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

[kwrandolph]

I noticed that the dictionaries seem to think that this word דיו in this verse means “ink”.

However, there’s another word in Hebrew that has the meaning of sufficiency or completeness, and that is די. If this meaning is used instead, then that makes the reading say that this scroll was completely from Jeremiah, that Baruch was only the transcriber. That both fits the context, and makes the strange happax legomenon דיו unnecessary.

The LXX doesn’t seem to translate this word.

This chapter and verse is not found in the DSS.

The exact same form is found in five other verses—Isaiah 16:6, Jeremiah 48:30, Hosea 11:6, Job 18:13, 41:12—not one of those does the idea of “ink” fit.

Any thoughts?

Karl W. Randolph.

[S_Walch]

Jer 36:18:
ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים האלה ואני כתב על הספר בדיו
(Could I request Karl that you quote the text in question - will save people having to look it up. Or at least me; I'm lazy that way )

Would you therefore be translating the above as:
"And Baruch said to them: "From his mouth, he dictated all these words to me, and I wrote [them] upon the scroll completely." ?

I guess a modern translation of "word-for-word" would fit בדיו here, to make it explicit.

Another option would be to take בדיו as from בד meaning "part, section", with a meaning of "and I wrote his sections upon the scroll".

I personally would be inclined to go with the LXX reading (43:18 LXX), and conclude that it's an odd addition to the text that wasn't there in the original.

It makes complete sense without בדיו, and the addition of "with ink" or "in its completeness" seems a little redundant and clumsy.

[Galena]

For my two-penneth I would not be so quick to go with the LXX for two reasons: They copied from what source? I have yet to find a single English translation that does not say 'ink' - so all the biblical translators seem to also distrust the LXX on this verse. And lastly I agree it seems strange in our ears to say, I wrote them with ink, yes even hilarious, but then one must never forget that all languages have strange ways of emphasizing a point with a an idiomatic phrase. And perhaps this idiom is lost to us, so a literal translation seems odd. Try this phrase for example as I answer someone as to where I got this story from: ....Yes I wrote this book myself, I wrote it with my own hand! In 500 years time the added ...I wrote it with my own hand ... would seem redundant absurdity to someone no?
Kind regards
chris

[Isaac Fried]

To better understand the reference to book and ink we need to include also the previous verse. Jer. 36:17-18
וְאֶת בָּרוּךְ שָׁאֲלוּ לֵאמֹר הַגֶּד נָא לָנוּ אֵיךְ כָּתַבְתָּ אֶת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה מִפִּיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם בָּרוּךְ מִפִּיו יִקְרָא אֵלַי אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַאֲנִי כֹּתֵב עַל הַסֵּפֶר בַּדְּיוֹ

Namely, they want to know how authentic and verbatim is the transcription, and Baruch is impressing upon them that writing down of Jeremiah's wards was a painstaking, elaborate and careful undertaking involving prepared parchment for a book and expensive ink, rather than scribbling notes and headlines on a plate with chalk.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[S_Walch]

For my two-penneth I would not be so quick to go with the LXX for two reasons: They copied from what source? I have yet to find a single English translation that does not say 'ink' - so all the biblical translators seem to also distrust the LXX on this verse.

Chris - just because an English translation includes the "with ink", doesn't mean that they're distrusting the LXX on this verse.

Most English translations use the Masoretic Text as the source, and only refer to other versions for "difficult" passages. In fact, most English translations aren't new translations, but are revisions of older ones (ESV used the RSV as a base text as an example - see the "Translation Legacy" in the Preface to the ESV).

It must also be pointed out that no English translation (as yet shown) appears to have considered a different meaning to בדיו here. Yet here we are, discussing alternatives.

We are therefore disagreeing with the current English translations, which is what happens on B-Hebrew quite a lot.

Plus frankly, what exactly do biblical translators have to do with whether the LXX is trustworthy or not? Or whether the LXX shows the original text of Jeremiah?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that in the 3rd-1st Centuries BCE, the LXX was translated from a Vorlege that differed from the current Masoretic Text, with Jeremiah being quite a different book.

Here's a quote from The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible regarding this:

Two important scrolls are 4QJerb and 4QJerd, which reflect a Hebrew text that is very different than the Masoretic form of Jeremiah from which modern Bibles have been translated. It is also interesting to note that the biblical text in these two manuscripts is very similar to the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint (LXX) was translated. This is true not only in small details but also in major aspects where the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text. Most notably, 4QJerb and 4QJerd (before they were damaged) and the Septuagint present a version of Jeremiah that is about 13 percent shorter than the longer version found in modern Bibles! One example of this shorter text is in Jeremiah 10:3–11, which is a satire on idols. While the Masoretic Text has all nine verses, the Greek Bible and 4QJerb lack verses 6–8 and 10, which extol the greatness of God. (TDSSB, pp. 382)

I'll state it again: the LXX readings shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

And lastly I agree it seems strange in our ears to say, I wrote them with ink, yes even hilarious, but then one must never forget that all languages have strange ways of emphasizing a point with a an idiomatic phrase.

True. But where else exactly does Hebrew specify that things written on scrolls were done so "with ink"? I'm not quite sure, but I don't think they had much else to write on scrolls with. Other than blood, but I doubt Baruch would've written with blood.

There is one final thing we should consider: we have a scribal mistake for דבריו "his words". This would be quite easily done as הספר דבריו has a lot of letters that look the same that a scribe could get confused with.

It also makes a lot more sense if it was ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים האלה ואני כתב על הספר דבריו:
"And Baruch said to them: "From his mouth; he dictated all these words to me, and I wrote his words upon the scroll".

[Galena]

S_Walch quoted the following : .....it is also interesting to note that the biblical text in these two manuscripts is very similar to the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint (LXX) was translated.......

This is a slip-up....very similar to the hebrew text from which the LXX was translated?? There is no hebrew text around to check this today, scholars do not know what hebrew text they were copying from. This is pure assumption. It may well be in the LXX and it may well have been in the DSS but this proves nothing. The one could have copied from the other, they could have been coffee pals! They could have used the same hebrew copy which in itself was in error. The list is absolutely endless as to what could have been going on here.

The LXX does not really exist as a single cohesive document, and the copies you see today are very recent - 400 AD and onwards. The codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus - thousands of omissions, errors, spelling mistakes and carelessness and inconsistencies between parchments, their history is dubious, their authors are many, and often individuals private copies. These are comments from various institutions, not UTube waffles and personal grudges that I quote. Admittedly it also has been agreed by scholars that regarding the NT 90% is confirmed and supported, and the essential aspects of doctrine and faith are there. BUt the OT is a different matter.

From The BAS library - As is true of any written work from antiquity, the text of the Septuagint has been subjected to innumerable changes, conscious and accidental, as it was copied and recopied over the centuries.
From Biblical Archeological Institute -The Alexandrianus it ranks third (behind the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus) in its value for critical research on the biblical text. (500 AD).

The overall assessments run into pages, too much to copy here. When you quote from the LXX you are not neccessarily quoting from a document that is 300 or 100 BC, you are quoting from a document that is far later than that - namely around 400 AD. The idea that 70 people from the 12 tribes of Israel gathered in separate rooms a notion that can be shown to be of very doubtful authority. It should also be taken into consideration that it was the Roman church that collated and copied the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the Alexandianus maybe commissioned by Constantine. One should bare in mind the theological mindset of these days and remember that some of influential scholars of these times had an extreme bias against the Jewishness of the scriptures.

My point? The Term: The "LXX of the 3rd and 2nd century BC should be abandoned, it is a misleading concept and deceptive. It's authority as the text that is to be trusted (even when the DSS is in agreement) is still a very sandy foundation.

kind regards

[S_Walch]

==Off Topic Post==
Chris:

Apply everything you've said there about the LXX to the Masoretic Hebrew Texts that we have today.

So what if Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are from the 4th Century CE (that's Pre 400 CE btw, just to clarify), and Alexandrinus from the 5th? We have numerous manuscripts of Septuagint books dating older, and I know of very few scholars who doubt that Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and these others are witnesses to the LXX text from the 3rd-2nd Centuries BCE (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957 are 2nd Cent BCE witnesses to Leviticus and Deuteronomy; Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943 are 1st Century BCE witnesses to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets).

If the Masoretic Texts, which are dated to the 10th Century CE, are reliable witnesses to Hebrew texts dating to the 15-4th Centuries BCE, then there is no logical reason to then try and make out that the later witnesses to the LXX don't represent the Greek text from the 3rd-1st Centuries BCE.

To quote your own words back at you, with a slight change: "When you quote from the Masoretic Hebrew Text you are not necessarily quoting from a document that is 1500 or 1400 BC, you are quoting from a document that is far later than that - namely around 950 AD."

Yet I'm willing to bet you trust the Masoretic Hebrew Texts to be reliable witnesses to the original Hebrew autographs? Then there is no reason to try and cast doubt on the LXX manuscripts we have today as being reliable witnesses to the LXX translation of 3rd-1st Centuries BCE.

These LXX texts are witnesses to a Hebrew Vorlege that differs from the 10th Century CE Masoretic Texts, as are the Dead Sea Scrolls. All three are used in Textual Criticism. Don't dismiss the DSS and LXX so easily.

(As a quick aside: when the Messiah states "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one serif will pass away from the law until all comes to be." (Matt 5:18), which language do you think "iota" refers to? Throughout the entirety of Greek literature (including the NT), this only ever refers to the Greek letter ι and nothing else. Keep that in mind.)
==End of Off Topic Post==

[Jemoh66]

==Off Topic Post==
. . .
(As a quick aside: when the Messiah states "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota or one serif will pass away from the law until all comes to be." (Matt 5:18), which language do you think "iota" refers to? Throughout the entirety of Greek literature (including the NT), this only ever refers to the Greek letter ι and nothing else. Keep that in mind.)
==End of Off Topic Post==

I agree with everything you said up to this point. And I realize this is Off Off-Topic, but this doesn't hold since Jesus did not utter these words in Greek. They are a Greek translation what he said. Jesus seems to have spoken in Hebrew. At the very least the words were recorded originally in Hebrew by Matthew.

[S_Walch]

(Jonathan: refer to the PM I just sent you. Don't want to derail this thread any more than already has been done )

[Jemoh66]

True. But where else exactly does Hebrew specify that things written on scrolls were done so "with ink"? I'm not quite sure, but I don't think they had much else to write on scrolls with. Other than blood, but I doubt Baruch would've written with blood.

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."

There is one final thing we should consider: we have a scribal mistake for דבריו "his words". This would be quite easily done as הספר דבריו has a lot of letters that look the same that a scribe could get confused with.

It also makes a lot more sense if it was ויאמר להם ברוך מפיו יקרא אלי את כל הדברים האלה ואני כתב על הספר דבריו:
"And Baruch said to them: "From his mouth; he dictated all these words to me, and I wrote his words upon the scroll".

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.

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

מִפִּיו֙ יִקְרָ֣א אֵלַ֔י אֵ֥ת כָּל־ הַדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה וַאֲנִ֛י כֹּתֵ֥ב עַל־ הַסֵּ֖פֶר בַּדְּיֹֽו

"From his mouth he was speaking all the words
(while) I was writing on a scroll with ink."

This would go with Isaac's comment about the context. Except I don't see him emphasizing the elaborate process. Instead I see the emphasis being that the words come from God to Jeremiah to ink on scroll in one act, making the scroll that much more authoritative. The words on this scroll are as if Jeremiah were speaking now.

I personally would be inclined to go with the LXX reading (43:18 LXX), and conclude that it's an odd addition to the text that wasn't there in the original.

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.