Jeremiah 36:18 בדיו “ink” or “in its completeness” ?

[S_Walch]

I don't find this very convincing. It's just subjective feeling. I would side with Chris on this point. This may simply be an idiom. Redundancy would be irrelevant. And remember this is a language that likes redundancies like "the painter painted a painting with paint."

You certainly have a point with the last bit. But there is no other place that specifies writing upon a scroll "with ink". And the book of Jeremiah mentions ספר 26 times, so I would expect to see more than one instance of "ink".

Several comments:
1. you're trading one redundancy for another
2. two the object is definite and so would be missing the accusative marker את.
3. you would be separating the object and the verb with the oblique phrase.

Fair enough. Just something that crossed my mind when staring at the letters.

I see a kind of reverse parallelism here. That is, I see a parallel between מִפִּיו֙ and בַּדְּיֹֽו.

Now that you point it out, I that is quite a nice reverse parallelism.

Agreed. But since we have it here in the MT, it would be nice to know its meaning. Even if it is a later addition, the person who added it had a meaning for it. Also, Karl's "in its completeness" I think is well suited for my argument above.

I did actually forget to say in my initial post that I couldn't see anything to contradict Karl's understanding of בדיו as "in its completeness".

[Galena]

Jemoh66 wrote:
I don't find this very convincing. It's just subjective feeling. I would side with Chris on this point. This may simply be an idiom. Redundancy would be irrelevant. And remember this is a language that likes redundancies like "the painter painted a painting with paint."

S_Walch wrote : You certainly have a point with the last bit. But there is no other place that specifies writing upon a scroll "with ink". And the book of Jeremiah mentions ספר 26 times, so I would expect to see more than one instance of "ink".

I too accept that Karl's translation is a possibility. However, in commentating on the following S_Walch

And the book of Jeremiah mentions ספר 26 times, so I would expect to see more than one instance of "ink"

No not neccessarily because look at the context of chapter 36. The ongoing movement in this chapter is one of hurried, panic, scared and worried from those who heard the words. Then you have the urgent and sincere desire to know whether these words were from God or from something that Jeremiah had written much earlier and was repeating, the sense of the hearers is one of ....did God just now say this to us today...? lest they by some encouragement and relief might propose that this was applying to a future or past situation. The idea of "ink" was just another rapid urgent emphasis that truly God had just spoken this for those who were listening. I see no other series of developments that are so urgent and require so much authentication in the other times that you are thinking about.

Kind regards
chris

[S_Walch]

No not neccessarily because look at the context of chapter 36. The ongoing movement in this chapter is one of hurried, panic, scared and worried from those who heard the words. Then you have the urgent and sincere desire to know whether these words were from God or from something that Jeremiah had written much earlier and was repeating, the sense of the hearers is one of ....did God just now say this to us today...?

According to Jeremiah 36:2, the scroll that Baruch wrote contained all Jeremiah's prophecies "from the days of Josiah until today". So the scroll did actually contain older prophecies that Jeremiah had been told during Josiah's reign, and not just the current reign of Jehoiakim.

I see no other series of developments that are so urgent and require so much authentication in the other times that you are thinking about.

Yet chapter 36 repeats that the scroll was written at Jeremiah's "dictation" four times, which seems to be the main point. Plus Jehoiakim doesn't seem all that rushed.

Having דיו with a meaning of "with ink" makes less sense the more I look at it.

[Isaac Fried]

As Baruch wanted impress them with the expense and care taken in recording Jeremiah's words for all posterity, he proudly mentioned to them the book (which is also actually redundant) and then added the permanent ink. This would have been sufficient
מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Galena]

Hallo S_Walch, Maybe, just maybe here, a long shot, but Paul does write in the same manner.
3 John 13 He could just easily have ended with the phrase 'writing to you'

A bit like me saying: 'I do not want to continue writing to you with my biro....?

[S_Walch]

As Baruch wanted impress them with the expense and care taken in recording Jeremiah's words for all posterity, he proudly mentioned to them the book (which is also actually redundant) and then added the permanent ink. This would have been sufficient
מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב

Problem is that the "scroll" with Jeremiah's words on it is the main thrust of Chapter 36, and the fact that rather than heeding the words on the scroll, Jehoiakim cut it section by section and threw it in a fire. So Baruch stating that he wrote on the scroll isn't redundant, but quite an important fact.

Hallo S_Walch, Maybe, just maybe here, a long shot, but Paul does write in the same manner.
3 John 13 He could just easily have ended with the phrase 'writing to you'

A bit like me saying: 'I do not want to continue writing to you with my biro....?

Not really, as John here is contrasting the means of pen and ink compared with speaking face to face (v14). There is no contrast here in Jeremiah 36 with regards to writing on the scroll and them speaking face to face with Jeremiah.

[Galena]

S_Walch said : Not really, as John here is contrasting the means of pen and ink compared with speaking face to face

Obviously. But this is really splitting hairs with a microscope at 10000x magnification, the reason he said it is of no consequence at all. The fact is that he wrote something in like manner as in Jeremiah. He wrote this type of redundant, half unnecessary extra wording. Does it matter why? As I said, it is like me saying to you that I wrote you a letter, with my biro, or yes, I wrote down everything I was told to write with pen and ink, I mean it really does not matter the context, it's the idiomatic and subtle semantic extra meaning that is carried. One can't always pull to pieces poetic ramblings, or the author's choice of how he wants to express something. I am not arguing if you want to translate it differently, really, I am not contending this, I am just contending with your reasoning in the last posts that's all.
Kind regards
chris

[Jemoh66]

Hallo S_Walch, Maybe, just maybe here, a long shot, but Paul does write in the same manner.
3 John 13 He could just easily have ended with the phrase 'writing to you'

A bit like me saying: 'I do not want to continue writing to you with my biro....?

Nice catch! This would show as late as the end of the first century, this was an idiom.
So the idea here is that it expresses the idea of "writing something yourself," as opposed to dictating it. The latter can be the general "I write to you" while the former is qualified.

Just a note, I think you meant John not Paul

[S_Walch]

This could therefore be (if we take דיו to mean "with ink") a prime example of some 1st -2nd Century CE editing of the text of Jeremiah, with someone inserting an idiom from their own time (and possibly not necessarily a Hebrew idiom, but a loaned one) back to the 7th Century BCE.

Anyone got any other examples of people specifying "with ink" or "with ink and pen" outside of the one example seen in 3 John?

[Jemoh66]

Not really, as John here is contrasting the means of pen and ink compared with speaking face to face (v14). There is no contrast here in Jeremiah 36 with regards to writing on the scroll and them speaking face to face with Jeremiah.

Am I missing something here?
That's precisely the point I made in my comment about a parallelism between "with his mouth" and "with ink." "With his mouth he spoke...with ink I wrote." So the analogy of situation holds, even if it is irrelevant, as Chris pointed out.