Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on Jeremiah 11:18-23
Brief Biography of Joseph Knabenbauer, S.J.
Joseph Knabenbauer (1837 – 1913) was a German Jesuit priest and prominent biblical scholar of the late 19th century . Born in Luxembourg, he entered the Society of Jesus and pursued advanced studies in theology and Semitic languages. He served as Professor of Exegesis at the University of Innsbruck, where he became known for his rigorous critical method combined with orthodox Catholic theology .
Knabenbauer is best known for his contributions to the Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Course on Holy Scripture), a major Catholic commentary series published in Paris by Lethielleux under the general editorship of F. Vigouroux . He authored the volumes on the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) between 1887 and 1897. His work is characterized by a careful engagement with the Hebrew text, awareness of contemporary critical scholarship (including Protestant scholars like Hitzig and Keil), and a balanced approach to literal and typological interpretation . He died in 1913, leaving a legacy as one of the leading Catholic exegetes of his generation.
On the Malice of the Men of Anathoth (Jeremiah 11:18-23)
Jer 11:18 and its Context
How great the obstinacy was among the people is evident from the plots which his fellow citizens devised against the prophet, so that they might remove the troublesome monitor from their midst. Hence, an example illustrates what he had said in verse 10: that the moral amendment undertaken under Josiah had soon perished. In the murder which they plot against the prophet, the promoter of that reformation is openly demonstrated. Moreover, the prophet was divinely instructed concerning his own danger; therefore, he says with a grateful heart (v. 18): "But you, O Lord, have shown me, and I knew; then you showed me their plots."
"Plots" (studia): i.e., crimes and machinations by which they secretly and treacherously attempted his death.
Jer 11:19: The Gentle Lamb
"And I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the sacrifice."
Even today, Arabs are accustomed to keep tame lambs at home; flattering their masters, they follow them, take food from their hands, and are nurtured like children in the family. Nathan had this custom in view (2 Kings [2 Samuel] 12:3). Calmet [notes]: Like such a lamb, suspecting no evil, simple, affable and friendly to all, he moved among his fellow citizens who had now conspired among themselves for his death. Just as a lamb does not know it is being led to slaughter but follows the one enticing it gently, so the prophet says he was ignorant of those counsels which they were agitating among themselves.
Textual Criticism: "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit"
However, these words [in the Hebrew], according to the Hebrew text which we find correctly explained by Malvenda, Sanctius, Lapide, and which most recent scholars accept in the same way (Loch, Scholz, Schnurrer, Trochon, Umbreit, Naegelsbach, Keil, Orelli), are: "Such things we will destroy: the tree with its fruit, and we will cut him off from the land of the living."
The first part seems to be proverbial, nor was it said without an allusion to verse 16. For these counsels of the Jews correspond to that commination by which the prophet had said a short while before that the fruitful olive tree was to be burned with its branches. Now the Jews, on the contrary, object that Jeremiah, whom they call a tree, must be destroyed with his "bread" (i.e., natural food). Sanctius, Lapide [note]: The food which the tree produces, or the fruit, are the oracles and comminations of Jeremiah, which they likewise wish to extinguish and reduce to silence.
The proverbial expression is explained by proper words in the second member; they show remarkable hatred in the third: so hateful is the prophet to them that they do not wish even his name to be preserved in human memory. "Behold, no prophet is accepted in his own country." A strenuous censor of morals becomes intolerable to evildoers.
The Phrase: "Let us put wood in his bread"
St. Jerome, in his version [the Vulgate], retained that interpretation which, since it is present in the Greek text, had already become known in the greater part of the Church through the Greek text and other versions derived from it: ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ (embalōmen xylon eis ton arton autou — "Let us put wood into his bread"). Hence, the Greek translator read נַשְׁלִיחָה (nashlîḥâh) or נַשִׁיתָה (nashîthâh) instead of נַשְׁחִיתָה (nashḥîtâh), or rather, with greater similarity of letters, נַשְׁלִיחָה (nashlîḥâh) — since shalah is also rendered by emballein (to cast in) in Job 18:8. Something similar the Chaldee [Targum] already reads, when it explains נרמי (narmi — "let us cast").
Interpretations of "Wood in Bread":
Poison: In what sense the Chaldee indeed explains it: "Let us cast poison of death into his food." In the same sense, not a few interpret "wood" as poisonous wood, or specifically the yew tree (taxus). St. Thomas, Sanctius, Pagninus, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Estius, Sa, Menochius, Calmet, and Kaulen (Handbook to the Vulgate, p. 20) attribute this notion to both the Hebrew עֵץ (etz — wood) and "wood."
Beatings/Cross (Literal): St. Ephrem offers another explanation, following the Syriac text which closely follows the Hebrew, explaining it thus: "Let us give him wood for food." For Scripture calls "bread" everything that men eat. Moreover, "to feed someone with wood" is to strike with wood, to hang upon wood, or to burn on wood, or "let us consume the wood in striking, burning, crucifying the body of the prophet." So also Lapide, Tirinus: "Instead of bread, let us give him wood; let us feed him with wood," namely with a staff or cross. As if to say: "Let us crucify him." Thus it is commonly said: "I will feed you with the staff," "You will taste the clubs." Scholz approves this explanation.
Christological (Typical): Closely related is that interpretation frequently held among the ancients regarding the death of Christ: "Let us put wood," i.e., the Cross, "into his bread," i.e., into His Body (for the Savior Himself said: "I am the bread"). So [hold] Justin, Tertullian, Lactantius, Ambrose, Rufinus, Jerome, Theodoret, Gregory, and others, whose passages Malvenda recounts from the ancients, and Tailhan adds many more (Biblical Analysis, Kilber, Vol. 1, p. 400).
Literal vs. Typological Sense
That these words refer immediately to Jeremiah is manifest (Maldonatus). Hence, too much, e.g., Theodoret contends, writing that this does not fit the prophet at all; for how could wood be put into the bread? But to Christ the Lord, the word of prophecy fits most perfectly. And the ancients almost with one voice acknowledge this as a prophecy concerning Christ. Already St. Jerome writes on this place (v. 1): "This is the consensus of all the Churches, that these things are understood to be spoken by Christ under the person of Jeremiah." [Specifically:] That the Father showed Him how He ought to speak, and showed Him the plots of the Jews, and He, like a lamb led to the sacrifice, did not open His mouth, and "did not know" (understood: sin).
However, that this explanation cannot be held as literal, Calmet has already warned, and the matter is very clear in itself, especially because that phrase "and I did not know, because they devised counsels against me" can by no means fit Christ [who knew all things]. St. Thomas calls this acceptance mystical; others [say] Jeremiah was a type of Christ in this matter (Mariana, Malvenda, Gordon); or allegorically these things are said prophetically of Christ under the person of Jeremiah (Maldonatus, Tirinus). Whereas Sanctius calls that explanation only a "pious thought" and "suitable for an accommodated sense."
Jerome's Synthesis
St. Jerome, optimally perceiving on the one hand that in the words and context nothing is at issue except Jeremiah himself, and on the other hand not making light of that remarkable consensus of all the Churches, finally concludes thus: "But that we may be freed from all trouble of interpretation, let us follow that rule: that all prophets did most things as a type of the Lord Savior, and whatever was completed according to the present time in Jeremiah, this was prophesied concerning the Lord for the future." And thus truly the way is paved for rightly estimating the typical reason of this event.
Theological Conclusion on Typology
For since the series of prophets was to be completed by the Messiah Himself, the supreme Prophet, it is easily conceived that just as the priestly and royal office, so also the prophetic office portended something higher to be accomplished in Christ and through Christ; in other words, a typical reason was inherent in the prophetic office. From which it easily follows: if anything is perceived in the prophets which bears a manifest similarity with Christ, the Archetype and Antitype, the typical reason is to be acknowledged. Christ Himself assigns and declares this reason in more than one way: thus, when He exhibits His own death as intimately connected with the deaths inflicted on prophets and the slaughter perpetrated against Himself, He says the measure of the fathers who killed the prophets is to be fulfilled (Matthew 23:31; Luke 13:33-34). The same is hinted at when He calls Himself a prophet (Matthew 13:57), when He says His disciples enter into the inheritance of the prophets, i.e., they will be partakers of the same persecutions with them (Matthew 5:12).
Now here fellow citizens treacherously plot death against Jeremiah, inflamed with hatred of the truth and exacerbated by the prophet's admonitions and doctrines; they wish to utterly destroy him and his work, his fruit. Therefore, since the typical reason is established from what has been said in general, what finally prevents this event from truly being acknowledged as a type? If, however, it seems doubtful to you, read what Cornely teaches concerning types and the manner of eliciting them (Introduction, Vol. 1, p. 543).
Preferred Literal Interpretation
It helps to briefly review what some ancient Catholic interpreters thought concerning the translation of the Hebrew text which I handed down above. Malvenda praises it as apt and born from the usage and skill of the language. Sanctius says: "This sentence: 'Let us corrupt the tree with its fruits,' is very much approved by me." Lapide has it thus in Hebrew: "Let us corrupt, let us destroy, let us cut off the tree," i.e., the arboreal figure, "in bread," i.e., "with his bread," with his foods and fruit. Rabbi Kimchi says: "This means: Let us kill Jeremiah so that he may perish, and with him his most sad prophecy," as if Jeremiah were a tree to be cut off, his fruit were his doctrine, sermon, and threats. This exposition suits the Hebrew well enough. And concerning the usage of the word "bread," Sanctius rightly observes that "bread" signifies any food whatsoever, whether natural or prepared by art. But in this place, together with the tree, the food proceeding from the tree is considered, which is ungrateful to the Jews; therefore, they desire to delete both. Hence, in this place also, that reading "in bread" or "with bread" is altogether to be retained, nor ought it to be written בְּלִחְוֹ (belicho — "in his sap") with Hitzig, Graf, Cheyne. For they especially loathe that bread which Jeremiah offers. That elsewhere לֶחֶם (lechem) is not found in this notion of "fruit of a tree" is no obstacle. For the expression can be proverbial, and in proverbs a certain singular usage of the word not infrequently appears. Moreover, since only a few things are preserved from the treasury of the Hebrew language, who can affirm with certainty that this notion was altogether absent from the word? For this word has that notion in Arabic (cf. Rosenmüller, Keil, Scholz), and concerning usage among the Syrians, see Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, p. 1929. Finally, Symmachus offers: "Let us destroy his bread in wood."
Jer 11:20: Appeal to Divine Justice
Such a crime committed against God's legate cannot be dismissed unpunished. "I will be the avenger," God had promised, instituting the prophetic office and adding to it a sanction to coerce rebels (Deuteronomy 18:19). For in this matter, it is above all about the glory of God Himself, to whom injury is inflicted in His legate. Therefore, the prophet demands that sanction established by God (v. 20): "But you, O Lord of Hosts, who judges justly and tests the reins and hearts, let me see Your vengeance upon them." He asks from Him who has the authority and power (St. Thomas). He commits vengeance to Him who, knowing all intimate things, judges justly. He does not wish to defend and avenge his own right and cause by himself, but appealing to God's tribunal, he leaves the matter to be acted upon with greatest confidence. Already Malvenda notes that what Hitzig, Ewald, and others propose can be translated: "To you my cause devolves; be my patron and defender." The same things recur in 20:12; cf. 17:10. That "reins" are used for desires, affections, and secret counsels is well known, and frequent in usage in the Scriptures, because they are considered the subject of all these. Sanctius [notes]: It is well said "Your vengeance," for "Vengeance is Mine, and I will repay" (Deuteronomy 32:35). And God has the cause of His legate commended, and He is by no means lacking in the sanction promised in the law (Deuteronomy 18:19).
Jer 11: 21-23: Divine Judgment on Anathoth
Jer 11:21: "Therefore thus says the Lord to the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying: 'Do not prophesy in the name of the Lord, and you shall not die in our hands.'" That is: "Do not prophesy, lest you die; if you do not prophesy, we will not inflict death upon you." From verses 18-19 it is evident that these things were not proposed to the prophet so that he might choose the other [option], but only it is indicated for what cause they conspired among themselves, and how they were persuaded that Jeremiah would by no means cease from his office, [so] they decreed to plot death against him.
Jer 11:22: "Therefore thus says the Lord of Hosts: Behold, I will visit upon them: the young men shall die by the sword, and their sons and their daughters shall die by famine."
Jer 11:23: "And there shall be no remnant of them; for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth, the year of their visitation."
They wished to plot three things against the prophet: to destroy him, to abolish the doctrine handed down by him as if it were his fruit, to delete all his memory. By the law of retaliation, this iniquity is turned upon their own head: they themselves shall perish; their fruit, i.e., sons and daughters, shall miserably perish by famine; their name also and memory shall be deleted, as is said in verse 23. That "evil" and "visitation" consists in war and famine. The seed of the impious shall perish. By this crime of fellow citizens, how great the obstinacy in evil was, and with how determined a mind they wished to follow wickedness, is demonstrated clearer than light. How necessarily therefore ruin was to be inflicted upon such persons is illustrated by the fact itself.
Textual Notes on the Greek (Septuagint)
A few things are to be noted concerning the Greek text here. In verse 19, the particle "and" (ki) is omitted, whence the sense is slightly changed: "I, like a lamb led to be killed, did not know; against me they devised counsel," [adding] "evil" (malum), saying "Come, etc." ὅτι (hoti) is read at Theodoret, and without an asterisk in 22:36. Also in verse 21 it is read: "seeking my life." This savors of an emendation by someone to whom "your" seemed more difficult, but the words can altogether be conceived as God's speech to Jeremiah and a response to the petition enunciated in verse 20. Hitzig also considers the Greek reading easier but worse.
Key Exegetical Features in Knabenbauer's Commentary
Critical Textual Analysis: Knabenbauer engages deeply with the Hebrew Masoretic text versus the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, noting variant readings (e.g., nashchithah vs. nashlichah) and citing modern critics (Hitzig, Cheyne) alongside traditionalists.
Literal Priority with Typological Openness: Unlike some earlier commentators who might prioritize the Christological sense, Knabenbauer firmly establishes the literal sense (Jeremiah as the tree/fruit) before discussing the typological sense (Jeremiah as a figure of Christ). He validates the typology through Catholic tradition (Jerome, Thomas) and Christ's own words, but maintains exegetical integrity by distinguishing the senses.
Comprehensive Survey of Opinions: He lists a wide range of interpretations for the crux interpretum ("wood in bread"): Poison (Yew), Beatings, Cross (Christ), and Destroying Tree with Fruit. He explicitly states his preference for the "Tree with Fruit" interpretation based on Hebrew usage and context.
Integration of Oriental Customs: Like Calmet, he references Arab customs regarding tame lambs to illuminate the simile in verse 19.
Theological Precision: On the imprecation (v. 20), he clarifies that Jeremiah is not seeking personal vengeance but appealing to God's justice as His appointed legate, citing the Mosaic sanction for prophets (Deut 18:19).
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment