And the princes ofludah heard these things and came up from the house of
the king to the house ofYahweh. The princes were not present to hear what Jere-
miah said and therefore had to be summoned (Calvin). What they heard now
was either a report from the messengers who came to get them, or the com-
motion firsthand from the Temple area nearby. The LXX translates ton logon
touton ("this word"), evidently assuming that the princes heard Jeremiah's
preaching. But Heb haddebarim ha'elleh should be translated "these things."
The princes "came up" (ya<a[u) from the palace because the Temple stood on
higher ground (see Note on 22:1).
the princes of Judah. I.e., the king's men, who were male members of the
royal family as well as nonroyal officials (see Note for 24: 1 ).
to the house of Yahweh. The Heb omits "to" by ellipsis; see v 2 and Note
on 24: 1.
and they sat at the entrance of the New Gate of the house of Yahweh. Justice
in ancient times was carried out at the city gate (Kohler l 956a: 149-75), so
court has here been called into session. The location of the New Gate, men-
tioned also in 36: 10 as an upper Temple gate, is not known for certain. Accord-
ing to T this was an eastern Temple gate, the view that carried over into later
Jewish tradition (Rashi; Morgenstern 1929: 22-23). Kiml;i identified it with
the Upper Gate built by Jotham between the Temple and the palace (2 Kgs
15:35), which, because it was built long after the erection of the Temple, was
called the "New Gate." In a reconstruction by Kurt Galling ( 1931), Jotham's
Upper Gate is identified with the Upper Benjamin Gate, where Pashhur im-
prisoned Jeremiah (Jer 20:2), a gate that lay on the north side of the Temple.
The New Gate lay to the south of the Temple, connecting the Temple area to
the palace area. In Calling's drawing the New Gate could also be viewed as an
eastern gate, since it lay south of the Temple but east of the palace. This latter
possibility could clear up the confusion regarding the two Temple gates of
Ezek 40:44, where MT has a north and east gate, and LXX has a north and
south gate. It would also support Jewish tradition in making the New Gate an
eastern gate. Calling's view, which is accepted by Rudolph, confirms earlier
doubts that Giesebrecht had about identifying the Upper Benjamin Gate with
the New Gate.
the New Gate of the house of Yahweh. The MT lacks bet ("house"), which
should be added here, with many Heb MSS, two Gk MSS (GQ and Gmin), ArB,
S, T, and Vg. This brings the reading into line with 36: 10. Ziegler includes
oikou ("of the house") in his LXX text; Rahlfs does not.
And the priests and the prophets said to the princes and to all the people:
'A sentence of death for this man!' The priests and prophets come forward as
plaintiffs in the trial, with the people now joining the princes in hearing the
case. Fishbane (1985: 246) has the priests, Levites, and princes acting as plain-
tiffs, which is not what the text says. The princes are never plaintiffs in this trial.
And where do the prophets (LXX: pseudoprophetai) come in? The priests and
prophets accuse Jeremiah of prophesying destruction of the city, which may re-
flect the unmitigated judgment of the Shiloh Oracle in 7:12-14 (only there
