Letters to the Exiles (29:1-32) 345here. The ML, MP, and one MS in the Cambridge Genizah Collection (NS
58.37) have a setumah after v 15, which is a problematic verse and may be out
of place. The MP (only) has a setumah after v 17, the purpose of which is un-
clear. The MP has a petubah after v 19, marking the conclusion of Oracle VI.
The ML has a setumah and the MP a petubah after v 20, which separates the
introductory word of v 20 from the oracle following.
As with other chapters in the Zedekiah Cluster, particularly chap. 27, a great
deal of discussion has centered on the shorter LXX text and the original form of
the chapter as a whole. The main omission in the LXX is vv 16-20, which
many scholars delete, even though some (Cornill; Rudolph; Hyatt) have con-ceded that the loss might be due to haplography (homoeoarcton: k ... k or
whole word plus: m bblh ... m bblh). Janzen (l 973: 118) prefers the haplogra-
phy explantion, and so also does Holladay in his complicated reconstruction.
GL contains vv 16-20, but places v 15 after v 20. The main reason given for de-
leting vv 16-20 is that a judgment on Jerusalem is said to be of no relevance to
the Babylonian community (Peake; Welch 192 la: 362; Carroll). But Peake
adds: "It is difficult to see why a post-exilic editor should have inserted the pas-
sage, the distinction between the Jews in exile with Jehoiachin and those in
Jerusalem with Zedekiah having lost all significance with the destruction of
the Jewish State." It was surely of more than just passing interest to the Baby-
lonian exiles what would happen in Jerusalem, since the future of one com-
munity was tied up inseparably with the other. The two communities were
contrasted as good and bad figs in chap. 24. Furthermore, if Jeremiah could
speak about Babylon in chap. 27 to a Jerusalem audience, why could he not
speak about Jerusalem in chap. 29 to an audience in Babylon? The prophet
Ezekiel, who was living in Babylon, had a lot more to say about Jerusalem than
about what was going on in Babylon. Calvin says that Jeremiah's letter here has
a twofold aim: l) to comfort the exiles and 2) to break down the obstinacy of his
own nation.
Another objection to the inclusion of vv 16-20 in the letter is that it raises
the question of how Jeremiah could speak ill of a reigning kfog in a letter car-
ried by royal messengers (Volz). One could always say that the king had no
knowledge of the letter being sent, but surely he would learn about it at some
point. More likely Zedekiah was powerless to intervene if he did know, particu-
larly if he was newly enthroned. How could Zedekiah countenance the oracle
on the bad figs (24:8-10) coming from Jeremiah or later oracles during a de-
cade of rule that demeaned him and the people of Jerusalem (21:4-6, 7; 37:7,
9-10, 17; 38:2, 3, 17-18)? Verses 16-20 belong to this letter and must be re-
tained. Their loss in the LXX is simply one of fifteen arguable cases of haplog-
raphy in the chapter.
Most commentators (Giesebrecht; Duhm; Peake; Cornill; Volz; Rudolph;
Weiser; Hyatt; Bright) assign the prose here to Baruch or Source B, although
with the qualification that it has probably undergone a later editing. Peake is
impressed with the detailed references to persons and events. Mowinckel
(1914: 24) assigned vv 24-32 to Source B, but not vv l-23, which he said were