quite conceivable, while the supposition of some injury having been done to the text (Olshausen, Gram. § 89) is less probable. On the expression, u I will build you," etc., cf. xxiv. 6, xxxi. 4, xxxiii. 7. " I repent of the evil " is an anthropopathic expression for the cancelling of a penal sentence: cf. Joel ii. 14, etc. — In ver. 11, the repetition of the words " do not fear him" produces special emphasis. — Ver. 12. " I shall give you compassion," i.e. obtain it for you, so that the king of Babylon will show pity on you; cf. Gen. xliii. 14, 1 Kings viii. 50. J. D. Michaelis, Hitztg, Ewald, and Graf, following the LXX., Vulgate, and Syriac, would change ^y'™. into 2'p'in (make you dwell); but there is no necessity for this, since S^n makes good enough sense, provided we refer it, not to the return of those who had been exiled to Babylon, but, as the connection requires, to the departure from Mizpah, after the halt near Bethlehem, in the intended flight to Egypt; we must, besides, view this departure as a complete forsaking of their country, and the leaders in this emigration as being fugitives who had fled before the Chaldeans, and had returned only a short time before, for the purpose of settling down again in the country. — Vers. 13-18. The threatening if, in spite of warning and against God's will, they should still persist in going to Egypt. The protasis of the conditional sentence begun in ver. 13, "If ye say," etc., extends onwards through ver. 14; the apodosis is introduced co-ordinately with the commencement of ver. 15, u Now therefore," etc. "tote %">, " the sound of war-trumpet," as in iv. 19. On " hungering after bread," cf. Amos viii. 11. Dr6n (with the article) is the bread necessary for life. "The remnant of Judah" is to be understood of those who still remained in the land, as is shown by ver. 2; see also ver. VJ, xliii. 5, xliv. 12, 11. The warning given in ver, lt*> contains the idea that the very evil which they feared would come on them in Judah will befall them in Egypt. There they shall perish by sword, famine, and plague, since Nebuchadnezzar will conquer Egypt; cf. xliii. 8-13. — Ver. 17. Wl, used instead of the impersonal nj«Tj, is referred to the following subject by a rather unusual kind of attraction; cf. Ewald, § 3 15, b. All the men who set their faces, i.e. intend, to go to Egypt shall perish; not a single one shall escape the evil; for the same judgment of wrath which has befallen Jerusalem shall also come on those who flee to Egypt; cf. vii. '20. On the expression " ye shall become a curse," etc., cf. xxiv. 9, xxv. 18, xxix. 18.

Taking for granted that the leaders of the people will not obey, Jeremiah appends to the word of the Lord an earnest address, in which several points are specially insisted on, viz. that the Lord had spoken to them, that He had forbidden them to go to Egypt, and that he (the prophet), by proclaiming the word of the Lord, had warned them (3 Tjn, to testify, bear witness against a person, i.e. warn him of something, £f. xi. 7). Thus he discloses to them the dangerous mistake they are in, when they first desire some expression of the mind of the Lord regarding their intentions, and, in the hope that He will accede to their request, promise unconditional obedience to whatever He may direct, but afterwards, when they have received a message from the Lord, will not obey it, because it is contrary to what they wish. The Kethib DTiynn has been incorrectly written for DJVjjnn, the Hiphil from nyn, to err; here, as in Prov. x. 17, it means to make a mistake. DDTri^'D::^ not, "you mislead your own selves" decepistis animas vestras (Vulg.), nor " in your souls," — meaning, in your thoughts and intentions (Nagelsbach), — but " at the risk of your souls," your life; cf. xvii. 21. Yj'X?b7i (ver. 21), "and that in regard to all that for which Jahveh has sent me to you," points back to their promise, ver. 5, that they would do " according to all the word." By employing the perfect in vers. 20, 21, the thing is represented as quite certain, as if it had already taken place. Ver. 22 concludes the warning with a renewed threat of the destruction which shall befall them for their disobedience.

Vers. 1-7. The march of the people to Egypt.— -When Jeremiah had thus ended all the words which the Lord had announced to him for the people, then came forward Azariah (probably an error for Jezaniah, see on xlii. 1) the son of Hoshaiah, Johanan the son of Kareah, and the rest of the insolent men, and said to Jeremiah, "Thou dost utter falsehood; Jahveh our God hath not sent thee unto us, saying, Ye must not go to Egypt to sojourn there; Ver. 3. But Baruch the son of Neriah inciteth thee against us, in order to give us into the hand of the Chaldeans, to kill us, and to take us captive to Babylon." B^O« is not the predicate to tflbwrlg, but forms a resumption of TOtf*, with which it thus serves to connect its object, Jeremiah, and from which it would otherwise be pretty far removed. Azariah (or, more correctly, Jezaniah) occupies the last place in the enumeration of the captains, xl. 8, and in xlii. 1 is also named after Johanan, who is the only one specially mentioned, in what follows, as the leader on the march. From this we may safely conclude that Jezaniah was the chief speaker and the leader of the opposition against the prophet. To avoid any reference to the promise they had made to obey the will of God, they declare that Jeremiah's prophecy is an untruth, which had been suggested to him, not by God, but by his attendant Baruch, with the view of delivering up the people to the Chaldeans. — Vers. 4-7. Thereupon Johanan and the other captains took " all the remnant of Judah, that had returned from all the nations whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah, — the men and women and children, the king's daughters, and all the souls whom Xebuzaradan, chief of the body-guard, had committed to Gedaliah... and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah, — and went to the land of Egypt — for they did not hearken to the voice of Jahveh — and came to Tahpanhes." In this enumeration of those who were conducted to Egypt, Hitzig, Graf, and others distinguish two classes:

(1) the men, women, children, etc., who had boon in Mizpah with Gedaliah, and had been led to Gibeon, after the murder of the hitter, by Ishmael, but had afterwards been brought to Bethlehem by Johanan and the other captains (ver. 6, cf. xl. 7. xli. 10, 16); (-) those who had returned from the foreign countries whither they had fled, but who had hitherto lived in the country, seattered here and there, and who must have joined the company led by.Johanan to Bethlehem during the ten days of halt at that resting-place (ver. 5, ef. xl. 11, 12). There is no foundation, however, for this distinction. Neither in the present chapter is there anything mentioned of those who had been dispersed through the land joining those who had inarched to Bethlehem; nor are the Jews who had returned from Moab, Amnion, Edom, and other countries to their own home distinguished, in chap. xl. and xli., as a different class from those who had been with Gedaliah in Mizpah; but on the other hand, according to xl. 12, these returned Jews also came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and gathered grapes and fruit. Besides, in these verses the distinction can only be made after the insertion into the text of the conjunction) before D^-oarrnx. To u all the remnant of Judah who had returned from the nations" belong the men, women, children, etc., whom Nebuzaradan had committed to the care of Gedaliah. The enumeration in ver. 6 gives only one specification of the " whole remnant of Judah," as in xli. 16. "And all the souls;" as if it were said, "and whoever else was still left alive;" cf. Josh. x. 28. Tahpanhes was a frontier town of Egypt on the Pelusian branch of the Nile, and named Adfyvai by the Greeks; see on ii. 16. Here, on the borders of Egypt, a halt was made, for the purpose of coming to further resolutions regarding their residence in that country. Here, too, Jeremiah received a revelation from God regarding the fate now impending on Egypt.

Vers. 8-13. Prediction regarding Egypt. — Ver. 8. " And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying, Ver. 9. Take in thine hand large stones, and hide them in the clay in the brick-kiln, which is at the entrance to the house of Pharaoh in Taphanhes, in the eyes of the Jews; Ver. 10. And say to them: Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel,

Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will place his throne over these stones which I have hidden, and he shall stretch his tapestry over them. Ver. 11. And he shall come and smite the land of Egypt, (he who is) for death, to death, — (he who is) for captivity, to captivity, — (he who is) for the sword, to the sword. Ver. 12. And I will kindle fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt, and he shall burn them and carry them away; and he shall wrap the land of Egypt round him as the shepherd wraps his cloak round him, and thence depart in peace. Ver. 1?. And he shall destroy the pillars of Beth-shemesh, which is in the land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire."

This prophecy is introduced by a symbolical action, on which it is based. But in spite of the fact that the object of the action is stated in the address which follows, the action itself is not quite plain from the occurrence of ir.< r?, whose usual meaning, " brick-kiln" (cf. Nah. iii. 14), does not seem suitable here. Eichhorn and Hitzig think it absurd that there should be found before the door of a royal habitation a brick-kiln on which a king was to place his throne. From the Arabic,jJ^Lc, which also signifies a rectangular figure like a tile or brick, and is used of the projecting entablature of doors, — from the employment, also, in the Talmud of the word \sbo to signify a quadrangular tablet in the form of a tile, — Hitzig would claim for the word the meaning of a stone floor, and accordingly renders, a and insert them with mortar into the stone flooring." But the entablatures over doors, or quadrangular figures like bricks, are nothing like a stone flooring or pavement before a palace. Besides, in the way of attaching to the word the signification of a u brick-kiln," — a meaning which is well established, — or even of a brickwork, the difficulties are not so great as to compel us to accept interpretations that have no foundation. We do not need to think of a brick-kiln or brickwork as being always before the palace; as Neumann has observed, it may have indeed been there, although only for a short time, during the erecting of some part of the palace; nor need it have been just at the palace gateway, but a considerable distance away from it, and on the opposite Bide. Alongside of it tliere was lying mortar, an indispensable building material. |00, " to hide," perhaps means here not merely to embed, but to embed in such a way that the stones could not very readily be perceived. Jeremiah was to press down the big stones, not into the brick-kiln, but into the mortar which was lying at (near) the brick-kiln, — to put them, too, before the eyes of the Jews, inasmuch as the meaning of this act had a primary reference to the fate of the Jews in Egypt. The object of the action is thus stated in what follows: Jahveh shall bring the king of Babylon and set his throne on these stones, so that he shall spread out his beautiful tapestry over them. WDB* (Qeri "in-"'), an intensive form of 1DP, rnDB^ u splendour, beauty," signifies a glittering ornament, — here, the decoration of the throne, the gorgeous tapestry with which the seat of the throne was covered. The stones must thus form the basis for the throne, which the king of Babylon will set up in front of the palace of the king of Egypt at Tahpanhes. But the symbolical meaning of this action is not thereby exhausted. Not merely is the laying of the stones significant, but also the place where they are laid, — at the entrance, or opposite Pharaoh's palace. This palace was built of tiles or bricks: this is indicated by the brick-kiln and the mortar. The throne of the king of Babylon, on the contrary, is set up on large stones. The materials of which the palace and the throne are formed, shadow forth the strength and stability of the kingdom. Pharaoh's dominion is like crumbling clay, the material of bricks; the throne which Nebuchadnezzar shall set up opposite the clay-building of the Pharaohs rests on large stones, — his rule will be powerful and permanent. According to Jeremiah's further development of the symbol in ver. 11 ff., Nebuchadnezzar will come to Egypt (the Kethib riK3 is to be read HN3? " he came down,'* to Egypt, Nia being construed with the accus.), and will smite the land together with its inhabitants, so that every man will receive his appointed lot, viz. death by pestilence, imprisonment, and the sword, i.e. death in battle. On the mode of representation here, cf. xv. 2. — Ver. 12. He shall burn the temples of the gods of Egypt, and carry away the idols. The first person W, for which LXX(J Syriac, and Vulgate have the third, must not be meddled with; it corresponds to *nv'P in ver. 10. What Nebuchadnezzar does as Jahveh's servant (^35?, ver. 10) is done by God. The suffixes in DDiK> and MB* are assigned in such a way that the one is to be referred to the temples, the other to the idols; see on xlviii.

5>W or n?obb means to envelope one's self with a garment, put on a garment, wrap the cloak round; cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. 14, Ps. cix. 19, Isa. lix. 17, etc. This is the meaning of the verb here, as is shown by the clause expressing the comparison. The point of likeness is the easiness of the action. Ewald has very well explained the meaning of the whole: iC As easily as any shepherd in the open field wraps himself in his cloak, so will he take the whole of Egypt in his hand, and be able to throw it round him like a light garment, that he may then, thus dressed as it were with booty, leave the land in peace, without a f0G) — a complete victor." Other explanations of the word are far-fetched, and lexically untenable. — Ver. 13. In conclusion, mention is further made of the destruction of the famous temple of the Sun at Ileliopolis, to show the fulfilment of the prophecy that all Egypt would fall under the power of Nebuchadnezzar. WW!) nH3, " House of the Sun," is the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptain Pe-rd, i.e. House of the Sun, the sacred name of the city vulgarly called On; see on Gen. xli. 45. It lay north-east from Cairo, near the modern village of Matarieh, and thus pretty far inland; it was renowned for its magnificent temple, dedicated to Bdy the Sun-god. At the entrance to this building stood several larger and smaller obelisks, of which the two larger, added to the two older ones by Pheron the son of Sesostris, were about 150 feet high. One of these the Emperor Augustus caused to be brought to Rome; the other was thrown down in the year 11G0; while one of the more ancient but smaller obelisks still stands in its original position, raising its head in the midst of a beautiful garden over a mass of dense foliage. These obelisks are signified by RtaXD. The additional clause, " which is in the land of Egypt," does not belong to Bethshemesh, as if it were appended for the purpose of distinguishing the city so named from Beth-shemesh in the land of Judah; the words are rather connected with Fn3JfD, and correspond with D^vp WK in the parallel member of the verse. The obelisks of the most famous temple of the Egyp'lan Sun-god are well known as the most splendid representa'.ves of the glory of the Egyptian idolatry: the destruction of these monuments indicates the ruin of all the sanctuaries of the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs. The last clause is a kind of re-echo from ver.

L2a; *pfc* is strengthened by the addition of BW3 for the purpose of giving a sonorous en ling to the whole. — The king of Egypt is not named in the prophecy, hut aeeor'.g to xliv. 30 it is Pharaoh-Hophra, who is to be given in, the power of Nebuchadnezzar.

When we inquire as to the fulfilment of this prediction, we find M. Duncker, in his Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 841, giving a reply in these words: "Nebuchadnezzar did not fulfil these expectations (of Jeremiah, chap, xliii. 8-13, xliv. 30, and of Ezekiel, chap. xxix. 32). He contented himself with having repelled the renewed attack of Egypt. The establishment of his dominion in Syria did not depend jii his conquering Egypt; but Syria must obey him, through ut its whole extent. The capture of Jerusalem followed the siege of the island-town of Tyre (B.C. 586), the last city that had maintained its independence. The army of the Chaldeans lay thirteen years before Tyre without being able to bring the king Ethbaal (Ithobal) under subjection. At last, in the year 573, a treaty was concluded, in which the Tyrians recognised the supremacy of the king of Babylon." That Tyre was brought into subjection is inferred by Duncker (in a note, p. 682), first, from the generally accepted statement of Berosus, that the whole of Phoenicia was subdued by Nebuchadnezzar (Josephus' Ant. x. 11. 1, and contra A p. i. 19); secondly, from Josephus' statement (contra Ap. i. 21), that the kings Merbal and Hiram had been brought by the Tyrians from Babylon; and lastly, from the fact that, with the close of the siege, the reign of Ithobal ends and that of Baal begins. "It would thus appear that Ithobal was removed, and his family carried to Babylon." These facts, which are also acknowledged by Duncker, sufficiently show (what we have already pointed out in Ezekiel) that the siege of Tyre ended with the taking of this island-city. For, unless the besieged city had been taken by storm, or at least compelled to surrender, the king would not have let himself be dethroned and carried to Babylon. — But whence has Duncker derived the information that Nebuchadnezzar had no concern with the subjugation of Egypt, but merely with the establishment of his authority in Syria? Although Nebuchadnezzar began the siege of the island-city of Tyre soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and required thirteen years to reduce it, yet it does not by any means follow from this that he had only to do with the strengthening of his authority in Syria, and no connection with the subjugation of Egypt; all that we can safely infer is, that he thought he could not attempt the conquest of Egypt with any certain prospect of success until he had subdued the whole of Syria. Besides, so long as such an one as Pharaoh - Hophra occupied the throne of Egypt, — who had not only sent an army to Zedekiah king of Judah to raise the siege of Jerusalem, but also (according to Herodotus ii. 161, who draws from Egyptian sources) led an army to Sidon and fought a naval battle with the Tyrians; who (as Diod. Sic. i. GS relates, also following Egyptian tradition) set out for Cyprus with abundant war-material and a strong army and fleet, and took Sidon by storm, while the rest of the towns submitted through fear; who, moreover, had defeated the Phoenicians and Cyprians in a naval enslavement, and had returned to Egypt with immense spoil; — how could Nebuchadnezzar possibly think that his rule in Syria was firmly established? Such statements as those nowT referred to even Duncker does not venture to reject. We must, however, view them with a regard to the usual exaggerations bv which the Egyptians were accustomed to extol the deeds of their Pharaohs; but after making all due allowance, we are led to this, that, after the fall of Tyre, Hophra sought to prevent the island of Cyprus as well as Tyre from becoming a dependency of Nebuchadnezzar. Could Nebuchadnezzar leave unmolested such an enemy as this, who, on the first suitable opportunity, would attempt to wrest the whole of Syria from him? So short-sighted a policy we could not attribute to such a conqueror as Nebuchadnezzar. Much more considerate is the judgment previously expressed regarding this by Vitringa, on Isa. xix.: u Etiamsi omnis historia hie sileret, non est probabile, Nebucadnezarem magnum dominatorem gentium, post Palcestinam et Phceniciam subactam, non tentasse

'■p'tim, et ii tentaverit, tentasse frustra • et qua parte dCgypturn occupavit} earn non vastasse et desolai

It is also to be borne in mind that the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, which is denied by Hitzig and Graf as well as Duncker, as it formerly was by Volney, is vouched i'nv by the trustworthy testimony of Berosus (in Josephus, a Ap.

i. 19), who says that Nebuchadnezzar took Egypt (Kparfjaai Ar/v-rrrov, 'Apaftias, k.t.X.); the denial, too, rests on a mere inference from the account given by Herodotus from the traditions of the priests regarding the reign of Apries (Hophra). [f the witness of Berosus regarding the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia be trustworthy, why should his testimony concerning Egypt be unreliable! The account of Josephus (Ant x. 9. 7), that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fifth year after the capture of Jerusalem, and the twenty-third year of his reign, invaded Egypt, killed the king (Hophra), put another in his place, and led captive to Babylon the Jews that had fled to Egypt, — this account will not admit of being brought forward (as has often been attempted, and anew, of late, by Mrc. von Niebuhr, Assur und Babel, S. 215) as sufficient testimony for a successful campaign carried on by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt during the siege of Tyre. The difficulty in the way of proving that such a campaign actually took place is not so much that the death of Hophra in battle with Nebuchadnezzar, or his execution afterwards, contradicts all authenticated history, as that the particular statements of Josephus regarding this campaign, both as to the date and the carrying away to Babylon of the Jews that had fled to Egypt, are simply conclusions drawn from a combination of Jer. xliii. 8-13 and xliv. 30 with Jer. lii. 20: besides, the execution of King Hophra by Nebuchadnezzar is foretold neither by Jeremiah nor by Ezekiel. Ezekiel, in chap, xxix.-xxxii., merely predicts the decline of the Egyptian influence, the breaking of the arm of Pharaoh, i.e. of his military power, and his fall into Sheol; but he does it in so ideal a manner, that even the words of xxx. 13, u there shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt," — i.e. Egypt shall lose all her princes, just as her idols have been destroyed, — even these words cannot well be applied to the execution of Pharaoh-Hophra But Jeremiah, in chap, xliii. and in xlvi. 13 ff., predicts merely* the downfall of the pride and power of Pharaoh, and the conquest, devastation, and spoiling of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. And even in the words of xliv. 30, " I (Jahveh) will deliver Pharaoh-IIophra into the hand of his enemies, and of those who seek his life, just as I delivered Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy, and of those who sought after his life," there is nothing definitely stated regarding Hophra's being executed by Nebuchadnezzar, or killed in battle with him. Such a reference cannot be made out from the words, even though we lay no emphasis on the plural "his enemies," in contrast with the expression a Nebuchadnezzar his enemy," and. according to xlvi. 2(», understand Nebuchadnezzar and his servants as being included under the '•enemies;" for certainly Zedekiah was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar, but merely taken prisoner and carried to Babylon. Resides, there was no need of special proof that the prophecies of.Jeremiah regarding Egypt declare much more important matters than merely an expedition of Chaldean soldiers to Egypt, as well as the plunder of some cities and the carrying away of the Jews who resided there; and that, in chap, xliv., what the Jews who went to Egypt against the will of God are threatened with, is not transportation to Babylon, but destruction in Egypt by sword, hunger, and pestilence, until only a few individuals shall escape, and the.^e shall return to Judah (xliv. 14,27,28).

But if we compare with the prophecy of Jeremiah in chap. xliii. 8-13, and in xlvi. 13 26, that of Ezekiel in chap. xxix. 1 7 21, which was uttered or composed in the twenty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e. in the year 573, it becomes abundantly evident that Nebuchadnezzar cannot have invaded and conquered Egypt before that year, and not till after the fall of Tyre, which immediately ensued. And that this was actually the case, is put beyond doubt by the statement of Herodotus, ii. 1G1 ff., regarding Apries, that he lost his throne and his life in consequence of being defeated in battle with the Cyrenians. What Herodotus assigns as the cause of the fall of Apries, is insufficient to account for the unhappy end of this king. Herodotus himself states, ii. 169, that the Egyptians were filled with the most intense hatred

■ Apries; the monuments also bear witness to this fact. This bitter feeling must have had a deeper source than merely the unsuccessful issue of a war with Cyrene; it receives its explanation only when we find that A pries, by his attempts insl Nebuchadnezzar, had deserved and brought on the subjugation of Egypt by the king of Babylon; cf. Hiivernick on Ezekiel, p. 500, By sending an auxiliary army to Judah, for the purpose of driving hark the Chaldeans, and by forming an expedition to Cyprus and the cities of Phoenicia, which was evidently directed against the establishment of the Chaldean power in Phoenicia, Apries had so provoked the king of Babylon, that the latter, immediately after the subjugation of Tyre, entered on the campaign against Egypt, which he invaded, subdued, and spoiled, without, however, killing the king; him he preferred allowing to rule on, but as his vassal, and under the promise that he would recognise his authority and pay tribute, just as had been done with King Jehoiakim when Jerusalem was first taken. If all this actually took place (which we may well assume), Apries might probably nave begun another war against Cyrene, after the Chaldeans had departed, in the hope of procuring some small compensation to the Egyptians for the defeat they had suffered from the Chaldeans, by subduing that province in the west; in this war the king might have lost his life, as Herodotus relates, through want of success in his attempt. In this wav, the account of Herodotus regarding the death of Apries quite agrees with the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. But that Herodotus makes no mention of the conquest of Egypt, is sufficiently accounted for wdien we remember that he derived his information from the stories of the priests, who carefully omitted all mention of a struggle between Egypt and the power of Chaldea, since this had ended in the humiliation of Egypt; hence also mention was made only of the victories and mighty deeds of Necho II., while his defeat at Carchemish was passed over in silence.

"When the Jews had settled down in Egypt in different places, they betook themselves zealously to the worship of the queen of heaven; to this they were probably induced by the example of the heathen round about them, and by the vain expectation of thereby promoting their interests as members of the community (cf. ver. 17 ff.). Accordingly, when all the people who were living here and there through the count rv had assembled in Upper Egypt (ver. 15) for the celebration of a festival, the prophet seized the opportunity of setting before them, in an earnest manner, the ruinous consequences of their doings. First of all, he reminds them of the judgments which they and their fathers, by their continued apostasy from the Lord, and by their idolatry, had brought on Jerusalem and Judah (vers. 2-7); and he warns them not to bring destruction on the remnant of Judah still left, by continuing in their idolatry (vers. 8-10). The threatening also is expressed, that the Lord will destroy all those who marched to E<*ypt with the sword, famine, and pestilence (vers. 11-14). But the whole assembly declare to him that they will not obey his word, but persist in worshipping the queen of heaven; allecnncr that their fathers prospered so long as they honoured her, and war and famine had come on them only after they eeased to do so (vers. 15-19). Jeremiah refutes this false notion (vers. 20-23), and once more solemnly announces to them the sentence of destruction by sword and famine in Egypt. As a sign that the Lord will keep His word, he finally predicts that King Hophra shall be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

Ver. 1. " The word that came to Jeremiah regarding all the Jews who were living in the land of Egypt, who dwelt in Migdol, in Tahpanhes, in Noph, and in the land of Pathros." From this heading we perceive that those who (according to chap, xliii.) had gone to Egypt, had settled there in various parts of the country, and that the following denunciations, which at the same time form his last prophecy, were uttered a long time after that which is given in xliii. 8-13 as having been delivered at Tahpanhes. The date of it cannot, indeed, be determined exactly. From the threatening that King Hophra shall be delivered over to the power of Nebuchadnezzar (vers. 24-30), only this much is clear, that Egypt was not yet occupied by the Chaldeans, which, as we have shown above moans follows from this that Jeremiah did not utter these words of threatening till shortly before this event. lie may have done so even live or ton years before, in the period between 585 and 580, as we have already observed on p. 17, vol. i. The.lews had settled down, not merely in the two northern frontier towns, Migdol (i.e, Magdolo, May8u)\os, according to the Itiner, Anton., twelve Roman miles from Pelusium, Copt. Mescktol, Egypt. Afa'ktr, the most northerly place in Egypt; see on Ezek. xxix. 10) and Tahpanhes (i.e. I tup/me, see on xliii. 7), but also in more inland places, in Noph {i,e. Memphis^ see on ii. 16) ami the land of Pathros (LXX. IlaOovpy)?, Egypt. PetorSs} i.e. Southland) viz. Upper Egypt, the Tltt'lmis of the Greeks and Romans; see on Ezek. xxix. 11). The word of the Lord runs as follows: —

Vers. 2-14. Hie warning an<I threatening. — M Thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Ye yourselves have seen all the evil which I have brought on Jerusalem, and on all the cities of Judah; and, behold, they are a desolation this day, and there is no inhabitant in them; Ver. 3. Because of their wickedness which they have done, by provoking me through going to burn incense, (and) to serve other gods whom they knew not, (neither) they (nor) ye, nor your fathers. Ver. 4. And I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending (them), to say, Do not this abominable thing which I hate. Ver. 5. But they did not hear, nor inclined their eatto turn from their wickedness, by not burning incense to other gods. Ver. 6. Therefore my wrath and mine anger poured itself out, and burned up the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem; so that they have become a desolation and a waste, as at this day. Ver. 7. Now therefore thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Why do ye great evil against your souls, by cutting of from yourselves man and woman, child and suckling, out of the midst of Judah, so leaving no remnant for yourselves; Ver. 8. Through provoking me by the works of your hands, burning incense to other gods in the land of Egypt, whither ye have gone to sojourn, that ye might bring destruction on yourselves, and that ye might become a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the earth? Ver. 9. Have ye forgotten the evil deeds of your fathers, and the evil deeds of the kings of Judah, and the evil deeds of their wives, and your own evil deeds, and the evil deeds of your wives, which they committed in the land of Judah and on the streets of Jerusalem? Ver. 10. They have not been contrite to this day, and are not afraid, nor do they walk in my law, and in my statutes, which I have set before you and before your fathers. Ver. 11. Therefore thus saith Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will set my face against you for evil, and to cut off all Judah. Ver. 12. Ana I will take the remnant of Judah, that have set their fares to go to the land of Egypt in order to sojourn there, and they shall all be consumed; in the land of Egypt shall they fall, by sword and famine shall they be consumed; small and great, by sword and famine shall they die, and they shall become an execration and an astonishment, and a curse and a reproach. Ver. L3. And I will punish those who dwell in the land of Egypt, as I punished Jerusalem, by sword, and famine, and pestilence. Ver. 14. There shall not be one escaped or left to the remnant of Judah that came to sojourn there in the land of Egypt, so as to return to the land of Judah, whither they long to return and dwell; for they shall not return except [as] escaped ones.11

In order to make an impression on the people by his warning against idolatry, Jeremiah begins his address with a reference to the great calamity which the fathers have brought on the kingdom of Judah through their continued idolatry (vers. 2-6). " Ye have seen all the evil," etc.; all the cities are laid waste and depopulated, because their inhabitants have roused the anger of the Lord, and have not let themselves be dissuaded by the admonitions of the prophets whom God has sent. "This day," i.e. now, at present. On ver. 3, cf. xi. 17, xix. 4, xxxii. 32, etc.; and as to the meaning of IBg, see on i. 16. In ver. 3b the address becomes more direct, through the change into the second person, " ye; " the audience then present only continue these sins of their fathers. On ver. 4, cf. vii. 25, xxv. 4, etc. nfcftn nzv'r.n 131 " the thinir of this abomination," which is equivalent to " this abominable idolatry." "Ol serves to render the subject more prominent, as in Judg. xix. 24. On ver. 6, cf. xlii. 18, vii. 20. The wrath of God burned in the cities, for tin- fire of destruction was a manifestation of the divine wrath. As to W Di>3 sec on \i. 5. In vers. 7-10 follows the application of what has been said to those present, who are asked how they come to continue in the old sins, to their own destruction, u doing evil in regard to your souls/' /.,.. for tho injury, destruction of your souls, yourself; cf. \\\i. 19, where 'r^ stands for:"sn:. This is immediately afterwards more exactly specified by 'W rnarA to exterminate the whole of you, without an exception. As to the enumeration "man and woman," etc., cf. 1 Sam. xv. 3 xxii. 19. The infs. WJwA and nto^ are used as gerundives: "inasmuch as (through this that) ye provoke me." For the expression "the works of your hands," see on i. 1(5. In wr. 8 an object must be supplied from ver. 7 for the expression' crSnn:jn;v^; for, to take M^ (with Hitzig) in a reflexive sense is a very harsh construction. On 'til fttlA, cf. xlii.

18, xxvi. 6. The answer to the question now asked follows in vers. 9 and 10, in the form of the further question, whether they have forgotten those former sins, and that these sins have been the cause of the evil which has befallen the land. The interrogation expresses the reproach that they have been able to forget both, as is evidenced by their continuance in sin. In ver. 9, the expression "the evil deeds of his wives" (VBO) js remarkable. Hitzig and Nagelshach, following Kimchi, refer the suffix to the kings, since there was always but one king at a time. But this is an unnatural explanation; the suffix refers to Judah as a nation, and is used in order to comprehend the wives of the fathers and of the kings together. It is quite arbitrary in Ewald and Graf to change NM to nfe>, following the LXX. t&v apxovTcop vfiojv; for these translators have mutilated the text by the omission of the following OWfln TIKI. rpr rrijri is not merely conserved, but even required, by rtKl nyp2 run. But the prophet gives special prominence to the evil deeds of the wives, since it was they who were most zealous in worshipping the queen of heaven; cf. vers. 15 and

19. HOT |6, " they have not been crushed," viz. by repentance and sorrow for these sins. The transition to the third person is not merely accounted for by the fact that the subject treated of is the sins of the fathers and of the present generation,— for, as is shown by the expression « till this day," the prophet has chiefly hi. own contemporaries in view; hut he speaks of hese „ the third person, to signify the indignation with which ho turns away from men so difficult to reform. On the expresn " he" had not walked in my law,' cf. XXV, 4,x. 1 • For this the Lord will punish them severely, vers. 11-1-1. All 1,1,0 have fled to Egypt, with the intention of rema n.ng We, wm be <luite exterminated. On « Behold, I will set my " L cf xxi 10- " Fo' cvil " is m0re eXUCtly defiBed y "to'cut off all Judah,» U those of Judah who are in Egypt, not those who are in Babylon. This limitation of the words "l judah" is necessarily required by the context, and IS plainly e-prcssed in ver. 12, where « Judah* is speeded as f< the remnant of Judah that were determined to goto %ypt_ W^ has the meaning of taking away, as m xv. 15. » «™ areio be taken by themselves; and 0^ p«>, as is shown by the accents, is to be attached to what follows, on which, too, he emphasis is placed-, in like manner, « =n™ are to be attached to the succeeding verb. The arrangement o the words, like the accumulation of sentences all expressing the same meaning, reveals the spirit of the add n wluch God vents His wrath. On " they shall become an execration, etc., seexlii 18. In vers. 13, 14, the threatened extermination is further' set forth. Those who dwell in Egypt shall be punished with sword, famine, and plague, like Jerusalem. The ^habitants of Egypt generally are meant; and by the judgment which is to fall on that country, the remnant of Jul;,!, tl oic shall be so completely destroyed, that none shall escape Ihe leading member of the sentence is contmued by W^J, and that they should return to the land of Judah, after which their soul longs, that they may live there." A reason IS further assigned, and with this the address, reduced within becoming limits, concludes: "for there shall return none except] {B* -) fugitives," i.e. except a few individual fugitives who shall come back. This last clause shows that we are not to understand the declaration « none shall escape" in the strictest meaning of the words. Those who escape and return to Judah shall be so few, in comparison with those who shall perish in Egypt, as to be quite inconsiderable. Cf. the like instance of a

Vera. 15 L9. /'//(■ answer of the people to this threatening address. — Ver. 1">. "Then all the men who knew that their wives burned incense to other gods, and all the women standing [there], a great multitude, and all the people who dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, Ver. In. [As for] the word which thou hast spoken unto us in the name of Jahveh, we will not hearken unto thee: Ver. 17. But we will certainly perform every word that has proceeded out of our own mouth, by burning incense to the queen of heaven, and pouring out libations to her, just as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem; and we were filled with bread, and became prosperous, and saw no evil. Ver. 18. lint since we ceased to offer incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out libations to her, we have been in want of everything, and are consumed by sword and famine. Ver. 19. And when we [women] have been burning incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out libations to her, have we made cakes to her without our husbands, making an image of her, and offering libations to her? " To the word of the prophet the men and women oppose their pretended experience, that the adoration of the queen of heaven has brought them comfort and prosperity, while the neglect of this worship, on the other hand, has brought want and misfortune. No doubt they inferred this, by the argument post hoc, ergo propter hoc, from the fact that, after idolatry had been rooted out by Josiah, adversity had befallen the land of Judah; while, up till that time, the kingdom of Judah had been independent, and, for more than a century before, had been spared the suffering of misfortune. Thus, through their blindness, peculiar to the natural man, they had overlooked the minor transient evils with which the Lord visits His people when they sin. Not till near the end of Josiah's reign did misfortune fall on Judah: this was when the Egyptian army, under Pharaoh-Necho, marched through Palestine; Josiah was slain in the battle he had lost, the land was laid waste by the enemy, and its inhabitants perished by sword and famine. In ver. 15, those who are represented speaking are all the men who knew of their wives' idolatry, i.e. who permitted it, and all the women, " a great company," i.e. gathered together in great numbers, and all the rest of the people who lived in Egypt. The specification " in Pathros " is not in apposition to the words u in the land of Egypt," but belongs to the verb 0$£1; it tells where the gathering took place, viz. in a district of Upper Egypt. From the presence of a large number of women, we may conclude that the assembly was a festival in honour of the queen of heaven. The former portion of ver. 16 forms an absolute clause, from 131|) to J* C"'3, " as regards the word which... Ave will not listen to thee,'' i.e. with regard to this word we obey thee not. The expression, u the word which has gone forth out of our mouth," points to the uttering of vows: cf. Num. xxx. 3, 13; Deut. xxiii. 24. 'W if* "^l?"'? meaM " a11 tllilt we have uttered as a vow," every vow to offer incense, etc., i.e. to present meat and drink offerings to the queen of heaven, — that shall we keep, fulfil, as we ami our fathers have done in the land of Judah. On this mode of worship, cf. vii. 17 f., and the remarks there made. "And we were satisfied with bread," i.e. in consequence of this worship we had amply sufficient food. D-nitt, " good," well, comfortable; cf. xxii. 16. W |D, "from that time " = since. •—? is i\>v titen, from DDR, as in Num. xvii. 28; cf. Ewald, § 197, a. To this statement on the part of the men, the women further add, ver. 10, that they do not engage in this sacrificial worship or prepare the sacrificial cakes without their husbands, i.e. without their knowledge and approval. This is put forward by the women in the way of self-vindication; for, according to the law, Num. xxx. D ff., the husband could annul, i.e. declare not binding, any vow which had been made by his wife without his knowledge. Although it is women who are speaking, the via.se. D*)BjJD is used as being the gender which most commonly occurs; it also pretty often stands for the feminine. The inj. constr. *IBTO (with?) is here employed, in conformity with later usage, instead of the inf. abs., for the finite verb, by way of continuation; cf. Ewald, § 351, c, where, however, many passages have been set down as falling under this rule that demand a different explanation. The meaning of '"^yynp is disputed; the final n is a suffix, written with Raphe, though Mappik also jura in Borne acss. The Hiphil of this verb is found elsewhere only in Ps. Ixxviii. 40, and there in the signification of \ ring, grieving, like the Piel in Isa. lxiii. 10, Ps. Ivi. 6. Ewald translates u in order to move her," i.e, make her welldisposed, — but quite arbitrarily, for to provoke is the very opposite of rendering propitious. The verb 3jj[? also signifies k* to form, shape,'1 Job x. 8: and in this sense the Hiphil is used here, "in order to put them into shape," i.e. to form the moon-goddess (queen of heaven) in or on the sacrificial cakes (Kimchi, Raschi, Dahler, Maurer, Graf, etc.). The sacrificial cakes (D^5?, see on vii. 18) probably had the form of a crescent, or even of the full moon, like the aekrjvat of the Greeks, which used to be offered in Athens at the time of the full moon in the month of Munychion, to Artemis, as goddess of the moon; cf. Hermann, gottesdienstliche Alterthiimer der Griechen, 2 Ausg. S. 146, Anm. 13, u. S. 414.

Vers. 20-23. Refutation of these statements of the people. — Ver. 20. " And Jeremiah spake to all the people, to the men and women, and to all the people that had given him answer, saying, Ver. 21. Did not the incense-burning which ye performed in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye and your fathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land, — did not Jaliveh remember them, and did it not arise in His mind? Ver. 22. And Jahveli could no longer endure it, because of the wickedness of your deeds, because of the abominations which ye committed; thus your land became a desolation, and a waste, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day. Ver. 23. Because ye burned incense and sinned against Jahveh, and did not hearken to the voice of Jahveh, and in His law, in His statutes, and in His testimonies ye walked not; therefore this evil hath befallen you, as at this day." Jeremiah answers them that their idol-worship, by which they have provoked the Lord their God, is the very cause of the misfortune that has befallen them, because God could no longer endure this abomination which they would not forsake. "itipn is a noun, "the burning of incense," which includes, besides, all the other elements of idolatrous worship; hence the word is resumed, at the close, under the plur. cnitf, " these things." rhm is 3d pers.'sing. neat, lit. M it has come into His mind" i.e. He has carefully considered it, and that in the way of punishment, for He could no longer endure such abomination. The imperf. ^V is used for the historic tense (imperf. with 1 consec), because the 1 would necessarily be separated from the verb by the *6; and it is employed instead of the perfect, which we would be inclined to expect after the preceding 13T, since that which is treated of is something that endures for a considerable time; cf. Ewald, § 346, b. On the expression "because of the evil/1 etc., cf. xxi. 12, IT. 4, etc.; on the last clause in ver. 22, cf. vers. 6 and 12.— Ver. 23 is an emphatic and brief repetition of what has already been said. ruop is for nwnjj, as in Dent. xxxi. 29: cf. Gesenius, § 7 1. notJl; Ewald,§ 194, 6.

Vers. 24-30. Announcement of the punishmetit for this idolatry.— Vet. 24. " And Jeremiah said unto all the people, and unto all the women, Hear the word of Jahveh, all of Judah that are in the land of Egypt; A' '•• Thus saith

Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel: Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouth, and fulfilled it with your hands, savin?, We will assuredly perform our vows which we have wed, by burning incense to the queen of heaven, and by pouring out libations to her: ye will by all means perform your vows, and carry out your vows. Ver. 2G. Therefore hear the word of Jahveh, all Judah that dwell in the land of Eirvpt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith Jahveh, truly my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah, saying, ' As the Lord Jahveh liveth,' in all the land of Egypt. Ver. 27. Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good; and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, till they are annihilated. Ver. 28. And those who escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt to the land of Judah, a small number; and all the remuant of Judah, that went to the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose word shall stand, mine or theirs. Ver. 29. And this shall be the sign to you, saith Jahveh, that I will punish you in this place, that ye may know that my words shall surely rise up against you for evil: Ver. 30. Thus hath Jahveh spoken, Behold, I will give Pharaoh-Hophra into the hand of his enemies, and into the hand of those who seek his life, just as I have given Zedekiah the king of Jndah into the band of N buchadressar the king of Babylon, who was his enemy, and sought his life."

After refuting the false assertion of the people, Jeremiah onee more announces to them, on behalf of God, in the most solemn manner, the punishment of extermination by sword and famine in Egypt; this he doc^ for the purpose of giving the greatest possible emphasis to his warning against persevering in idolatry. For substance, this announcement is.similar to that of vers. 11-14, but the expression is stronger. Even in the summary account of their offences, ver. 25, the words arc so chosen and arranged as to brine out clearly the determination of the people to persevere in worshipping the queen of heaven. " As for you and your wives, ye have spoken with your mouth and fulfilled it with your hand" (on the Vav consec. attached to nninn, cf. Ewald, § 3 14, b), i.e. ye have uttered vows and then carried them out; for ye say, We must keep the vows that we have vowed. It is to be observed that the verbs rmznn, and in the concluding portion n30*pn and ruHWR, are feminine, since the address chiefly applies to the wives, who clung most tenaciously to idolatry. In the clause 'W nJ9sP? ^PJ}, u ye will make your vows and perform them," there is unmistakeable irony, in which the reference is to the wilfulness of the people in this idolatry. This iOeXodprjaKeia is shown by the inf. abs. B*pn, which strengthens njp^pn. " To establish vows," i.e. tc make them, was not a thing commanded, but left to one's free determination. Hence, also, no appeal to the maxim that vows which have been made or uttered must be fulfilled, can justify the making of the vows. The form rrjDspn for ruopfl is an unusual one; and the ' which the Hirik takes after it is occasioned by the form D^gH; cf. Ewald, § 196, c. — The announcement of the punishment is introduced by a solemn oath on the part of God. Jahveh swears by His great name, i.e. as the one who has shown Himself God by His mighty deeds — who has the power of keeping His word. The name is, of course, only a manifestation of His existence. EK as a particle used in swearing = certainly not. His name shall no more be named in the mouth of any Jew in the land of Egypt, i.e. be used in asseverations, because all the Jews in Egypt shall be exterminated. On the expression, "Behold, I will watch over them," etc., cf. xxxi. 28 and xxi. 10. In ver. 28, it is more exactly stated that only a few individuals shall escape the sword and return to Judah; thus, no one shall remain behind in Egypt By this judgment, all the remnant of Judah that went to Egypt Bhall find out whose word— Jahveh's or theirs — will endure, i.e. prove true. DUDI *3fcO properly depends on "W, "the word from me or from them" (the people). — Ver. 29. In confirmation of this threatening, the Lord gives them another Blgn which, when it is fulfill I, will let them know that the destruction announced to them shall certainly befall thorn. The token consists in the giving up of Kin" Ilophra into the hand of his enemies. As certainly this shall take place, so certainly shall the extermination of the Jews in Egypt ensue. The name JHWl is rendered Ovdtfrpi? in Manetho, in the classical writo. who, accord-

341 ft.). His death took place in the year.".to B.C. This da is reached by a comparison of the followinj: — ('amh\

10). Ibnee Amasis — who took A pries pri him up to the common people, who killed him (Herod, ii. 161-103, lf>9) — must have commenced his reign in the year 570. On the death of Apnea, or Hophra, cf. the explanation given on p. 154 f., where we have shown that the words, u I will give him into the hand of his enemii B, and of those who seek his life," when compared with what is said of Zedekiah, u into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy/1 do not require us to assume that Hophra was killed by Nebuchadnezzar, and can very well be harmonized with the notice of Ilerodoiu^ regarding the death of this khi£.

Hitzig and Graf have taken objection to this sign given by Jeremiah, and regard vers. 29, 30 as a spurious vaticinium ex eventu, the work of another hand. The reasons they urge are, that it is scarcely possible Jeremiah could have lived till 570; that ver. 29 f. would be the only place where Jeremiah offered inal, but, by their stiff and lifeless parallelism, aro 1 be an artificial conclusion. Of these three ai ments,the lastcan prove nothing, since it is merely a sul than against thegenuinen. I « if lt wm not Jeremiah's usual, elsewhere, to offer,,, then such an mt,lM nave been all the more carefully avoided" (N:n)« ()f* course we do not find any oth( of this ki,1(I in Jeremiah; but it does not follow from thfs that he could not i *: r Buch a thingin a special V t the ground token nP ]} N! bach, as sufficient to establish this p quite untenable, viz. that the announcement of the fate m store for the kin- must have been the answer of the true ( I to the presumptuous boast of Apries, mentioned by Herodotus, "t] ' c°uld not dethrone him, so firmly did he think named objection receives importance only on the supposition that -an event winch was intended to serve as nta, a si>n or criterion, must be something that was to happen immediately or within a brief appointed period of tin,,, so that a per might he able, from the occurrence of the one, to conclude that what had keen foretold aboul a later period would a. certainly take place' (Graf). But the,-, are no sufficient grounds for this hypothesis. If no definite time be fixed for the occurrence of this sign, then it may nut appear till a considerable time afterwards, and yet be a pledge for the occurrence of what was predicted for a still later period. That Jeremiah lived till the year 570 is certainly not inconceivable, but it is not likely that he uttered the prophecy now before us at the advanced age of nearly eighty years. Now, if his address is allowed to be a real prophecy, and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu, as Hitzi*, looking from his dogmatic standpoint, considers it, then it' must have been uttered before the year 570; but whether this was two, or five, or ten years before, makes no material difference, lne address itself contains nothing to justify the assumption of brat, that it is closely connected with the prophecy in xliii. 8-13, and with the warning against the migration into E<rypt chap xlii. That the Jews spoken of had not been long in Ecrypt cannot be inferred from vers. 8, 12, and 18; on the contrary, the fact that they had settled down in different parts of Ecrypt, and had assembled at Pathros for a festival, shows that they had been living there for a considerable time before. Nor does it follow, from the statement in ver. 14 that they loncred to return to Judah, that they had gone to Egypt some months before. The desire to return into the land of thenfathers remains, in a measure, in the heart of the Jew even at the present day. After all, then, no valid reason can be assigned for doubting the genuineness of these verses.

On the fulfilment of these threatening Nagelsbach remarks: " Every one must be struck on finding that, in chap, xliv., the extermination of the Jews who dwelt in Egypt is predict, while some centuries later, the Jews in Egypt were very numerous, and that country formed a central point for the Jewish exiles (cf. Herzog, Re d-Eneycl xvii. S. 285;. Alexander the Great found so many J< WS in Egypt, that he peopled with Jews, in great measure, the city he had founded and called after himself (cf. Herzog, i. S. 235). How did these Jews get to Egypt? Whence the great number of ■ whom Alexander found already in Egypt I I am inclined to think that we must consider them, for the most part, as the lants of those who had come into the country with Jeremiah. But, according to this view of the matter, Jeremiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled." Naux'lsbach therefore thinks we must assume that idolatrous worship, through time, almost entirely ceased among the exiled Jews in Egypt as it did among those in Babylon, and that the Lord then, in return, as regards the penitents, repented of the evil which lie had spoken against them (xxvi. 13, 19). But this whole explanation is fundamentally wrong, since the assertion, that Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt, that with them mainly he peopled the city of Alexandria which he had founded, is contrary to historic testimony. In Herzog {Real-Encycl i. S. 235), to which Nagelsbach refers for proof on the point, nothing of the kind is to be found, but rather the opposite, viz. the following: " Soon after the founda-

tion of Alexandria by Alexander the Great, this city became not merely the centre of Jewish Hellenism in Egypt, but generally

sking the place of union between Oriental and Occidental Jews. Che external condition of the Jews of Alexandria mu on the whole, be characterized as highly prosp< The first

Jewish settlers had, indeed, been compelled by Alexander the take up their residence in the city (Josephus, Antt. w. 3. 1 |; bo, too, were other Jews, by Ptolemy i. or Lagi (ibid.

. 2. 4). But both of those monarchs granted them the same

its and privileges as the Macedonians, including Greek citizenship; and in consequence of the extremely advanl position of the city, i lily increased in importance. A still

larger number, therefor* i went thither of their own accord,

and adopted the Greek language/' In this account, the quota-

i from Josi phus, Antt. xv. ">. 1; is certainly incorrect; for neither is there in that passage any testimony borne to the measures attributed to Alexander, nor are there any other historical testimonies given from antiquity. But as little can we find any proofs that Alexander the ii: iat found so many Jews in Egypt that he could, to a large extent, people with them the city he had founded. It is merely testified by Josephus [Antt, xi. 8. 5), and by Hecatseus in.Josephus (contra Ap. i. 22; p. 457, ed. Haverc), that Alexander had Jewish soldiers in his army; it is further evident, from a notice in Josephus, dc bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7, contra Ap. ii. 4 (cf. Curtius Kufus, iv. 8), that the newly founded city, even under Alexander, immediately after it was commenced, and still more under Ptolemy Lagi (cf. Josephus, Antt, xii. 1, and Hecata^us in Jos. contra Ap. i. 22, p. 455), attracted a constantly increasing multitude of Jewish immigrants. This same Ptolemy, after having subdued Phoenicia arid Ccele-Syria in the year 320, and taken Jerusalem also, it would seem, by a stratagem on a Sabbath day, transported many captives and hostages out of the whole country into Egypt; many, too, must have been sold at that time as slaves to the inhabitants of such a wealthy country as Egypt: see a statement in the book of Aristeas, at the end of Havercamp's edition of Josephus, ii. p. 104. In the same place, and in Josephus' Antt. xii. 1, Ptolemy is said to have armed 30,000 Jewish soldiers, placed them as garrisons in the fortresses, and granted them all the rights of Macedonian citizens (iaoiroXiTeia). Ewald well says, His tori/ of the People of Israel, vol. iv. of second edition, p. 251: « When we further take into consideration, that, in addition to all other similar disasters which had previously befallen them, many Jews were removed to Egypt (especially by Ochus, after Egypt had been reconquered), we can easily explain how Ptolemy Philadelphia can be said to have liberated 100,000 Egyptian Jews. ArisUas' Booh, p. 105." This much, at least, is proved by these various notices,— that, in order to understand how such a vast increase took place in the number of the Jews in Egypt, we do not need to regard them as the descendants of those who removed thither with Jeremiah, and so to question the fulfilment of the prophecy now before us. Jeremiah does not, of course, threaten with destruction all those Jews who live in Egypt, but only those who at that time went thither against the divine will, and there persevered in their idolatl We do not know how great may have been the number of these immigrants, but they could hardly exceed two thousand,— perhaps, indeed, there wore not so many. All these, as had been foretold them, may have perished in the conquest of Egypt by the Chaldeans and afterwards, through the sword, famine, and pestilence; for the myriads of Jews in Egypt at the time of Ptolemy Lag! could easily have removed thither during the period of 250 years intermediate between the immigration in Jeremiah's time and the foundation of Alexandria, partly as prisoners and slaves, partly through voluntary settlement.

Ver. 1. "The word which Jeremiah the prophet spake to Baruch the son of Neriah, when he wrote these words in a book at the mouth of Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saving, Ver. 2. Thus saith Jahveh, the God of Israel, to thee, O Baruch: Ver. 3. Thou saidst, Woe to me now! for Jahveh hath added sorrow to my pain: I am weary with sighing, and no rest do I find. Ver. 4. Thus shalt thou say unto him, Thus saith Jahveh: Behold, what I have built I will destroy, and what I have planted I will pluck up, and that is the whole earth. Ver. 5. And thou seekest great things for thyself; seek them not: for, behold. I will bring evil on all flesh, saith Jahveh; hut I will give thv life unto thee for booty in all places whither thoushalt go." From the superscription in 7er, 1, it appears that this word of God came to Baruch through Jeremiah the prophet, in the fourth year of the n Jehoiakim, when Baruch was writing out, or had written out, in a hook-roll the prophecies that had been uttered by Jeremiah up till that time. It is not necessarily implied in the infin. ^-j"1— that the word of! came during the transcription, while he was still engaged in writing: it may also mean, "when lie was ready with the writing," had got done with it; and Hitzig is wrong when he rejects as wk misleading" the view which Movers takes — "when he had written. " The writing down of the addresses of Jeremiah in the year mentioned is related in chap. wwi.; thus the substance of this chapter and that of chap, xxxvi. agree. "These words" can only be the addresses (words) of Jeremiah which Baruch was then writing down. From this, Hitzig, Graf, Nagelsbach, and others, infer that this small piece was the last in the copy of Jeremiah's prophecies originally prepared under Jehoiakim, — if not of the first one which was intended to be read in the temple, at least of the second copy which was made after the former one had been destroyed; and that it was only after the collection had been enlarged to the extent of the collection handed down to us, that this portion was affixed as an appendix to the end of the prophecies of Jeremiah which relate to his own country. But this inference is not a valid one. u These words " are the addresses of the prophet in general, which Baruch wrote down; and that only those which were uttered up to the fourth year of Jehoiakim are intended, is implied, not in the demonstrative " these," but in the date given afterwards, by which " these " is further specified. In ver. 1 it is merely stated that at that time the word of God, given below7, came to Jeremiah, and through him to Baruch, but not that Baruch wrote down this also on that occasion, and appended it to the roll of Jeremiah's prophecies which had been prepared at his dictation. It may have been written dowTn much later, possibly not till the whole of Jeremiah's prophecies were collected and arranged in Egypt. Moreover, the position occupied by this chapter in the collection showTs that this message of comfort to Baruch was added as an appendix to those predictions of Jeremiah which concern Judah

The occasion for this message of comfort addressed to the prophet's attendant is pointed out in ver. 3, in the words which Baruch had uttered: " Woe to me! for Jahveh adds sorrow to my pain/' Baruch felt " pain," i.e. pain of soul, at the moral corruption of the people, their impenitence and obduracy in sin and vice, just like the prophet himself, xv. 18. To this pain God adds sorrow, by threatening the judgment which shall fall on Judah for sin, and which was even then beginning to break over the land; cf. viii. 18 ff. Baruch sighs over this till he is wearied, and finds no rest; cf. Lam. v. 5. " I am weary with my sighing," is a reminiscence from Ps. vi. 7. This sorrow in addition to his pain was not caused in him for the first time by writing down the discourses of the prophet, but was rather thus freshened and increased. The answer of the Lord to this sighing is of a stern character, yet soothing for Baruch. The sentence of destruction has been determined on. What the Lord has built lie will now destroy: it is not said why, since the reason was sufficiently known from the prophet's utterances. As to the expression in ver. 4, cf. i. 10, xxxi. 28. The destruction regards the whole earth, TIKI *V H??"'5?, lit. a and as regards the whole earth, it is it," namely that I destroy. On the employment of riK in introducing the subject, cf. Dan. ix. 13, Hag. ii. 5, and Ewald,

§ 277 d. H!??"'5? does not mean " tne whole land," but u the whole earth: " this is indubitably evident from the parallel " upon all flesh," ver. 5, i.e. the whole of humanity, as in xxv. 31. The sentence is passed on all the earth, in accordance with the announcement made in chap. xxv. 15 ff. — Ver. 5. But when the judgment extends over the whole of humanity, an individual man cannot ask for anything great. u To seek for great things," i.e. to ask for things which in general or under certain circumstances are unattainable (cf. Ps. cxxxi. 1), is here used with reference to worldly prosperity. When the whole world is visited with judgment, an individual man must not make great demands, but be content with saving his life. This is promised to Baruch in ver. 5b, to alleviate his pain tnd sorrow. "To give life to any one for booty," moans to let him escape with his life; cf. nd 9, xxxviii. 2, xxxix. 18. In the words, uin all places whither thou shalt go," it is intimated that he will be. obliged to avoid destruction by flight but will thereby save his life.

Like Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, Jeremiah has uttered predictions concerning a number of heathen nations, and incorporated them with the collection of his prophecies regarding Judah and Israel. But while in Amos the utterances regarding six nations round about the kingdom of God, as representatives of the whole heathen world, merely pave the way for announcing judgment on Judah and Israel, and are given for the purpose of teaching the necessity for judgment on the whole world that is opposed to God, in order that the kingdom of God may be advanced; Isaiah, on the other hand, when the power of Assyria appeared against the kingdom of God, brought forward the thought, in a pretty long series of oracles a^aTnst the nations, chap, xiii.-xxiii., that all kingdoms and peoples, cities and men of the world that had apostatized from God, and still continued in apostasy, shall be humbled, and compelled by judgments inflicted on them to seek refuge with the God of Israel,— to submit to Him, and to offer their gifts for the establishment of His kingdom; and he concludes this announcement with an apocalyptic description of the judgment on the whole earth, and the consummation of the kingdom of God in glory, chap, xxiv.-xxvii. The object aimed at by Ezekiel and Jeremiah in their oracles against the heathen nations is more specific. Ezekiel, in view of the destruction of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, directs a series of oracles against seven nations; and in these addresses he predicts the destruction of the heathen world, and the fall of all heathen powers into bheol, in order that these may not exult over the fall of the people of God, but rather, in the judgment on Israel, recognise the omnipotence and justice of the Lord, the Judge of all the earth. And Jeremiah, in his addresses to the nations, chap.

xlvi -li merely brings out more fully the execution of that sentence which he had already proclaimed (chap, xxv.) to all the peoples and kingdoms of the earth, shortly before the appearance of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. The multitude of nations and tribes, far and near, to which, in xxv. 17-20, he gives the cup of the divine wrath out of Jahveh's hand, is in chap, xlvi.-li. reduced to nine nations; and these are named in such order, that here, as there (chap, xxv.), Egypt heads the list (chap xlvi) while Babylon closes it (chap. 1., li.). Of the rest of these' nations, those related to Israel, viz. Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites, have special prophecies addressed to them, chap, xlviii. and xlix. 1-22; but the others are more summarily addressed. Thus, in the oracle pronounced against the Philistines, the Phoenicians also (Tyre and Sidon) are threatened with extermination (chap, xlvii.): the many Arabian tribes severally named in chap. xxv. are comprehended under the general designations "Kedar" and "the kingdoms of Razor" (xlix. 28-33); while the kingdoms of the north are represented by Damascus (xlix. 2:', 27), mid the distant nations of the east (Media and Elam) by Elam, xlix. 34 39.

Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, and X gelsbach would account for several smaller 'nations being taken together in one prophecy, on the ground that the prophet wished to make out the significant number seven— just as Amos (i. 1-ii. ro) brings forward seven kingdoms before his address is directed to Israel, and as Ezekiel also has arranged his prophecies against the nations in accordance with the number seven. But though the number seven plainly appears in Amos and Ezekiel, such an assumption cannot be established in the case of Jeremiah. To make out this number, the oracles against Elam and Babylon are viewed as later additions, on the ground that both of them arc connected with the first years of the reign of Zedekiah. Bat the assertion that the first" seven belong to the fourth year of Jehoiakim cannot be proved. The second prophecy regarding Egypt (xlvi. 14-28), and that against the Philistines (chap, xlvii.), contain, in their headings, indications of the time of composition, which do not point to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. With this also accords the remark further brought to bear on the alleged composition of those seven prophecies in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, — that this follows, not merely from the general reement of their contents with chap, xlvi. as well as with chap. -\\v., but also from the fact thai " the same expressions which the prophet uses in chap. xxv. with reference to the judgment of all nations, are re-echoed in chap. xlvi. xlix. 33: e.g, cf. \xv. 31, 34, with xlvi. 10: xxv. 35 with xlvi. 5, 6; xxv. 29, 31, with xlvii. 6, 7; and particularly xxv. 28, 29, with xlix. 12 -pari on Obadiah, p. L6): cf. also xxv. 27 with xlviii. 26; xxv. 30 with xlviii. 33; xxv. 34 with xlix. 20; xxv. 38 with xlix. 19 and xlvi. 16." For, of all these pa. none belou