Jeremiah commentary?

[Ιακοβ]

I have quite a large bunch of commentaries, and I was turning to them to find out what it might mean that verse 30:20 is plain missing from the LXX. 

 

Does this just mean my commentaries are not that good? (I do have NAC, NIVAC), or perhaps I shouldn't be turning to commentaries but something else?

 

Thanks!

 

NB: I often find myself wondering various other things related to why the LXX doesn't line up with a certain passage, which I am also quite interested in, but I am mainly interested in Jeremiah 30 at the moment.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Ιακοβ

[ukfraser]

Word lists the differences in its notes section of what is omitted, but i am not convinced we will ever know or understand why the translators for lxx would omit something. i dare say some would speculate...

 

;o)

 

Ps my feelings are because they didnt use accordance!

Edited August 25, 2015 by ukfraser

[Daniel Francis]

Not locating a lot on that NIC_OT has:

 

(NIC_OT) 22 This conventional covenantal formula, lacking in LXX, is not out of place here. It sums up the goal of all the promises of restoration that Israel would at last be bound to Yahweh in the way that he had always intended she should be. Her true calling was to be God’s holy, elect people (Exod. 19:5, 6). The covenant correlate “Your God—my people” is referred to a number of times in the OT (Lev. 26:12; Deut. 7:26; Jer. 7:23; 11:4; Ezek. 36:28; etc.). It would be surprising if Jeremiah did not use the formula sometimes (cf. 31:33). He may, indeed, have used it much more than the book indicates.

 

anchor has:

 

22. And you will be a people to me, and I, I will be God to you. The LXX omission of this covenant formula might be explained as another abridgment to eliminate a repetition, since the formula occurs again in 31:1. Many commentators delete, citing also the comment of Volz that the changed address (second person plural) identifies the formula as an addition. The formula does not belong to the oracle; nevertheless, it connects to the oracle and fills out a rhetorical structure for the poetic core (see Rhetoric and Composition for 30:4–7). Since hinnēh (“Look”) beginning v 23 is also lacking in LXX, the larger omission is likely attributable to haplography (homoeoteleuton: h … h). The formula is present in 4QJerc, Symm, Theod, T, and Vg, and hinnēh is translated by Aq, Symm, T, and Vg. The covenant formula undergirds Yahweh’s promise of future restoration, a function it also has in 31:1. As was noted above, ANE treaties promise a restoration of national life, expansion, and indigenous rulers if the treaty is kept. A similar logic mutatis mutandis can be assumed to operate here. With the covenant between Yahweh and his people intact, a restoration of cities and buildings, indigenous rule, and a return to joyful community life will all occur. On the covenant formula in Jeremiah and elsewhere, see Note for 7:23.

[Ιακοβ]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback.

[Λύχνις Δαν]

 

NB: I often find myself wondering various other things related to why the LXX doesn't line up with a certain passage, which I am also quite interested in, but I am mainly interested in Jeremiah 30 at the moment.

 

On this last point. The Old Greek (LXX) text is versified a little differently, sometimes very differently from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. I have not researched the origins of this but the Psalms and Jeremiah in particular vary considerably. Here is a page on CCEL which shows the situation in Jeremiah : https://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Jeremiah/appendix.html.

 

Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, makes the interesting comment that "... the Greek text of Jeremiah is one-sixth shorter than the Masoretic text, ie. about 2,700 words of the textus receptus are missing from the Greek version. In addition the sequence of the chapters and verses is often different in the Hebrew from the Greek version." He goes on to speak a little about the Qumran versions to which the LXX appears to be considerably closer.

 

Thx

D