Talk:Jeremiah

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral text, please! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use fitting analogies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Prophet, I think 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  only half a story? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ref? 

message: 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)
replies: text: See the "Etymology and pronunciation" section:Jeremiah#Etymology and pronunciation.  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)
replies: text: Hebrew Wikipedia's corresponding article is called "ירמיהו". Could that be put at the top, with a note to look at the Etymology section? LovesMacs (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  can we get the name in Hebrew characters? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Yoda? 

message: 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.Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright by J.H. Allen (the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel) 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.Lost Tribes article at BritAm.orgUnited States and Britain in Prophecy article at Trumpet Magazine website  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.141.205 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone believe this except for the few left of Herbert W. Armstrong's followers? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish? 

message: 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)
replies: text: (a) No clue and (b) I think so. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate etymologies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revamping 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Facing Persecution" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Claims for Jeremiah's Tomb 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Death date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Attack you they will, overcome you they can’t" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: G-d of Israel does not necessarily equal Yahweh

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Baha'i Views

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Jeremiah's sole purpose" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  historicity? 

message: 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)
replies: text: A bunch of made up crap.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabari? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Jeremia treurend over de verwoesting van Jeruzalem - Google Art Project.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "it" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jeremiah c. 644 - c. 570 BC 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Birth or Call? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DH collapsed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bunkum