Discovery BoxJeremiah 6:4-6 
Context6:4 They will say, 1 ‘Prepare to do battle 2 against it!
Come on! Let’s attack it at noon!’
But later they will say, 3 ‘Oh, oh! Too bad! 4
The day is almost over
and the shadows of evening are getting long.
6:5 So come on, let’s go ahead and attack it by night
and destroy all its fortified buildings.’
6:6 All of this is because 5 the Lord who rules over all 6 has said:
‘Cut down the trees around Jerusalem
and build up a siege ramp against its walls. 7
This is the city which is to be punished. 8
Nothing but oppression happens in it. 9
1 tn These words are not in the text but are implicit in the connection. They are supplied in the translation for clarity.
2 tn Heb “Sanctify war.” This is probably an idiom from early Israel’s holy wars in which religious rites were to precede the battle.
3 tn These words are not in the text but are supplied in the translation for clarity. Some commentaries and English versions see these not as the words of the enemy but as those of the Israelites expressing their fear that the enemy will launch a night attack against them and further destroy them. The connection with the next verse, however, fits better with them if they are the words of the enemy.
4 tn Heb “Woe to us!” For the usage of this phrase see the translator’s note on 4:13. The usage of this particle here is a little exaggerated. They have lost the most advantageous time for attack but they are scarcely in a hopeless or doomed situation. The equivalent in English slang is “Bad news!”
5 tn Heb “For.” The translation attempts to make the connection clearer.
6 tn Heb “Yahweh of armies.”
sn For an explanation of the significance of this title see the study note on 2:19.
7 tn Heb “Cut down its trees and build up a siege ramp against Jerusalem.” The referent has been moved forward from the second line for clarity.
8 tn Or “must be punished.” The meaning of this line is uncertain. The LXX reads, “Woe, city of falsehood!” The MT presents two anomalies: a masculine singular verb with a feminine singular subject in a verbal stem (Hophal) that elsewhere does not have the meaning “is to be punished.” Hence many follow the Greek which presupposes הוֹי עִיר הַשֶּׁקֶר (hoy ’ir hasheqer) instead of הִיא הָעִיר הָפְקַד (hi’ ha’ir hofqad). The Greek is the easier reading in light of the parallelism, and it would be hard to explain how the MT arose from it. KBL suggests reading a noun meaning “licentiousness” which occurs elsewhere only in Mishnaic Hebrew, hence “this is the city, the licentious one” (attributive apposition; cf. KBL 775 s.v. פֶּקֶר). Perhaps the Hophal perfect (הָפְקַד, hofÿqad) should be revocalized as a Niphal infinitive absolute (הִפָּקֹד, hippaqod); this would solve both anomalies in the MT since the Niphal is used in this nuance and the infinitive absolute can function in place of a finite verb (cf. GKC 346 §113.ee and ff). This, however, is mere speculation and is supported by no Hebrew
9 tn Heb “All of it oppression in its midst.”
