602 TRANSLATION, NOTES, AND COMMENTS- And they asked Baruch, 'Tell us, would you, how did you write all these
words, from his dictation?' The questions seem perfunctory, but the princes
need to know something about the scroll's preparation in case the king should
ask them. The LXX omits "tell us, would you," and "from his dictation." It also
translates the interrogative as "from where?" (pothen). The LXX reading is also
perfunctory: "From where did you get these words?" Did they really not know
where Baruch got the words? Did they think Baruch was the prophet? The
LXX deletions should certainly not be defended because "from his dictation" is
repeated in Baruch's answer (v 18). Repetitions of this sort are precisely what
we expect in Hebrew discourse, in which questions are not answered by a sim-
ple "Yes" or "No." Jones says that the repetition gives emphasis; H. Weippert
( 1989: 10 I n. 6) believes this double question elicits the double answer in v 18.
The MT should then be read. - And Baruch said to them, 'From his dictation; he would proclaim all these
words to me and I would write upon the scroll in ink.' Here the LXX omits "to
them" after "and Baruch said" and adds the name "Jeremiah" at the beginning of
the answer. The imperfect verb yiqrce and the participial construction wa>anf
koteb are used here with frequentative (iterative) force, which expresses re-
peated action in the past; thus: "he would (repeatedly) proclaim ... and I
would (repeatedly) write" (GKC § 107b; § l l 2e ). For this frequentative verbal
usage, see again v 23.
I would write upon the scroll in ink. The term for "ink," dey6, is a hapax lego-
menon in the OT. The LXX omits. Proposals to emend baddey6, "in ink," to
beyad(f), "with (my) hand" (Giesebrecht; Ehrlich 1912: 334), or to take the
term ::is l::iter exp;msion (Duhm; McKane) are entirely unnecessary, for which
reason most commentators stay with the MT (Peake; Cornill; Volz; Rudolph;
Weiser; Bright; Holladay; and others). Lambdin ( 1953: 149) thinks the Hebrew
word may be a graphic error for rey6, which he says can be equated with Egyp-
tian ry. (t), meaning "ink." Black ink for writing was made from carbon, usually
being soot scraped from cooking vessels or else specially prepared, and then
mixed with a solution of gum and water and dried into cakes. Chemical tests
on the Lachish Letters turned up traces of iron, which A. Lewis believed was
an early constituent of ink (Torczyner 1938: 190-93). This would make the
color red or reddish-brown. Early ink did not penetrate deeply into papyrus or
skin so could be washed off easily (Exod 32:33; Num 5:23). Pens were made
from a piece of thin rush (Phragmites communis), cut at one end on the bias
and then frayed to form a brush. A rush pen ('et) is referred to in 8:8 and would
have been the type of pen used here by Baruch. Reed (Juncus maritimus) pens
with a split nib came later in the Greco-Roman period, beginning about the
end of the third century B.C. (cf. kalamos, "reed pen," in 3 John 13). Complet-
ing the scribal kit of Egyptian design was a palette with one or two hollowed-
out cups (usually circular) to hold the dried ink. Palettes having two cups were
for red and black ink. Some scribal kits also had small water jugs attached. For
a rush pen pictured in its holder with an attached slate palette and water jug,
see J. A. Wilson 1951: fig. 4c; ANEP^2 73 #234; IDB R-Z, 919.