[1] BAGD, s.v. “profhvth"”, p. 723.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Hill and Walton seem to be correct in distinguishing the biblical concept of forthtelling from the common concept that a prophet foretells the future since a prophet only speaks God’s plans and intentions, and since God’s plans are not predictions so much as pre-stated certainties from the sovereign of all causation (A Survey of the Old Testament, pp. 314-315.

[4] BDB, s.v. “ayb!n*”, p. 661.

[5] La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, p. 298- 299; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 741-742. See also Exodus 4:15ff; 7:1).

[6] 1 Samuel 9:9; Isa. 30:10; BDB, s.v. “ ha#r) “, p. 909 meaning one who sees (perhaps a vision) from har.

[7] La Sor, Old, p. 298.

[8] Prophets were known in the Mari tablets of the eighteenth century B.C. and in the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (681-633 B.C.) See Hill and Walton, A Survey, pp. 309-310.

[9] Much of this information comes from Hill and Walton Survey, p. 311.

[10] La Sor, Old, p. 300; See R. K. Harrison’s extended discussion and bibliography, Introduction, pp. 752-754

[11] The judgments were restatements of the covenant curses (Lev. 26; Deut. 27-28); YHWH would determine the time of the judgments as the Judge, and the judgments would be executed by foreign nations. Only through a New Covenant (Deut. 30; Jer. 31) could the nation be restored after they fell under judgment (Elliott E. Johnson, “Elements of Recognition”, Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 53).

[12] Some central passages which speak to this theme are found in the words of the prophet Isaiah (41:21-24; 43:10-13; 44:6-11; 45:20-21; 48:3-7. Post-exilic prophets had the days when YHWH would complete his program (“latter days”, or “those days”) as a central focus (La Sor et al, Old, p. 304. The Day of the LORD (Day of YHWH) would be the time when YHWH would consummate his judgment and blessing.

[13] La Sor et al offers a complete list with central passages, Old, pp. 301-303.

[14] These are Deborah, Samuel (although Samuel is transitional as the last of the judges and the first of the monarchical [pre-classical] prophets). They were called prophets because: (1) they were chosen in order to received revelation, (2) Moses is the prototype of a prophet [Deut. 18:18; 34:10], (3) Samuel marked a time when prophecy resumed [1 Sam. 3:7-9]. See La Sor et al, Old, pp. 300- 301.

[15] These are scattered throughout the historical books including oracles by Nathan, Elijah, Elisha.

[16] These are most commonly identified with the “writing” prophets from the eighth through fourth century B.C. primarily including those who wrote books (Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Obed, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

[17] Hill and Walton, A Survey, p. 311.

[18] Jonah is unique because it does not contain a collection of prophetic oracles to the nation, but is narrative about the prophet.

[19] Elliot E. Johnson, “Principle of Recognition”, Class notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 52.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Hill and Walton, A Survey, pp. 313-315.

[22] The Divine Author would use the human author to communicate His message often with a reference beyond the conscious awareness of the human author. This might be illustrated as follows: If I say to my daughter, “I don’t love kisses from anyone as much as from you”, there would be limits to my statement (e.g., it does not include my wife). Yet, If someone brings a child to me and says, “Did you mean more than Alice?”, I would say, “Yes, even though I did not have Alice in mind when I made that statement, Alice does fit with what I have said.” I am speaking as the “human author” here. But if my sayings were inspired, God would say, “Yes, and Alice is specifically whom I had in mind!” Since the message is the Divine Author’s message, there are at times references beyond (but not in conflict) with the human author’s awareness.

[23] Perhaps this was what is now commonly known as book I- Ten Messages of Judgment against Judah (1-25).

[24] For discussions of those who question the prophet as author see LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 409- 10; Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370-72.

[25] This was a priestly city given to the descendants of Aaron by Joshua (cf. Josh 21:15-19). Although Jeremiah was of a priestly line (like his contemporary Ezekiel (Ezk 1:3) and Zechariah (Zech 1:1; cf. Neh 12:1, 4, 16), we are never told that he entered the priesthood in Jerusalem.

[26] LaSor et al suggest that Jeremiah was also probably young when he received his calling being born shortly after 650 B.C. (Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 404).

[27] This was adapted from Charles H. Dyer, “Jeremiah,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament, 1125-27, and Homer Heater, Jr., “Notes on the Book of Jeremiah,” unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 101-105.

[28] Perhaps Ezekiel was one of those deported during this second deportation. He would have begun his prophetic ministry five years later.

[29] The chart is from Charles H. Dyer, “Jeremiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, I:1126. Dyer notes three observations about these prophecies: (1) there is no chronological consistency, (2) Jeremiah’s messages were given during difficult times of stress, upheaval, and need like during King Josiah’s reforms (1-6; 11-12), during Nebuchadnezzar’s rule (7-10; 14- 20; 22:1-19; 26), the first and second deportations to Babylon, the plot to rebel against Babylon, and the final deportation to Babylon, (3) the book demonstrates multiple stages of growth. Concerning number three he writes, “That is, Jeremiah, at different stages of his ministry, collected his prophecies and rearranged them in a definite pattern (cf. 25:13; 30:2; 36:2, 32). Jeremiah could have completed the final form of chapters 1- 51 after he was taken hostage to Egypt (cf. 51:64). But what about chapter 52? Jeremiah 52, nearly identical to 2 Kings 24:18- -25:30, was written sometime after 561 B.C. when King Jehoiachin was released from prison in Babylon (Jer. 52:31). Apparently this last chapter was appended to Jeremiah’s prophecies by the same writer who compiled the book of Kings. The chapter was added to show that Jeremiah’s words of Judgment had been fulfilled and that Jehoiachin’s release foreshadowed God’s promises of restoration and blessing” (Charles H. Dyer, “Jeremiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, I:1123-25).

[30] Heater writes, “The LXX text of Jeremiah is one eighth shorter than the Hebrew text underlying our English translations. In addition there is somewhat of a different arrangement of material (e.g., the oracles against the nations are situated in a different place than in the MT). Qumran fragments support a reading unique to the LXX and lead to an inference that there was a Hebrew Vorlage (or underlying text) for the Greek translation. But we must stress that it is only an inference since all we have are a few fragments (4QJer). I believe we must deal with these differences as text critical problems (some want to talk about a developing canon, but canon speaks of the book, whereas textual criticism speaks of the changes in the text). See Homer Heater, Jr., “Notes on the Book of Jeremiah,” unpublished class notes in seminar in the preexilic Old Testament prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1990), 105.

[31] Archer affirms, “In this connection, note that 36:32 indicates that a second preliminary edition was published in the reign of Jehoiakim, and it is therefore reasonable to assume that Jeremiah kept adding to these earlier sermons the messages the Lord gave him in the reign of Zedekiah and in the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370).

[32] Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 370.

[33] LaSor et al affirm, “ A likely explanation is the editors’ desire to shape the book according to the patterns of Isa. 1-39 and Ezekiel: oracles of doom against Judah, oracles of doom against the nations, and oracles of hope for Judah. This stylized arrangement argues against priority of the LXX structure” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 410).