Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy 521 for their appearance in Jer 25,11-12.26 (62), part of a chapter widely recognized as resulting from successive stages of redaction marking the expansion of the Jeremianic corpus during the period of the exile (63). The Jeremianic tradition, which had long recognized the rise of Babylon as reflecting YHWH’s will, was vindicated and became the normative theology of the pre and post 587 exilic community in Babylon (64). The internal reliance upon Jeremianic decrees within the growing Book of Jeremiah may have contributed to the development of a closed system of Biblical Scripture, looking within itself for its inspirational tropes and adapting them as history demanded (65). Hebrew College Mark LEUCHTER Newton MA 02459 USA (62) One must consider the reason for two atbash codes, separated by a relatively lengthy expanse of text, in Jer 51. Following the model of the Esarhaddon inscription, we should expect to find only one atbash instance in the chapters closing the 597 collection. Though a detailed study of the matter goes beyond the scope of this examination, I would tentatively suggest that the dual atbash terms may relate to purposes of clarification. There existed in Babylon an actual region known as ∏eπak (see E.W. NICHOLSON, Jeremiah 26–52 [Cambridge 1975] 222-223); Jeremiah’s use of the ˚çç code may have originated as a double entendre (a device used in other Jeremianic passages), with the intention of functioning both as a reference to the region and as an atbash cipher. The appearance of ymq bl at the outset of Jer 51 may have helped to reinforce the implied meaning of ˚çç later in the chapter, directing the audience’s attention once again to the inversion of the Esarhaddon inscription that motivated the prophet’s discourse. (63) AEJMELAEUS, “Turning Point”, 468, though the redactional features evident in vv. 1-13 may be attributed to the prophet himself (following LUNDBOM, “Baruch, Seraiah”, 103-104). (64) The post-exilic preoccupation with Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy — which is invoked in every case to demonstrate that its words were fulfilled and that the Persian epoch signaled the need for ideological advances — points to the paramount position of the extant Jeremianic corpus within Israel’s exilic theology. PECKHAM, History and Prophecy, 741, 750-755, notes that the very form of Haggai’s writing consciously mirrors that of Jeremiah for precisely this purpose. (65) See most recently M. FLOYD, “The açm (Ma¢¢a) as a Type of Prophetic Book”, JBL 121(2002) 401-422; SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture; B. HALPERN, “The New Names in Isaiah 62,4: Jeremiah’s Reception if the Restora- tion and the Politics of Third Isaiah”, JBL 117 (1998) 623-643.