Talk:Jeremiah

Untitled
I have replaced the previous version of this article. I have written this article for a course. It was researched, includes a bibliography, and includes material from the previous article. MinMike 11:17, 20 Jul 2006 -


 * A Jeremiah (disambiguation) page has been created to redirect to Book of Jeremiah and various secondary meanings. All but a handful of Wikipedia users who enter "Jeremiah" are looking for the prophet. The standard "For other uses..." should appear at the top of Jeremiah. Doesn't this seem like obvious common sense? Or are there issues? --Wetman 14:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-


 * support Tobias Conradi 07:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it not relevant here that "Jeremiah" has become a byword for a pessimist? --DominicSayers 07:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Primary disambiguation. violet/riga (t) 17:33, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

word count summary
Added word count and summary of the book of Jeremiah. --dmonty 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems strange to write a summary based on a word count. Is this part of some exegetical tradition/technique? If so, that tradition should be referenced. If not, the section shold be removed as original research. --Macrakis 03:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)This is ridiculous, anyone can at anytime add their own comments or version to the breakdown of the word. Anyone including: a Mormon beleiver, a Satanist, a Muslim follower, or just a false doctrinated person. I hope people will be careful to read what is written.

Neutral text, please!
I don't find the quotation marks neutral in this sentence: one of the Hebrew scribes "found" a copy of the Old Testament Scriptures. There is no proof for the hypothetical idea that some scribe planted the book there just before "finding" it. I suggest the following replacement: one of the Hebrew scribes (according to the book of Kings) found a copy of the Law of Moses. Apus 12:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything under 'attitude toward Jerusalem Priesthood' seems like a personal interpretation, particularly the line where our editor states "Jeremiah is thinking here..." and also "Jeremiah probably expected..."LFA 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitude Toward Jerusalem Priesthood
Please identify whose point of view these opinions represent, attribute them, and identify sources for them. Unattributed, unsourced opinions will need to be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:RS --Shirahadasha 06:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Per above, removing text to Talk page. We can move it back if sources are found and attributed. --Shirahadasha 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to needing reliable sourcing, this text also needs work to to comply with NPOV. It currently does things like call its POV "fact", "plain", etc. claim that the opposing POV is "little-justifiable", etc., parenthetical claims like a claim Jeremiah is referring to "the Holy Spirit" as an entity, etc. This language would all need to be toned down to meet WP:NPOV. --Shirahadasha 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text



 * The opposition in which Jeremiah seems to have stood to the priesthood of the central sanctuary at Jerusalem may have been a continuation of the opposition which had existed from former times between that priesthood and his family; this would be traceable to Zadok, the successful opponent of Abiathar.


 * Jeremiah's attitude may also have been influenced by the fact that he considered Josiah's measures too superficial for the moral reformation which he declared to be necessary if the same fate were not to befall the Temple of Zion, as had in days gone by, befallen the Temple of Shiloh (I Sam. iv.), which had by then become "desolate". "the words of this covenant" (ib. v. 3), which God had given to their fathers "when He brought them up out of Egypt". In this passage, there is a plain reference to the newly-rediscovered torah (law) or "teaching"


 * Just as little-justifiable is the theory, which has recently been suggested, that Jeremiah in his later years departed from the Deuteronomic law. "The false [lying] pen of the scribe," which, as Jeremiah says, "makes the Torah of God into falsehood" (Jer. viii. 8, Hebr.), could not have referred to the Deuteronomic law, nor to its falsification by copyists. Rather, Jeremiah is thinking here of another compilation of laws which was then in progress under the direction of his opponents; the priests of the central sanctuary at Jerusalem. Jeremiah probably expected from them no other conception of law than the Levitical one, which may be seen in the legal portions of the so-called "Priestly" writings, and results from the Priestly point of view. Another possible interpretation is that Jeremiah's prophecies, which included many, repeated dire warnings against "false prophets", is that the hearts of the priests and prophets were wrong. This was followed by Jeremiah's prophecies by way of reminder about "the good things" that God has in store for "his people", Israel, including the "New Covenant"; in which God would "remove the heart of stone of His people, and would give them a new heart: one of flesh, and a new spirit (the Holy Spirit)".


 * (End removed text)

Use fitting analogies
The text of Deut. xviii:18 does not refer to the subject. Do not, therefore align this reference to the subject; the allusion of this article is that the biblical reference refers to the subject and not some other personality, where in fact, in chronological, logical and historical terms, the opposite is evidently the case: it is only appropriate to use references which bear direct connection with the subject matter. Please resolve this issue.


 * The source here is not Deut 18:18, but a Rabbinic Midrash. It is this Midrash that is making an analogy between Jeremiah and Moses and uses Deut. 18:18 to do so. You may disagree with this aource. You may not like its comparison of Jeremiah to Moses in Deut. 18:18. But the Midrash is reliably sourced. It is also on topic. The Midrash helps show how the Rabbis of the Talmud saw Jeremiah. They liked him a lot, and this Midrash shows this. Among other issues, it helps explain why the Talmud sometimes relied on things Jeremiah said, as opposed to things other prophets said, as a source for rulings on Jewish law.Best, --Shirahadasha 11:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Prophet, I think
The article's comment to the effect that in Jeremiah's confrontation with Jehoiakim Jeremiah warned the king that "God would roll him up into a little ball and would throw him out of Judah" is, I believe, referring to Isaiah 22:18 "He will roll you up tightly lie a ball and throw you into a large country." I'm not aware of such a prophesy by Jeremiah, though I'm willing to be educated. Terwilligerjones (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Yirməyāhū frequently misspelled as Yirmiyahu. . . "
The first pronunciation (Yirməyāhū) is very common, and is the one presribed by the classic textbooks, which follow the grammar of David Kimhi. But not only is "Yirmiyahu" a legitimate pronunciation; it is one that satisfies the early Tiberian authors, according to whom shva before yodh has the phonetic quality of [i] (as if it were a [short] hiriq). Yet a third distinct pronunciation is given here as, which well represents the situation in Israeli Hebrew.

The way this is all layed out now in the introduction is thus inaccurate (and confusing). Perhaps the editor who added that "Yirməyāhū [is] frequently misspelled as Yirmiyahu" might not mean to disparage that pronunciation per se, but rather objects to the pointing of ירמיהו as יִרְמִיָהוּ (hiriq under mem) instead of the usual יִרְמְיָהוּ (shva under mem).

This could be clarified in the article without much disturbance. Hanina (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Yirməyahu" is much better transliterated then "Yirmiyahu", but what happend with the shva under Resh ?!

יִרְמְיָהוּ Yirəməyāhū


 * Regards, --Stefan Bach7777 (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

only half a story?
I have been reading a book "From chaos to covenant: Uses of prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah" by Robert Carroll in which a very different view of Jeremiah is to be gleaned than one would get from this wikipedia article. Carroll's view (if I understand him correctly) is that we can get to know very little about an actual historical person by the name of Jeremiah through reading the book bearing his name. Perhaps we can read a little of his poetry but even that has been heavily worked over by editors with purposes of their own. Yet nothing of this view appears, even as a remark by the way, here on this page. Is Carroll's view discredited or very much in a minority? I hope someone with knowledge of the debate can enlighten me. Coxparra (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Prophetic books in the Tanakh are not written from the 1st person point of view, almost ever...if ever at all. There is some descriptions in Ezekiel and perhaps others (I haven't studied as much) but in that case Ezekiel wasn't specifically written by Ezekiel.  Since Jeremiah was written by Jeremiah there's very little reference to who he was, where he lived etc etc.  Rather the focus of the prophecy is on...well...the prophecy.  It's named Book of Jeremiah because had Ben Chanina been the true prophet and Jeremiah false...we'd have Book of Ben Chanina.  The article here is really no more than a conjecture of who he was the Book of Jeremiah is more akin to the topic you're discussing.  Even then much can't be written since very few understand the book, including myself. --CheskiChips (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those comments. Yes, I see that it is perhaps unfortunate that "The Book of ..." implies to a modern reader that an authorial voice should be identified. Maybe I should remember that a prophet is a servant with someone else's message to bring.Coxparra (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ref?
"and then sneaks in a few extra pleas between the lines" References to these 'sneaks' may be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

can we get the name in Hebrew characters?
I'm not sure how to place this on the article's main page, but it'd be nice to have the name presented in its Hebrew characters. Anyone? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See the "Etymology and pronunciation" section:Jeremiah. When explanation of the name gets too busy for the lede, the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests creating a stand-alone section.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hebrew Wikipedia's corresponding article is called "ירמיהו". Could that be put at the top, with a note to look at the Etymology section? Loves  Macs  (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistent with the manual of style, I'd rather not see the parentheses following the article name in the lede get cluttered up with too much stuff that properly belongs to an etymology type section. The first line already has an English a vocalization of the Hebrew, the meaning, and the pronounciation, all of which make more sense to typical English readership than the Hebrew characters.  Adding more would contradict the manual of style which suggests once naming alternatives are moved to an etymology section, they should not be placed back into the lede, "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line."  The desire for greater visibility is satisfied by the recent edit moving the etymology section.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoda?
"Attack you they will, overcome you they can’t"

What translation is this? I can't find a match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccunni (talk • contribs) 04:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I reworded it and added source, will now add link to different versions. -John in Cinci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish?
from Ten Tribes page on wikipedia: There is a theory that the Irish, or that Insular Celts as a whole, are descended from the Ten Lost Tribes. Proponents of this theory state that there is evidence that the prophet Jeremiah came to Ireland with Princess Tea Tephi, a member of the Israelite royal family. Proponents of this theory point to various parallels between Irish and ancient Hebrew culture. For example, they note that the harp, the symbol of Ireland, also plays a role in Jewish history, as the musical instrument of King David. Some maintain that the Tribe of Dan conducted sea voyages to Ireland and colonized it as early as the period of the Judges under the name Tuatha Dé Danann.

Aspects of this theory are also sometimes cited by adherents of British Israelism, as one possible explanation of how the Ten Lost Tribes might have reached the British Isles. However, British Israelism takes many forms, and does not always use this hypothesis as its main narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.141.205 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone believe this except for the few left of Herbert W. Armstrong's followers? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternate etymologies?
I ran across this discussion of other meanings for Jeremiah's name. I wonder: (a) if any of these explanations are more widely accepted than the one given in the article (which I believe has an evangelical Christian bias) and (b) whether it would be worthwhile to post any of the discussion over the etymology into the article. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (a) No clue and (b) I think so. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The direct link cited above does not meet WP:RS standards: it is self-published by someone who did not even complete his theology degree and is no more reliable as a source on the Bible than it is as a source on Chaos Theory or Quantum Mechanics. The validity of the analysis presented depends on whether the analysis accurately represents the reliable sources (Bible dictionaries, lexicons, etc.) on which it is based.  Jeremiah is a tough name to assign a meaning with any certainty, which is why there is such disagreement.  There is certainly room for further discussion of suggested meanings (in the article body, not the lede), but such discussion should cite reliable sources (and include page numbers for verifiability) rather than a self-published web site.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Reference
Sorry for my ignorance, but I do not know how to edit notes. Note #6 should be Jeremiah 5:19, not what is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russmichaels (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Revamping
omg... I had to revamp this article quite a bit. There is too much dawg gone original content cluttered up so bad... that I couldn't see the point if it were pointed right at my iris.

I hope my revisions will be a little more acceptable... there is still a lot more work to be done...

Jasonasosa (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Facing Persecution"
I have two suggestions for the "Background" section entitled "Facing Persecution." Firstly, it may be helpful to include a verse number in the second sentence (Jer 11:21). Secondly, it may be useful to note somewhere that all of the passages described in this section are examples of Jeremiah's confessions or laments (Jer 11:18-12:6; 15:10-21; 17:14-18; 18:18-23; 20:7-18). HakeberB (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Influence I'm new to Wikipedia and I dont know how to edit but there should be some mention to his influence on Chagall and all the paintings with Jeremiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.194.58 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Claims for Jeremiah's Tomb
The following web page, and others, claim that Jeremiah traveled to Ireland following a period in Egypt, with the daughters of the King. There is some limited evidence of this, but it is far from substantiated. http://jahtruth.net/jere.htm

Two facts raise the possibility that there may be some truth in the claims. The first is the purported blood line of the British Royal family, which claims a direct descent from King David based on the truth of the above claim.

The second is the case of the British Israelists who attempted to dig up the Hill of Tara in Ireland a hundred years ago in search of the Ark of the Covenant, until prevented by mass meetings.

There is a mention of that fact on this page, near the end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_of_Tara

None of the above provides real proof that Jeremiah went to Ireland. But I do think it appropriate that these theories at least be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.168.223 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Even Queen Victoria acknowledged her ancestry though Teia Tephi. in the Otago Witness, Issue 2532, 24 September 1902, Page 69: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=OW19020924.2.253

Teia Tephi was king Hezehiah's daughter, who arrived in Ireland accompanied by the scribe Barach (Baruch), an old prophet (Jeremiah), and the Stone of Destiny (Jacob's Pillow, Lia Fail). The Hill of Tara in Ireland is believed by many to be Jeremiah's tomb, and to contain the Arc of the Covenant (Tara = Torah) and David's harp, which later became the symbol of Ireland.

Even if this is not completely substantiated, there is sufficient evidence that it is worthy of mention as Jeremiah's possible final destination in the main page of this article.

Death date?
Nebuchadnezzar seized Jerusalem in 586 BC. The article currently states that he died in 586 BC. According to the book, and the article itself further down, Jeremiah traveled to Egypt after the war, and there is no record of his death. Someone make a mistake? LWG talk 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

“Attack you they will, overcome you they can’t"
Really? God talks like Yoda? I know this is a quote, but this is bad English, and sounds silly. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The King James Version is better: "And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee." 99.0.37.134 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

God doesn't speak like Yoda nor does He speak (anymore) in early 17th century English. Try a good modern version for Jeremiah 1:19, "They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the Lord, to deliver you.” (ESV).Yeoberry (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think anyone can decide how God talks. I'm pretty sure He can talk any way he wants. Chryslerfan (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

G-d of Israel does not necessarily equal Yahweh
There was a recent change in the "God" descriptor of Jeremiah's name to "Yahweh Exults" in the article referring to that prophet of the Hebrew Bible. The use of that descriptor "Yahweh" is not faithful to the original text. The last part of his name refers to the God of Israel, or God, in general, it does not refer to Yahweh. Yahweh is a modern scholarly approach to how to pronounce the tetragrammaton. The tetragrammaton is not referenced here, therefore, the use of Yahweh is not appropriate.

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In modern English, we also call the son of god, worshipped by Christians, Jesus, but Jesus is neither a Hebrew nor Aramaic name (the original name would have been Yeshua), but that is the modern rendering of his name that is most widely used in English, so articles about him use that name. While 'God' is the usually appellation of Yahweh in English, the term can mean many things and refer to many god concepts, so that would be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. Yahweh specifically refers to the god of Israel, and, like Jesus, is the way his name is rendered in modern English.--Jcvamp (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Baha'i Views
Christians regard Jeremiah as one of the greater prophets both because of the length of his book and the importance of his life and prophecies. Baha'is agree with this. However, Baha'is have another classification in which Prophets (with a capital 'P') are considered to be Divine Beings - Manifestations of God. In that classification, all prophets who are not founders of one of the dispensations of the Religion of God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, etc.) are considered to be lesser prophets. Because someone reading the previous text might erroneously think that Baha'i Faith regards Jeremiah to be a lesser prophet in the Judeo-Christian lexicon, I have removed that statement. -- Servant of Baha (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Biblical scholars use "greater" and "lesser" in references to the prophetic books to note the length of the texts (less text or more text). This is in no way a reference to the importance of the prophets the texts reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.82.50 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Jeremiah's sole purpose"
"Jeremiah's sole purpose was to reveal the sins of the people and explain the reason for the impending disaster" "sole purpose" is way to exclusive a way to describe Jeremiah, even if you consider nothing but the Book of Jeremiah. For instance, in chapter 30, God told him to write a book that was not for his contemporaries (the people sinning then and there). It was a message of hope for future generations. It was very important when Daniel read it generations later at the intended time, as the book of Daniel recounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.82.50 (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

historicity?
There is no discussion in the article about the historicity of the guy. It seems the only source is a collection of books known to contain historical inaccuracies to support a certain political discourse. Without something about this point, this article is more a 8th grader's answer to a reading test than an encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.75.60 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any sources to attest to his historicity? You're always free to add to the article or list things you think should be included on the talk page for others to add.--Jcvamp (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don’t see how the Book of Mormon has any relation to the historicity of Jeremiah, considering its extremely recent date of composition. ZacharyFoj (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Tabari?
The article says, "Muslim literature narrates a detailed account of the destruction of Jerusalem, which parallels the account given in the Book of Jeremiah." The source is given as, "Tabari, i, 646f." What is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneGyT (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A bunch of made up crap.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Jeremia treurend over de verwoesting van Jeruzalem - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Jeremia treurend over de verwoesting van Jeruzalem - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 5, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-01-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"it"
from the Christianity section. "Jeremiah plays a foundational role in Christian thought as it presages the inauguration of a new covenant" What is the antecedent of "it"? Should "it" be "he"? Or should "Jeremiah" be "The book of Jeremiah"? or "the preaching of Jeremiah"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeremiah c. 644 - c. 570 BC
After visiting several sites including Britannica, I added Jeremiah (c. 644 - c. 570 BC). 73.85.201.14 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Birth or Call?
"I suggest, then, that 627 B.C.E., the thirteenth year of Josiah, is the date of Jeremiah’s birth." - William L. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Fresh Reading, p. 14, The Pilgrim Press, New York (1990) - Eroica (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

DH collapsed
A tad too late, but the Documentary Hypothesis has not collapsed. In large chunks of the academia it has been replaced by even more radical views (which are its intellectual offspring). So, if anything, the outcome for evangelical orthodoxy is even worse than when DH ruled the academic world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Now the real competition is between neo-DH (which is in fact not so new, but a back to basics approach) and the Supplementary hypothesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Bunkum
Following a reading of this article which was seemed to be based on one sided biblical and Old Testament studies I was left wondering (as does the contributor raising similar concerns in "Historicity") where was the primary tangible evidence for the assertions about this "individual" and the amazing detail laid out by his life. Call me Mr Picky but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of historical fact to be back up this article, the section on Archaeology being remarkably thin. I would like to have seen a much more realistic appraisal of the historical figure separated from the layers of myth, attribution and story telling which make up 90% of this article. 94.2.199.166 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the previous anonymous user who started this thread. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. The tone is devotional. There are reverential capitals, and dates given to the nearest year, which is not believable historically.--2603:8000:7A01:6E67:971:F489:7294:F785 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)