Ieremia 42
1 Toate căpeteniile oştilor, Iohanan, fiul lui Careah, Iezania, fiul lui Hosea, şi tot poporul dela cel mai mic până la cel mai mare, au înaintat,
2 şi au zis proorocului Ieremia: ,,Fie bine primită înaintea ta rugămintea noastră! Mijloceşte pentru noi la Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, pentru toţi cei ce au mai rămas, căci eram mulţi, dar am mai rămas numai un mic număr, cum bine vezi tu însuţi cu ochii tăi.
3 Binevoiască Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, să ne arate drumul pe care trebuie să mergem şi să ne spună ce avem de făcut!``
4 Proorocul Ieremia le-a zis: ,,Am auzit! Iată că mă voi ruga Domnului Dumnezeului vostru, după cererea voastră, şi vă voi face cunoscut, fără să vă ascund ceva, tot ce vă va răspunde Domnul!``
5 Atunci ei au zis lui Ieremia: ,,Domnul să fie un martor adevărat şi credincios împotriva noastră, dacă nu vom face tot ce-ţi va porunci Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, să ne spui!
6 Fie bine, fie rău, noi vom asculta de glasul Domnului, Dumnezeului nostru, la care te trimetem, ca să fim fericiţi, ascultând de glasul Domnului, Dumnezeului nostru!``
7 După zece zile, cuvântul Domnului a vorbit lui Ieremia.
8 Şi Ieremia a chemat pe Iohanan, fiul lui Careah, pe toate căpeteniile oştilor, cari erau cu el, şi pe tot poporul, dela cel mai mic până la cel mai mare,
9 şi le-a zis: ,,Aşa vorbeşte Domnul, Dumnezeul lui Israel, la care m-aţi trimes, să -I aduc înainte rugăciunile voastre:
10 ,Dacă veţi rămânea în ţara aceasta, vă voi face să propăşiţi în ea, şi nu vă voi nimici, vă voi sădi şi nu vă voi smulge; căci Îmi pare rău de răul, pe care vi l-am făcut!
11 Nu vă temeţi de împăratul Babilonului, de care vă este frică; nu vă temeţi de el, zice Domnul, căci Eu sânt cu voi, ca să vă scap şi să vă scot din mâna lui.
12 Îi voi insufla milă de voi, şi se va îndura de voi, şi vă va lăsa să locuiţi în ţara voastră.`
13 Dar dacă nu veţi asculta de glasul Domnului, Dumnezeului vostru, şi dacă veţi zice: ,Nu vrem să rămânem în ţara aceasta,
14 nu, ci vom merge în ţara Egiptului, unde nu vom vedea nici războiul, nici nu vom auzi glasul trâmbiţei, nici nu vom duce lipsă de pâne, şi acolo vom locui!` -
15 atunci, ascultaţi Cuvântul Domnului, rămăşiţe ale lui Iuda: Aşa vorbeşte Domnul oştirilor, Dumnezeul lui Israel: ,Dacă vă veţi îndrepta faţa să mergeţi în Egipt, dacă vă veţi duce să locuiţi pentru o vreme acolo,
16 sabia de care vă temeţi vă va ajunge acolo, în ţara Egiptului, foametea de care vă este frică se va lipi de voi acolo în Egipt şi veţi muri acolo.
17 Toţi ceice îşi vor îndrepta faţa să meargă în Egipt ca să locuiască pentru o vreme acolo, vor muri de sabie, de foamete sau de ciumă; niciunul nu va rămânea, şi nu va scăpa de nenorocirile, pe cari le voi aduce peste ei!``
18 Căci aşa vorbeşte Domnul oştirilor, Dumnezeul lui Israel: ,Cum s-a vărsat mânia şi urgia Mea peste locuitorii Ierusalimului, aşa se va vărsa urgia Mea şi peste voi, dacă veţi merge în Egipt; veţi fi o pricină de afurisenie, de groază, de blestem şi de ocară, şi nu veţi mai vedea niciodată locul acesta!`
19 Rămăşiţe ale lui Iuda, Domnul vă zice: ,Nu vă duceţi în Egipt!` ,Băgaţi bine de seamă că vă opresc lucrul acesta astăzi.
20 Căci vă înşelaţi singuri, dacă m-aţi trimes la Domnul, Dumnezeul vostru, zicând: ,Mijloceşte pentru noi la Domnul, Dumnezeul nostru, fă-ne cunoscut tot ce va spune Domnul, Dumnezeul nostru, şi vom face!`
21 Eu v-am spus astăzi; dar voi n-ascultaţi glasul Domnului, Dumnezeului vostru, nici tot ce m-a însărcinat El să vă spun.
22 De aceea să ştiţi că veţi muri de sabie, de foamete sau de ciumă, în locul unde voiţi să vă duceţi să locuiţi!``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":41929,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Baruch","title_en":"Baruch","content_ro":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","summary_en":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69555,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Baruch","title_en":"Baruch","content_ro":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","summary_en":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97181,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Baruch","title_en":"Baruch","content_ro":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","summary_en":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124807,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Baruch","title_en":"Baruch","content_ro":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Baruch<\/h3>\n<p>Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 <span>BC<\/span>), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (36:4) and read the words to the people (36:8-19). When the message reached Jehoiakim, he destroyed the scroll and called for Baruch’s and Jeremiah’s arrest (36:21-26). But they had gone into hiding, where Jeremiah repeated the prophecies and Baruch again wrote them down (36:27-32).<\/p>\n<p>At about that time, God gave Baruch a personal message through Jeremiah (Jer 45). Baruch might have been troubled about the loss of career prospects or personal comfort resulting from his association with Jeremiah. God comforted Baruch with an assurance of protection and instructed him not to seek “great things” for himself, because the promise of Judah’s destruction was certain.<\/p>\n<p>When Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, Baruch stayed with Jeremiah and the others who remained in the land. Apparently Baruch was viewed as influential: The rebel leaders wanted to go to Egypt and when Jeremiah warned them against it (Jer 42), they accused Baruch of persuading Jeremiah. The leaders did not listen but took Baruch and Jeremiah with them to Egypt (43:1-7). We do not know how, when, or where Baruch died. One tradition records that he was taken to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt. It is also possible that Baruch died in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>Although God warned Baruch not to pursue great things, and he seemed to die without honor, his legacy might in fact be the book of Jeremiah, which he clearly had a hand in producing—a book that warns of judgment and eloquently expresses the hope for the new covenant (31:31-34).<\/p>\n<p>In 1975, a clay impression (<em>bulla<\/em>) formed from a scribe’s seal was found with the words “[Belonging to] Berechiahu, son of Neriahu, the scribe” (<em>Berechiahu<\/em> is the long form of the name <em>Baruch<\/em>). Each scribe and government official had a unique seal bearing his name, with which he would seal documents to verify their authenticity—the ancient equivalent of a signature. The seal would be pressed into soft clay to form an impression (<em>bulla<\/em>), which was affixed to the signed document. The <em>bulla<\/em> of Baruch dates from the time of Jeremiah and Baruch; other <em>bullae<\/em> that were found include the names of several other individuals in Jeremiah (e.g., “Gemariah, son of Shaphan,” 36:10-12, 25; Ishmael, 40:7–41:10). Most scholars have concluded that the Baruch <em>bulla<\/em> was in fact formed by the seal of Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. These <em>bullae,<\/em> seemingly insignificant artifacts of an ancient civilization, provide independent historical verification of some of the details of Jeremiah’s account.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Jer 32:9-15; 36:1-21, 26-32; 43:1-7; 45:1-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","summary_en":"Baruch Baruch the son of Neriah was a royal scribe in Jerusalem who served as secretary for Jeremiah the prophet. His brother Seraiah was a “staff officer” in Zedekiah’s administration (Jer 51:59-64). Baruch’s family evidently ranked highly in the administration of Judah. In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah (605 BC), God instructed Jeremiah to record the messages he had given to Israel, Judah, and the other nations (36:1-3). Jeremiah sent for Baruch, who wrote the prophecies down (3...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3293,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Azariah","title_en":"Azariah","content_ro":"<h3>AZARIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Very common Jewish name. Its numerous occurrences in the priestly genealogies has caused much confusion. The following is one of several possible arrangements:<\/p>\n<li> 1. Zadok’s son or grandson. According to most translations, Azariah was high priest during Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2). It is possible, however, that his position should be understood as that of a special counselor or keeper of the royal calendar.<\/li>\n<li> 2. Nathan’s son, a high official in King Solomon’s court. He was chief officer over the 12 regional administrators (1 Kgs 4:5).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Amaziah’s son, king of Judah (2 Kgs 14:21; 15:1-7), more frequently known as Uzziah. <em>See<\/em> Uzziah #1.<\/li>\n<li> 4. Ethan’s son, a descendant of Judah (1 Chr 2:8).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Jehu’s son, another descendant of Judah (1 Chr 2:38).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Ahimaaz’s son and Zadok’s grandson (1 Chr 6:9). If Azariah #1 was indeed a high priest, this Azariah could be identified with him.<\/li>\n<li> 7. Johanan’s son and Amariah’s father (1 Chr 6:10-11). He is identical with the Azariah of Ezra 7:3 and 2 Esdras 1:2, whose father (meaning “ancestor”) was Meraioth. The parenthetical note about Solomon’s temple (1 Chr 6:10) is generally held to go with the Azariah of verse 9 (see #6 above). It is possible, however, that this Azariah served in the temple (built by Solomon) during the reign of Uzziah and is therefore identical with #17 below.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Hilkiah’s son and Seriah’s father (1 Chr 6:13-14; Ezr 7:1; 2 Esd 1:1). Some have identified this Azariah with #10 or #11 below.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Zephaniah’s son, an ancestor of the singer Heman. Heman sang in the worship ritual instituted by King David (1 Chr 6:36).<\/li>\n<li>10. Hilkiah’s son or descendant, one of the first priests to settle in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chr 9:11; “Seraiah,” Neh 11:11).<\/li>\n<li>11. Oded’s son, a prophet in the days of King Asa of Judah. He encouraged Asa to initiate badly needed reforms in the king’s 15th year (2 Chr 15:1-15).<\/li>\n<li>12, 13. Two sons of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. Along with four of their brothers, they were killed for political reasons by Jehoram, heir to the throne (2 Chr 21:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>14. Alternate name of Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 Chr 22:6, <span>kjv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Ahaziah #2.<\/li>\n<li>15. Jehoram’s son, one of Judah’s military commanders. This Azariah followed Jehoiada the priest in a rebellion that resulted in the execution of Queen Athaliah and the crowning of Joash as king (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>\n<li>16. Obed’s son, another of the five commanders in league with Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>\n<li>17. High priest in Jerusalem during the reign of King Uzziah (2 Chr 26:16-21). He opposed Uzziah’s arrogant attempt to burn incense on the altar. Perhaps the same as #7 above.<\/li>\n<li>18. Johanan’s son, a leader of Ephraim’s tribe. Azariah and other leaders of the tribe joined the prophet Obed in protesting the capture of Judean prisoners by King Pekah of Israel and in effecting their release (2 Chr 28:12).<\/li>\n<li>19. Descendant of Kohath and the father of a Levite named Joel. Joel participated in the temple cleansing instituted by King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 29:12).<\/li>\n<li>20. Jehallelel’s son. This Azariah, a descendant of Merari, also participated in Hezekiah’s cleansing of the temple (2 Chr 29:12).<\/li>\n<li>21. Zadok’s descendant and high priest during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 31:10, 13). He participated in Hezekiah’s massive religious reforms.<\/li>\n<li>22. Maaseiah’s son, a householder in Jerusalem who participated in Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the wall (Neh 3:23).<\/li>\n<li>23. Leader who returned to Judah with Zerubbabel after the Babylonian exile (Neh 7:7; “Seraiah,” Ezr 2:2).<\/li>\n<li>24. Levitical assistant of Ezra who explained to the people passages from the law read by Ezra (Neh 8:7).<\/li>\n<li>25. Priest who signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God with Nehemiah and others after the exile (Neh 10:2).<\/li>\n<li>26. Participant in the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:33).<\/li>\n<li>27. Alternate form of Jaazaniah, the name of Hoshaiah’s son, in Jeremiah 42:1 and 43:2. <em>See<\/em> Jaazaniah #1.<\/li>\n<li>28. One of the three young Jews taken into captivity with Daniel. In Babylon he was renamed Abednego (Dn 1:6-7, 11, 19; 2:17). <em>See<\/em> Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AZARIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Very common Jewish name. Its numerous occurrences in the priestly genealogies has caused much confusion. The following is one of several possible arrangements:<\/p>\n<li> 1. Zadok’s son or grandson. According to most translations, Azariah was high priest during Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2). It is possible, however, that his position should be understood as that of a special counselor or keeper of the royal calendar.<\/li>\n<li> 2. Nathan’s son, a high official in King Solomon’s court. He was chief officer over the 12 regional administrators (1 Kgs 4:5).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Amaziah’s son, king of Judah (2 Kgs 14:21; 15:1-7), more frequently known as Uzziah. <em>See<\/em> Uzziah #1.<\/li>\n<li> 4. Ethan’s son, a descendant of Judah (1 Chr 2:8).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Jehu’s son, another descendant of Judah (1 Chr 2:38).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Ahimaaz’s son and Zadok’s grandson (1 Chr 6:9). If Azariah #1 was indeed a high priest, this Azariah could be identified with him.<\/li>\n<li> 7. Johanan’s son and Amariah’s father (1 Chr 6:10-11). He is identical with the Azariah of Ezra 7:3 and 2 Esdras 1:2, whose father (meaning “ancestor”) was Meraioth. The parenthetical note about Solomon’s temple (1 Chr 6:10) is generally held to go with the Azariah of verse 9 (see #6 above). It is possible, however, that this Azariah served in the temple (built by Solomon) during the reign of Uzziah and is therefore identical with #17 below.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Hilkiah’s son and Seriah’s father (1 Chr 6:13-14; Ezr 7:1; 2 Esd 1:1). Some have identified this Azariah with #10 or #11 below.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Zephaniah’s son, an ancestor of the singer Heman. Heman sang in the worship ritual instituted by King David (1 Chr 6:36).<\/li>\n<li>10. Hilkiah’s son or descendant, one of the first priests to settle in Jerusalem after the exile (1 Chr 9:11; “Seraiah,” Neh 11:11).<\/li>\n<li>11. Oded’s son, a prophet in the days of King Asa of Judah. He encouraged Asa to initiate badly needed reforms in the king’s 15th year (2 Chr 15:1-15).<\/li>\n<li>12, 13. Two sons of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. Along with four of their brothers, they were killed for political reasons by Jehoram, heir to the throne (2 Chr 21:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>14. Alternate name of Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 Chr 22:6, <span>kjv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Ahaziah #2.<\/li>\n<li>15. Jehoram’s son, one of Judah’s military commanders. This Azariah followed Jehoiada the priest in a rebellion that resulted in the execution of Queen Athaliah and the crowning of Joash as king (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>\n<li>16. Obed’s son, another of the five commanders in league with Jehoiada against Athaliah (2 Chr 23:1).<\/li>\n<li>17. High priest in Jerusalem during the reign of King Uzziah (2 Chr 26:16-21). He opposed Uzziah’s arrogant attempt to burn incense on the altar. Perhaps the same as #7 above.<\/li>\n<li>18. Johanan’s son, a leader of Ephraim’s tribe. Azariah and other leaders of the tribe joined the prophet Obed in protesting the capture of Judean prisoners by King Pekah of Israel and in effecting their release (2 Chr 28:12).<\/li>\n<li>19. Descendant of Kohath and the father of a Levite named Joel. Joel participated in the temple cleansing instituted by King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 29:12).<\/li>\n<li>20. Jehallelel’s son. This Azariah, a descendant of Merari, also participated in Hezekiah’s cleansing of the temple (2 Chr 29:12).<\/li>\n<li>21. Zadok’s descendant and high priest during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 31:10, 13). He participated in Hezekiah’s massive religious reforms.<\/li>\n<li>22. Maaseiah’s son, a householder in Jerusalem who participated in Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the wall (Neh 3:23).<\/li>\n<li>23. Leader who returned to Judah with Zerubbabel after the Babylonian exile (Neh 7:7; “Seraiah,” Ezr 2:2).<\/li>\n<li>24. Levitical assistant of Ezra who explained to the people passages from the law read by Ezra (Neh 8:7).<\/li>\n<li>25. Priest who signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God with Nehemiah and others after the exile (Neh 10:2).<\/li>\n<li>26. Participant in the dedication of the rebuilt wall of Jerusalem (Neh 12:33).<\/li>\n<li>27. Alternate form of Jaazaniah, the name of Hoshaiah’s son, in Jeremiah 42:1 and 43:2. <em>See<\/em> Jaazaniah #1.<\/li>\n<li>28. One of the three young Jews taken into captivity with Daniel. In Babylon he was renamed Abednego (Dn 1:6-7, 11, 19; 2:17). <em>See<\/em> Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.<\/li>","summary_ro":"AZARIAH Very common Jewish name. Its numerous occurrences in the priestly genealogies has caused much confusion. The following is one of several possible arrangements: 1. Zadok’s son or grandson. According to most translations, Azariah was high priest during Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2). It is possible, however, that his position should be understood as that of a special counselor or keeper of the royal calendar. 2. Nathan’s son, a high official in King Solomon’s court. He was chief officer ov...","summary_en":"AZARIAH Very common Jewish name. Its numerous occurrences in the priestly genealogies has caused much confusion. The following is one of several possible arrangements: 1. Zadok’s son or grandson. According to most translations, Azariah was high priest during Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:2). It is possible, however, that his position should be understood as that of a special counselor or keeper of the royal calendar. 2. Nathan’s son, a high official in King Solomon’s court. He was chief officer ov...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4704,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Text of the (Old Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","title_en":"and Text of the (Old Testament) Bible*, Manuscripts","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, M<span>anuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<p>• The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantOldTestamentManuscripts\">Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>Most medieval manuscripts of the OT exhibit a fairly standardized form of the Hebrew text. This standardization reflects the work of the medieval scribes known as Masoretes (<span>AD<\/span> 500–900); the text that resulted from their work is called the Masoretic Text. Most of the important manuscripts dated from the 11th century <span>AD<\/span> or later all reflect this same basic textual tradition. But since the Masoretic Text did not stabilize until well after <span>AD<\/span> 500, many questions about its development in the preceding centuries could not be answered. So the primary task for OT textual critics has been to compare earlier witnesses in order to discover how the Masoretic Text came to be, and how it and earlier witnesses of the Hebrew Bible are related. This leads us to the initial task of textual criticism: the collection of all possible records of the biblical writings.<\/p>\n<p>All the primary sources of the Hebrew Scriptures are handwritten manuscripts, usually written on animal skins, papyrus, or sometimes metal. The fact that they are handwritten is the source of many difficulties for the textual critic. Human error and editorial tampering are often to blame for the many variant readings in OT and NT manuscripts. The fact that the ancient manuscripts are written on skins or papyrus is another source of difficulty. Due to natural decay, most of the surviving ancient manuscripts are fragmentary and difficult to read.<\/p>\n<p>There are many secondary witnesses to the ancient OT text, including translations into other languages, quotations used by both friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts. Most of the secondary witnesses have suffered in ways similar to the primary ones. They, too, contain numerous variants due to both intentional and accidental scribal errors and are fragmentary as a result of natural decay. Since variant readings do exist in the surviving ancient manuscripts, these must be collected and compared. The task of comparing and listing the variant readings is known as collation.<\/p>\n<h5>Manuscripts with the Masoretic Text<\/h5>\n<p>The textual history of the Masoretic Text is a significant story in its own right. This text of the Hebrew Bible is the most complete in existence. It forms the basis for our modern Hebrew Bibles and is the prototype against which all comparisons are made in OT textual studies. It is called Masoretic because in its present form it is based on the <em>Masora,<\/em> the textual tradition of the Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes of Tiberias. (Tiberias was the location of their community on the Sea of Galilee.) The Masoretes, whose school flourished between <span>AD<\/span> 500 and 1000, standardized the traditional consonantal text by adding vowel pointing and marginal notes. (The ancient Hebrew alphabet had no vowels.)<\/p>\n<p>The Masoretic Text, as it exists today, owes much to the Ben Asher family. For five or six generations, from the second half of the eighth century to the middle of the tenth century <span>AD<\/span>, this family played a leading role in the Masoretic work at Tiberias. A faithful record of their work can be found in the oldest existing Masoretic manuscripts, which go back to the final two members of that family. The oldest dated Masoretic manuscript is Codex Cairensis (<span>AD<\/span> 895), which is attributed to Moses ben Asher. This manuscript contained both the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The rest of the OT is missing from this manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>The other major surviving manuscript attributed to the Ben Asher family is the Aleppo Codex. According to the manuscript’s concluding note, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was responsible for writing the Masoretic notes and pointing the text. This manuscript contained the entire OT and dates from the first half of the 10th century <span>AD<\/span>. It was reportedly destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947, but this proved to be only partly true. A majority of the manuscript survived and will be used as the base for a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible to be published by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript known as Codex Leningradensis, presently stored in the Leningrad Public Library, is of special importance as a witness to the Ben Asher text. According to a note on the manuscript, it was copied in <span>AD<\/span> 1008 from texts written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. Since the oldest complete Hebrew text of the OT (the Aleppo Codex) was not available to scholars earlier in this century, Codex Leningradensis was used as the textual base for the popular Hebrew texts of today: <em>Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> edited by R. Kittel, and its revision, <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf.<\/p>\n<p>There are quite a number of less important manuscript codices that reflect the Masoretic tradition: the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets and the Erfurt Codices. There are also a number of manuscripts that no longer exist but which were used by scholars in the Masoretic period. One of the most prominent is Codex Hillel, traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel about <span>AD<\/span> 600. This codex was said to be very accurate and was used for the revision of other manuscripts. Readings of this codex are cited repeatedly by the early medieval Masoretes. Codex Muga, Codex Jericho, and Codex Jerushalmi, also no longer extant, were also cited by the Masoretes. These manuscripts were likely prominent examples of unpointed texts that had become part of a standardizing consensus in the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>. These laid the groundwork for the work of the Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the completeness of the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, a major problem still remains for OT textual critics. The Masoretic manuscripts, as old as they are, were written between 1,000 and 2,000 years after the original autographs. Earlier witnesses to the ancient Hebrew text were needed to testify to the accuracy of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Dead Sea Scrolls<\/h5>\n<p>The most important ancient witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are the texts discovered at Wadi Qumran in the 1940s and 1950s. (<em>Wadi<\/em> is an Arabic word for a riverbed that is dry except in the rainy season.) Before the Qumran discoveries, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts of the OT dated from about <span>AD<\/span> 900. The greatest importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the discovery of biblical manuscripts dating back to only about 300 years after the close of the OT canon. That makes them 1,000 years earlier than the oldest manuscripts previously known to biblical scholars. The texts found at Wadi Qumran were all completed before the Roman conquest of Palestine in <span>AD<\/span> 70, and many predate this event by quite some time. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Isaiah Scroll has received the most publicity, although the collection contains fragments of all the books in the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther.<\/p>\n<p>Because the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important for OT textual criticism, a short history and description of these recent discoveries is appropriate. The manuscripts now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of biblical and extrabiblical manuscripts from Qumran, an ancient Jewish religious community near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p>Before the Qumran find, few manuscripts had been discovered in the Holy Land. The early church father Origen (third century <span>AD<\/span>) mentioned using Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that had been stored in jars in caves near Jericho. In the ninth century <span>AD<\/span> a patriarch of the eastern church, Timothy I, wrote a letter to Sergius, metropolitan (archbishop) of Elam, in which he, too, referred to a large number of Hebrew manuscripts found in a cave near Jericho. For more than 1,000 years since then, however, no other significant manuscript discoveries were forthcoming from caves in that region near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Qumran<\/h5>\n<p>The history of the Dead Sea manuscripts, both of their hiding and of their finding, reads like a mystery adventure story. It began with a telephone call on Wednesday afternoon, February 18, 1948, in the troubled city of Jerusalem. Butrus Sowmy, librarian and monk of St Mark’s Monastery in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, was calling John C. Trever, acting director of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Sowmy had been preparing a catalog of the monastery’s collection of rare books. Among them he found some scrolls in ancient Hebrew that, he said, had been in the monastery for about 40 years. Could ASOR supply him with some information for the catalog?<\/p>\n<p>The following day Sowmy and his brother brought a suitcase containing five scrolls or parts of scrolls wrapped in an Arabic newspaper. Pulling back the end of one of the scrolls Trever discovered that it was written in a clear, square Hebrew script. He copied several lines from that scroll, carefully examined three others, but was unable to unroll the fifth because it was too brittle. After the Syrians left, Trever told the story of the scrolls to William H. Brownlee, an ASOR fellow. Trever further noted in the lines he had copied from the first scroll the double occurrence of an unusual negative construction in Hebrew. In addition, the Hebrew script of the scrolls was more archaic than anything he had ever seen.<\/p>\n<p>Trever then visited St Mark’s Monastery. There he was introduced to the Syrian archbishop Athanasius Samuel, who gave him permission to photograph the scrolls. Trever and Brownlee compared the style of handwriting on the scrolls with a photograph of the Nash Papyrus, a scroll inscribed with the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4 and dated by scholars in the first or second century <span>BC<\/span>. The two ASOR scholars concluded that the script on the newly found manuscripts belonged to the same period. When ASOR director Millar Burrows returned to Jerusalem from Baghdad a few days later, he was shown the scrolls, and the three men continued their investigation. Only then did the Syrians reveal that the scrolls had been purchased the year before, in 1947, and had not been in the monastery for 40 years as was first reported.<\/p>\n<p>How had the Syrians come to possess the scrolls? Before that question could be answered, many fragmentary accounts had to be pieced together. Sometime during the winter of 1946–47 three Bedouin were tending their sheep and goats near a spring in the vicinity of Wadi Qumran. One of the herdsmen, throwing a rock through a small opening in the cliff, heard the sound of the rock evidently shattering an earthenware jar inside. Another Bedouin later lowered himself into the cave and found ten tall jars lining the walls. Three manuscripts (one of them in four pieces) stored in two of the jars were removed from the cave and offered to an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n<p>Several months later the Bedouin secured four more scrolls (one of them in two pieces) from the cave and sold them to another dealer in Bethlehem. During Holy Week in 1947, St Mark’s Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem was informed of the four scrolls, and Metropolitan Athanasius Samuel offered to buy them. The sale was not completed, however, until July 1947, when the four scrolls were bought by the monastery. They included a complete Isaiah scroll, a commentary on Habakkuk, a scroll containing a Manual of Discipline of the religious community at Qumran, and the Genesis Apocryphon (originally thought to be the aprocryphal book of Lamech but actually an Aramaic paraphrase of Genesis).<\/p>\n<p>In November and December of 1947 an Armenian antiquities dealer in Jerusalem informed the late E. L. Sukenik, professor of archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, of the first three scrolls found in the cave by the Bedouin. Sukenik then secured the three scrolls and two jars from the antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. They included an incomplete scroll of Isaiah, the Hymns of Thanksgiving (containing 12 columns of original psalms), and the War Scroll. (That scroll describes a war, actual or spiritual, of the tribes of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin against the Moabites and Edomites. <em>See<\/em> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.)<\/p>\n<p>On April 1, 1948, the first news release appeared in newspapers around the world, followed by another news release on April 26 by Sukenik about the manuscripts he had already acquired at Hebrew University. In 1949 Athanasius Samuel brought the four scrolls from St Mark’s Monastery to the United States. They were exhibited in various places and finally were purchased on July 1, 1954, in New York for $250,000 by Sukenik’s son for the nation of Israel and sent to Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Today they are on display in the Shrine of the Book museum in West Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the importance of the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both archaeologists and Bedouin continued their search for more manuscripts. Early in 1949, G. Lankester Harding, director of antiquities for the kingdom of Jordan, and Roland G. de Vaux, of the Dominic Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, excavated the cave (designated Cave One, or 1Q) where the initial discovery was made. Several hundred caves were explored the same year. So far, 11 caves in the Wadi Qumran have yielded treasures. Almost 600 manuscripts have been recovered, about 200 of which are biblical material. The fragments number between 50,000 and 60,000 pieces. About 85 percent of the fragments are leather; the other 15 percent are papyrus. The fact that most of the manuscripts are leather contributed to the problem of their preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the cave next most important to Cave One is Cave Four (4Q), which has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical. Every book of the OT except Esther is represented.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to the biblical manuscripts the discoveries have included apocryphal works such as Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Letter of Jeremiah. Fragments were also found of pseudepigraphal books such as 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi.<\/p>\n<p>Many sectarian scrolls peculiar to the religious community that lived at Qumran were also found. They furnish historical background on the nature of pre-Christian Judaism and help fill in the gaps of intertestamental history. One of the scrolls, the Damascus Document, had originally turned up in Cairo, but manuscripts of it have now been found at Qumran. The Manual of Discipline was one of the seven scrolls from Cave One. Fragmentary manuscripts of it have been found in other caves. The document gives the group’s entrance requirements, plus regulations governing life in the Qumran community. The Thanksgiving Hymns include some 30 hymns, probably composed by one individual.<\/p>\n<p>There were also many commentaries on different books of the OT. The Habakkuk Commentary was a copy of the first two chapters of Habakkuk in Hebrew accompanied by a verse-by-verse commentary. The commentary gives many details about an apocalyptic figure called the “Teacher of Righteousness” who is persecuted by a wicked priest.<\/p>\n<p>A unique discovery was made in Cave Three (3Q) in 1952. It was a scroll of copper, measuring about eight feet (2.4 meters) long and a foot (30.5 centimeters) wide. Because it was brittle, it was not opened until 1966, and then only by cutting it into strips. It contained an inventory of some 60 locations where treasures of gold, silver, and incense were hidden. Archaeologists have not been able to find any of it. That list of treasures, perhaps from the Jerusalem temple, may have been stored in the cave by Zealots (a revolutionary Jewish political party) during their struggle with the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66–70.<\/p>\n<p>During the Six-Day War in June 1967, Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University, acquired a Qumran document called the Temple Scroll. That tightly rolled scroll measures 28 feet (8.5 meters) and is the longest scroll found so far in the Qumran area. A major portion of it is devoted to statutes of the kings and matters of defense. It also describes sacrificial feasts and rules of cleanliness. Almost half of the scroll gives detailed instructions for building a future temple, supposedly revealed by God to the scroll’s author.<\/p>\n<h5>Important Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<p>Among the hundreds of biblical manuscripts discovered in the 11 caves around the Dead Sea, there are some very significant ones—especially for textual studies. These are listed below. (The first number signifies the cave, Q indicates Qumran, the abbreviation for the biblical book follows, often followed by a superscipt letter for successive manuscripts containing the same book.)<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsa<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This is the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. It is dated to c. 100 <span>BC<\/span>. The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic with some significant variants.<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsa<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic. It is dated to a period from 25 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50.<\/p>\n<h6>2QJer<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript is dated to a period from 25 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50 and has portions of Jeremiah chapters 42–49. It has some readings that follow the Septuagint (LXX), while it follows the order of chapters found in proto-Masoretic texts. For the book of Jeremiah, the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are quite different: the Septuagint is one-eighth shorter and has a different arrangement of chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>4QPaleoExod<span>m<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing most of Exodus, is dated quite early: 200–175 <span>BC<\/span>. As such, it has provided scholars with some interesting insights into the early history of textual transmission of Exodus and the Pentateuch. The manuscript shows many similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<h6>4QNum<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated 30 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20, contains most of Numbers. The book of Numbers existed in three distinguishable textual traditions: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. This manuscript, 4QNum<span>b<\/span>, shows similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, while having its own unique readings.<\/p>\n\n<h6>4QSam<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing about one tenth of 1 and 2 Samuel, is dated c. 50–25 <span>BC<\/span>. This manuscript, showing some similarities with the Septuagint, is believed to have several readings that are superior to the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJer<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing portions of Jeremiah 7–22, dates c. 200 <span>BC<\/span>. It generally concurs with the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJer<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated c. 150–125 <span>BC<\/span>, follows the arrangement of the Septuagint, as well as its brevity. The significance of this is that two different texts of Jeremiah were used in the pre-Christian era—one that was proto-Masoretic (as with 4QJer<span>a<\/span>) and one that was like the Septuagint.<\/p>\n<h6>11QPs<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated c. <span>AD<\/span> 25–50, preserves many psalms. However, these are not in the traditional sequence found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the manuscript has several other psalms, some of which were known from other ancient versions and others that were unknown until they surfaced in this manuscript.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Murabba’at<\/h5>\n<p>In 1951 Bedouin discovered more manuscripts in caves in the Wadi Murabba’at, which extends southeast from Bethlehem toward the Dead Sea, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) south of Qumran. Four caves were excavated there in 1952 under Harding and de Vaux. They yielded biblical documents and important materials, such as letters and coins, from the time of the second Jewish revolt under Bar-Kochba in <span>AD<\/span> 132–135. Among the biblical manuscripts was a scroll containing a Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets, dating from the second century <span>AD<\/span>. This manuscript corresponds almost perfectly to the Masoretic Text, hinting that by the second century a standard consonantal text was already taking shape. Also found in Wadi Murabba’at were fragments of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) and Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient witnesses to the Hebrew OT that are actually written in the Hebrew language are almost nonexistent. Because of this, the Dead Sea Scrolls may easily be one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time. They take us 1,000 years deeper into the history of the Hebrew OT, giving us the ability to assess all the other ancient witnesses with greater understanding.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently represented OT books among the Dead Sea Scrolls are Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. The oldest text is a fragment of Exodus dating from about 250 <span>BC<\/span>. The Isaiah Scroll dates from about 100 <span>BC<\/span>. These ancient witnesses only confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the care with which the Jewish scribes handled the Scriptures. Except for a few instances where spelling and grammar differ between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, the two are amazingly similar. The differences do not warrant any major changes in the substance of the OT. Yet these discoveries are helping biblical scholars gain a clearer understanding of the text at an earlier time in its history and development.<\/p>\n<p>Early conclusions about the antiquity of the first Dead Sea Scrolls were not accepted by everyone. Some scholars were convinced that the scrolls were of medieval origin. A series of questions relate to the dating problem. When were the texts at Qumran composed? When were they deposited in the caves? Most scholars believe the manuscripts were placed in the caves by members of the Qumran community when Roman legions were besieging Jewish strongholds. That was shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n\n<p>Careful study of the contents of a document sometimes reveals its authorship and the date when it was written. An example of using such internal evidence for dating a nonbiblical work is found in the Habakkuk Commentary. It gives hints about the people and events in the days of the commentary’s author, not in the days of the prophet Habakkuk. The commentator described the enemies of God’s people as the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Kittim<\/span><em>.<\/em> Originally that word denoted Cyprus but later came to be more generally the Greek islands and the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. In Daniel 11:30 the term is used prophetically, and most scholars identify the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Kittim<\/span> with the Romans. Thus, the Habakkuk Commentary was probably written about the time of the Roman capture of Palestine under Pompey in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another important item to consider when dating a manuscript is its copy date. Although the vast majority of manuscripts are undated, it is often possible to determine when a manuscript was written by paleography, the study of ancient handwriting. That was the method initially employed by Trever when he compared the script of the Isaiah Scroll with the Nash Papyrus, thus dating it to the pre-Christian era. His conclusions were confirmed by the late William F. Albright, then the foremost American archaeologist. During the time of the Babylonian captivity, the square script became the normal style of writing in Hebrew (as well as in Aramaic, a cousin of Hebrew). The evidence of paleography clearly dates the majority of the Qumran scrolls in the period between 200 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 200.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology provides another kind of external evidence. The pottery discovered at Qumran dates from the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods (200 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 100). Earthenware articles and ornaments point to the same period. Several hundred coins were found in jars dating from the Graeco-Roman period. A crack in one of the buildings is attributed to an earthquake that, according to Josephus (a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century <span>AD<\/span>), occurred in 31 <span>BC<\/span>. The excavations at Khirbet Qumran indicate that the general period of their occupation was from about 135 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 68, the year the Zealot revolt was crushed by Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, radiocarbon analysis has contributed to dating the finds. Radiocarbon analysis is a method of dating material from the amount of radioactive carbon remaining in it. The process is also known as carbon-14 dating. Applied to the linen cloth in which the scrolls were wrapped, the analysis gave a date of <span>AD<\/span> 33 plus or minus 200 years. A later test bracketed the date between 250 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 50. Although there may be questions concerning the relation of the linen wrappings to the date of the scrolls themselves, the carbon-14 test agrees with the conclusions of both paleography and archaeology. The general period, then, in which the Dead Sea Scrolls can be safely dated is between about 150 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Nash Papyrus<\/h5>\n<p>Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew witness to the OT was the Nash Papyrus. This manuscript was acquired in Egypt by W. L. Nash in 1902 and was donated to the Cambridge University Library. This manuscript contains a damaged copy of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17), part of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and also the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shema<\/span> (Dt 6:4ff.). This is clearly a collection of devotional and liturgical passages, and has been dated to the same period as the Dead Sea Scrolls, between 150 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Cairo Geniza Fragments<\/h5>\n<p>Near the end of the 19th century, many fragments from the 6th to the 8th centuries were found in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which had been St Michael’s Church until <span>AD<\/span> 882. They were found there in a geniza, a storage room where worn or faulty manuscripts were hidden until they could be disposed of properly. This geniza had apparently been walled off and forgotten until its recent discovery. In this small room, as many as 200,000 fragments were preserved, including biblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that the biblical fragments date from the 5th century <span>AD<\/span> makes them invaluable for shedding light on the development of the Masoretic work prior to the standardization instituted by the great Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificantOldTestamentVersions\">Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<h5>The Samaritan Pentateuch<\/h5>\n<p>Exactly when the Samaritan community separated from the larger Jewish community is a matter of dispute. But at some point during the postexilic period (c. 540–100 <span>BC<\/span>), a clear division between Samaritans and Jews was marked off. At this point, the Samaritans, who accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical, apparently canonized their own particular version of the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>A copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch came to the attention of scholars in 1616. Initially, it caused a great deal of excitement, but most of the early assessments of its value to textual criticism were negative. It differed from the Masoretic Text in some 6,000 instances, and many judged this to be the result of sectarian differences between Samaritans and Jews. By some, it was simply viewed as a sectarian revision of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p>After further assessment, however, it became clear that the Samaritan Pentateuch represented a text of much earlier origin than the Masoretic Text. And although a few of the distinctions of the Samaritan Pentateuch were clearly the result of sectarian concerns, most of the differences were neutral in this respect. Many of them had more to do with popularizing the text, rather than altering its meaning in any way. The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch had much in common with the Septuagint, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the NT, revealed that most of its differences with the Masoretic Text were not due to sectarian differences. More likely, they were due to the use of a different textual base, which was probably in wide use in the ancient Near East until well after the time of Christ. This realization, though not solving any real problems, did much to illustrate the complexity of the OT textual tradition that existed before the Masoretic standard was completed.<\/p>\n<h5>The Septuagint (LXX)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the OT, its witness being significantly older than that of the Masoretic Text. According to tradition, the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated by a team of 70 scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. (Hence its common designation LXX, the Roman numerals for 70.) The Jewish community in Egypt spoke Greek, not Hebrew, so a Greek translation of the OT was sincerely needed by that community of Jews. The exact date of translation is not known, but evidence indicates that the Septuagint Pentateuch was completed in the third century <span>BC<\/span>. The rest of the OT was probably translated over a long period of time, as it clearly represents the work of many different scholars.<\/p>\n<p>The value of the Septuagint to textual criticism varies widely from book to book. It might be said that the Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various authors, who differed greatly in their methods and their knowledge of Hebrew. The translations of the individual books are in no way uniform. Many books are translated almost literally, while others like Job and Daniel are quite dynamic. So the value of each book for textual criticism must be assessed on a book-by-book basis. The books translated literally are clearly more helpful in making comparisons with the Masoretic Text than the more dynamic ones.<\/p>\n<p>The content of some books is significantly different when comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Septuagint’s Jeremiah is missing significant portions found in the Masoretic Text, and the order of the text is significantly different as well. What these differences actually mean is difficult to know with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Septuagint is simply a poor translation and is therefore missing portions of the original Hebrew. But these same differences could also indicate that editorial additions and changes worked their way into the Masoretic Text during its long history of development. It is also possible that there were a number of valid textual traditions at that time, one followed by the Septuagint, and another followed by the Masoretic Text. This illustrates some of the difficulties that arise while doing OT textual criticism.<\/p>\n<p>The Septuagint was the standard OT text used by the early Christian church. The expanding Gentile church needed a translation in the common language of the time—Greek. By the time of Christ, even among the Jews, a majority of the people spoke Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew. The NT writers evidence their inclination to the Septuagint by using it when quoting the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Greek Versions<\/h5>\n<p>Because of the broad acceptance and use of the Septuagint among Christians, the Jews renounced it in favor of a number of other Greek versions. Aquila, a proselyte and disciple of Rabbi Akiba, produced a new translation around <span>AD<\/span> 130. In the spirit of his teacher, Aquila wrote an extremely literal translation, often to the point of communicating poorly in Greek. This literal approach, however, gained this version wide acceptance among Jews. Only fragments of this version have survived, but its literal nature reveals much about its Hebrew textual base.<\/p>\n<p>Symmachus produced a new version around <span>AD<\/span> 170 designed not only for accuracy but also to communicate well in the Greek language. His version has survived only in a few <em>Hexapla<\/em> fragments. A third Greek version came from Theodotion, a Jewish proselyte from the end of the second century <span>AD<\/span>. His version was apparently a revision of an earlier Greek version, possibly the Septuagint. This version has survived only in a few early Christian quotations, though it was once widely used.<\/p>\n<p>The Christian theologian Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–255) arranged the OT with six parallel versions for comparison in his <em>Hexapla.<\/em> In his effort to find the best text of the Septuagint, Origen wrote out six parallel columns containing first the Hebrew, second the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, third the text of Aquila, fourth the text of Symmachus, fifth his own corrected Septuagint text, sixth the text of Theodotion. Jerome used this great Bible at Caesarea in his work on the Vulgate (after 382—see below). Almost four centuries after Origen’s death, a Mesopotamian bishop, Paul of Tella, also used the <em>Hexapla<\/em> in the library at Caesarea (616–17) to make a translation into Syriac of Origen’s fifth column, the corrected Septuagint. Then in 638 the Islamic hordes swept through Caesarea and the <em>Hexapla<\/em> disappeared. Other than a few fragments, only Bishop Paul’s Syriac translation of Origen’s fifth column remains.<\/p>\n<p>An eighth-century copy of Bishop Paul’s Syriac <em>Hexapla<\/em> Septuagint is extant in a Milan museum. Other famous uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint are the codices: Vaticanus, early fourth century, now in the Vatican Library; Sinaiticus, mid-fourth century; and Alexandrinus, probably from the fifth century—both of the latter are in London’s British Museum. These copies are intensely studied because they bear a Greek witness to Hebrew texts far earlier than the Masoretic or “received text.”<\/p>\n<h5>The Aramaic Targums<\/h5>\n<p>The Aramaic Targums were Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT. Since the common language of the Jews during the postexilic period was Aramaic and not Hebrew, a need for Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible arose. Hebrew remained the language of scholarly religious circles, and translations for the common people were often spurned by the religious leadership. But over time, the reading of the Scriptures and commentaries in Aramaic became an accepted practice in the synagogues.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of these translations was to get the message across and to edify the people. Thus, the translations were extremely interpretive. The translators paraphrased, added explanatory glosses, and often boldly reinterpreted the text according to the theological biases of their time. They sought to relate the Bible text to contemporary life and political circumstances. Because of the dynamic approach evident in these translations, their use in textual criticism is limited, but they do add to the welter of evidence to be collected and collated in order to reconstruct the text of the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>The Syriac Version<\/h5>\n<p>Another version worthy of note is the Syriac version. This version was in common use in the Syriac (eastern Aramaic) church, which designated it the <em>Peshitta,<\/em> meaning “the simple or plain.” What they intended by this designation is difficult to discern. It may indicate that it was intended for popular consumption, or that it avoided adding explanatory glosses and other additions, or perhaps that it was not an annotated text, as was the annotated <em>Syro-Hexapla<\/em> then in use by the same community.<\/p>\n<p>The literary history of the Syriac version is not known, though it is clearly complex. Some have identified it as the recasting of an Aramaic Targum in Syriac, while others claim it has a more independent origin. Some connect it to the conversion of the leaders of Adiabene (east of the Tigris River) to the Jewish faith during the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Their need for an OT could have brought about the development of a version in their common tongue—Syriac. Still others connect it to Christian origins. Obvious later revisions to the <em>Peshitta<\/em> complicate matters even more. More study needs to be done to assess the nature of this version before it can lend much insight into the history of the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Latin Versions<\/h5>\n<p>Latin was a dominant language in western regions of the Roman Empire from well before the time of Christ. It was in the western regions of southern Gaul and North Africa that the first Latin translations of the Bible appeared. Around <span>AD<\/span> 160 Tertullian apparently used a Latin version of the Scriptures. Not long after this, the Old Latin text seems to have been in circulation, evidenced by Cyprian’s use of it before his death in <span>AD<\/span> 258. The Old Latin version was translated from the Septuagint. Due to its early date, it is valuable as a witness to the early Septuagint text, before later editors obscured the nature of the original. It also indirectly gives clues to the nature of the Hebrew text at the time of the Septuagint’s translation. Complete manuscripts of the Old Latin text have not survived. After the completion of Jerome’s Latin version, the Vulgate, the older text fell into disuse. Enough fragmentary manuscripts of this version do exist, however, to lend significant information to the early OT text.<\/p>\n<p>Around the third century <span>AD<\/span>, Latin began to replace Greek as the language of learning in the larger Roman world. A uniform, reliable text was badly needed for theological and liturgical uses. To fill this need, Pope Damasus I (<span>AD<\/span> 336–84) commissioned Jerome, an eminent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to undertake the translation. Jerome began this work as a translation from the Greek Septuagint, considered inspired by many church authorities, including Augustine. But later, and at the risk of great criticism, he turned to the Hebrew text being used in Palestine at that time as the base text for his translation. During the years between <span>AD<\/span> 390 and 405 Jerome wrote his Latin translation of the Hebrew OT. Yet, despite Jerome’s return to the original Hebrew, he was heavily dependent on the various Greek versions as aids in translation. As a result the Vulgate reflects the other Greek and Latin translations as much as the underlying Hebrew text. The value of the Vulgate for textual criticism is its pre-Masoretic witness to the Hebrew Bible, though this was compromised to a great extent by the influence of already existing Greek translations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTextoftheOldTestament\">The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The task of the textual critic can be divided into a number of general stages: (1) the collection and collation of existing manuscripts, translations, and quotations; (2) the development of theory and methodology that will enable the critic to use the gathered information to reconstruct the most accurate text of the biblical materials; (3) the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text in order to identify the various influences affecting the text; (4) the evaluation of specific variant readings in light of textual evidence, theology, and history.<\/p>\n<p>Both OT and NT textual critics undertake a similar task and face similar obstacles. They both seek to unearth a hypothetical “original” text with limited resources that are at varying degrees of deterioration. But the OT textual critic faces a more complex textual history than does his NT counterpart. The NT was written primarily in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, and complete NT manuscripts exist that were written only a few hundred years later. The OT, however, is made up of literature written over a 1,000-year period, the oldest parts dating to the 12th century <span>BC<\/span>, or possibly even earlier. To make matters even more difficult, until recently, the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the OT were medieval. This left scholars with little witness as to the OT’s textual development from ancient times to the Middle Ages, a period of over 2,000 years.<\/p>\n<p>Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and 1950s, secondary Aramaic, Greek, and Latin translations served as the earliest significant witnesses to the early Hebrew Scriptures. Since these are translations, and subject to sectarian and contextual alterations and interpolations, their value to the textual critic, though significant, is limited. The recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts, however, have provided primary witnesses to the Hebrew OT in earlier times. The scholarly assessment of these discoveries is, at present, far from complete, and the discipline of OT textual criticism anxiously awaits a more complete assessment of their significance. In a general sense, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls have affirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic Text that we use today.<\/p>\n<p>Reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text is an important element in evaluating variant readings. Material from a wide variety of sources must be combined in order to arrive at even a tentative reconstruction of the text. A brief sketch of scholarly opinion follows.<\/p>\n<p>The early history of the OT text as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the ancient Hebrew text shows a remarkable fluidity and diversity. Evidently the standardizing process did not begin at the earliest stages. For example, the materials from the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, do not reflect any frustration with varying texts within that community.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars have attempted to account for such diversity by theories of local texts. They theorize that various localities in the Near East (e.g., Babylon, Palestine, Egypt) had differing text types that are reflected in the various surviving Hebrew texts and versions. Other scholars account for the diversity by recognizing a precanonical fluidity. They feel that until the process of canonization was complete, accurate reproduction of the manuscripts was not viewed as very important. It should be noted, however, that the basic text that modern scholarship has identified as closest to the original was among the Dead Sea texts (for example, the large Isaiah Scroll).<\/p>\n<p>Destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 provided an impetus for standardization of the consonantal text. The texts found at Wadi Murabba’at, copied during the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>, reflect the new stage. The scholars initially reporting on the discovery were disappointed to find in these texts so few variations from the standard Masoretic Text. To scholars, the very early texts from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries had become the standard consonantal text to the exclusion of other variants. Scholars have now gone so far as to identify the only slightly later Wadi Murabba’at texts as a “proto-Masoretic” standard. This seems to indicate that the Hebrew consonantal text was already approaching a standard in Palestine by the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Standardization as practiced by the Masoretes meant identifying one text as normative and copying carefully from that text. It also meant correcting existing texts by the normative text. The Hebrew text, of course, was written with consonants alone, not with consonants <em>and<\/em> vowels, as we write English.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the transmission of the OT text was standardization of punctuation and vowel patterns. That process, which began fairly early in the NT period, extended over a period of 1,000 years. A long series of Masoretes provided annotations known as <em>Masora,<\/em> which, in Hebrew, means “tradition.” Two different motivations are evident in their work. One was their concern for accurate reproduction of the consonantal text. For that purpose a collection of annotations (on irregular forms, abnormal patterns, the number of times a form or word was used, and other matters) was gathered and inserted in the margins or at the end of the text.<\/p>\n<p>A second concern of the Masoretes was to record and standardize the vocalization of the consonantal text for reading purposes. Up until this point, scribes had been prohibited against inserting vowels to make the vocalization of the text clear. Because of this, a proper reading of the text depended on the oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. The origins of vocalization reflect differences between Babylon and Palestine. The Tiberian Masoretes (scholars working in Tiberias in Palestine) provided the most complete and exact system of vocalization. The earliest dated manuscript from that tradition is a codex of the Prophets from the Karaite synagogue of Cairo dated <span>AD<\/span> 896. Today the standard Hebrew text of the OT, <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> an updated version of Kittel’s <em>Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> is constructed on the basis of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Standardization of both the consonantal text and vocalization succeeded so well that the manuscripts that have survived display a remarkable agreement. Most of the variants, being minor and attributable to scribal error, do not affect interpretation.<\/p>\n<h5>Methodology of Old Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\n<p>The search for an adequate methodology to handle the many variant readings found in manuscripts is inseparably intertwined with our understanding of the history of transmission. The basic issue in textual criticism is the method used to decide the relative value of those variant readings. Many factors must be evaluated in order to arrive at a valid decision.<\/p>\n<p>Modern science has provided a number of aids for deciphering a manuscript. Scientific dating procedures help to determine the age of the writing material. Chemical techniques help clarify writing that has deteriorated. Ultraviolet light enables a scholar to see traces of ink (carbon) in a manuscript even after the surface writing has been effaced.<\/p>\n<p>Each manuscript must be studied as a whole, for each has a “personality.” It is important to identify the characteristic errors, characteristic carelessness or carefulness, and other peculiarities of the scribe(s) who copied the material. Then the manuscript must be compared with other manuscripts to identify the “family” tradition with which it agrees. Preservation of common errors or insertions in the text is a clue to relationships. All possible details of date, place of origin, and authorship must be ascertained.<\/p>\n<p>Scribal errors fall into several distinct categories. The first large category is that of <em>unintentional errors:<\/em> (1) Confusion of similar consonants and the transposition of two consonants are frequent errors. (2) Corruptions also resulted from an incorrect division of words (many early manuscripts omitted spaces between words in order to save space). (3) Confusion of sounds occurred particularly when one scribe read to a group of scribes making multiple copies. (4) In the OT, the method of vocalization (addition of vowels to the consonantal text) created some errors. (5) Omissions of a letter, word, or phrase created new readings. (6) Repetition of a letter, word, or even a whole phrase was also common. (7) Omission (called haplography) or repetition (called dittography) could be caused by the eye of a scribe slipping from one word to a similar word or ending. (8) Omissions by <em>homoioteleuton<\/em> (Greek meaning “similar endings”) were also quite common. This occurred when two words that were identical, similar, or had identical endings were found close to each other, and the eye of the copyist moved from the first to the second, omitting the words between them. (9) In the OT, errors were at times caused by the use of consonants as vowel letters in some ancient texts. Copyists unaware of this usage of vowel letters would copy them in as aberrant consonants. Normally unintentional errors are fairly easy to identify because they create nonsense readings.<\/p>\n<p><em>Intentional errors<\/em> are much more difficult to identify and evaluate. Harmonizations from similar materials occurred with regularity. Difficult readings were subject to “improvement” by a thinking scribe. Objectionable expressions were sometimes eliminated or smoothed out. Occasionally synonyms were employed. Conflation (resolving a discrepancy between two variant readings by including both of them) often appears.<\/p>\n<p>Awareness of these common problems is the first step in detecting and eliminating the more obvious errors and identifying and eliminating the peculiarities of a particular scribe. Then more subtle criteria for identifying the reading most likely to be the original must be employed. Procedures for applying such criteria are similar in both OT and NT work.<\/p>\n<h5>General Methodological Principles<\/h5>\n<p>Through the work of textual critics in the last several centuries, certain basic principles have evolved. The primary principles for the OT can be briefly summarized.<\/p>\n<p>1. The basic text for primary consideration is the Masoretic Text because of the careful standardization it represents. That text is compared with the testimony of the ancient versions. The Septuagint, by reason of age and basic faithfulness to the Hebrew text, carries significant weight in all decisions. The Targums (Aramaic translations) also reflect the Hebrew base but exhibit a tendency to expansion and paraphrase. The Syriac (<em>Peshitta<\/em>), Vulgate (Latin), Old Latin, and Coptic versions add indirect evidence, although translations are not always clear witnesses in technical details. Use of such versions does enable scholars to use comparative philology in textual decisions and thus expose early errors for which the original reading probably has not survived.<\/p>\n<li>2. The reading that best explains the origin of other variants is preferable. Information from reconstruction of the history of transmission often provides additional insight. Knowledge of typical scribal errors enables the critic to make an educated decision on the sequence of variants.<\/li>\n<li>3. The shorter reading is preferable. The scribes frequently added material in order to solve style or syntax problems and seldom abridged or condensed material.<\/li>\n<li>4. The more difficult reading is more likely to be the original one. This principle is closely related to the third. Scribes did not intentionally create more complex readings. Unintentional errors are usually easy to identify. Thus the easier reading is normally suspect as a scribal alteration.<\/li>\n<li>5. Readings that are not harmonized or assimilated to similar passages are preferable. Copyists had a tendency to correct material on the basis of similar material elsewhere (sometimes even unconsciously).<\/li>\n<li>6. When all else fails, the textual critic must resort to conjectural emendation. To make an “educated guess” requires intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, familiarity with the author’s style, and an understanding of culture, customs, and theology that might color the passage. Use of conjecture must be limited to those passages in which the original reading has definitely not been transmitted to us.<\/li>\n<h5>Conclusion<\/h5>\n<p>It should be remembered that textual criticism operates only when two or more readings are possible for a specific word or phrase. For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur.<\/p>\n<p>The field of textual criticism is complex, requiring the gathering and skillful use of a wide variety of information. Because it deals with the authoritative source of revelation for all Christians, textual argumentation has often been accompanied by emotion. Yet in spite of controversy, great progress has been made, particularly in the last century. Refinement of methodology has greatly aided our understanding of the accumulated materials. Additional aid has come from accumulations of information in related fields of study such as church history, biblical theology, and the history of Christian thought.<\/p>\n<p>Collection and organization of all variant readings have enabled modern textual critics to give strong assurance that the Word of God has been transmitted in accurate and dependable form. Although variant readings have become obvious through the publication of so many manuscripts, inadequate, inferior, and secondary readings have been largely eliminated. In relatively few places is conjectural emendation necessary. In matters pertaining to the Christian’s salvation, clear and unmistakable transmission provides authoritative answers. Christians are thus in debt to the textual critics who have worked, and are working, to provide a dependable biblical text.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, M<span>anuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>• Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<p>• The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ImportantOldTestamentManuscripts\">Important Old Testament Manuscripts<\/p>\n<p>Most medieval manuscripts of the OT exhibit a fairly standardized form of the Hebrew text. This standardization reflects the work of the medieval scribes known as Masoretes (<span>AD<\/span> 500–900); the text that resulted from their work is called the Masoretic Text. Most of the important manuscripts dated from the 11th century <span>AD<\/span> or later all reflect this same basic textual tradition. But since the Masoretic Text did not stabilize until well after <span>AD<\/span> 500, many questions about its development in the preceding centuries could not be answered. So the primary task for OT textual critics has been to compare earlier witnesses in order to discover how the Masoretic Text came to be, and how it and earlier witnesses of the Hebrew Bible are related. This leads us to the initial task of textual criticism: the collection of all possible records of the biblical writings.<\/p>\n<p>All the primary sources of the Hebrew Scriptures are handwritten manuscripts, usually written on animal skins, papyrus, or sometimes metal. The fact that they are handwritten is the source of many difficulties for the textual critic. Human error and editorial tampering are often to blame for the many variant readings in OT and NT manuscripts. The fact that the ancient manuscripts are written on skins or papyrus is another source of difficulty. Due to natural decay, most of the surviving ancient manuscripts are fragmentary and difficult to read.<\/p>\n<p>There are many secondary witnesses to the ancient OT text, including translations into other languages, quotations used by both friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts. Most of the secondary witnesses have suffered in ways similar to the primary ones. They, too, contain numerous variants due to both intentional and accidental scribal errors and are fragmentary as a result of natural decay. Since variant readings do exist in the surviving ancient manuscripts, these must be collected and compared. The task of comparing and listing the variant readings is known as collation.<\/p>\n<h5>Manuscripts with the Masoretic Text<\/h5>\n<p>The textual history of the Masoretic Text is a significant story in its own right. This text of the Hebrew Bible is the most complete in existence. It forms the basis for our modern Hebrew Bibles and is the prototype against which all comparisons are made in OT textual studies. It is called Masoretic because in its present form it is based on the <em>Masora,<\/em> the textual tradition of the Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes of Tiberias. (Tiberias was the location of their community on the Sea of Galilee.) The Masoretes, whose school flourished between <span>AD<\/span> 500 and 1000, standardized the traditional consonantal text by adding vowel pointing and marginal notes. (The ancient Hebrew alphabet had no vowels.)<\/p>\n<p>The Masoretic Text, as it exists today, owes much to the Ben Asher family. For five or six generations, from the second half of the eighth century to the middle of the tenth century <span>AD<\/span>, this family played a leading role in the Masoretic work at Tiberias. A faithful record of their work can be found in the oldest existing Masoretic manuscripts, which go back to the final two members of that family. The oldest dated Masoretic manuscript is Codex Cairensis (<span>AD<\/span> 895), which is attributed to Moses ben Asher. This manuscript contained both the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the 12 Minor Prophets). The rest of the OT is missing from this manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>The other major surviving manuscript attributed to the Ben Asher family is the Aleppo Codex. According to the manuscript’s concluding note, Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was responsible for writing the Masoretic notes and pointing the text. This manuscript contained the entire OT and dates from the first half of the 10th century <span>AD<\/span>. It was reportedly destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947, but this proved to be only partly true. A majority of the manuscript survived and will be used as the base for a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible to be published by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The manuscript known as Codex Leningradensis, presently stored in the Leningrad Public Library, is of special importance as a witness to the Ben Asher text. According to a note on the manuscript, it was copied in <span>AD<\/span> 1008 from texts written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. Since the oldest complete Hebrew text of the OT (the Aleppo Codex) was not available to scholars earlier in this century, Codex Leningradensis was used as the textual base for the popular Hebrew texts of today: <em>Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> edited by R. Kittel, and its revision, <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolf.<\/p>\n<p>There are quite a number of less important manuscript codices that reflect the Masoretic tradition: the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets and the Erfurt Codices. There are also a number of manuscripts that no longer exist but which were used by scholars in the Masoretic period. One of the most prominent is Codex Hillel, traditionally attributed to Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel about <span>AD<\/span> 600. This codex was said to be very accurate and was used for the revision of other manuscripts. Readings of this codex are cited repeatedly by the early medieval Masoretes. Codex Muga, Codex Jericho, and Codex Jerushalmi, also no longer extant, were also cited by the Masoretes. These manuscripts were likely prominent examples of unpointed texts that had become part of a standardizing consensus in the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>. These laid the groundwork for the work of the Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the completeness of the Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, a major problem still remains for OT textual critics. The Masoretic manuscripts, as old as they are, were written between 1,000 and 2,000 years after the original autographs. Earlier witnesses to the ancient Hebrew text were needed to testify to the accuracy of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Dead Sea Scrolls<\/h5>\n<p>The most important ancient witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are the texts discovered at Wadi Qumran in the 1940s and 1950s. (<em>Wadi<\/em> is an Arabic word for a riverbed that is dry except in the rainy season.) Before the Qumran discoveries, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscripts of the OT dated from about <span>AD<\/span> 900. The greatest importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the discovery of biblical manuscripts dating back to only about 300 years after the close of the OT canon. That makes them 1,000 years earlier than the oldest manuscripts previously known to biblical scholars. The texts found at Wadi Qumran were all completed before the Roman conquest of Palestine in <span>AD<\/span> 70, and many predate this event by quite some time. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Isaiah Scroll has received the most publicity, although the collection contains fragments of all the books in the Hebrew Bible with the exception of Esther.<\/p>\n<p>Because the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is so important for OT textual criticism, a short history and description of these recent discoveries is appropriate. The manuscripts now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of biblical and extrabiblical manuscripts from Qumran, an ancient Jewish religious community near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p>Before the Qumran find, few manuscripts had been discovered in the Holy Land. The early church father Origen (third century <span>AD<\/span>) mentioned using Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that had been stored in jars in caves near Jericho. In the ninth century <span>AD<\/span> a patriarch of the eastern church, Timothy I, wrote a letter to Sergius, metropolitan (archbishop) of Elam, in which he, too, referred to a large number of Hebrew manuscripts found in a cave near Jericho. For more than 1,000 years since then, however, no other significant manuscript discoveries were forthcoming from caves in that region near the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Qumran<\/h5>\n<p>The history of the Dead Sea manuscripts, both of their hiding and of their finding, reads like a mystery adventure story. It began with a telephone call on Wednesday afternoon, February 18, 1948, in the troubled city of Jerusalem. Butrus Sowmy, librarian and monk of St Mark’s Monastery in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, was calling John C. Trever, acting director of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR). Sowmy had been preparing a catalog of the monastery’s collection of rare books. Among them he found some scrolls in ancient Hebrew that, he said, had been in the monastery for about 40 years. Could ASOR supply him with some information for the catalog?<\/p>\n<p>The following day Sowmy and his brother brought a suitcase containing five scrolls or parts of scrolls wrapped in an Arabic newspaper. Pulling back the end of one of the scrolls Trever discovered that it was written in a clear, square Hebrew script. He copied several lines from that scroll, carefully examined three others, but was unable to unroll the fifth because it was too brittle. After the Syrians left, Trever told the story of the scrolls to William H. Brownlee, an ASOR fellow. Trever further noted in the lines he had copied from the first scroll the double occurrence of an unusual negative construction in Hebrew. In addition, the Hebrew script of the scrolls was more archaic than anything he had ever seen.<\/p>\n<p>Trever then visited St Mark’s Monastery. There he was introduced to the Syrian archbishop Athanasius Samuel, who gave him permission to photograph the scrolls. Trever and Brownlee compared the style of handwriting on the scrolls with a photograph of the Nash Papyrus, a scroll inscribed with the Ten Commandments and Deuteronomy 6:4 and dated by scholars in the first or second century <span>BC<\/span>. The two ASOR scholars concluded that the script on the newly found manuscripts belonged to the same period. When ASOR director Millar Burrows returned to Jerusalem from Baghdad a few days later, he was shown the scrolls, and the three men continued their investigation. Only then did the Syrians reveal that the scrolls had been purchased the year before, in 1947, and had not been in the monastery for 40 years as was first reported.<\/p>\n<p>How had the Syrians come to possess the scrolls? Before that question could be answered, many fragmentary accounts had to be pieced together. Sometime during the winter of 1946–47 three Bedouin were tending their sheep and goats near a spring in the vicinity of Wadi Qumran. One of the herdsmen, throwing a rock through a small opening in the cliff, heard the sound of the rock evidently shattering an earthenware jar inside. Another Bedouin later lowered himself into the cave and found ten tall jars lining the walls. Three manuscripts (one of them in four pieces) stored in two of the jars were removed from the cave and offered to an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n<p>Several months later the Bedouin secured four more scrolls (one of them in two pieces) from the cave and sold them to another dealer in Bethlehem. During Holy Week in 1947, St Mark’s Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem was informed of the four scrolls, and Metropolitan Athanasius Samuel offered to buy them. The sale was not completed, however, until July 1947, when the four scrolls were bought by the monastery. They included a complete Isaiah scroll, a commentary on Habakkuk, a scroll containing a Manual of Discipline of the religious community at Qumran, and the Genesis Apocryphon (originally thought to be the aprocryphal book of Lamech but actually an Aramaic paraphrase of Genesis).<\/p>\n<p>In November and December of 1947 an Armenian antiquities dealer in Jerusalem informed the late E. L. Sukenik, professor of archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, of the first three scrolls found in the cave by the Bedouin. Sukenik then secured the three scrolls and two jars from the antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. They included an incomplete scroll of Isaiah, the Hymns of Thanksgiving (containing 12 columns of original psalms), and the War Scroll. (That scroll describes a war, actual or spiritual, of the tribes of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin against the Moabites and Edomites. <em>See<\/em> War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.)<\/p>\n<p>On April 1, 1948, the first news release appeared in newspapers around the world, followed by another news release on April 26 by Sukenik about the manuscripts he had already acquired at Hebrew University. In 1949 Athanasius Samuel brought the four scrolls from St Mark’s Monastery to the United States. They were exhibited in various places and finally were purchased on July 1, 1954, in New York for $250,000 by Sukenik’s son for the nation of Israel and sent to Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Today they are on display in the Shrine of the Book museum in West Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the importance of the initial discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, both archaeologists and Bedouin continued their search for more manuscripts. Early in 1949, G. Lankester Harding, director of antiquities for the kingdom of Jordan, and Roland G. de Vaux, of the Dominic Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, excavated the cave (designated Cave One, or 1Q) where the initial discovery was made. Several hundred caves were explored the same year. So far, 11 caves in the Wadi Qumran have yielded treasures. Almost 600 manuscripts have been recovered, about 200 of which are biblical material. The fragments number between 50,000 and 60,000 pieces. About 85 percent of the fragments are leather; the other 15 percent are papyrus. The fact that most of the manuscripts are leather contributed to the problem of their preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the cave next most important to Cave One is Cave Four (4Q), which has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical. Every book of the OT except Esther is represented.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to the biblical manuscripts the discoveries have included apocryphal works such as Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the Letter of Jeremiah. Fragments were also found of pseudepigraphal books such as 1 Enoch, the book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi.<\/p>\n<p>Many sectarian scrolls peculiar to the religious community that lived at Qumran were also found. They furnish historical background on the nature of pre-Christian Judaism and help fill in the gaps of intertestamental history. One of the scrolls, the Damascus Document, had originally turned up in Cairo, but manuscripts of it have now been found at Qumran. The Manual of Discipline was one of the seven scrolls from Cave One. Fragmentary manuscripts of it have been found in other caves. The document gives the group’s entrance requirements, plus regulations governing life in the Qumran community. The Thanksgiving Hymns include some 30 hymns, probably composed by one individual.<\/p>\n<p>There were also many commentaries on different books of the OT. The Habakkuk Commentary was a copy of the first two chapters of Habakkuk in Hebrew accompanied by a verse-by-verse commentary. The commentary gives many details about an apocalyptic figure called the “Teacher of Righteousness” who is persecuted by a wicked priest.<\/p>\n<p>A unique discovery was made in Cave Three (3Q) in 1952. It was a scroll of copper, measuring about eight feet (2.4 meters) long and a foot (30.5 centimeters) wide. Because it was brittle, it was not opened until 1966, and then only by cutting it into strips. It contained an inventory of some 60 locations where treasures of gold, silver, and incense were hidden. Archaeologists have not been able to find any of it. That list of treasures, perhaps from the Jerusalem temple, may have been stored in the cave by Zealots (a revolutionary Jewish political party) during their struggle with the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 66–70.<\/p>\n<p>During the Six-Day War in June 1967, Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin of the Hebrew University, acquired a Qumran document called the Temple Scroll. That tightly rolled scroll measures 28 feet (8.5 meters) and is the longest scroll found so far in the Qumran area. A major portion of it is devoted to statutes of the kings and matters of defense. It also describes sacrificial feasts and rules of cleanliness. Almost half of the scroll gives detailed instructions for building a future temple, supposedly revealed by God to the scroll’s author.<\/p>\n<h5>Important Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts<\/h5>\n<p>Among the hundreds of biblical manuscripts discovered in the 11 caves around the Dead Sea, there are some very significant ones—especially for textual studies. These are listed below. (The first number signifies the cave, Q indicates Qumran, the abbreviation for the biblical book follows, often followed by a superscipt letter for successive manuscripts containing the same book.)<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsa<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This is the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. It is dated to c. 100 <span>BC<\/span>. The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic with some significant variants.<\/p>\n<h6>1QIsa<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>The text, which includes most of Isaiah, is proto-Masoretic. It is dated to a period from 25 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50.<\/p>\n<h6>2QJer<\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript is dated to a period from 25 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50 and has portions of Jeremiah chapters 42–49. It has some readings that follow the Septuagint (LXX), while it follows the order of chapters found in proto-Masoretic texts. For the book of Jeremiah, the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are quite different: the Septuagint is one-eighth shorter and has a different arrangement of chapters.<\/p>\n<h6>4QPaleoExod<span>m<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing most of Exodus, is dated quite early: 200–175 <span>BC<\/span>. As such, it has provided scholars with some interesting insights into the early history of textual transmission of Exodus and the Pentateuch. The manuscript shows many similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch.<\/p>\n<h6>4QNum<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated 30 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20, contains most of Numbers. The book of Numbers existed in three distinguishable textual traditions: the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint. This manuscript, 4QNum<span>b<\/span>, shows similarities with the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, while having its own unique readings.<\/p>\n\n<h6>4QSam<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing about one tenth of 1 and 2 Samuel, is dated c. 50–25 <span>BC<\/span>. This manuscript, showing some similarities with the Septuagint, is believed to have several readings that are superior to the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJer<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, containing portions of Jeremiah 7–22, dates c. 200 <span>BC<\/span>. It generally concurs with the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<h6>4QJer<span>b<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated c. 150–125 <span>BC<\/span>, follows the arrangement of the Septuagint, as well as its brevity. The significance of this is that two different texts of Jeremiah were used in the pre-Christian era—one that was proto-Masoretic (as with 4QJer<span>a<\/span>) and one that was like the Septuagint.<\/p>\n<h6>11QPs<span>a<\/span><\/h6>\n<p>This manuscript, dated c. <span>AD<\/span> 25–50, preserves many psalms. However, these are not in the traditional sequence found in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the manuscript has several other psalms, some of which were known from other ancient versions and others that were unknown until they surfaced in this manuscript.<\/p>\n<h5>Scroll Discoveries at Wadi Murabba’at<\/h5>\n<p>In 1951 Bedouin discovered more manuscripts in caves in the Wadi Murabba’at, which extends southeast from Bethlehem toward the Dead Sea, about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) south of Qumran. Four caves were excavated there in 1952 under Harding and de Vaux. They yielded biblical documents and important materials, such as letters and coins, from the time of the second Jewish revolt under Bar-Kochba in <span>AD<\/span> 132–135. Among the biblical manuscripts was a scroll containing a Hebrew text of the Minor Prophets, dating from the second century <span>AD<\/span>. This manuscript corresponds almost perfectly to the Masoretic Text, hinting that by the second century a standard consonantal text was already taking shape. Also found in Wadi Murabba’at were fragments of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) and Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient witnesses to the Hebrew OT that are actually written in the Hebrew language are almost nonexistent. Because of this, the Dead Sea Scrolls may easily be one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time. They take us 1,000 years deeper into the history of the Hebrew OT, giving us the ability to assess all the other ancient witnesses with greater understanding.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently represented OT books among the Dead Sea Scrolls are Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Isaiah. The oldest text is a fragment of Exodus dating from about 250 <span>BC<\/span>. The Isaiah Scroll dates from about 100 <span>BC<\/span>. These ancient witnesses only confirm the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the care with which the Jewish scribes handled the Scriptures. Except for a few instances where spelling and grammar differ between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, the two are amazingly similar. The differences do not warrant any major changes in the substance of the OT. Yet these discoveries are helping biblical scholars gain a clearer understanding of the text at an earlier time in its history and development.<\/p>\n<p>Early conclusions about the antiquity of the first Dead Sea Scrolls were not accepted by everyone. Some scholars were convinced that the scrolls were of medieval origin. A series of questions relate to the dating problem. When were the texts at Qumran composed? When were they deposited in the caves? Most scholars believe the manuscripts were placed in the caves by members of the Qumran community when Roman legions were besieging Jewish strongholds. That was shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n\n<p>Careful study of the contents of a document sometimes reveals its authorship and the date when it was written. An example of using such internal evidence for dating a nonbiblical work is found in the Habakkuk Commentary. It gives hints about the people and events in the days of the commentary’s author, not in the days of the prophet Habakkuk. The commentator described the enemies of God’s people as the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Kittim<\/span><em>.<\/em> Originally that word denoted Cyprus but later came to be more generally the Greek islands and the coasts of the eastern Mediterranean. In Daniel 11:30 the term is used prophetically, and most scholars identify the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Kittim<\/span> with the Romans. Thus, the Habakkuk Commentary was probably written about the time of the Roman capture of Palestine under Pompey in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another important item to consider when dating a manuscript is its copy date. Although the vast majority of manuscripts are undated, it is often possible to determine when a manuscript was written by paleography, the study of ancient handwriting. That was the method initially employed by Trever when he compared the script of the Isaiah Scroll with the Nash Papyrus, thus dating it to the pre-Christian era. His conclusions were confirmed by the late William F. Albright, then the foremost American archaeologist. During the time of the Babylonian captivity, the square script became the normal style of writing in Hebrew (as well as in Aramaic, a cousin of Hebrew). The evidence of paleography clearly dates the majority of the Qumran scrolls in the period between 200 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 200.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology provides another kind of external evidence. The pottery discovered at Qumran dates from the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods (200 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 100). Earthenware articles and ornaments point to the same period. Several hundred coins were found in jars dating from the Graeco-Roman period. A crack in one of the buildings is attributed to an earthquake that, according to Josephus (a Jewish historian who wrote during the first century <span>AD<\/span>), occurred in 31 <span>BC<\/span>. The excavations at Khirbet Qumran indicate that the general period of their occupation was from about 135 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 68, the year the Zealot revolt was crushed by Rome.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, radiocarbon analysis has contributed to dating the finds. Radiocarbon analysis is a method of dating material from the amount of radioactive carbon remaining in it. The process is also known as carbon-14 dating. Applied to the linen cloth in which the scrolls were wrapped, the analysis gave a date of <span>AD<\/span> 33 plus or minus 200 years. A later test bracketed the date between 250 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 50. Although there may be questions concerning the relation of the linen wrappings to the date of the scrolls themselves, the carbon-14 test agrees with the conclusions of both paleography and archaeology. The general period, then, in which the Dead Sea Scrolls can be safely dated is between about 150 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Nash Papyrus<\/h5>\n<p>Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew witness to the OT was the Nash Papyrus. This manuscript was acquired in Egypt by W. L. Nash in 1902 and was donated to the Cambridge University Library. This manuscript contains a damaged copy of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17), part of Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and also the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shema<\/span> (Dt 6:4ff.). This is clearly a collection of devotional and liturgical passages, and has been dated to the same period as the Dead Sea Scrolls, between 150 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 68.<\/p>\n<h5>The Cairo Geniza Fragments<\/h5>\n<p>Near the end of the 19th century, many fragments from the 6th to the 8th centuries were found in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which had been St Michael’s Church until <span>AD<\/span> 882. They were found there in a geniza, a storage room where worn or faulty manuscripts were hidden until they could be disposed of properly. This geniza had apparently been walled off and forgotten until its recent discovery. In this small room, as many as 200,000 fragments were preserved, including biblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that the biblical fragments date from the 5th century <span>AD<\/span> makes them invaluable for shedding light on the development of the Masoretic work prior to the standardization instituted by the great Masoretes of Tiberias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificantOldTestamentVersions\">Significant Old Testament Versions<\/p>\n<h5>The Samaritan Pentateuch<\/h5>\n<p>Exactly when the Samaritan community separated from the larger Jewish community is a matter of dispute. But at some point during the postexilic period (c. 540–100 <span>BC<\/span>), a clear division between Samaritans and Jews was marked off. At this point, the Samaritans, who accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical, apparently canonized their own particular version of the Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>A copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch came to the attention of scholars in 1616. Initially, it caused a great deal of excitement, but most of the early assessments of its value to textual criticism were negative. It differed from the Masoretic Text in some 6,000 instances, and many judged this to be the result of sectarian differences between Samaritans and Jews. By some, it was simply viewed as a sectarian revision of the Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p>After further assessment, however, it became clear that the Samaritan Pentateuch represented a text of much earlier origin than the Masoretic Text. And although a few of the distinctions of the Samaritan Pentateuch were clearly the result of sectarian concerns, most of the differences were neutral in this respect. Many of them had more to do with popularizing the text, rather than altering its meaning in any way. The fact that the Samaritan Pentateuch had much in common with the Septuagint, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the NT, revealed that most of its differences with the Masoretic Text were not due to sectarian differences. More likely, they were due to the use of a different textual base, which was probably in wide use in the ancient Near East until well after the time of Christ. This realization, though not solving any real problems, did much to illustrate the complexity of the OT textual tradition that existed before the Masoretic standard was completed.<\/p>\n<h5>The Septuagint (LXX)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the OT, its witness being significantly older than that of the Masoretic Text. According to tradition, the Septuagint Pentateuch was translated by a team of 70 scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. (Hence its common designation LXX, the Roman numerals for 70.) The Jewish community in Egypt spoke Greek, not Hebrew, so a Greek translation of the OT was sincerely needed by that community of Jews. The exact date of translation is not known, but evidence indicates that the Septuagint Pentateuch was completed in the third century <span>BC<\/span>. The rest of the OT was probably translated over a long period of time, as it clearly represents the work of many different scholars.<\/p>\n<p>The value of the Septuagint to textual criticism varies widely from book to book. It might be said that the Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various authors, who differed greatly in their methods and their knowledge of Hebrew. The translations of the individual books are in no way uniform. Many books are translated almost literally, while others like Job and Daniel are quite dynamic. So the value of each book for textual criticism must be assessed on a book-by-book basis. The books translated literally are clearly more helpful in making comparisons with the Masoretic Text than the more dynamic ones.<\/p>\n<p>The content of some books is significantly different when comparing the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. For example, the Septuagint’s Jeremiah is missing significant portions found in the Masoretic Text, and the order of the text is significantly different as well. What these differences actually mean is difficult to know with certainty. It has been conjectured that the Septuagint is simply a poor translation and is therefore missing portions of the original Hebrew. But these same differences could also indicate that editorial additions and changes worked their way into the Masoretic Text during its long history of development. It is also possible that there were a number of valid textual traditions at that time, one followed by the Septuagint, and another followed by the Masoretic Text. This illustrates some of the difficulties that arise while doing OT textual criticism.<\/p>\n<p>The Septuagint was the standard OT text used by the early Christian church. The expanding Gentile church needed a translation in the common language of the time—Greek. By the time of Christ, even among the Jews, a majority of the people spoke Aramaic and Greek, not Hebrew. The NT writers evidence their inclination to the Septuagint by using it when quoting the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Greek Versions<\/h5>\n<p>Because of the broad acceptance and use of the Septuagint among Christians, the Jews renounced it in favor of a number of other Greek versions. Aquila, a proselyte and disciple of Rabbi Akiba, produced a new translation around <span>AD<\/span> 130. In the spirit of his teacher, Aquila wrote an extremely literal translation, often to the point of communicating poorly in Greek. This literal approach, however, gained this version wide acceptance among Jews. Only fragments of this version have survived, but its literal nature reveals much about its Hebrew textual base.<\/p>\n<p>Symmachus produced a new version around <span>AD<\/span> 170 designed not only for accuracy but also to communicate well in the Greek language. His version has survived only in a few <em>Hexapla<\/em> fragments. A third Greek version came from Theodotion, a Jewish proselyte from the end of the second century <span>AD<\/span>. His version was apparently a revision of an earlier Greek version, possibly the Septuagint. This version has survived only in a few early Christian quotations, though it was once widely used.<\/p>\n<p>The Christian theologian Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–255) arranged the OT with six parallel versions for comparison in his <em>Hexapla.<\/em> In his effort to find the best text of the Septuagint, Origen wrote out six parallel columns containing first the Hebrew, second the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, third the text of Aquila, fourth the text of Symmachus, fifth his own corrected Septuagint text, sixth the text of Theodotion. Jerome used this great Bible at Caesarea in his work on the Vulgate (after 382—see below). Almost four centuries after Origen’s death, a Mesopotamian bishop, Paul of Tella, also used the <em>Hexapla<\/em> in the library at Caesarea (616–17) to make a translation into Syriac of Origen’s fifth column, the corrected Septuagint. Then in 638 the Islamic hordes swept through Caesarea and the <em>Hexapla<\/em> disappeared. Other than a few fragments, only Bishop Paul’s Syriac translation of Origen’s fifth column remains.<\/p>\n<p>An eighth-century copy of Bishop Paul’s Syriac <em>Hexapla<\/em> Septuagint is extant in a Milan museum. Other famous uncial manuscripts of the Septuagint are the codices: Vaticanus, early fourth century, now in the Vatican Library; Sinaiticus, mid-fourth century; and Alexandrinus, probably from the fifth century—both of the latter are in London’s British Museum. These copies are intensely studied because they bear a Greek witness to Hebrew texts far earlier than the Masoretic or “received text.”<\/p>\n<h5>The Aramaic Targums<\/h5>\n<p>The Aramaic Targums were Aramaic translations of the Hebrew OT. Since the common language of the Jews during the postexilic period was Aramaic and not Hebrew, a need for Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible arose. Hebrew remained the language of scholarly religious circles, and translations for the common people were often spurned by the religious leadership. But over time, the reading of the Scriptures and commentaries in Aramaic became an accepted practice in the synagogues.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of these translations was to get the message across and to edify the people. Thus, the translations were extremely interpretive. The translators paraphrased, added explanatory glosses, and often boldly reinterpreted the text according to the theological biases of their time. They sought to relate the Bible text to contemporary life and political circumstances. Because of the dynamic approach evident in these translations, their use in textual criticism is limited, but they do add to the welter of evidence to be collected and collated in order to reconstruct the text of the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>The Syriac Version<\/h5>\n<p>Another version worthy of note is the Syriac version. This version was in common use in the Syriac (eastern Aramaic) church, which designated it the <em>Peshitta,<\/em> meaning “the simple or plain.” What they intended by this designation is difficult to discern. It may indicate that it was intended for popular consumption, or that it avoided adding explanatory glosses and other additions, or perhaps that it was not an annotated text, as was the annotated <em>Syro-Hexapla<\/em> then in use by the same community.<\/p>\n<p>The literary history of the Syriac version is not known, though it is clearly complex. Some have identified it as the recasting of an Aramaic Targum in Syriac, while others claim it has a more independent origin. Some connect it to the conversion of the leaders of Adiabene (east of the Tigris River) to the Jewish faith during the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Their need for an OT could have brought about the development of a version in their common tongue—Syriac. Still others connect it to Christian origins. Obvious later revisions to the <em>Peshitta<\/em> complicate matters even more. More study needs to be done to assess the nature of this version before it can lend much insight into the history of the Hebrew text.<\/p>\n<h5>The Latin Versions<\/h5>\n<p>Latin was a dominant language in western regions of the Roman Empire from well before the time of Christ. It was in the western regions of southern Gaul and North Africa that the first Latin translations of the Bible appeared. Around <span>AD<\/span> 160 Tertullian apparently used a Latin version of the Scriptures. Not long after this, the Old Latin text seems to have been in circulation, evidenced by Cyprian’s use of it before his death in <span>AD<\/span> 258. The Old Latin version was translated from the Septuagint. Due to its early date, it is valuable as a witness to the early Septuagint text, before later editors obscured the nature of the original. It also indirectly gives clues to the nature of the Hebrew text at the time of the Septuagint’s translation. Complete manuscripts of the Old Latin text have not survived. After the completion of Jerome’s Latin version, the Vulgate, the older text fell into disuse. Enough fragmentary manuscripts of this version do exist, however, to lend significant information to the early OT text.<\/p>\n<p>Around the third century <span>AD<\/span>, Latin began to replace Greek as the language of learning in the larger Roman world. A uniform, reliable text was badly needed for theological and liturgical uses. To fill this need, Pope Damasus I (<span>AD<\/span> 336–84) commissioned Jerome, an eminent scholar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, to undertake the translation. Jerome began this work as a translation from the Greek Septuagint, considered inspired by many church authorities, including Augustine. But later, and at the risk of great criticism, he turned to the Hebrew text being used in Palestine at that time as the base text for his translation. During the years between <span>AD<\/span> 390 and 405 Jerome wrote his Latin translation of the Hebrew OT. Yet, despite Jerome’s return to the original Hebrew, he was heavily dependent on the various Greek versions as aids in translation. As a result the Vulgate reflects the other Greek and Latin translations as much as the underlying Hebrew text. The value of the Vulgate for textual criticism is its pre-Masoretic witness to the Hebrew Bible, though this was compromised to a great extent by the influence of already existing Greek translations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTextoftheOldTestament\">The Text of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The task of the textual critic can be divided into a number of general stages: (1) the collection and collation of existing manuscripts, translations, and quotations; (2) the development of theory and methodology that will enable the critic to use the gathered information to reconstruct the most accurate text of the biblical materials; (3) the reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text in order to identify the various influences affecting the text; (4) the evaluation of specific variant readings in light of textual evidence, theology, and history.<\/p>\n<p>Both OT and NT textual critics undertake a similar task and face similar obstacles. They both seek to unearth a hypothetical “original” text with limited resources that are at varying degrees of deterioration. But the OT textual critic faces a more complex textual history than does his NT counterpart. The NT was written primarily in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, and complete NT manuscripts exist that were written only a few hundred years later. The OT, however, is made up of literature written over a 1,000-year period, the oldest parts dating to the 12th century <span>BC<\/span>, or possibly even earlier. To make matters even more difficult, until recently, the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts of the OT were medieval. This left scholars with little witness as to the OT’s textual development from ancient times to the Middle Ages, a period of over 2,000 years.<\/p>\n<p>Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and 1950s, secondary Aramaic, Greek, and Latin translations served as the earliest significant witnesses to the early Hebrew Scriptures. Since these are translations, and subject to sectarian and contextual alterations and interpolations, their value to the textual critic, though significant, is limited. The recent discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts, however, have provided primary witnesses to the Hebrew OT in earlier times. The scholarly assessment of these discoveries is, at present, far from complete, and the discipline of OT textual criticism anxiously awaits a more complete assessment of their significance. In a general sense, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls have affirmed the accuracy of the Masoretic Text that we use today.<\/p>\n<p>Reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the text is an important element in evaluating variant readings. Material from a wide variety of sources must be combined in order to arrive at even a tentative reconstruction of the text. A brief sketch of scholarly opinion follows.<\/p>\n<p>The early history of the OT text as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the ancient Hebrew text shows a remarkable fluidity and diversity. Evidently the standardizing process did not begin at the earliest stages. For example, the materials from the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, do not reflect any frustration with varying texts within that community.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars have attempted to account for such diversity by theories of local texts. They theorize that various localities in the Near East (e.g., Babylon, Palestine, Egypt) had differing text types that are reflected in the various surviving Hebrew texts and versions. Other scholars account for the diversity by recognizing a precanonical fluidity. They feel that until the process of canonization was complete, accurate reproduction of the manuscripts was not viewed as very important. It should be noted, however, that the basic text that modern scholarship has identified as closest to the original was among the Dead Sea texts (for example, the large Isaiah Scroll).<\/p>\n<p>Destruction of the temple in <span>AD<\/span> 70 provided an impetus for standardization of the consonantal text. The texts found at Wadi Murabba’at, copied during the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>, reflect the new stage. The scholars initially reporting on the discovery were disappointed to find in these texts so few variations from the standard Masoretic Text. To scholars, the very early texts from the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries had become the standard consonantal text to the exclusion of other variants. Scholars have now gone so far as to identify the only slightly later Wadi Murabba’at texts as a “proto-Masoretic” standard. This seems to indicate that the Hebrew consonantal text was already approaching a standard in Palestine by the first centuries <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Standardization as practiced by the Masoretes meant identifying one text as normative and copying carefully from that text. It also meant correcting existing texts by the normative text. The Hebrew text, of course, was written with consonants alone, not with consonants <em>and<\/em> vowels, as we write English.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the transmission of the OT text was standardization of punctuation and vowel patterns. That process, which began fairly early in the NT period, extended over a period of 1,000 years. A long series of Masoretes provided annotations known as <em>Masora,<\/em> which, in Hebrew, means “tradition.” Two different motivations are evident in their work. One was their concern for accurate reproduction of the consonantal text. For that purpose a collection of annotations (on irregular forms, abnormal patterns, the number of times a form or word was used, and other matters) was gathered and inserted in the margins or at the end of the text.<\/p>\n<p>A second concern of the Masoretes was to record and standardize the vocalization of the consonantal text for reading purposes. Up until this point, scribes had been prohibited against inserting vowels to make the vocalization of the text clear. Because of this, a proper reading of the text depended on the oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. The origins of vocalization reflect differences between Babylon and Palestine. The Tiberian Masoretes (scholars working in Tiberias in Palestine) provided the most complete and exact system of vocalization. The earliest dated manuscript from that tradition is a codex of the Prophets from the Karaite synagogue of Cairo dated <span>AD<\/span> 896. Today the standard Hebrew text of the OT, <em>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia,<\/em> an updated version of Kittel’s <em>Biblia Hebraica,<\/em> is constructed on the basis of the Tiberian Masoretic tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Standardization of both the consonantal text and vocalization succeeded so well that the manuscripts that have survived display a remarkable agreement. Most of the variants, being minor and attributable to scribal error, do not affect interpretation.<\/p>\n<h5>Methodology of Old Testament Textual Criticism<\/h5>\n<p>The search for an adequate methodology to handle the many variant readings found in manuscripts is inseparably intertwined with our understanding of the history of transmission. The basic issue in textual criticism is the method used to decide the relative value of those variant readings. Many factors must be evaluated in order to arrive at a valid decision.<\/p>\n<p>Modern science has provided a number of aids for deciphering a manuscript. Scientific dating procedures help to determine the age of the writing material. Chemical techniques help clarify writing that has deteriorated. Ultraviolet light enables a scholar to see traces of ink (carbon) in a manuscript even after the surface writing has been effaced.<\/p>\n<p>Each manuscript must be studied as a whole, for each has a “personality.” It is important to identify the characteristic errors, characteristic carelessness or carefulness, and other peculiarities of the scribe(s) who copied the material. Then the manuscript must be compared with other manuscripts to identify the “family” tradition with which it agrees. Preservation of common errors or insertions in the text is a clue to relationships. All possible details of date, place of origin, and authorship must be ascertained.<\/p>\n<p>Scribal errors fall into several distinct categories. The first large category is that of <em>unintentional errors:<\/em> (1) Confusion of similar consonants and the transposition of two consonants are frequent errors. (2) Corruptions also resulted from an incorrect division of words (many early manuscripts omitted spaces between words in order to save space). (3) Confusion of sounds occurred particularly when one scribe read to a group of scribes making multiple copies. (4) In the OT, the method of vocalization (addition of vowels to the consonantal text) created some errors. (5) Omissions of a letter, word, or phrase created new readings. (6) Repetition of a letter, word, or even a whole phrase was also common. (7) Omission (called haplography) or repetition (called dittography) could be caused by the eye of a scribe slipping from one word to a similar word or ending. (8) Omissions by <em>homoioteleuton<\/em> (Greek meaning “similar endings”) were also quite common. This occurred when two words that were identical, similar, or had identical endings were found close to each other, and the eye of the copyist moved from the first to the second, omitting the words between them. (9) In the OT, errors were at times caused by the use of consonants as vowel letters in some ancient texts. Copyists unaware of this usage of vowel letters would copy them in as aberrant consonants. Normally unintentional errors are fairly easy to identify because they create nonsense readings.<\/p>\n<p><em>Intentional errors<\/em> are much more difficult to identify and evaluate. Harmonizations from similar materials occurred with regularity. Difficult readings were subject to “improvement” by a thinking scribe. Objectionable expressions were sometimes eliminated or smoothed out. Occasionally synonyms were employed. Conflation (resolving a discrepancy between two variant readings by including both of them) often appears.<\/p>\n<p>Awareness of these common problems is the first step in detecting and eliminating the more obvious errors and identifying and eliminating the peculiarities of a particular scribe. Then more subtle criteria for identifying the reading most likely to be the original must be employed. Procedures for applying such criteria are similar in both OT and NT work.<\/p>\n<h5>General Methodological Principles<\/h5>\n<p>Through the work of textual critics in the last several centuries, certain basic principles have evolved. The primary principles for the OT can be briefly summarized.<\/p>\n<p>1. The basic text for primary consideration is the Masoretic Text because of the careful standardization it represents. That text is compared with the testimony of the ancient versions. The Septuagint, by reason of age and basic faithfulness to the Hebrew text, carries significant weight in all decisions. The Targums (Aramaic translations) also reflect the Hebrew base but exhibit a tendency to expansion and paraphrase. The Syriac (<em>Peshitta<\/em>), Vulgate (Latin), Old Latin, and Coptic versions add indirect evidence, although translations are not always clear witnesses in technical details. Use of such versions does enable scholars to use comparative philology in textual decisions and thus expose early errors for which the original reading probably has not survived.<\/p>\n<li>2. The reading that best explains the origin of other variants is preferable. Information from reconstruction of the history of transmission often provides additional insight. Knowledge of typical scribal errors enables the critic to make an educated decision on the sequence of variants.<\/li>\n<li>3. The shorter reading is preferable. The scribes frequently added material in order to solve style or syntax problems and seldom abridged or condensed material.<\/li>\n<li>4. The more difficult reading is more likely to be the original one. This principle is closely related to the third. Scribes did not intentionally create more complex readings. Unintentional errors are usually easy to identify. Thus the easier reading is normally suspect as a scribal alteration.<\/li>\n<li>5. Readings that are not harmonized or assimilated to similar passages are preferable. Copyists had a tendency to correct material on the basis of similar material elsewhere (sometimes even unconsciously).<\/li>\n<li>6. When all else fails, the textual critic must resort to conjectural emendation. To make an “educated guess” requires intimate acquaintance with the Hebrew language, familiarity with the author’s style, and an understanding of culture, customs, and theology that might color the passage. Use of conjecture must be limited to those passages in which the original reading has definitely not been transmitted to us.<\/li>\n<h5>Conclusion<\/h5>\n<p>It should be remembered that textual criticism operates only when two or more readings are possible for a specific word or phrase. For most of the biblical text, a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of the text about which any questions occur.<\/p>\n<p>The field of textual criticism is complex, requiring the gathering and skillful use of a wide variety of information. Because it deals with the authoritative source of revelation for all Christians, textual argumentation has often been accompanied by emotion. Yet in spite of controversy, great progress has been made, particularly in the last century. Refinement of methodology has greatly aided our understanding of the accumulated materials. Additional aid has come from accumulations of information in related fields of study such as church history, biblical theology, and the history of Christian thought.<\/p>\n<p>Collection and organization of all variant readings have enabled modern textual critics to give strong assurance that the Word of God has been transmitted in accurate and dependable form. Although variant readings have become obvious through the publication of so many manuscripts, inadequate, inferior, and secondary readings have been largely eliminated. In relatively few places is conjectural emendation necessary. In matters pertaining to the Christian’s salvation, clear and unmistakable transmission provides authoritative answers. Christians are thus in debt to the textual critics who have worked, and are working, to provide a dependable biblical text.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament) Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings. P...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament) Copies of the OT books produced by scribes and editions made from these copies. The ancient manuscripts of the OT are the basic working material used to seek out the original text of the Bible with as great a degree of accuracy as possible. This process is called textual criticism, sometimes designated “lower criticism” to distinguish it from “higher criticism,” which is analysis of the date, unity, and authorship of the biblical writings. P...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16839,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hoshaiah","title_en":"Hoshaiah","content_ro":"<h3>HOSHAIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prince of Judah who led a contingent of princes in procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem after they were rebuilt (Neh 12:32).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Azariah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). Azariah was a leader of the people of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>HOSHAIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prince of Judah who led a contingent of princes in procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem after they were rebuilt (Neh 12:32).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Azariah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). Azariah was a leader of the people of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem.<\/li>","summary_ro":"HOSHAIAH 1. Prince of Judah who led a contingent of princes in procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem after they were rebuilt (Neh 12:32). 2. Father of Azariah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). Azariah was a leader of the people of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem.","summary_en":"HOSHAIAH 1. Prince of Judah who led a contingent of princes in procession at the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem after they were rebuilt (Neh 12:32). 2. Father of Azariah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). Azariah was a leader of the people of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18171,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jaazaniah","title_en":"Jaazaniah","content_ro":"<h3>JAAZANIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Hoshaiah, who was a Maacathite and a leader in the armies of Judah at the beginning of the exile. These troops received assurance of safety in return for loyalty to the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:23). Jaazaniah is alternately called Jezaniah in Jeremiah 40:8 and Azariah in Jeremiah 42:1 (<span>nlt<\/span> mg) and 43:2.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Jeremiah (not the prophet), who was taken by Jeremiah the prophet into the Lord’s house, where he refused to drink wine because of the command of his ancestor Jonadab the Recabite (Jer 35:3-11).<\/li>\n<li>3. Shaphan’s son, who led a group of elders in worshiping idols in the temple (Ez 8:11).<\/li>\n<li>4. Azzur’s son and one of a group of 25 men seen by Ezekiel in a vision who gave bad counsel and plotted evil in Jerusalem near the time of the exile (Ez 11:1).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JAAZANIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Hoshaiah, who was a Maacathite and a leader in the armies of Judah at the beginning of the exile. These troops received assurance of safety in return for loyalty to the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:23). Jaazaniah is alternately called Jezaniah in Jeremiah 40:8 and Azariah in Jeremiah 42:1 (<span>nlt<\/span> mg) and 43:2.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Jeremiah (not the prophet), who was taken by Jeremiah the prophet into the Lord’s house, where he refused to drink wine because of the command of his ancestor Jonadab the Recabite (Jer 35:3-11).<\/li>\n<li>3. Shaphan’s son, who led a group of elders in worshiping idols in the temple (Ez 8:11).<\/li>\n<li>4. Azzur’s son and one of a group of 25 men seen by Ezekiel in a vision who gave bad counsel and plotted evil in Jerusalem near the time of the exile (Ez 11:1).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JAAZANIAH 1. Son of Hoshaiah, who was a Maacathite and a leader in the armies of Judah at the beginning of the exile. These troops received assurance of safety in return for loyalty to the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:23). Jaazaniah is alternately called Jezaniah in Jeremiah 40:8 and Azariah in Jeremiah 42:1 (nlt mg) and 43:2. 2. Son of Jeremiah (not the prophet), who was taken by Jeremiah the prophet into the Lord’s house, where he refused to drink wine because of the command of his ancestor Jonada...","summary_en":"JAAZANIAH 1. Son of Hoshaiah, who was a Maacathite and a leader in the armies of Judah at the beginning of the exile. These troops received assurance of safety in return for loyalty to the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:23). Jaazaniah is alternately called Jezaniah in Jeremiah 40:8 and Azariah in Jeremiah 42:1 (nlt mg) and 43:2. 2. Son of Jeremiah (not the prophet), who was taken by Jeremiah the prophet into the Lord’s house, where he refused to drink wine because of the command of his ancestor Jonada...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19084,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Jeremiah","title_en":"Book of Jeremiah","content_ro":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","summary_en":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19822,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jezaniah","title_en":"Jezaniah","content_ro":"<h3>JEZANIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate form of Jaazaniah, one of the Judean captains in Jerusalem during the exile (Jer 40:8 <span>nlt<\/span> mg; 42:1) <em>See<\/em> Jaazaniah #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEZANIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate form of Jaazaniah, one of the Judean captains in Jerusalem during the exile (Jer 40:8 <span>nlt<\/span> mg; 42:1) <em>See<\/em> Jaazaniah #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEZANIAH Alternate form of Jaazaniah, one of the Judean captains in Jerusalem during the exile (Jer 40:8 nlt mg; 42:1) See Jaazaniah #1.","summary_en":"JEZANIAH Alternate form of Jaazaniah, one of the Judean captains in Jerusalem during the exile (Jer 40:8 nlt mg; 42:1) See Jaazaniah #1.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20098,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Johanan","title_en":"Johanan","content_ro":"<h3>JOHANAN<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “Yahweh has been gracious.” It occurs also in the alternate form of Jehohanan. The name John is derived from these names. Several men of this name appear in the OT.<\/p>\n<p> 1. Son of Kareah (2 Kgs 25:23). Johanan was a Jewish leader, a contemporary of Jeremiah, and supportive of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:8, 13). He forewarned Gedaliah of Ishmael’s plan to assassinate him (vv 13-16). When the warning was ignored and Johanan was refused permission to execute the would-be assassin, Gedaliah was murdered. Johanan took vengeance against Ishmael and rescued those who had been captured (41:14-18), but he was unable to pursue Ishmael. In fear of a Babylonian reprisal, he made plans to seek asylum in Egypt. Jeremiah, whom he consulted, gave God’s word against this move (42:1-22), but Johanan was unwilling to take counsel (43:2-3). He led the Judeans, including Jeremiah and Baruch, to Egypt (vv 5-7).<\/p>\n<li> 2. Eldest son of Josiah, king of Judah (1 Chr 3:15). Possibly he died young, for he did not succeed his father on the throne, even though he was the firstborn.<\/li>\n<li> 3. Son of Elioenai (1 Chr 3:24), a descendant of Jehoiachin, one of the last kings of Judah.<\/li>\n<li> 4. Grandson of Ahimaaz. He was the father of Azariah, who served as high priest in the temple of Solomon (1 Chr 6:9-10).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Warrior from Benjamin’s tribe. He joined David’s special forces of 30 men at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4). The special forces could shoot arrows and sling stones with either hand (v 2).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Gadite who joined David in the wilderness (1 Chr 12:8-12). He was also specially trained for war, in that he could handle both shield and spear, could endure hardship, and was quick on his feet.<\/li>\n<li> 7. Ephraimite whose son was a leader in the northern Kingdom during the regime of Pekah and protested against the enslavement of 200,000 Judeans (2 Chr 28:12; <span>nlt<\/span> “Jehohanan”), who were subsequently freed.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Son of Hakkatan (“the younger” or “the smaller”). The designation may be read as “Johanan the younger.” He was head of a family who claimed their descent from Azgad (Ezr 8:12). He joined Ezra with 110 men in traveling from Babylonia to Judah.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Priest under Joiakim. He was one of the priests during whose ministry the Levites and priests formally registered (Neh 12:22). He is alternately called Jehohanan in Ezra 10:6 and Jonathan in Neh 12:11. <em>See<\/em> Jehohanan #4.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV spelling of Jehohanan, Tobiah’s son, in Nehemiah 6:18. <em>See<\/em> Jehohanan #6.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOHANAN<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “Yahweh has been gracious.” It occurs also in the alternate form of Jehohanan. The name John is derived from these names. Several men of this name appear in the OT.<\/p>\n<p> 1. Son of Kareah (2 Kgs 25:23). Johanan was a Jewish leader, a contemporary of Jeremiah, and supportive of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:8, 13). He forewarned Gedaliah of Ishmael’s plan to assassinate him (vv 13-16). When the warning was ignored and Johanan was refused permission to execute the would-be assassin, Gedaliah was murdered. Johanan took vengeance against Ishmael and rescued those who had been captured (41:14-18), but he was unable to pursue Ishmael. In fear of a Babylonian reprisal, he made plans to seek asylum in Egypt. Jeremiah, whom he consulted, gave God’s word against this move (42:1-22), but Johanan was unwilling to take counsel (43:2-3). He led the Judeans, including Jeremiah and Baruch, to Egypt (vv 5-7).<\/p>\n<li> 2. Eldest son of Josiah, king of Judah (1 Chr 3:15). Possibly he died young, for he did not succeed his father on the throne, even though he was the firstborn.<\/li>\n<li> 3. Son of Elioenai (1 Chr 3:24), a descendant of Jehoiachin, one of the last kings of Judah.<\/li>\n<li> 4. Grandson of Ahimaaz. He was the father of Azariah, who served as high priest in the temple of Solomon (1 Chr 6:9-10).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Warrior from Benjamin’s tribe. He joined David’s special forces of 30 men at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4). The special forces could shoot arrows and sling stones with either hand (v 2).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Gadite who joined David in the wilderness (1 Chr 12:8-12). He was also specially trained for war, in that he could handle both shield and spear, could endure hardship, and was quick on his feet.<\/li>\n<li> 7. Ephraimite whose son was a leader in the northern Kingdom during the regime of Pekah and protested against the enslavement of 200,000 Judeans (2 Chr 28:12; <span>nlt<\/span> “Jehohanan”), who were subsequently freed.<\/li>\n<li> 8. Son of Hakkatan (“the younger” or “the smaller”). The designation may be read as “Johanan the younger.” He was head of a family who claimed their descent from Azgad (Ezr 8:12). He joined Ezra with 110 men in traveling from Babylonia to Judah.<\/li>\n<li> 9. Priest under Joiakim. He was one of the priests during whose ministry the Levites and priests formally registered (Neh 12:22). He is alternately called Jehohanan in Ezra 10:6 and Jonathan in Neh 12:11. <em>See<\/em> Jehohanan #4.<\/li>\n<li>10. KJV spelling of Jehohanan, Tobiah’s son, in Nehemiah 6:18. <em>See<\/em> Jehohanan #6.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOHANAN Name meaning “Yahweh has been gracious.” It occurs also in the alternate form of Jehohanan. The name John is derived from these names. Several men of this name appear in the OT. 1. Son of Kareah (2 Kgs 25:23). Johanan was a Jewish leader, a contemporary of Jeremiah, and supportive of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:8, 13). He forewarned Gedaliah of Ishmael’s plan to assassinate him (vv 13-16). When the warning was ignored and Johanan was refused per...","summary_en":"JOHANAN Name meaning “Yahweh has been gracious.” It occurs also in the alternate form of Jehohanan. The name John is derived from these names. Several men of this name appear in the OT. 1. Son of Kareah (2 Kgs 25:23). Johanan was a Jewish leader, a contemporary of Jeremiah, and supportive of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:8, 13). He forewarned Gedaliah of Ishmael’s plan to assassinate him (vv 13-16). When the warning was ignored and Johanan was refused per...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22386,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letters*, Lachish","title_en":"Letters*, Lachish","content_ro":"<h3>LACHISH LETTERS*<\/h3>\n<p>Collection of letters, sometimes described as “a supplement to Jeremiah,” which was J. L. Starkey’s most important discovery at Lachish. In 1935 he found 18 ostraca in a guardroom between the outer and inner gates of the city, in a layer of ash deposited by the fire that Nebuchadnezzar kindled when he destroyed the city. Probably the Chaldeans breached the walls late in 589 <span>BC<\/span> after the olive harvest, since numerous burned olive pits appear in the nearby ruins. Having taken this and other outlying towns, Nebuchadnezzar then laid siege to Jerusalem in January of 588. In 1938 three other letters were found at Lachish. Of uncertain date, these were short and fragmentary. All 21 of these texts were written in black carbon ink with a wood or reed stylus on pieces of broken pottery. The scribes used the Phoenician script, in which classical Hebrew was written.<\/p>\n<p>Nearly all of the 21 documents were letters, and most of them were written by some subordinate officer at an outpost to the commander at Lachish. Unfortunately, only seven of the texts are sufficiently legible to make connected sense; on the others, only isolated sentences and words can be read. Some of the signs are blotted out and unfamiliar abbreviations and symbols are used. Scholars differ in their interpretations.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most interesting of the letters is no. 4, which says, “We are watching for the fire signals of Lachish, according to all the signs which my lord has given, for we cannot see [the signals of] Azekah.” Jeremiah 34:7 mentions Lachish and Azekah (12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, northeast of Lachish) as two of the last surviving cities of Judah. Now it would appear that Azekah too has fallen and the Chaldean noose is tightening on the Judean kingdom. However, the signals of Azekah temporarily may not have been visible for climatic or other reasons. It is important to note the external evidence here for the use of fire signals in ancient Israel. The Hebrew word for fire signal is the same as that used in Jeremiah 6:1.<\/p>\n<p>Letter no. 6 alludes to the fact that the princes are weakening the hands of the people. Evidently this refers to some insubordination or defeatism. The text reads: “And behold the words of the princes are not good, but to weaken our hands and to slacken the hands of the men who are informed about them.” This is almost identical to the charge that some of the princes lodged against Jeremiah: “For he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in this city, and the hands of all the people, by speaking such words to them” (Jer 38:4, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Letter no. 3 refers to a journey of the Judean army commander to Egypt. Whether he went with an appeal for troops or supplies is not known. This allusion points to the intrigues of the pro-Egyptian party during the reign of Zedekiah. The reason for the present expedition must have been much different from that referred to in Jeremiah 26:20-23. Letter no. 3 also refers to a letter with a warning from a prophet. Efforts to identify this prophet as Uriah or Jeremiah have not been convincing.<\/p>\n<p>Letters 2–6 refer to a defense that a certain Hoshaiah (a name that appears in Jer 42:1; 43:2), the writer of several of the Lachish texts, makes to his superior, Ya’osh. Though the charges are not always clear, they have something to do with reading confidential documents and presumably divulging some of the information contained therein. One scholar has suggested that this collection of letters in the Lachish guardhouse constituted a “file” used in the court-martial of Hoshaiah. The guardhouse was not only a military post but was also located by the gate where Palestinian trials were held in biblical times.<\/p>\n<p>The Lachish letters have epigraphic, linguistic, and historical value for the Bible scholar. They indicate the kind of language and script the Hebrews were using in the age of Jeremiah, and they give information for textual criticism. They are firsthand documents of the disturbed political and military situation during the months before Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, when Jeremiah was the leading prophet in Judah. They help to make possible a study of Hebrew proper names in the last days of the monarchy and provide numerous historical references (e.g., no. 20 refers to the ninth year of King Zedekiah).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Letter Writing, Ancient.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LACHISH LETTERS*<\/h3>\n<p>Collection of letters, sometimes described as “a supplement to Jeremiah,” which was J. L. Starkey’s most important discovery at Lachish. In 1935 he found 18 ostraca in a guardroom between the outer and inner gates of the city, in a layer of ash deposited by the fire that Nebuchadnezzar kindled when he destroyed the city. Probably the Chaldeans breached the walls late in 589 <span>BC<\/span> after the olive harvest, since numerous burned olive pits appear in the nearby ruins. Having taken this and other outlying towns, Nebuchadnezzar then laid siege to Jerusalem in January of 588. In 1938 three other letters were found at Lachish. Of uncertain date, these were short and fragmentary. All 21 of these texts were written in black carbon ink with a wood or reed stylus on pieces of broken pottery. The scribes used the Phoenician script, in which classical Hebrew was written.<\/p>\n<p>Nearly all of the 21 documents were letters, and most of them were written by some subordinate officer at an outpost to the commander at Lachish. Unfortunately, only seven of the texts are sufficiently legible to make connected sense; on the others, only isolated sentences and words can be read. Some of the signs are blotted out and unfamiliar abbreviations and symbols are used. Scholars differ in their interpretations.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most interesting of the letters is no. 4, which says, “We are watching for the fire signals of Lachish, according to all the signs which my lord has given, for we cannot see [the signals of] Azekah.” Jeremiah 34:7 mentions Lachish and Azekah (12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, northeast of Lachish) as two of the last surviving cities of Judah. Now it would appear that Azekah too has fallen and the Chaldean noose is tightening on the Judean kingdom. However, the signals of Azekah temporarily may not have been visible for climatic or other reasons. It is important to note the external evidence here for the use of fire signals in ancient Israel. The Hebrew word for fire signal is the same as that used in Jeremiah 6:1.<\/p>\n<p>Letter no. 6 alludes to the fact that the princes are weakening the hands of the people. Evidently this refers to some insubordination or defeatism. The text reads: “And behold the words of the princes are not good, but to weaken our hands and to slacken the hands of the men who are informed about them.” This is almost identical to the charge that some of the princes lodged against Jeremiah: “For he is weakening the hands of the soldiers who are left in this city, and the hands of all the people, by speaking such words to them” (Jer 38:4, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Letter no. 3 refers to a journey of the Judean army commander to Egypt. Whether he went with an appeal for troops or supplies is not known. This allusion points to the intrigues of the pro-Egyptian party during the reign of Zedekiah. The reason for the present expedition must have been much different from that referred to in Jeremiah 26:20-23. Letter no. 3 also refers to a letter with a warning from a prophet. Efforts to identify this prophet as Uriah or Jeremiah have not been convincing.<\/p>\n<p>Letters 2–6 refer to a defense that a certain Hoshaiah (a name that appears in Jer 42:1; 43:2), the writer of several of the Lachish texts, makes to his superior, Ya’osh. Though the charges are not always clear, they have something to do with reading confidential documents and presumably divulging some of the information contained therein. One scholar has suggested that this collection of letters in the Lachish guardhouse constituted a “file” used in the court-martial of Hoshaiah. The guardhouse was not only a military post but was also located by the gate where Palestinian trials were held in biblical times.<\/p>\n<p>The Lachish letters have epigraphic, linguistic, and historical value for the Bible scholar. They indicate the kind of language and script the Hebrews were using in the age of Jeremiah, and they give information for textual criticism. They are firsthand documents of the disturbed political and military situation during the months before Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, when Jeremiah was the leading prophet in Judah. They help to make possible a study of Hebrew proper names in the last days of the monarchy and provide numerous historical references (e.g., no. 20 refers to the ninth year of King Zedekiah).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Letter Writing, Ancient.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LACHISH LETTERS* Collection of letters, sometimes described as “a supplement to Jeremiah,” which was J. L. Starkey’s most important discovery at Lachish. In 1935 he found 18 ostraca in a guardroom between the outer and inner gates of the city, in a layer of ash deposited by the fire that Nebuchadnezzar kindled when he destroyed the city. Probably the Chaldeans breached the walls late in 589 BC after the olive harvest, since numerous burned olive pits appear in the nearby ruins. Having taken t...","summary_en":"LACHISH LETTERS* Collection of letters, sometimes described as “a supplement to Jeremiah,” which was J. L. Starkey’s most important discovery at Lachish. In 1935 he found 18 ostraca in a guardroom between the outer and inner gates of the city, in a layer of ash deposited by the fire that Nebuchadnezzar kindled when he destroyed the city. Probably the Chaldeans breached the walls late in 589 BC after the olive harvest, since numerous burned olive pits appear in the nearby ruins. Having taken t...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39947,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Archaeological Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings","title_en":"Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings, Archaeological","content_ro":"<h3>Archaeological Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>A dramatic correspondence illustrating Jeremiah 34:7 came to light with the discovery of 21 inscribed potsherds at Lachish by the Wellcome Expedition between 1932 and 1938. Some of these letters refer to “the prophet” (Letter 16 includes the last letters of the name, -<em>iah<\/em>). The letters were written by Hoshaiah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). The latest letters indicate that fire signals had ceased from Azekah (note the reference to such signals in Jer 6:1). The expected support from Egypt was not available to save either Lachish or Jerusalem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>At Tell Beit Mirsim two jar handles from Jeremiah’s time were inscribed with “Eliakim, steward of Jehoiachin.” A similar jar handle was discovered at Beth-shemesh. Evidently Jehoiachin was considered as the true king even after he was carried to Babylon, and he maintained his royal holding by the steward in charge of his estate.<\/p>\n<p>The seal of Gedaliah found at Lachish in 1935 evidently gives a direct contact with the governor of Judah appointed by Nebuchadnezzar after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:5-12). The seal of Jaazaniah discovered at Tell en-Nasbeh dates to the time of Jeremiah, and probably belonged to the person named in 2 Kings 25:23, though a man of the same name and time is mentioned in Jeremiah 35:3. The Shallum seal found at Lachish may refer to the youngest son of Josiah (22:11), to the Shallum mentioned in the Lachish letters, or to a person mentioned in Jeremiah 32:7 or 35:4. The phrase “son of Mas” on the seal probably does not denote family relationship. The Hilkiah seal also reads “son of Mas.” Since the date of origin for this seal also fits Jeremiah’s time, the owner of the seal may have been the father of Jeremiah (1:1) or the high priest or some other person.<\/p>\n<p>One positive identification comes from the excavation near the Ishtar Gate of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, where a cuneiform tablet dating about 585 <span>BC<\/span> lists “Yaukin [Jehoiachin], king of the land of Yahud [Judah]” as one of the resident captives. The Babylonian record even mentions the five sons (cf. 1 Chr 3:17-18) who were under the care of a certain Kenaiah. Another identification comes from the recent discovery of Baruch’s seal—Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Archaeological Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>A dramatic correspondence illustrating Jeremiah 34:7 came to light with the discovery of 21 inscribed potsherds at Lachish by the Wellcome Expedition between 1932 and 1938. Some of these letters refer to “the prophet” (Letter 16 includes the last letters of the name, -<em>iah<\/em>). The letters were written by Hoshaiah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). The latest letters indicate that fire signals had ceased from Azekah (note the reference to such signals in Jer 6:1). The expected support from Egypt was not available to save either Lachish or Jerusalem.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>At Tell Beit Mirsim two jar handles from Jeremiah’s time were inscribed with “Eliakim, steward of Jehoiachin.” A similar jar handle was discovered at Beth-shemesh. Evidently Jehoiachin was considered as the true king even after he was carried to Babylon, and he maintained his royal holding by the steward in charge of his estate.<\/p>\n<p>The seal of Gedaliah found at Lachish in 1935 evidently gives a direct contact with the governor of Judah appointed by Nebuchadnezzar after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 40:5-12). The seal of Jaazaniah discovered at Tell en-Nasbeh dates to the time of Jeremiah, and probably belonged to the person named in 2 Kings 25:23, though a man of the same name and time is mentioned in Jeremiah 35:3. The Shallum seal found at Lachish may refer to the youngest son of Josiah (22:11), to the Shallum mentioned in the Lachish letters, or to a person mentioned in Jeremiah 32:7 or 35:4. The phrase “son of Mas” on the seal probably does not denote family relationship. The Hilkiah seal also reads “son of Mas.” Since the date of origin for this seal also fits Jeremiah’s time, the owner of the seal may have been the father of Jeremiah (1:1) or the high priest or some other person.<\/p>\n<p>One positive identification comes from the excavation near the Ishtar Gate of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, where a cuneiform tablet dating about 585 <span>BC<\/span> lists “Yaukin [Jehoiachin], king of the land of Yahud [Judah]” as one of the resident captives. The Babylonian record even mentions the five sons (cf. 1 Chr 3:17-18) who were under the care of a certain Kenaiah. Another identification comes from the recent discovery of Baruch’s seal—Baruch was Jeremiah’s secretary.<\/p>","summary_ro":"Archaeological Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings A dramatic correspondence illustrating Jeremiah 34:7 came to light with the discovery of 21 inscribed potsherds at Lachish by the Wellcome Expedition between 1932 and 1938. Some of these letters refer to “the prophet” (Letter 16 includes the last letters of the name, -iah). The letters were written by Hoshaiah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). The latest letters indicate that fire signals had ceased from Azekah (note the reference to such signals in ...","summary_en":"Archaeological Evidence Sheds Light on Jeremiah’s Writings A dramatic correspondence illustrating Jeremiah 34:7 came to light with the discovery of 21 inscribed potsherds at Lachish by the Wellcome Expedition between 1932 and 1938. Some of these letters refer to “the prophet” (Letter 16 includes the last letters of the name, -iah). The letters were written by Hoshaiah (Jer 42:1; 43:2). The latest letters indicate that fire signals had ceased from Azekah (note the reference to such signals in ...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":52679,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","summary_en":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80305,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","summary_en":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107931,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","summary_en":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135557,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:1-3<\/strong> The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","summary_en":"42:1-3 The party of Judean guerrillas and the people they had rescued (41:16) came to Jeremiah with what sounded like a sincere request for guidance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":19013,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Jeremiah","title_en":"Book of Jeremiah","content_ro":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEREMIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n\n<p>OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>• The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the first and third person, and even the second person, in the same context. For example, 32:6-7 reads: “Jeremiah said [third person], ‘The word of the <span>Lord<\/span> came to me: [first person] . . . your uncle will come to you [second person]’ ” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of the passage of time provides the strongest argument against the Jeremian authorship of chapter 52. Jeremiah was born about 657 <span>BC<\/span>. Evil-merodoch released Jehoiachin (52:31) about 95 years later. Jeremiah 52:33 summarizes the continuation of events beyond this time. The problem of location also argues against Jeremian authorship, for Jeremiah took up residence in Egypt (43:6-7) while Jehoiachin dwelt in Babylon. Note also that Jeremiah concludes his writing with chapter 51, making chapter 52 a true editorial appendix. Since chapter 52 parallels 2 Kings 24:18–25:30, it may be that other portions of Jeremiah that parallel sections of 2 Kings may have been written by someone other than Jeremiah.<\/p>\n<p>The following table shows such portions and includes harmonic passages in 2 Chronicles. The first column shows historical (chronological) sequence. The last column provides a brief condensation of content.<\/p>\n<p>Baruch served as the secretary for Jeremiah. The relationship between the two men apparently lasted many years; the prophet gave a word of encouragement as he blessed his helper (45:5). According to the custom of the people, it would have been legitimate for the scribe to write some of the prophet’s messages in his own words. This would not deny inspiration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authenticity\">Authenticity<\/p>\n<p>That Jeremiah lived and actually wrote the major part of the book bearing his name is authenticated by numerous references in both biblical and nonbiblical sources (e.g., Dn 9; Ecclus 49; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 10; Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em>). The veracity of the historical sections of Jeremiah have abundant confirmation in contemporary biblical books and in the secular histories preserved in Babylon, Egypt, and Persia.<\/p>\n<p>Higher critics sought to discredit the portions of Jeremiah that were omitted by the Septuagint, or to credit passages to a later writer because of style differences (e.g., chs 30–33) or spelling differences (as found in chs 27–29) or linguistic problems (as in 10:11, written in Aramaic, but this may be a gloss). Another reason for discrediting Jeremiah’s authorship is that critics dated some prophecies later than indicated in the context. This results from their requiring that predictive writing follow the record of its fulfillment. None of these reasons is sufficient cause for doubting authenticity. The Hebrew text deserves priority over the Septuagint. Aramaic contact with the Jews became commonplace during this period (cf. Ezr 4–7; Dn 2–7) and therefore explains the presence of Aramaic. Different styles may be expected from the same writer due to differing circumstances and differing purposes. Baruch may have been inspired to write parts of this book and\/or edited what Jeremiah wrote. Prediction preceding fulfillment presents no problem for believers.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBookofJeremiahandtheSeptuagint\">The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint<\/p>\n<p>The special problems of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah demand attention. The Septuagint translators evidently made an inaccurate translation. About 2,300 Hebrew words are omitted from the Septuagint. After chapter 23, the mistranslation, omissions, and mixed chronological order indicate confusion. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls display texts with both the Hebrew and the Septuagint order, indicating the antiquity of both editions. Both have suffered corruption at the hands of scribes and the ravages of the ages. The Septuagint evidently veers much further from the original, yet it has invaluable clues to help suggest answers to some textual problems. The most evident major shift in the Septuagint consists of the removal of chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew order, and the placement of them in the spot from which 25:13b-14 was removed. These chapters are renumbered 26–31 but are mixed and changed considerably from the order of the Hebrew Masoretic Text.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>This is fully discussed in the previous entry. <em>See<\/em> Jeremiah (Person) #1.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The chronological sequence of the messages of Jeremiah constitutes a major problem that cannot be wholly solved. Nonetheless, the book was written during Jeremiah’s ministry (c. 627–586 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandDestination\">Origin and Destination<\/p>\n<p>After beginning his ministry in Anathoth, Jeremiah moved to Jerusalem, where he remained until he was forced to join the disobedient refugees who arrived in Egypt about 584 <span>BC<\/span>. Until the deportation of Jehoiachin (597 <span>BC<\/span>), Jeremiah addressed his messages to the king and the people residing in Judah. Later messages addressed the same group, plus the captives in Babylon (e.g., ch 29). After the departure to Egypt, he addressed Jews in that land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>Part of God’s commission to Jeremiah stated the purpose of Jeremiah’s ministry: “Today I appoint you to stand up against nations and kingdoms. You are to uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them. You are to build others up and plant them” (1:10, <span>nlt<\/span>). The first four parts of the commission required that Jeremiah, appointed as a “chief governor” over nations, should wreck the existing religious and social structures by his preaching against moral and spiritual sin. Doubtless, the physical destruction caused by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians was the accoutrement for the truth uttered by the prophet. Jeremiah is consistent in his blasts at moral and religious wickedness, his call to submit to the punishment that God gives through Babylon, and his assurance that such submission will lead to blessing. When Zedekiah asks advice (38:14), we know what Jeremiah will say. When the captains of the refugees ask if they should go to Egypt, we already know the answer (42:3). We may also anticipate the obdurate rejection of God’s message on the part of the inquiring people, who apparently want to know God’s will but have no desire to obey it.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, part of Jeremiah’s purpose focuses on the most distant future when the new covenant will supplant the old (31:31-37), and a transformed people bent on obedience rather than sin will receive God’s promised kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Teaching\">Teaching<\/p>\n<p>National sin brings national punishment. No truth blazes so clearly as this. Gentiles as well as Jews stand under the same judgment, for God is not the God of Israel only.<\/p>\n<p>Individuals are not overlooked in divine judgments on nations. God sets before each the way of life and the way of death (21:8) and appeals to each to choose life (27:13).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah illustrates human depravity by questioning if people can change their skin color or leopards their spots (13:23). The depths of depravity reach beyond man’s ability to measure (17:9-10). People even love falsehood (5:30-31). Yet God promises to transform willing subjects who call on him (33:3) by giving them a “new heart” (24:7; 32:38-41) as the climatic provision of the new covenant (31:33-35). The Messiah, who accomplishes the saving work, is called the Lord our Righteousness, the King, the righteous Branch, the Branch of David (23:5-6; 33:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>A future nation will be made up of individuals who accept this salvation. Passing through the night of tribulation as of travail (30:6-7), the Jews will understand the true identity of their Messiah, will believe and receive him with repentant sorrow, will be cleansed (33:8), and will be regathered from all countries (32:37) by the omnipotent God (v 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OutlineandContent\">Outline and Content<\/p>\n<p>Though many see no logical order, a careful reading of Jeremiah will reveal a grouping on the basis of content, as suggested by the following outline:<\/p>\n<li> I. Introduction (1)<\/li>\n<li> II. Oracles against the Jews (2–25)<\/li>\n<li>III. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah before the Siege (26–29)<\/li>\n<li> IV. The Book of Hope written during the Siege (30–33)<\/li>\n<li> V. History—Signs and Sufferings of Jeremiah after the Siege (34–45)<\/li>\n<li> VI. Oracles against the Nations (46–51)<\/li>\n<li>VII. Conclusion (52)<\/li>\n<p>The prophet opens his ministry with a series of utterances against the sins of Jerusalem (2:1–3:5), followed by similar messages (through ch 4), concluding with words of judgment (chs 5–6). The message in the temple gate (chs 7–10) leads into the proclamation against covenant breakers (chs 11–13). The lamentation over the drought (ch 14) and subsequent miseries (ch 15) compares with many similar expressions of grief. Jeremiah did not differ from other prophets in his use of object lessons. The rotted linen waistband (ch 13), the broken jug (ch 19), figs (ch 24), and ox yoke (chs 27–28) may be supplemented by human object lessons (ch 35), and even the prophet himself, whose celibacy (16:1-4), resistance to sympathetic consolation (16:5-7), and withdrawal from feasts (16:8-9) all served to illustrate and confirm his message.<\/p>\n<p>Places where Jeremiah proclaimed his messages helped bear home his point. He stood in the public gate, where kings came and went, to proclaim that judgment (fire) would come through the gate (17:19, 27; 39:3). Then he went to the potter’s house (ch 18), and then to Hinnom or Topath, which would be called the Valley of Slaughter (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>The persecution suffered by Jeremiah first hinted at (1:8), then predicted (v 19), expresses its venom privately from his home village (11:19-23). The prophet’s kindred join the opposition (12:6). Public opposition brings beatings and the stocks (20:2-3). Jeremiah prefers to keep silent rather than to speak and suffer (v 9), but he cannot withhold the word that is as fire in his bones. The result: all his familiars reproached, derided, terrorized, and denounced him, then sought his death (vv 7-18). Jeremiah escaped death at the hands of priests, prophets, and people only because he had a few faithful friends (26:8-24). When his prophecies began to materialize, hatred mounted. He was beaten and put into a dungeon for many days (37:14-17) on a false charge. Temporary relief at the guardhouse (v 21) lasted only a few days. Officials clamored again for his death (38:4) and put him into a cistern, where he sank in the mire (v 6). His rescue (v 10) preserved his life, but his imprisonment at the guardhouse continued (v 28). His writings were cut up and burned (36:23); his words were denied and rejected (43:1-7; 44:16).<\/p>\n<p>The “Book of Hope“ (chs 30–33) does contain some words of judgment (32:28-35), and other sections of the prophecy have a few bright spots (3:11-18; 16:14-16; 23:2-8; 29:10-14), but in a volume otherwise dark, these four chapters bring pleasant relief. The climax of hope, as indicated also in the longest NT quotation from Jeremiah (see Heb 8:8-12), predicts a new covenant (31:31-40). Other prophecies also describe the end of the Mosaic law and sacrament (e.g., 3:16), and the new covenant (32:40; 33:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of Jeremiah’s activity or messages from c. 594–589 <span>BC<\/span>. Zedekiah’s counselors made clandestine plans for throwing off Babylon’s yoke by alliances with neighbor nations. A traitor may have reported the conspiracy to Babylon (perhaps Edom). After Babylon attacked, Zedekiah sought a hopeful report from Jeremiah but did not get it.<\/p>\n<p>The Recabite faithfulness to the Nazarite vow (ch 35) dates to the days of Jehoiakim but as an object lesson fits the siege context. Recabites received a human command that they obeyed; Jews received a divine command that they rejected. Recabites will be blessed (35:18-19); Judah, judged (vv 15-17). The reading of the scroll to Jehoiakim and his scornful rejection of it (ch 36) illustrates the prophetic assertion (35:15) that destruction follows the rejection of God’s message given through the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The siege comes into focus in chapter 37 with another inquiry from Zedekiah (the nonchronological chs 35–36 serve as an illustrative parenthesis). Jeremiah 37:11 moves forward to the time of the lifting of the siege of 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Nebuchadnezzar drove Pharaoh Hophra’s army back to Egypt. During the reprieve, Jeremiah sought to attend a meeting of relatives to settle family matters at or near Anathoth. Perhaps the trip involved initiating the purchase that would be made two years later (32:6-15). However, as he was leaving the city, he was arrested for desertion to the Babylonians and jailed in a dungeon cell until Zedekiah granted him privileged prisoner status.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s officers had ample cause for the accusation of sedition: Jeremiah had encouraged desertion (21:9; 38:2). Traitors deserved death, and this was their verdict against Jeremiah (38:4-5). The violence of the time encouraged the officers to select a cruel method of execution: let Jeremiah starve and bury himself in the mire at the bottom of an abandoned cistern. A sympathetic Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, made the rescue. Immediately, the unadulterated prophecies of judgment came forth again from Jeremiah’s lips, including a message to the king that reflected Jeremiah’s own recent experience: “[Your friends] have betrayed and misled you. When your feet sank in the mud, they left you to your fate” (38:22, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah 39:1–43:7 records history from the fall of Jerusalem in 586 <span>BC<\/span> to the flight into Egypt, including the liberation of Jeremiah (ch 39), appointment and assassination of Gedaliah (chs 40–41), a warning from God against going to Egypt (ch 42), and the obdurate disobedience of the people (43:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The latest writings of Jeremiah are found in chapter 44. The audience consisted of idolatrous Jews (44:4-6) gathered from various parts of Egypt as far as Aswan (Pathros). Jeremiah repeated the appeal of former prophets to reject false gods in favor of Jehovah, but to no avail (44:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>The message to Baruch (ch 45), written about 605 <span>BC<\/span>, is placed here to round out the main part of the book, which begins with the commission to “break down” and “pluck up” (1:10) and concludes with the same Hebrew words (45:4). If Baruch had ambition to obtain status in the Judean court like his brother Seraiah (51:59), he was advised that it would be useless because disaster would come, as the preceding chapters indicate.<\/p>\n<p>The oracles against the nations (46–51), introduced by a title superscription (46:1), constitute a distinct stylistic division similar to Isaiah 13–23, Ezekiel 25–32, and Amos 1:3–2:16.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the prophecies against foreign nations in Jeremiah carry dates that show that they were written at different points during his ministry but were collected together for the book.<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy against Egypt opens with a colorful description of Egypt’s expulsion from Carchemish (605 <span>BC<\/span>) after a short occupancy (Jer 46:1-12). The second message (vv 13-26) may picture the attack on Egypt in 601 <span>BC<\/span> when Neco stopped Nebuchadnezzar at the border; the attack in 589 <span>BC<\/span> when Hophra lost in his attempt to aid Zedekiah; or (most probably) the invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in 568 <span>BC<\/span>, when Babylon took advantage of the weakness of Egypt to occupy it. At that time Nebuchadnezzar set up his judgment throne as predicted (43:10) and meted out death sentences to all rebels, including those Jews who might have been implicated in anti-Babylonian conspiracies. The conclusion of the Egypt oracle repeats part of the Book of Hope (46:27-28, cf. 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Messages against Edom, Arabia, Phoenician cities, and Ammon generally condemn pride, cruelty, and idolatry. The oracle against Elam is unique. No other prophet speaks judgment against this people, whose dwelling east of Babylon meant rare contact with Judah. Jeremiah predicted that Elam would be doomed, then restored. Ezekiel counts Elamites among the inhabitants of Sheol (Ez 32:24).<\/p>\n<p>The final judgment indicates the unbiased attitude of the prophet. His messages placed him in an advantageous position with the Babylonians, who treated him with respect and kindness, in contrast to their cruelty to other Jews. But when God spoke against Babylon, Jeremiah uttered God’s words without respect to his own comfort, just as he had spoken against Egypt when silence would have been logical for self-preservation.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 51 concludes “the words of Jeremiah.”<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 52 repeats historical facts previously stated prophetically by Jeremiah, and partially recorded also as history in chapter 39 (cf. 2 Kgs 25 and 2 Chr 36). The editor of Jeremiah evidently desired to climax the book with a historical confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy, but he included facts beyond those contained elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Jeremiah (Person) #1; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","summary_en":"JEREMIAH, Book of OT prophetic book, second in the canonical order of the Prophets. Preview • Author • Authenticity • The Book of Jeremiah and the Septuagint • Background • Date • Origin and Destination • Purpose • Teaching • Outline and Content Author Few doubt that the prophet from Anathoth wrote the book of Jeremiah, yet questions persist concerning some parts, particularly chapter 52. The use of the third person cannot be used to discredit Jeremiah’s authorship, for Jeremiah used the firs...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":52680,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","summary_en":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80306,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","summary_en":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107932,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","summary_en":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135558,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:4<\/strong> The first phrase, <em>All right<\/em> (literally <em>I heard<\/em>), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to <em>pray<\/em> for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","summary_en":"42:4 The first phrase, All right (literally I heard), indicates that Jeremiah questioned the sincerity of the Judean group led by Johanan. Still, the prophet agreed to pray for divine guidance and to give them the full content of the Lord’s answer.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":52681,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","summary_en":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80307,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","summary_en":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107933,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","summary_en":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135559,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:5-6<\/strong> Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","summary_en":"42:5-6 Perhaps these people sensed that Jeremiah doubted their sincerity. They responded by making a solemn oath: They committed to obey the Lord’s instructions and to submit to punishment if they failed to keep the oath. They were confident that the Lord’s answer would be what they wanted to hear.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":52682,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","summary_en":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80308,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","summary_en":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107934,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","summary_en":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135560,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:10-12<\/strong> The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • <em>For I am with you and will save you:<\/em> The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against <em>the king of Babylon<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","summary_en":"42:10-12 The Lord replied that he wanted the people to stay in Judea and settle down, and he would plant them in the land (see 1:10). Judea’s time of judgment was over. • For I am with you and will save you: The Lord was calling the remnant of Judea to trust him for protection against the king of Babylon.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":52683,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","summary_en":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80309,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","summary_en":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107935,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","summary_en":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135561,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:13-22<\/strong> Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This <em>remnant of Judah<\/em> would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on <em>to Egypt<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","summary_en":"42:13-22 Jeremiah had already prophesied Egypt’s destiny; it would be destroyed by the Babylonians (46:2-26). This remnant of Judah would walk into the path of the Lord’s judgment if they continued on to Egypt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":9381,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Desert","title_en":"Desert","content_ro":"<h3>DESERT<\/h3>\n\n<p>Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated area where wild beasts roam (Dt 32:10; Jb 24:5). The wilderness is also sometimes a place of pasturage (Ex 3:1; Ps 65:12; Jer 23:10; Jl 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible often refers to wilderness regions (e.g., Gn 16:7; 21:20; 1 Sm 17:28; Mt 3:1; Mk 1:13; Lk 15:4). “Wilderness” is usually a place with no settled population (Nm 14:33; Dt 32:10; Jb 38:26; Prv 21:19; Jer 9:2) but is the dwelling place of wildlife: the vulture (Ps 102:6), wild asses (Jb 24:5), jackals (Mal 1:3), and ostriches (Lam 4:3). The term is also used figuratively (Hos 2:3; Jer 2:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another Hebrew term for desert, from a root meaning “to be arid,” refers to an infertile, desolate, bare steppe (Jb 24:5; Is 33:9; Jer 51:43). The plural form of that word describes topographical features of the desert plains of Moab (Nm 22:1; 26:3, 63; Dt 34:1) and of Jericho (Jos 4:13; 5:10; 2 Kgs 25:5). With the definite article, that word (the Arabah) is the plain of the Jordan Valley and of the environs of the Dead Sea. The geography of that region contains sharp contrasts; the Jordan Valley, dense with a junglelike forest sheltering wild beasts (including lions in biblical times), gives way to the steppe lands of the Dead Sea area, which have always been desert.<\/p>\n<p>Two other Hebrew terms, meaning “waste” and “ruin,” refer to districts or settlements once inhabited but later devastated (Is 1:7; 5:9; 6:11; Jer 42:18; Ez 35:7). They are also used more generally for any desolate or waste place (Lv 26:31, 33; Jb 3:14; Pss 9:6; 109:10; Is 5:17; 44:26; 51:3; 52:9; Jer 7:34; Ez 5:14). One of them is also used once for the wilderness of the exodus (Is 48:21). Another word meaning “waste” (Ps 78:40; Is 43:19-20), when prefixed with the definite article, is a proper name for Jeshimon, a tract of land west of the Dead Sea (Nm 21:20; 1 Sm 23:24; 26:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the noun for “wilderness” and the adjective “desert” (Mt 3:1; 24:26; Lk 5:16; Jn 6:31; Acts 8:26) come from the same Greek root.<\/p>\n<p>The whole of biblical history has been interpreted as having a desert or wilderness motif. It can be seen in the realm of disobedient human experience outside the Garden of Eden; in the wandering of Israel during the exodus; in the struggle between pure faith in the desert and soft, idolatrous city life. The desert is viewed as a realm of demons and death (Dt 32:17; Is 34:13-14); its demonic wildness resembles the primeval chaos of the Creation (Gn 1:2; Jb 26:7). Several moving passages of Scripture deal with renewal of life in a desert valley (e.g., Ez 37), or with transformation of arid land into a productive garden (Is 41:18-20).<\/p>\n<p>The desert is also a place where God is close to his people (Dt 32:10-12), both watching over them and testing their obedience (Jer 2:2; Hos 2:14-15). Finally, the desert is a place of refuge, cleansing, and consecration. In the Gospels the desert theme of the exodus recurs in the 40 days and nights in which Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Mk 1:13; cf. Ps 91). The desert fathers of the early church and the hermits of the Middle Ages emulated the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist (1 Kgs 19:4-8; Mt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Negeb, Negev; Palestine; Wilderness.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DESERT<\/h3>\n\n<p>Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated area where wild beasts roam (Dt 32:10; Jb 24:5). The wilderness is also sometimes a place of pasturage (Ex 3:1; Ps 65:12; Jer 23:10; Jl 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible often refers to wilderness regions (e.g., Gn 16:7; 21:20; 1 Sm 17:28; Mt 3:1; Mk 1:13; Lk 15:4). “Wilderness” is usually a place with no settled population (Nm 14:33; Dt 32:10; Jb 38:26; Prv 21:19; Jer 9:2) but is the dwelling place of wildlife: the vulture (Ps 102:6), wild asses (Jb 24:5), jackals (Mal 1:3), and ostriches (Lam 4:3). The term is also used figuratively (Hos 2:3; Jer 2:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another Hebrew term for desert, from a root meaning “to be arid,” refers to an infertile, desolate, bare steppe (Jb 24:5; Is 33:9; Jer 51:43). The plural form of that word describes topographical features of the desert plains of Moab (Nm 22:1; 26:3, 63; Dt 34:1) and of Jericho (Jos 4:13; 5:10; 2 Kgs 25:5). With the definite article, that word (the Arabah) is the plain of the Jordan Valley and of the environs of the Dead Sea. The geography of that region contains sharp contrasts; the Jordan Valley, dense with a junglelike forest sheltering wild beasts (including lions in biblical times), gives way to the steppe lands of the Dead Sea area, which have always been desert.<\/p>\n<p>Two other Hebrew terms, meaning “waste” and “ruin,” refer to districts or settlements once inhabited but later devastated (Is 1:7; 5:9; 6:11; Jer 42:18; Ez 35:7). They are also used more generally for any desolate or waste place (Lv 26:31, 33; Jb 3:14; Pss 9:6; 109:10; Is 5:17; 44:26; 51:3; 52:9; Jer 7:34; Ez 5:14). One of them is also used once for the wilderness of the exodus (Is 48:21). Another word meaning “waste” (Ps 78:40; Is 43:19-20), when prefixed with the definite article, is a proper name for Jeshimon, a tract of land west of the Dead Sea (Nm 21:20; 1 Sm 23:24; 26:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the noun for “wilderness” and the adjective “desert” (Mt 3:1; 24:26; Lk 5:16; Jn 6:31; Acts 8:26) come from the same Greek root.<\/p>\n<p>The whole of biblical history has been interpreted as having a desert or wilderness motif. It can be seen in the realm of disobedient human experience outside the Garden of Eden; in the wandering of Israel during the exodus; in the struggle between pure faith in the desert and soft, idolatrous city life. The desert is viewed as a realm of demons and death (Dt 32:17; Is 34:13-14); its demonic wildness resembles the primeval chaos of the Creation (Gn 1:2; Jb 26:7). Several moving passages of Scripture deal with renewal of life in a desert valley (e.g., Ez 37), or with transformation of arid land into a productive garden (Is 41:18-20).<\/p>\n<p>The desert is also a place where God is close to his people (Dt 32:10-12), both watching over them and testing their obedience (Jer 2:2; Hos 2:14-15). Finally, the desert is a place of refuge, cleansing, and consecration. In the Gospels the desert theme of the exodus recurs in the 40 days and nights in which Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Mk 1:13; cf. Ps 91). The desert fathers of the early church and the hermits of the Middle Ages emulated the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist (1 Kgs 19:4-8; Mt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Negeb, Negev; Palestine; Wilderness.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DESERT Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated...","summary_en":"DESERT Empty waste place, often arid, sandy, and incapable of sustaining vegetable life, as for example the Negev of southern Palestine. A desert frequently includes local areas where marginal life is possible. The most common Hebrew term for desert means “wilderness” and is perhaps related to a verb meaning “to drive,” as a shepherd drives sheep to pasturage. The Greek word commonly used in the NT and in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) implies an unenclosed, uncultivated...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":52684,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","summary_en":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80310,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","summary_en":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":107936,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","summary_en":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":135562,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ieremia 42:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ieremia 42:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>42:21<\/strong> Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","summary_en":"42:21 Like their ancestors, this group of people from Judah trusted in the Egyptians to protect them, rather than in the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Ieremia 42
— 22 versete
Ieremia 42
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse