504 Mark Leuchter argues that Jeremiah himself is responsible for the prophecy (4). Sommer ’s position rests upon the fact that the 70-year period must pertain to the exilic circumstance (as opposed to a period beginning with Josiah’s death) by virtue of the origin of the text in which it initially appeared. This text is authentically Jeremianic, associated with the deportees of 597 that the prophet addressed (5) (henceforth, “the 597 collection”). The passage in question may therefore be attributed to the prophet himself, further supported by the fact that history proved the 70-year prediction to be erroneous. A subsequent author who legitimized his composition through the name of a recognized prophet like Jeremiah would not have chosen so specific a number that would have been widely regarded as inexact and incorrect (6). Thus, due to its obvious inconsistency with history, it is not a prophecy ex eventu but originated with Jeremiah himself. Sommer ’s conclusion is consistent with a general hermeneutical line of logic in related Jeremianic texts and constitutes a sound argument against the dominant theories of scribal authorship during the Persian period (7). Yet it seems unlikely that a writer as literate and deliberate as Jeremiah would generate a prophecy that could so easily be rendered obsolete with the uncertainties of history. It is indeed Jeremiah’s analysis of the shifting nature of history that accounts for (4) B.D. SOMMER, “New Light on the Composition of Jeremiah”, CBQ 61 (1999) 659-663. (5) As Sommer notes, Jer 27–29 occupies a special position in the Jeremianic corpus, retaining features that point to the preservation of early and unique lexical elements. W.L. HOLLADAY, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 1989) 137-139, convincingly argues for the authenticity of the text as original to the prophet and datable to the period immediately after the deportation of 597, a position supported by Sommer’s analysis (“New Light”, 661-662). The relationship between this material and other important Jeremianic texts of the period will be discussed below. (6) SOMMER, “New Light”, 663. Sommer’s analysis of allusions to Jeremiah in the Deutero-Isaianic corpus further demonstrates that the literature containing the 70-year prophecy must have obtained literary form before Deutero-Isaiah’s activity, disqualifying arguments that it is the result of later scribal accretions on historical and tradition-historical grounds. (7) Texts that date from the period subsequent to the battle of Carchemish (605) consistently encourage submission to divine will through the recognition of Babylonian political domination. Jeremiah’s Urrolle (cf. Jer 36), which likely contained material currently found in Jer 1–11, appears to have been formed in relation to the outcome of Carchemish and consistently emphasizes the international spectrum of events; See M. LEUCHTER, Jeremiah: The First Jew (Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Toronto 2003) 190-211.