Jeremiah 11:22

11:22 So the Lord who rules over all ¹  said, “I will surely ²  punish them! Their young men will be killed in battle. ³  Their sons and daughters will die of starvation.

Jeremiah 15:8

15:8 Their widows will become in my sight more numerous ⁴ 

than the grains of sand on the seashores.

At noontime I will bring a destroyer

against the mothers of their young men. ⁵ 

I will cause anguish ⁶  and terror

to fall suddenly upon them. ⁷ 

Jeremiah 31:13

31:13 The Lord says, ⁸  “At that time young women will dance and be glad.

Young men and old men will rejoice. ⁹ 

I will turn their grief into gladness.

I will give them comfort and joy in place of their sorrow.

Jeremiah 48:15

48:15 Moab will be destroyed. Its towns will be invaded.

Its finest young men will be slaughtered. ¹⁰ 

I, the King, the Lord who rules over all, ¹¹  affirm it! ¹² 

Jeremiah 49:26

49:26 For her young men will fall in her city squares.

All her soldiers will be destroyed at that time,”

says the Lord who rules over all. ¹³ 

Jeremiah 51:3

51:3 Do not give her archers time to string their bows

or to put on their coats of armor. ¹⁴ 

Do not spare any of her young men.

Completely destroy ¹⁵  her whole army.

[11:22]  ¹ tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”

[11:22]  ² tn Heb “Behold I will.” For the function of this particle see the translator’s note on 1:6.

[11:22]  ³ tn Heb “will die by the sword.” Here “sword” stands contextually for “battle” while “starvation” stands for death by starvation during siege.

[15:8]  ⁴ tn Heb “to me.” BDB 513 s.v. ל 5.a(d) compares the usage of the preposition “to” here to that in Jonah 3:3, “Nineveh was a very great city to God [in God’s estimation].” The NEB/REB interpret as though it were the agent after a passive verb, “I have made widows more numerous.” Most English versions ignore it. The present translation follows BDB though the emphasis on God’s agency has been strong in the passage.

[15:8]  ⁵ tn The translation of this line is a little uncertain because of the double prepositional phrase which is not represented in this translation or most of the others. The Hebrew text reads: “I will bring in to them, against mother of young men, a destroyer at noon time.” Many commentaries delete the phrase with the Greek text. If the preposition read “against” like the following one this would be a case of apposition of nearer definition. There is some evidence of that in the Targum and the Syriac according to BHS. Both nouns “mothers” and “young men” are translated as plural here though they are singular; they are treated by most as collectives. It would be tempting to translate these two lines “In broad daylight I have brought destroyers against the mothers of her fallen young men.” But this may be too interpretive. In the light of 6:4, noontime was a good time to attack. NJPS has “I will bring against them – young men and mothers together – ….” In this case “mother” and “young men” would be a case of asyndetic coordination.

[15:8]  ⁶ tn This word is used only here and in Hos 11:9. It is related to the root meaning “to rouse” (so BDB 735 s.v. I עִיר). Here it refers to the excitement or agitation caused by terror. In Hos 11:9 it refers to the excitement or arousal of anger.

[15:8]  ⁷ tn The “them” in the Hebrew text is feminine referring to the mothers.

[31:13]  ⁷ tn Heb “Oracle of the Lord.” This phrase has been brought up to the beginning of v. 13 from the end of v. 14 to introduce the transition from third person description by Jeremiah to first person address by the Lord.

[31:13]  ⁸ tc The translation follows the reading of the LXX (Greek version). The Hebrew reads “will dance and be glad, young men and old men together.” The Greek version presupposes a Qal imperfect of a rare verb (יַחְדּוּ [yakhdu] from the verb חָדָה [khadah]; see BDB 292 s.v. II חָדָה Qal) as opposed to the Hebrew text which reads a common adverb יַחְדָּו (yakhdav). The consonantal text is the same but the vocalization is different. There are no other examples of the syntax of the adverb used this way (i.e., of a compound subject added to a third subject) and the vocalization of the Hebrew text can be explained on the basis of a scribe misvocalizing the text based on his greater familiarity with the adverb.

[48:15]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “will go down to the slaughter.”

[48:15]  ¹¹ tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.” For an explanation of the translation and meaning of this title see the study note on 2:19.

[48:15]  ¹² tn Heb “Oracle of the King whose name is Yahweh of armies.” The first person form has again been adopted because the Lord is the speaker throughout this oracle/ these oracles (cf. v. 1).

[49:26]  ¹³ tn Heb “Oracle of Yahweh of armies.” For this title for God see the study note on 2:19.

[51:3]  ¹⁶ tc The text and consequent meaning of these first two lines are uncertain. Literally the Masoretic reads “against let him string let him string the one who strings his bow and against let him raise himself up in his coat of armor.” This makes absolutely no sense and the ancient versions and Hebrew mss did not agree in reading this same text. Many Hebrew mss and all the versions as well as the Masoretes themselves (the text is left unpointed with a marginal note not to read it) delete the second “let him string.” The LXX (or Greek version) left out the words “against” at the beginning of the first two lines. It reads “Let the archer bend his bow and let the one who has armor put it on.” The Lucianic recension of the LXX and some Targum mss supplied the missing object “it” and thus read “Let the archer ready his bow against it and let him array himself against it in his coat of mail.” This makes good sense but does not answer the question of why the Hebrew text left off the suffix on the preposition twice in a row. Many Hebrew mss and the Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate (the Latin version) change the pointing of “against” (אֶל [’el]) to “not” (אַל [’al]) and thus read “Let the archer not string the bow and let him not array himself in his armor.” However, many commentators feel that this does not fit the context because it would apparently be addressed to the Babylonians, not the enemy, which would create a sudden shift in addressee with the second half of the verse. However, if it is understood in the sense taken here it refers to the enemy not allowing the Babylonian archers to get ready for the battle, i.e., a surprise attack. This sense is suggested as an alternative in J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB), 346, n. u-u, and J. A. Thompson, Jeremiah (NICOT), 747, n. 5, and is the interpretation adopted in TEV and probably also in NIrV.

[51:3]  ¹⁷ sn For the concept underlying this word see the study note on “utterly destroy” in Jer 25:9 and compare the usage in 50:21, 26.