Diet
DIET
An assembly of the states of Germany. We shall only take notice, in this place of the more remarkable of those which have been held on the affairs of religion.
1. The diet of Augsburgh, in the year 1530, was assembled to re-unite the princes of the empire, in relation to some religious matters. The emperor himself presided in this assembly with the greatest magnificence imaginable. The elector of Saxony, followed by several princes, presented the confession of faith, called the confession of Augsburgh. The emperor ended the diet with a decree, that no alteration should be made in the doctrines and ceremonies of the Romish church till the council should order it otherwise.
2. The diet of Augsburgh, in 1547, was held on account of the electors being divided concerning the decisions of the council of Trent. The emperor demanded that the management of that affair should be referred to him; and it was resolved, that every one should conform to the decisions of the council.
3. The diet of Augsburgh, in 1548, was assembled to examine some memorials relating to the confession of faith; but, the commissioners not agreeing together, the emperor named three divines, who drew the design of this famous interim, so well known in Germany and elsewhere.
See INTERIM.
4. The diet of Augsburgh, in 1550. In this assembly, the emperor complained that the interim was not observed, and demanded that all should submit to the council, which they were going to renew at Trent; which submission was resolved upon by a plurality of votes.
5. The diet of Nuremberg, in 1523. Here pope Adrian VIth’s nuncio demanded the execution of Leo Xth’s bull, and Charles Vth’s edict against Luther. But the assembly drew up a list of grievances, which were reduced to an hundred articles, some whereof aimed at the destruction of the pope’s authority, and the discipline of the Romish church; however, they consented that the Lutherans should be commanded not to write against the Roman Catholics.
6. The diet of Nuremberg, in 1524. In this assembly, the Lutherans having the advantage, it was decreed that the pope should call a council in Germany; but that, in the mean time, an assembly should be held at Spire, to determine what was to be believed and practised; but Charles V. prohibited the holding this assembly.
7. The diet of Ratisbon, in 1541, was held for re-uniting the Protestants with the Roman Catholics. The emperor named three Roman Catholics and three Protestant divines, to agree upon articles. The Roman Catholics were, Julius Phlug, John Gropper, and John Eckius; the Protestants were, Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and John Pistorius; but, after a whole month’s consultation, they could agree upon no more than five or six articles; which the emperor consented the Protestants should retain, forbidding them to solicit any body to change the ancient religion.
8. The diet of Ratisbon, in 1546, decreed that the council of Trent was to be followed, which was opposed by the Protestant deputies; and this caused a war against them.
9. The diet of Ratisbon, in 1557, demanded a conference between some famous doctors of both parties; which conference was held at Worms, in September, between twelve Roman Catholic and twelve Lutherans being divided among themselves.
10. The diet of Spire, in 1526. In this assembly (wherein presided the archduke Ferdinand) the duke of Saxony, and the landgrave of Hesse, demanded the free exercise of the Lutheran religion: upon which it was decreed, that the emperor should be desired to call a general, or national, council in Germany within a year, and that, in the mean time, every one should have liberty of conscience.
11. The diet of Spire, in 1529, decreed, that in the countries which had embraced the new religion, it should be lawful to continue in it till the next council; but that no Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran. Against this decree six Lutheran princes, viz. the elector of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg, the two dukes of Lunenburg, the landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhait, with the deputies of fourteen imperial towns, protested in writing; from which solemn protestation came the famous name of Protestants, which the Lutherans presently after took.
12. The diet of Worms, in 1521. In this assembly, Luther, being charged by the pope’s nuncio with heresy, and refusing to recant, the emperor, by his edict of May 26, before all the princes of Germany, publicly outlawed him.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Diet
(, aruchah’, rendered allowance, 2Ki 25:30; victuals, Jer 40:5; dinner, Pro 15:17), a fixed portion or ration of daily food (Jer 52:34). The food of Eastern nations has been in all ages light and simple. As compared with our own habits, the chief points of contrast are the small amount of animal food consumed, the variety of articles used as accompaniments to bread, the substitution of milk in various forms for our liquors, and the combination of what we should deem heterogeneous elements in the same dish or the same meal. The chief point of agreement is the large consumption of bread, the importance of which in the eyes of the Hebrew is testified by the use of the term lechem (originally food of any kind) specifically for bread, as well as by the expression staff of bread (Lev 26:26; Psa 105:16; Eze 4:16; Eze 14:13). Simpler preparations of corn were, however, common; sometimes the fresh green ears were eaten in a natural state (a custom practiced in Palestine (Robinson’s Researches, 1:493), the husks being rubbed off by the hand (Lev 23:14; Deu 23:25; 2Ki 4:42; Mat 12:1; Luk 6:1); more frequently, however, the grains, after being carefully picked, were roasted in a pan over a fire (Lev 2:14), and eaten as parched corn, in which form it was an ordinary article of diet, particularly among. laborers, or others who had not the means of dressing food (Lev 23:14; Rth 2:14; 1Sa 17:17; 1Sa 25:18; 2Sa 17:28); this practice is still very usual in the East (comp. Lane, 1:251; Robinson, Res. 2:350). Sometimes the grain was bruised (like the Greek polenta, Pliny, 18:14), in which state it was termed either (Sept. ; A. V. beaten, Lev 2:14; Lev 2:16), or (Aquil. Symm. ; Auth.Vers. corn, 2Sa 17:19; comp. Pro 27:22), and then dried in the sun; it was eaten either mixed with oil (Lev 2:15), or made into a soft cake named (A. V. dough, Num 15:20; Neh 10:37; Eze 44:30).
The Hebrews used a great variety of articles (Joh 21:5) to give a relish to bread. Sometimes salt was so used (Job 6:6), as we learn from the passage just quoted; sometimes the bread was dipped into the sour wine (A. V. vinegar) which the laborers drank (Rth 2:14); or, when meat was eaten, into the gravy, which was either served up separately for the purpose, as by Gideon (Jdg 6:19), or placed in the middle of the meat-dish, as done by the Arabs (Burckhardt, Notes, 1:63), whose practice of dipping bread in the broth, or melted fat of the animal, strongly illustrates the reference to the sop in Joh 13:26 sq. The modern Egyptians season their bread with a sauce composed of various stimulants, such as salt, mint, sesame, and chickpeas (Lane, 1:180). (The later Jews named this sauce [Mishna, Pesach, 2:8]: it consisted of vinegar, almonds, and spice, thickened with flour. It was used at the celebration of the Passover [Pesach, 10:3].) The Syrians, on the other hand, use a mixture of savory and salt for the same purpose (Russell, 1:93). Where the above-mentioned accessories were wanting, fruit, vegetables, fish, or honey was used. In short, it inav be said that all the articles of food which we are about to mention were mainly viewed as subordinates to the staple commodity of bread. The various kinds of bread and cakes are described under the head of SEE BREAD; SEE CAKE; SEE CRACKNEL.
Milk and its preparations hold a conspicuous place in Eastern diet as affording substantial nourishment; sometimes it was produced in a fresh state (, Gen 18:8), but more generally in the form of the modern leban, i.e. sour milk (, A. V. butter, Gen 18:8; Jdg 5:25; 2Sa 17:29). The latter is universally used by the Bedouins, not only as their ordinary beverage (Burckhardt, Notes, 1:240), but mixed with flour, meat, and even salad (Burckhardt, 1:58, 63; Russell, Aleppo, 1:118). It is constantly offered to travelers, and in some parts of Arabia it is deemed scandalous to take any money in return for it (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:120). For a certain season of the year leban makes up a great part of the food of the poor in Syria (Russell, 1. c.). Butter (Pro 30:33), and various forms of coagulated milk, of the consistency of the modern kaimak (Job 10:10; 1Sa 17:18; 2Sa 17:29), were also used. SEE BUTTER; SEE CHEESE; SEE MILK.
Fruit (q.v.) was another source of subsistence: figs stand first in point of importance; the early sorts described as the summer fruit (, Amo 8:1-2), and the first ripe fruit (, Hos 9:10; Mic 7:1), were esteemed a great luxury, and were eaten as fresh fruit; but they were generally dried and pressed into cakes, similar to the date-cakes of the Arabians (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:57), in which form they were termed (, A.V. cakes of figs, 1Sa 25:18; 1Sa 30:12; 1Ch 12:40), and occasionally simply (2Sa 16:1; A.V. summer fruit). Grapes were generally eaten in a dried state as raisins (, Vulg. igaturca uvc passea, 1Sa 25:18; 1Sa 30:12; 2Sa 16:1; 1Ch 12:40), but sometimes, as before, pressed into cakes, named (2Sa 6:19; 1Ch 16:3; Son 2:5; Hos 3:1), understood by the Sept. as a sort of cake, , and by the A. V. as a flagon of wine. Caked fruit forms a part of the daily food of the Arabians, and is particularly adapted to the wants of travelers; dissolved in water it affords a sweet and refreshing drink (Niebuhr, Arabia, p. 57; Russell, Aleppo, 1:82); an instance of its stimulating effect is recorded in 1Sa 30:12. Apples (perhaps citrons) are occasionally noticed, but rather in reference to their fragrance (Son 2:5; Son 7:8) and color (Pro 25:11) than as an article of food. Dates are not noticed in Scripture, unless we accept the rendering of in the Sept. (2 Samuel 1) as = ; it can hardly be doubted, however, that, where the palm- tree flourished, as in the neighborhood of Jericho, its fruit was consumed; in Joe 1:12 it is reckoned among other trees valuable for their fruit. The pomegranate tree is also noticed by Joel; it yields a luscious fruit, from which a species of wine was expressed (Son 8:2; Hag 2:19). Melons were grown in Egypt (Num 11:5), but not in Palestine. The mulberry is undoubtedly mentioned in Luk 17:6 under the name ; the Hebrew so translated (2Sa 5:23; 1Ch 14:14) is rather doubtful; the Vulg. takes it to mean pears. The (A. V. sycomore, Luk 19:4) differs from the tree last mentioned; it was the Egyptian fig, which abounded in Palestine (1Ki 10:27), and was much valued for its fruit (1Ch 27:28; Amo 7:14). SEE APPLE; SEE CITRON; SEE FIG; SEE MULBERRY-TREE; SEE POMEGRANATE; SEE SYCAMINE-TREE; SEE SYCAMORE.
Of vegetables (q.v.) we have most frequent notice of lentils (Gen 25:34; 2Sa 17:28; 2Sa 23:11; Eze 4:9), which are still largely used by the Bedouins in traveling (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:65); beans (2Sa 17:28; Eze 4:9), which still form a favorite dish in Egypt and Arabia for breakfast, boiled in water and eaten with butter and pepper; from 2 Samuel 27:28 it might be inferred that beans and other kinds of pulse were roasted, as barley was, but the second in that verse is probably interpolated, not appearing in the Sept., and, even if it were not so, the reference to pulse in the A. V., as of cicer in the Vulg., is wholly unwarranted; cucumbers (Num 11:5; Isa 1:8; Bar 6:70; comp. 2Ki 4:39, where wild gourds, cucumeres asinini, were picked in mistake for cucumbers); leeks, onions, and garlick, which were and still are of a superior quality in Egypt (Num 11:5; comp. Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 2:374; Lane, 1:251); lettuce, of which the wild species, lactuca agrestis, is identified with the Greek by Pliny (21. 65), and formed, according to the Sept. and the Vulg., the bitter herbs () eaten with the paschal lamb (Exo 12:8; Num 9:11); endive, which is still well known in the East (Russell, 1:91), may have been included under the same class. In addition to the above we have notice of certain herbs (, 2Ki 4:39) eaten in times of scarcity, which were mallows according to the Syriac and Arabic versions, but, according to the Talmud, a vegetable resembling the brassica eruca of Linnaus; and again of sea-purslane (; ; A. V. mallows), and broom-root (; A. V. juniper, Job 30:4), as eaten by the poor in time of famine, unless the latter were gathered as fuel. An insipid plant, probably purslane, used in salad, appears to be referred to in Job 6:6, under the expression (A. V. white of egg). The usual method of eating vegetables was in the form of pottage (, Sept. , Vulg. pulmentum, Gen 25:29; 2Ki 4:38; Hag 2:12; a meal wholly of vegetables was deemed very poor fare, Pro 15:17; Dan 1:12; Rom 14:2). The modern Arabians consume but few vegetables; radishes and leeks are most in use, and are eaten raw with bread (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:56). SEE BEAN; SEE CUCUMBER; SEE GARLIC; SEE GOURD; SEE LEEK; SEE LENTIL; SEE ONION.
The spices or condiments known to the Hebrews were numerous; cummin (Isa 28:25; Mat 23:23), dill (Mat 23:23, anise, A. V.), coriander (Exo 16:31; Num 11:7), mint (Mat 23:23), rue (Luk 11:42), mustard (Mat 13:31; Mat 17:20), and salt (Job 6:6), which is reckoned among the principal things for the whole use of man’s life (Sir 39:26). Nuts (pistachios) and almonds (Gen 43:11) were also used as whets to the appetite. SEE ALMOND; SEE ANISE; SEE CORIANDER; SEE CUMMIN; SEE MINT; SEE MUSTARD; SEE NUTS; SEE SPICES.
In addition to these classes, we have to notice some other important articles of food: in the first place, honey, whether the natural product of the bee (1Sa 14:25; Mat 3:4), which abounds in most parts of Arabia (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:54), or the other natural and artificial productions included under that head, especially the dibs of the Syrians and Arabians, i.e. grape-juice boiled down to the state of the Roman defrutum, which is still extensively used in the East (Russell, 1:82); the latter is supposed to be referred to in Gen 43:11, and Eze 27:17. The importance of honey, as a substitute for sugar, is obvious; it was both used in certain kinds of cake (though prohibited in the case of meat offerings, Lev 2:11), as in the pastry of the Arabs (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:54), and was also eaten in its natural state either by itself (1Sa 14:27; 2Sa 17:29; 1Ki 14:3), or in conjunction with other things, even with fish (Luk 24:42). Butter and honey is an expression for rich diet (Isa 7:15; Isa 7:22); such a mixture is popular among the Arabs (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:54). Milk and honey are similarly coupled together, not only frequently by the sacred writers, as expressive of the richness of the promised land, but also by the Greek poets (comp. Callim. Hymn in Jov. 48; Hom. Od. 20:68). Too much honey was deemed unwholesome (Pro 25:27). With regard to oil, it does not appear to have been used to the extent we might have anticipated; the modern Arabs only employ it in frying fish (Burckhardt, Arabia, 1:54), but for all other purposes butter is substituted: among the Hebrews it was deemed an expensive luxury (Pro 21:17), to be reserved for festive occasions (1Ch 12:40); it was chiefly used in certain kinds of cake (Lev 2:5 sq.; 1Ki 17:12). Oil and honey are mentioned in conjunction with bread in Eze 16:13; Eze 16:19. The Syrians, especially the Jews, eat oil and honey (dibs) mixed together (Russell, 1:80). Eggs are not often noticed, but were evidently known as articles of food (Isa 10:14; Isa 59:5; Luk 11:12), and are reckoned by Jerome (In Epitaph. Paul. 1:176) among the delicacies of the table. SEE HONEY; SEE OIL.
The Orientals have been at all times sparing in the use of animal food; not only does the excessive heat of the climate render it both unwholesome to eat much meat (Niebuhr, Descript. p. 46), and expensive from the necessity of immediately consuming a whole animal, but beyond this the ritual regulations of the Mosaic law in ancient, as of the Koran in modern times, have tended to the same result. It has been inferred from Gen 9:3-4, that animal food was not permitted before the Flood; but the notices of the flock of Abel (Gen 4:2), and of the herds of Jabal (Gen 4:20), as well as the distinction, between clean and unclean animals (Gen 7:2), favor the opposite opinion; and the permission in Gen 9:3 may be held to be only a more explicit declaration of a condition implied in the grant of universal dominion previously given (Gen 1:28). The prohibition then expressed against consuming the blood of any animal (Gen 9:4) was more fully developed in the Levitical law, and enforced by the penalty of death (Lev 3:17; Lev 7:26; Lev 19:26; Deu 12:16; 1Sa 14:32 sq.; Eze 44:7; Eze 44:15), on the ground, as stated in Lev 17:11, and Deu 12:23, that the blood contained the principle of life, and, as such, was to be offered on the altar; probably there was an additional reason in the heathen practice of consuming blood in their sacrifices (Psa 16:4; Eze 33:25). The prohibition applied to strangers as well as Israelites, and to every kind of beast or fowl (Lev 7:26; Lev 17:12-13). So strong was the feeling of the Jews on this point, that the Gentile converts to Christianity were laid under similar restrictions (Act 15:20; Act 15:29; Act 21:25).
As a necessary deduction from the above principle, all animals which had died a natural death (, Deu 14:21), or had been torn by beasts (, Exo 22:31), were also prohibited (Lev 17:15; comp. Eze 4:14), and to be thrown to the dogs (Exo 22:31): this prohibition did not extend to strangers (Deu 14:21). Any person infringing this rule was held unclean until the evening, and was obliged to wash his clothes (Lev 17:15). In the N.T. these cases are described under the term (Act 15:20), applying not only to what was strangled (as in A. V.), but to any animal from which the blood was not regularly poured forth. Similar prohibitions are contained in the Koran (ii. 175; v. 4; 16:116), the result of which is that at the present day the Arabians eat no meat except what has been bought at the shambles. Certain portions of the fat of sacrifices were also forbidden (Lev 3:9-10), as being set apart for the altar (Lev 3:16; Lev 7:25; comp. 1Sa 2:16 sq.; 2Ch 7:7): it should be observed that the term in Neh 8:10, translated fat, is not , but = the fatty pieces of meat, delicacies. In addition to the above, Christians were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals, portions of which had been offered to idols (), whether at private feasts or as bought in the market (Act 15:29; Act 21:25; 1Co 8:1 sq.). All beasts and birds classed as unclean (Lev 11:1 sq. Deu 14:4 sq.) were also prohibited, SEE ANIMAL; SEE BIRD; and in addition to these general precepts there was a special prohibition against seething a kid in his mother’s milk (Exo 23:19; Exo 34:26; Deu 14:21), which has been variously understood, by Talmudical writers, as a general prohibition against the joint use of meat and milk (Mishna, Cholgn, cap. 8, 1); by Michaelis (Mos. Recht, 4:210) as prohibiting the use of fat or milk, in comparison with oil, in cooking; by Luther and Calvin as prohibiting the slaughter of young animals; and by Bochart and others as discountenancing cruelty in any way. These interpretations, however, all fail in establishing any connection between the precept and the offering of the first-fruits, as implied in the three passages quoted. More probably it has reference to certain heathen usages at their harvest festivals (Maimonides, More Neboch. 3, 48; Spencer, De Legg. Hebr. Ritt. p. 535 sq.): there is a remarkable addition in the Samaritan version, and in some copies of the Sept. in Deu 14:21, which supports this view; , , (comp. Knobel, Comment. in Exo 23:19). The Hebrews further abstained from eating the sinew of the hip ( , Gen 32:32), in memory of the struggle between Jacob and the angel (comp. Gen 32:25). The Sept., the Vulg., and the A. V. interpret the word nasheh of the shrinking or benumbing of the muscle ( qui emarcuit; which shrank): Josephus (Ant. 1:20, 2) more correctly explains it as the broad nerve ( ); and there is little doubt that the nerve he refers to is the nervus ischiadicus, which attains its greatest thickness at the hip. There is no further reference to this custom in the Bible; but the Talmudists (Cholin, 7) enforced its observance by penalties. SEE MEAT.
Under these restrictions the Hebrews were permitted the free use of animal food: generally speaking, they only availed themselves of it in the exercise of hospitality (Gen 18:7), or at festivals of a religious (Exo 12:8), public (1Ki 1:9; 1Ch 12:40), or private character (Gen 27:4; Luk 15:23); it was only in royal households that there was a daily consumption of meat (1Ki 4:23; Nahum 5:18). The use of meat is reserved for similar occasions among the Bedouins (Burckhardt’s Notes, 1:63). The animals killed for meat were calves (Gen 18:7; 1Sa 28:24; Amo 6:4), which are farther described by the term fatling ( = , Luk 15:23, and , Mat 22:4; 2Sa 6:13; 1Ki 1:9 sq.; A. V. fat cattle); lambs (2Sa 12:4; Amo 6:4); oxen, not above three years of age (1Ki 1:9; Pro 15:17; Isa 22:13; Mat 22:4), which were either stall-fed (; Sept. ), or taken up from the pastures (; Scpt. ; 1Ki 4:23); kids (Gen 27:9; Jdg 6:19; 1Sa 16:20); harts, roebucks, and fallow-deer (1Ki 4:23), which are also brought into close connection with ordinary cattle in Deu 14:5, as though holding an intermediate place between tame and wild animals; birds of various kinds (; Auth. Ver. fowls; Neh 5:18; the Sept., however, gives , as though the reading were ); quail in certain parts of Arabia (Exo 16:13; Num 11:32); poultry (; 1Ki 4:23; understood generally by the Sept. ; by Kimchi and the A. V. as fatted fowl; by Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 246, as geese, from the whiteness of their plumage; by Thenius, Comm. in loc., as Guinea-fowls, as though the word represented the call of that bird); partridges (1Sa 26:20); fish, with the exception of such as were without scales and fins (Lev 11:9; Deu 14:9), both salted, as was probably the case with the sea- fish brought to Jerusalem (Neh 13:16), and fresh (Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36; Luk 24:42): in our Savior’s time it appears to have been the usual food about the Sea of Galilee (Mat 7:10); the term is applied to it by John (Joh 6:9; Joh 21:9 sq.) in the restricted sense which the word obtained among the later Greeks, as = fish. Locusts, of which certain species only were esteemed clean (Lev 11:22), were occasionally eaten (Mat 3:4), but considered as poor fare. They are at the present day largely consumed by the poor both in Persia (Morier’s Second Journey, p. 44) and in Arabia (Niebuhr, Voyage, 1:319); they are salted and dried, and roasted, when required, on a frying-pan with butter (Burckhardt’s Notes, 2:92; Niebuhr, 1. c.). SEE LOCUST.
Meat does not appear ever to have been eaten by itself; various accompaniments are noticed in Scripture, as bread, milk, and sour milk (Gen 18:8); bread and broth (Jdg 6:19); and with fish either bread (Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36; Joh 21:9) or honeycomb (Luk 24:42): the instance in 2Sa 6:19 cannot be relied on, as the term , rendered in the A. V. a good piece of flesh, after the Vulg., assatura bibulae carnis, means simply a portion or measure, and may apply to wine as well as meat. For the modes of preparing meat, SEE COOKING; and for the times and manner of eating, MEALS; SEE FISH, SEE FOWL, etc.
To pass from ordinary to occasional sources of subsistence: prison diet consisted of bread and water administered in small quantities (1Ki 22:27; Jer 37:21); pulse and water was considered but little better (Dan 1:12): in time of sorrow or fasting it was usual to abstain either altogether from food (2Sa 12:17; 2Sa 12:20), or from meat, wine, and other delicacies, which were described as , literally bread of desires (Dan 10:3). In time of extreme famine the most loathsome food was swallowed, such as an ass’s head (2Ki 6:25), the ass, it must be remembered, being an unclean animal (for a parallel case, comp. Plutarch, Artaxerx. 24), and dove’s dung (see the article on that subject), the dung of cattle (Josephus, War, 5:13, 7), and even possibly their own dung (2Ki 18:27). The consumption of human flesh was not altogether unknown (2Ki 6:28; comp. Josephus, War, 6:3, 4), the passages quoted supplying instances of the exact fulfillment of the prediction in Deu 28:56-57; comp. also Lam 2:20; Lam 4:10; Eze 5:10. SEE FOOD.
With regard to the beverages used by the Hebrews, we have already mentioned milk, and the probable use of barley-water, and of a mixture, resembling the modern sherbet, formed of fig-cake and water. Tho Hebrews probably resembled the Arabs in not drinking much during their meals, but concluding them with a long draught of water. It is almost needless to say that water was most generally drunk. In addition to these, the Hebrews were acquainted with various intoxicating liquors, the most valued of which was the juice of the grape, while others were described under the general term of shekar, or strong drink (Lev 10:9; Num 6:3; Jdg 13:4; Jdg 13:7), if, indeed, the latter does not sometimes include the former (Num 28:7). These were reserved for the wealthy, or for festive occasions; the poor consumed a sour wine (A.V. “vinegar;” Rth 2:14; Mat 27:48), calculated to quench thirst, but not agreeable to the taste (Pro 10:26). SEE BEVERAGE.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Diet (2)
(dies, day; German Reichstag), the assembly of the states of Germany. The Diet shared with the emperor the rights of sovereignty, except in a few cases reserved to the emperor. It consisted of three colleges-electors, princes, and free cities. To be valid, a resolution had to be adopted by all the three colleges, and to be sanctioned by the emperor. In a particular college a majority of votes was in most cases sufficient, but religious questions formed an exception. SEE CORPUS CATHOLICORUM and SEE CORPUS EVANGELICORUM. The elector of Mainz, as arch- chancellor of the empire, was director of the Diet.
The following list (taken from Buck, Theological Dictionary, and from Farrar, Ecclesiastical Dictionary) includes the chief Diets held in reference to the affairs of the Reformation.
1. The Diet of Worms, in 1521, in which Alexander, the pope’s nuncio, having charged Luther with heresy, the duke of Saxony said that Luther ought to be heard. This the emperor granted, and sent him a pass, provided he would not preach on the journey. On Luther’s arrival at Worms, he protested that he would not recant unless they would show him his errors from the Word of God alone. He was consequently ordered away from Worms, and, by an edict of the 26th of May, he was outlawed.
2. The First Diet of Nuremberg, in 1523, when Francis Chieregati, Adrian the Sixth’s nuncio, demanded the execution of Leo the Tenth’s bull, and of Charles the Fifth’s edict, published at Worms, against Luther. It was answered that it was necessary to call a council in Germany to satisfy the nation respecting its grievances, which were reduced to one hundred articles, some of which struck at the pope’s authority and the discipline of the Roman Church: they added that in the interim the Lutherans should be commanded not to write against the Romanists. All these things were brought into the form of an edict, and published in the emperor’s name.
3. The Second Diet of Nuremberg, in 1524. Cardinal Campeggio, pope Clement the Seventh’s nuncio, entered the town incognito for fear of exasperating the people. The Lutherans having the advantage, it was decreed that, with the emperor’s consent, the pope should call a council in Germany; but, in the interim, an assembly should be held at Spire, to determine what was to be believed and practiced; and that, to obey the emperor, the princes ought to order the observance of the edict of Worms as strictly as they could. Charles V, being angry at this, commanded the edict of Worms to be observed very strictly, and prohibited the assembly at Spires.
4. The First Diet of Spires, held in 1526. Charles V, being in Spain, named his brother, archduke Ferdinand, to preside over that assembly, where the duke of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse demanded, at first, a free exercise of the Lutheran religion, so that the Lutherans preached there publicly against Popery; and the servants of the Lutheran princes had these five letters, V. D. M. I. AE., embroidered on their sleeves (Verbum Dei manet in Eternum), to show publicly that they would follow nothing but the pure Word of God. The archduke, not daring to oppose these courses, proposed two things: the first, concerning the Popish religion, which was to be observed in maintaining the edict of Worms; and the second concerning the help demanded by Louis, king of Hungary, against the Turks. The Lutherans prevailing about the first, it was decreed that the emperor should be desired to call a general council in Germany within a year; and that, in the mean time, every one was to have liberty of conscience. Whilst they were deliberating in vain about the second, king Louis was defeated and killed in the battle of Mohacz.
5. The Second Diet of Spires was held in 1529. It was decreed against the Lutherans that wherever the edict of Worms was received, it should not be lawful for any one to change his opinions;: but in the countries where the new religion (as they. termed it) was received, it should be lawful to continue in it till the next council, if the old religion could not be re- established there without sedition. Nevertheless, the mass was not to be abolished there, and no Romanist was allowed to turn Lutheran; the Sacramentarians were to be banished out of the empire, and: the Anabaptists put to death; and preachers should nowhere preach against the Church of Rome. Six Lutheran princes, namely, the elector of Saxony, the marquis of Brandenburg-Bayreuth, the two dukes of Luneburg, the landgrave of Hesse, and the prince of Anhalt, with the deputies of fourteen imperial towns, protested, in writing, two days after, in the assembly, against this decree, which they would not obey, it being contrary to the Gospel; and appealed to a general or national council, to the emperor, and to any other unprejudiced judge. From this solemn protestation came the famous name of Protestants, which the Lutherans soon adopted; and, subsequently, the Calvinists, and other Reformed churches. They also protested against contributing anything towards the war against the Turks till after the exercise of their religion was free in all Germany. The next year the emperor held the Diet of Augsburg.
6. The First Diet of Augsburg was called June 1, 1530, by Charles V, to reunite the princes about some matters of religion, and to join them all together against the Turks. The elector of Saxony, followed by many princes, presented the confession of faith called the Confession of Augsburg. The conference about matters of faith and discipline being concluded, the emperor ended the diet by a decree that nothing should be altered in the doctrines and ceremonies of the Church of Rome till a council should order it otherwise.
7. The First Diet of Ratisbon, in 1541, for uniting the Protestants to the Church of Rome. The pope’s legate having altered the twenty-two articles drawn up by the Protestant divines, the emperor proposed to choose some learned divines who might agree peaceably on the articles, and, being desired by the diet to choose them himself, he named three Papists, namely, Julius Pflugius, John Gropperus, and John Eckius, and three Protestants, namely, Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, and John Pistorius. After an examination and disputation of a month, those divines could not agree on more than five or six articles, wherein the diet still found some difficulties. The emperor, to terminate these controversies, ordered, by an edict, that the decision of these articles should be referred to a general council, or to the national council of all Germany, or to the next diet, eighteen months after; and that, in the mean time, the Protestants should keep the articles agreed on, forbidding them to solicit anybody to change the old religion, as they called it. But, to gratify the Protestants, he gave them leave, by patent, to retain their religion, notwithstanding the edict.
8. The Second Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1546; none of the Protestant confederate princes appeared. It was therefore soon decreed by a plurality of votes that the Council of Trent should be followed. The Protestant deputies opposed, and this caused a war against them.
9. The Second Diet of Augsburg was held in 1547, respecting matters of religion. The electors being divided concerning the decisions of the Council of Trent, the emperor demanded that the management of this affair should be left to him, and it was directed that every one should conform to the decision of that council.
10. The Third Diet of Augsburg was held in 1548, when the commissioners appointed to examine some memoirs about a confession of faith not agreeing together, the emperor named three divines, who drew ap the plan of the famous Interim. SEE INTERIM.
11. The Fourth Diet of Augsburg was held in 1550. The emperor complained that the Interim was not observed, and demanded that all should submit to the council, which they were going to renew at Trent: but the deputies of duke Maurice of Saxony protested that their master had agreed to submit to the council on condition that the divines of the Confession of Augsburg not only should be heard there, but should vote also, like the Romish bishops, and that the pope should not preside; but, by plurality of votes, submission to the council was agreed upon.
12. The Fifth Diet of Augsburg was held in 1555. At this diet the “Religious Peace of Augsburg” was concluded, which regulated tie civil relations of the Evangelicals (by which term only the Lutherans were understood). According to this agreement, no state of the German empire was to be disturbed on account of its religion and ecclesiastical usages; religious controversies were to be compromised by Christian, amicable, and peaceable means; the Episcopal jurisdiction was suspended with regard to the faith and religious worship of Evangelicals; free emigration on account of religion was guaranteed. This agreement was to continue even if a religious reunion should not be effected.
13. The Third Diet of Ratisbon was held in 1557. The assembly demanded a conference between some famous doctors of both parties: this conference, held at Worms between twelve Papists and an equal number of Lutherans, was soon dissolved.
Dieterich Johann Conrad,
a learned Lutheran theologian, was born at Butzbach, Germany, January 19, 1612. He became professor of Greek and history at Giessen, where he died, June 24, 1669. Among his numerous writings are, De Peregrinatione studiorum: Breviarium Haereticorum et Conciliorum: Breviarium Pontificum Romanorum (Giessen, 1663, 8vo): Antiquitates Biblicae (Giessen, 1671, fol.): Antiquitates Novi Testamenti; sive Lexicon Philologico-Theologicum Graeco-Latinum in N.T. (Frankf. 1680, fol.). Hoefer, Nouv. Biog. Generale, 14:146.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Diet
DIET.In AV [Note: Authorized Version.] , apart from Sir 30:25, where it signifies food, this word occurs only in Jer 52:34, where RV [Note: Revised Version.] has the more correct allowance, i.e. of food, as AV [Note: Authorized Version.] in the parallel passage 2Ki 25:30. In Jer 40:5 the same word is rendered victuals, but RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] allowance.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Diet
det (, ‘aruhah, prescribed): A daily allowance or portion of food, as that given by King Evil-merodach to Jehoiachin, king of Judah (Jer 52:34 the King James Version; compare 2Ki 25:30). _