Tag Archives: Jeremiah

Have You Been Reading the Wrong Version of Jeremiah?

Leave a reply

Here’s a mind-bending thought about Jeremiah from Michael B. Shepherd: What if the Masoretic Text version of Jeremiah is not in agreement with the canon’s own interpretation of Jeremiah as represented by Ezekiel and Daniel?

Greek, Hebrew and Divine Inspiration

In his new commentary, where he backtranslates from the Greek Septuagint text of Jeremiah to Hebrew, he struggles with the problem of divine inspiration. He says,

“A biblical doctrine of inspiration, not to mention the exigencies of making a translation and commentary, requires a careful text-critical decision about which edition of Jeremiah is God-breathed and superintended by the Spirit” (p. 18).

The version of Jeremiah in our modern Bibles is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It’s the gold standard for the Old Testament in general. However, we have always had an alternate Greek version of Jeremiah that comes in a different order, has certain “pluses” and “minuses” versus the Hebrew text and generally reads differently. The Greek text is about one seventh shorter than the Hebrew text, according to computerized analyses.

Hebraica Veritas

Now normally, you’d be thinking: “Why does this matter? The ancient Israelites spoke Hebrew, not Greek, so the Hebrew text must be better.” Often this is the case and goes with St. Jerome’s dictum, Hebraica veritas. But in this case, things get really dicey. While the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a small handful of fragmentary Jeremiah manuscripts, two fragments are of great interest here: 4QJerb (9:22–10:18) and 4QJerd (43:3–9). These two fragments, dated to about 200 BC, agree with the Septuagint version against the Hebrew Masoretic text!

Two Significant Changes in Jeremiah’s Message

Again, normally you’d think: “Ah, no big deal. It’s probably just minor spelling variations and a few pronouns.” But again, not correct. If these two fragments are definitive, they show that the “proto-Masoretic” Hebrew Vorlage of Septuagint Jeremiah is more ancient than the Hebrew. And remember that the earlier edition of Jeremiah is substantially shorter—one seventh shorter than MT Jeremiah. Beyond that, Shepherd argues, that the “theological message” of the book changes dramatically from the original version to the MT version in two ways:

  1. He says, “In the first edition, the mysterious enemy from the north (Jer. 1:13–15; LXX 25:1–13; et al.) is never identified with a historical enemy. This leaves open the possibility of an eschatological enemy, which is the way Ezekiel reads the prophecy (Ezek. 38:14–17; cf. LXX Num 24:7; Rev 20:8). In the section edition [MT], the enemy from the north is identified with Babylon (e.g. MT Jer. 25:1–13).” (pp. 16-17)
  2. The second difference is more subtle—that the first edition of Jeremiah leaves the interpretation of the prophecy of the seventy years (25:11; 29:10) open-ended, so that it could be about a literal historical fulfillment (as Daniel 9:1–19 understands it) or “symbolic of a complete indefinite period (cf. Gen 4:24; Matt. 18:22)” as in Daniel 9:24–27 (p. 17). But the second edition of Jeremiah 25:11, presented in the MT, “limits the prophecy to a historical fulfillment” because it identifies the enemy as Babylon.

What Shepherd is arguing is profound, though the details are subtle. He is saying that the earlier edition of Jeremiah, the proto-Masoretic Hebrew represented by the Septuagint Greek translation, is the “earlier, shorter edition…the open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Ezekiel and Daniel” (p. 17). He is saying that the books of Ezekiel and Daniel show familiarity with the first edition of Jeremiah and interpret it in an eschatological way that is closed off by the Masoretic second edition. If he is right about this, then this is a marvelous example of Scripture interpreting Scripture to correct the tradition. We’ve been reading the wrong version of Jeremiah for centuries!

Comparing MT and LXX Passages in Jeremiah

You can see the difference he’s talking about pretty clearly in Jeremiah 25:9

MT

LXX
…behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the Lord, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9 ESV-CE) …behold, I am sending for and I will take a paternal family from the north, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all nations around it, and I will utterly devastate them and render them into an annihilation and into a hissing and into an everlasting disgrace. (Jer 25:9 NETS (Primary Texts))

The prophecy of the seventy years is likewise quite distinct:

MT

LXX
This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. (Jer 25:11 ESV-CE) And the whole land shall become an annihilation, and they shall be slaves amongst the nations seventy years. (Jer 25:11 NETS (Primary Texts))

Why Write a Commentary on a Text that Does Not Exist?

It’s easy to see why Shepherd felt compelled to write such a seemingly strange commentary—backtranslating the Greek to the Hebrew, then commenting on this theoretical text that does not exist in any manuscript. Why would he do it? He’s recovering the text of Jeremiah that we should be reading, the text that corresponds with the most ancient fragments of the book that we have discovered, the text that is closest to the life of the prophet himself, the text that other biblical prophets were reading and interpreting, the text that stands behind the Greek version that we do have.

Do I think that we’ll see new Bible translations coming out that work from Shepherd’s backtranslation to present the text of Jeremiah? No, the MT is firmly entrenched as the standard biblical text for the Hebrew Bible, but text criticism sure does uncover some thorny problems that take a lot of work to sort out! Shepherd demonstrates the importance of this kind of work, the perennial value of the Septuagint witness and how careful textual study can lead to amazing results.

A Tale of Two Lies

Leave a reply

Catholic theology has long grappled with the question of lying on the basis of a certain Scripture passage. In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh confronts two Hebrew midwives about why the Hebrew baby boys are still surviving even though he’s commanded that the midwives murder them as they are born (an ancient form of partial-birth abortion). The midwives dissimulate, explaining:

the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” (Exod 1:19 ESV-CE)

The Lord blesses the midwives for their fidelity (v. 20). This lie, or at least near-lie, that the midwives tell becomes a focal point for discussion on the prohibition of lying in the theological tradition. Of course, the Ten Commandments say, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exod 20:16). Later on, the Book of Sirach will make the absolute prohibition on lying even more explicit: “Refuse to utter any lie” (Sir 7:13 ESV-CE).

Fr. Thomas Joseph White, in his Brazos commentary on Exodus states the problem: “Did the midwives lie to the Pharaoh, and if so, is it morally licit to lie in order to save innocent human life?” This ethical problem has been fodder for many a caffeine-fueled, heated theological debate, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Fr. White relies on Augustine and Aquinas, adopting the view of an “exceptionless prohibition on lying,” but other ethicists, notably Janet Smith, take a different view.

 

Yet Another Lie

As a Catholic Bible Student, I find it interesting that the discussion centers on the lie of the Hebrew midwives (though Augustine also brings up Rahab’s lie [Josh 2:3-5]). Another example stands out to me as worthy of theological debate–that is the lie of Jeremiah the prophet. Jeremiah is told by the corrupt King Zedekiah to keep his mouth shut. The king wanted to know the real prophecy from the Lord about the fate of Jerusalem, but Jeremiah, fearing for his life, did not want to give bad news to the king so Zedekiah had to coax it out of him by promising him, “I will not put you to death” (Jer 38:16). Jeremiah then gives him the bad news of the coming destruction of the city.

Afterwards, Zedekiah threatens Jeremiah’s life, essentially telling him that if he spills the beans on this private conversation, he’ll be a dead man (Jer 38:24). Zedekiah even gives Jeremiah a line to use with the men who would be curious about his conversation with the king (v. 26). The line goes back to a previous conversation where Jeremiah had pleaded with the king to go home (37:20).

Sure enough, the expected thugs grab Jeremiah by the collar and threaten to kill him if he doesn’t tell them everything from his conversation with the king. Jeremiah dissimulates, offering them the fake line that Zedekiah had given him: “he answered as the king had instructed him.” In short, Jeremiah lies. The lie is not quite as “clean” as the midwives since it’s more of a half-truth. And we’re not told whether God approved of Jeremiah’s lie. However, it is another clear case where a biblical hero tells a lie without negative consequences. He seems to “get away” with the telling of a lie.

While Jeremiah 38:27 is not the focal point of the debate about lying, I did find that the Navarre Bible finds it worthy of an ethical comment:

The prophet’s response does not mean that he is deceiving them (they had no right to be party to Jeremiah’s conversation with the king) or that he fears them; we know that his courage was never in question. (Major Prophets, The Navarre Bible, 459.)

This is one way of skinning the cat. It lines up with the first edition of the Catechism, which insisted that “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has a right to know the truth” (CCC 2483; 1st edition). The definitive Second Edition removes the line about having a “right.”

The Anchor Bible commentary pooh-poohs such ethical discussion: “The oft-discussed point whether Jeremiah is guilty here of telling an untruth is a bit sterile” (Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, vol. 21C, Anchor Yale Bible, 78). The ICC also tells us that “Some commentators (especially Duhm; also Cornill and Volz) have wrestled like moral philosophers with Jeremiah’s lie” (McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, ICC [1986], 967). Maybe one of these days I’ll rustle up those older commentaries and put some of their moral philosophizing on display. I suppose it’s encouraging that at least someone has thought about whether Jeremiah was lying and if so what that means for us!

So there you have it, a Tale of Two Lies–the midwives and Jeremiah take center stage with Rahab playing a supporting role. Catholic ethicists have fought with each other over these questions and it’s nice to be able to point to another biblical example for analysis, dissection and debate.

Translating Jeremiah 1:17

2 Replies

In the Old Testament reading for Mass yesterday for the feast of the Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist, the Lectionary (NAB) translates Jeremiah 1:17 as follows:

But do you gird your loins; stand up and tell them all that I command you. Be not crushed on their account, as though I would leave you crushed before them; 

But if you take a look at most other Bible translations, you’ll see something different. Here I’ll use the ESV as an example:

But you, dress yourself for work; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them.

The second line in the NAB sounds kind of nice–that God is encouraging Jeremiah positively and assuring him of his divine benevolence: “I wouldn’t leave you crushed! So don’t be discouraged.” is the message. However, the ESV (along with most other translations) reads the opposite. Here God is saying to the prophet: “Don’t let them discourage you! If you do, then I’ll personally discourage you.” It reads more as a stick than a carrot. God is basically threatening the prophet to do his duty courageously or there will be consequences. So…this brings us to the revised NAB or the NABRE, which was put out in 2011. It reads:

But you, prepare yourself; stand up and tell them all that I command you. Do not be terrified on account of them, or I will terrify you before them;

Here the NABRE reverts to a traditional translation and even emphasizes the severity of the threatened divine action: “I will terrify you.” This is a dramatic turnaround from the previous NAB translation which softened the message. Here the NABRE translators get it right. The message is that God doesn’t want his prophet to be spooked by the powerful people who will oppose his divine message and that if he cowers down and lets them intimidate him into silence, then God himself will step in and “terrify” the prophet in front of his opponents. It’s a kind of encouragement, a tough kind that we don’t like to give or receive, but a kind that is sometimes necessary to get us headed in the right direction.

A Context for Jeremiah 29:11

8 Replies

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future full of hope.” (Jer 29:11 ESV)

Many times, especially in the spring, when we encounter graduation cards and happy wishes for newly married couples, we find this verse. It is one of my favorite scripture passages and it is very comforting in times of transition and doubt. Yet it is almost always quoted without a context. Now, I don’t think that passages need to be always and every time read in context. But I do think that they should be understood in their contexts first and then applied outside of that context. They should initially be encountered where they stand in the text of the Bible. Only secondarily can they be made useful as moral teachings, personal messages or comforting words in times of difficulty. If we don’t take the initial step of trying to understand them in context then we easily get lost in the shuffle.

The context of Jeremiah 29:11 is very unique. The verse is in the midst of a prophetic letter which Jeremiah sent from Israel to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. It is a first person prophecy wherein Jeremiah speaks on behalf of the LORD. The LORD is telling the exiles to build houses and have children and pray. They are to be faithful to him in exile and then he promises to bring them back to Israel. The verse comes in the midst of his promise to bring them back to the Holy Land, where they will seek and find him and pray to him and call upon him. He will gather them back into the land.

If we understand the verse with its context, the application is a little bit different. It is not about future plans for something completely new, but future plans for the restoration of something lost. It is about bringing the people back to the the Land. God promises his faithfulness to his people who seek him “with all their hearts” (29:13). It is about God restoring his relationship with his people and them coming back to him in faithful love. It not only calls for trust, but for prayer, love and worship. God not only promises to love his people and be faithful to them, but he asks them to be faithful to him, to love him to draw near to him. God does have plans for us–plans to restore and heal and prosper our relationships with him, to bring us back from a land of sin and evil to a land of his bountiful goodness, his blessing, his life. Jeremiah 29:11 is not just about assuaging our anxieties about the future, but about the growth and restoration of our own relationships with God.