308 TRANSLATION, NOTES, AND COMMENTSpresent in Aq (with "Jehoiakim"). Some commentators, because of the LXX
omission, judge v 1 to be secondary (Rudolph; Carroll; Jones; McKane) or de-
lete (Giesebrecht; Duhm; Bright). Without v 1 the chapter begins, "Thus
Yahweh said to me," which is how chap. 13, reporting the loincloth incident,
begins (13:1). It is now generally agreed, in any case, that the superscription
is in error and that the directive to Jeremiah belongs to Zedekiah's reign,
most likely the king's fourth year (28:1). The usual explanation for the error
is that a scribe carried the superscription of 26: 1 over into 27: 1 (Blayney; J. D.
Michaelis 1793: 221; Hitzig; Giesebrecht; Cheyne; Duhm; and others), which
is the same except that 26: l lacks "to Jeremiah." A harmonizing attempt has
been made with 28: 1, which has a retrospective "in that year," and while 28: l
has its own problems, it is apparent that chaps. 27 and 28 belong together. It
should also be noted that a "Zedekiah" reading in 27: 1 has the support of a few
Heb MSS, S, and the ArB.
In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah. Hebrew bere>sft mamleket does not
appear to mean "in the accession year" in the book of Jeremiah (see Note for
26: 1 ), where the accession year would be the period between the king's acces-
sion to the throne and the start of the New Year (2 Kgs 25:27). In 28: 1, "in the
beginning of the reign" is further designated as Zedekiah's fourth year, i.e.,
594-593 B.C., also the date for the events here (Hyatt; Bright; Malamat 1975:
135-38; Holladay; McKane). The one problem with this reconstruction is that
the conference is convened after a revolt in Babylon is already over. This re-
volt, which was quickly suppressed, is reported in the Babylonian Chronicle as
having occurred in 595-594 B.C. (Wiseman 1956: 72-73; D. N. Freedman
1956: 58; Tadmor 1965: 230). Sarna (1978) therefore argues that the confer-
ence and Jeremiah's meeting with Hananiah should be placed two years be-
fore the revolt (cf. 28:3), which would enable the Jerusalem planning to
anticipate events in Babylon and would coordinate Babylon's unrest at home
with a simultaneous unrest in the western provinces. Sarna can also take
bere>Sft mamleket as Zedekiah's "accession year," which he puts after 2 Adar
(February/March) 597 B.C. This chronology has been adopted by Hayes and
Hooker (1988: 95-96). But the "fourth year (of Zedekiah)" in 28:1 must then
be disregarded or reinterpreted. Sarna and Hayes-Hooker take it as the fourth
year in a sabbatical cycle, which makes the reference cryptic. Another diffi-
culty with Sarna's 597 date is that planning a revolt so soon after Nebuchad-
nezzar's subjugation of Jerusalem is unlikely (Hyatt; Cogan and Tadmor 1988:
322 n. 6). A date of 594-593 makes more sense, allowing sufficient time for a
pro-Egyptian faction in Jerusalem to gain the upper hand. Pharaoh Neco died
in 594 B.C., and a rebellion could have had the support of his son, Psammeti-
chos II, who was now on the throne. But since Egypt is not represented at the
conference and is not mentioned anywhere as promising aid for the action
under consideration, this point should not be pressed. Also to be factored in is
the reported embassy by Zedekiah and Seraiah (or Seraiah without the king) to
Babylon in 594-593 B.C., presumably to reffirm Judah's loyalty to Nebuchad-
nezzar after the unrest at home and abroad (see Note for 51:59). But this em-