Book Of Baruch

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

One of the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical books, standing between Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Septuagint, but in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) after these two books.

I. Name

See under Baruch for the meaning of the word and for the history of the best-known Biblical. personage bearing the name. Though Jewish traditions link this book with Jeremiah's amanuensis and loyal friend as author, it is quite certain that it was not written or compiled for hundreds of years after the death of this Baruch. According to  Jeremiah 45:1 it was in the 4th year (604 bc) of the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597 bc) that Baruch wrote down Jeremiah's words in a book and read them in the ears of the nobles (English Versions, "princes," but king's sons are not necessarily meant; Jer 36). The Book of Baruch belongs in its present form to the latter half of the 1st century of our era; yet some modern Roman Catholic scholars vigorously maintain that it is the work of Jeremiah's friend and secretary.

II. Contents

This book and also the Epistle of Jeremy have closer affinities with the canonical Book of Jer than any other part of the Apocrypha. It is probably to this fact that they owe their name and also their position in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) The book is apparently made up of four separate parts by independent writers, brought together by an editor, owing it is very likely to a mere accident - each being too small to occupy the space on one roll they were all four written on one and the same roll. The following is a brief analysis of the four portions of the book:

1. Historical Introduction

Historical Introduction, giving an account of the origin and purpose of the book (Baruch 1:1-14). Baruch 1:1 f tell us that Baruch wrote this book at Babylon "in the fifth month (not "year" as the Septuagint) in the seventh day of the month, what time as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire" (see  2 Kings 25:8 ). Fritzsche and others read: "In the fifth year, in the month Sivan (see 1:8), in the seventh day of the month," etc. Um gives the date of the feast Pentecost, and the supposition is that the party who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem did so in order to observe that feast. According to 1:3-14, Baruch read his book to King Jehoiachin and his court by the (unidentified) river Sud. King and people on hearing the book fell to weeping, fasting and praying. As a result money was collected and sent, together with Baruch's book, to the high priest Jehoiakim, (NOTE: So spelled in the canonical books; but it is Joacim or Joachim in Apocrypha the King James Version, and in the Apocrypha the Revised Version (British and American) it is invariably Joakim.) to the priests and to the people at Jerusalem. The money is to be used in order to make it possible to carry on the services of the temple, and in particular that prayers may be offered in the temple for the king and his family and also for the superior lord King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Baltasar (= the Belshazzar of Dan 5).

2. Confession and Prayer

Confession and prayer (Baruch 1:15 through 3:8) (1) of the Palestinian remnant (Baruch 1:15 through 2:15). The speakers are resident in Judah not in Babylon (Baruch 1:15; compare 2:4), as J. T. Marshall and R. H. Charles rightly hold. This section follows throughout the arrangement and phraseology of a prayer contained in  Daniel 9:7-15 . It is quite impossible to think of Daniel as being based on Baruch, for the writer of the former is far more original than the author or authors of Baruch. But in the present section the original passage in Dan is altered in a very significant way. Thus in  Daniel 9:7 the writer describes those for whom he wrote as 'the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel(ites): those near and those far off , in all the lands (countries) whither thou hast driven them on account of their unfaithfulness toward thee. ' The italicized words are omitted from Baruch 1:15, though the remaining part of  Daniel 9:7 is added. Why this difference? It is evident, as Marshall has ably pointed out, that the editor of the section intends to put the confession and prayer of Baruch 1:15 through 2:5 into the mouths of Jews who had not been removed into exile. Ewald ( History , V, 208, 6) holds that  Daniel 9:7-9 is dependent on Baruch 1:15 through 2:17. The section may thus be analyzed:

(A) Baruch 1:15-22

Confession of the sins of the nation from the days of Moses down to the exile. The principle of solidarity (see Century Bible , "Psalms," II, 21, 195, 215) so governed the thoughts of the ancient Israelites that the iniquities of their forefathers were in effect their own.

(B) Baruch 2:1-5

God's righteous judgment on the nation in humbling and scattering them.

Confession and prayer (2) of the exiles in Babylon Baruch 2:16 through 3:8. That the words in this section are supposed to be uttered by Babylonian exiles appears from 2:13 f; 3:7 f and from the general character of the whole. This portion of the book is almost as dependent on older Scriptures as the foregoing. Three sources seem in particular to have been used.

( a ) The Book of Jeremiah has been freely drawn upon.

( b ) Deuteronomic phrases occur frequently, especially in the beginning and end. These are perhaps taken second-hand from Jeremiah, a book well known to the author of these verses and deeply loved by him.

( c ) Solomon's prayer as recorded in 1 Ki 8 is another quarry from which our author appears to have dug.

This section may be Thus divided:

(i.) Baruch 2:6-12: Confession, opening as the former (see 1:15) with words extracted from  Daniel 9:7 .

(ii.) Baruch 2:13 through 3:8: Prayer for restoration.

Baruch 3:1-8 shows more independence than the rest, for the author at this point makes use of language not borrowed from any original known to us. As such these verses are important as a clue to the writer's position, views and character.

In Baruch 3:4 we have the petition: "Hear now the prayer of the dead Israelites," etc., words which as they stand involve the doctrine that the dead (Solomon, Daniel, etc.) are still alive and make intercession to Goal on behalf of the living. But this teaching is in opposition to 2:17 which occurs in the same context. Without making any change in the Hebrew consonants we can and should read for "dead ( mēthē ) Israelites" "the men of ( methē ) Israel." The Septuagint confuses the same words in  Isaiah 5:13 .

3. The Praise of Wisdom

The praise of "Wisdom," for neglecting which Israel is now in a strange land. God alone is the author of wisdom, and He bestows it not upon the great and mighty of this world, but upon His own chosen people, who however have spurned the Divine gift and therefore lost it (Baruch 3:9 through 4:4).

The passage, Baruch 3:10-13 (Israel's rejection of "Wisdom" the cause of her exile), goes badly with the context and looks much like an interpolation. The dominant idea in the section is that God has made Israel superior to all other nations by the gift of "wisdom," which is highly extolled. Besides standing apart from the context these four verses lack the rhythm which characterize the other verses. What is so cordially commended is described in three ways, each showing up a different facet, as do the eight synonyms for the Divine word in each of the 22 strophes in Ps 119 (see Century Bible , "Psalms," II, 254).

(1) It is called most frequently "Wisdom."

(2) In Baruch 4:1 it is described as the Commandments of God and as the Law or more correctly as authoritative instruction. The Hebrew word for this last ( tōrāh ) bears in this connection, it is probable, the technical meaning of the Pentateuch, a sense which it never has in the Old Testament. Compare  Deuteronomy 4:6 , where the keeping of the commandments is said to be "wisdom" and understanding.

4. The Dependence of This Wisdom Section

(1) The line of thought here resembles closely that pursued in Job 28, which modern scholars rightly regard as a later interpolation. Wisdom, the most valuable of possessions, is beyond the unaided reach of man. God only can give it - that is what is taught in these parts of both Baruch and Job with the question "Where shall wisdom be found?" ( Job 28:12; compare Baruch 3:14 f, where a similar question forms the basis of the greater portion of the section of Job 38 f). Wisdom is not here as in Proverbs hypostatized, and the same is true of Job 28. This in itself is a sign of early date, for the personifying of "wisdom" is a later development (compare Philo, John 1).

(2) The language in this section is modeled largely on that of Deuteronomy, perhaps however through Jeremiah, which is also especially after chapter 10 Deuteronomic in thought and phraseology. See ante II, 2 (2 1 b ).

The most original part of this division of the book is where the writer enumerates the various classes of the world's great ones to whom God had not given "wisdom": princes of the heathen, wealthy men, silversmiths, merchants, theologians, philosophers, etc. (Baruch 3:16ff). See Wisdom .

5. Words of Cheer to Israel

The general thought that pervades the section, Baruch 4:5 through 5:9, is words of cheer to Israel (i.e. Judah) in exile, but we have here really, according to Rothstein, a compilation edited so skillfully as to give it the appearance of a unity which is not real. Earlier Biblical writings have throughout been largely drawn upon. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen , etc., 213-15) divides the section in the following manner:

(1) Baruch 4:5-9a

Introductory section, giving the whole its keynote - "Be of good cheer," etc.; 4:7 f follows  Deuteronomy 32:15-18 .

(2) Baruch 4:9b-29

A song, divisible into two parts.

( a ) Personified Jerusalem deplores the calamities of Israel in exile (Baruch 4:9 b -16).

( b ) She urges her unfortunate children to give themselves to hope and prayer, amending their ways so that God may bring about their deliverance (Baruch 4:17-29).

( c ) Baruch 4:30 through 5:9: A second song, beginning as the first with the words, "Be of good cheer," and having the same general aim, to comfort exiled and oppressed Israel.

In all three parts earlier Scriptures have been largely used, and in particular Deutero-Isaiah has had much influence upon the author. But there do not seem to the present writer reasons cogent enough for concluding, with Rothstein, that these three portions are by as many different writers. There is throughout the same recurring thought "Be of good cheer," and there is nothing in the style to suggest divergent authorship.

(3) The Relation Between Baruch 4:36 Through 5:9 and Psalter of Solomon 11

It was perhaps Ewald ( Geschichte , IV, 498) who first pointed out the similarity of language and viewpoint between Baruch 4:36 through 5:9 and Psalter of Solomon 11, especially 11:3-8. The only possible explanation is that which makes Baruch 4:36ff an imitation of Psalter of Solomon 11. So Ewald (op. cit.); Ryle and James (Ps Sol, lxx, ii ff).

Ps Sol were written originally in Hebrew, and references to Pompey (died 48 bc) and to the capture of Jerusalem (63 bc) show that this pseudepigraphical Psalter must have been written in the first half of the 1st century bc. Bar, as will be shown, is of much later date than this. Besides it is now almost certain that the part of Baruch under discussion was written in Greek (see below, IV) and that it never had a Hebrew original. Now it is exceedingly unlikely that a writer of a Hebrew psalm would copy a Greek original, though the contrary supposition is a very likely one.

On the other hand A. Geiger ( Psalt. Sol ., XI, 137-39, 1811), followed by W. B. Stevenson (Temple Bible), and many others argue for the priority of Baruch, using this as a reason for giving Baruch an earlier date than is usually done. It is possible, of course, that the Pseudo-Solomon and the Pseudo-Baruch have been digging in the same quarry; and that the real original used by both is lost.

III. Language

For our present purpose the book must be divided into two principal parts: (1) Baruch 1 through 3:8; (2) 3:9 through 5:9. There is general agreement among the best recent scholars from Ewald downward that the first portion of the book at least was written originally in Hebrew. (1) In the Syro-Hex. text there are margin notes to 1:17 and 2:3 to the effect that these verses are lacking in the Hebrew, i.e. in the original Hebrew text.

(2) There are many linguistic features in this first part which are best explained on the supposition that the Greek text is from a Hebrew original. In Baruch 2:25 the Septuagint English Versions of the Bible apostolḗ at the end of the verse means "a sending of." The English Versions of the Bible ("pestilence") renders a Hebrew word which, without the vowel signs (introduced late) is written alike for both meanings ( dbr ). The mistake can be explained only on the assumption of a Hebrew original. Similarly the reading "dead Israelites" for "men of Israel" (= Israelites) in 3:4 arose through reading wrong vowels with the same consonant, which last were alone written until the 7th and 8th centuries of our era.

Frequently, as in Hebrew, sentences begin with Greek kaı́ (= "and") which, without somewhat slavish copying of the Hebrew, would not be found. The construction called parataxis characterizes Hebrew; in good Greek we meet with hypotaxis .

The Hebrew way of expressing "where" is put literally into the Greek of this book (Baruch 2:4, 13, 29; 3:8). Many other Hebrew idioms, due, it is probable, to the translator's imitations of his original, occur: in "to speak in the ears of" (Baruch 1:3); the word "man" ( anthrōpos ) in the sense "everyone" (Baruch 2:3); "spoken by thy servants the prophets" is in Greek by "the hand of the servants," which is good Hebrew but bad Greek. Many other such examples could be added.

There is much less agreement among scholars as to the original language or languages of the second part of the book (Baruch 3:9 through 5:9). That this part too was written in Hebrew, so that in that case the whole book appeared first in that language, is the position held and defended by Ewald (op. cit.), Kneucker (op. cit.), König ( Ein ), Rothstein (op. cit.) and Bissell (Lange). It is said by these writers that this second part of Baruch equally with the first carries with it marks of being a translation from the Hebrew. But one may safely deny this statement. It must be admitted by anyone who has examined the text of the book that the most striking Hebraisms and the largest number of them occur in the first part of the book. Bissell writes quite fully and warmly in defense of the view that the whole book was at first written in Hebrew, but the Hebraisms which he cites are all with one solitary exception taken from the first part of the book. This one exception is in Baruch 4:15 where the Greek conjunction hóti is used for the relative hó , the Hebrew 'ăsher having the meaning of both. There seems to be a Hebraism in 4:21: "He shall deliver thee from ... the hand of your enemies," and there are probably others. But there are Hebraisms in Hellenistic Greek always - the present writer designates them "Hebraisms" or "Semiticisms" notwithstanding what Deismann, Thumb and Moulton say. In the first part of this book it is their overwhelming number and their striking character that tell so powerfully in favor of a Hebrew original.

(3) The following writers maintain that the second part of the book was written first of all in Greek: Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Schürer, Gifford, Cornill and R. H. Charles, though they agree that the first part had a Hebrew original. This is probably the likeliest view, though much may be written in favor of a Hebrew original for the whole book and there is nothing quite decisively against it. J. Turner Marshall (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible , I, 253) tries to prove that Baruch 3:9 through 4:4 was written first in Aramaic, the rest of the book (4:5 through 5:9) in Greek But though he defends his case with great ability he does not appear to the present writer to have proved his thesis. Ewald (op. cit.), Hitzig ( Psalmen 2, II, 119), Dillmann, Ruetschi, Fritzsche and Bissell were so greatly impressed by the close likeness between the Greek of Baruch and that of the Septuagint of Jeremiah, that they came to the conclusion that both books were translated by the same person. Subsequently Hitzig decided that Baruch was not written until after 70 ad, and therefore abandoned his earlier opinion in favor of this one - that the translator of Baruch was well acquainted with the Septuagint of Jeremiah and was strongly influenced by it.

IV. Date or Dates

It is important to distinguish between the date of the completion of the entire book in its present form and the dates of the several parts which in some or all cases may be much older than that of the whole as such.

1. The Historical Introduction

Baruch 1:1-14 was written after the completion of the book expressly to form a prologue or historical explanation of the circumstances under which the rest of the book came to be written. To superficial readers it could easily appear that the whole book was written by one man, but a careful examination shows that the book is a compilation. One may conclude that the introduction was the last part of the book to be composed and that therefore its date is that of the completion of the book. Reasons will be given (see below) for believing that 4:5 through 5:9 belongs to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 ad. This is still more true of this introduction intended as a foreword to the whole book.

2. Confession and Prayer

The following points bear on the date of the section Baruch 1:15 through 3:8, assuming it to have one date:

(1) The generation of Israelites to which the writer belonged were suffering for the sins of their ancestors; see especially Baruch 3:1-8.

(2) The second temple was in existence in the writer's day. Baruch 2:26 must (with the best scholars) be translated as follows: "And thou hast made the house over which thy name is called as it is this day," i.e. the temple - still in being - is shorn of its former glory. Moreover though  Daniel 9:7-14 is largely quoted in Baruch 1:15 through 2:12, the prayer for the sanctuary and for Jerusalem in   Daniel 9:16 is omitted, because the temple is not now in ruins.

(3) Though it is implied (see above II, 2, (1)) that there are Jews in Judah who have never left their land there are a large number in foreign lands, and nothing is said that they were servants of the Babylonian king.

(4) The dependence of Baruch 2:13 through 3:8 on Deuteronomy, Jer and 1 Ki 8 (Solomon's prayer) shows that this part of the book is later than these writings, i.e. later than say 550 bc. Compare Baruch 2:13 with  Deuteronomy 28:62 and   Jeremiah 42:2 .

(5) The fact that  Daniel 9:7-14 has influenced Baruch 1:15 through 2:12 proves that a date later than Daniel must be assumed for at least this portion of Baruch. The temple is still standing, so that the book belongs somewhere between 165 bc, when Daniel was written, and 71 ad, when the temple was finally destroyed.

Ewald, Gifford and Marshall think that this section belongs to the period following the conquest of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I (320 bc). According to Ewald the author of Baruch 1:1 through 3:8 (regarded as by one hand) was a Jew living in Babylon or Persia. But Daniel had not in 320 bc been written. Fritzsche, Schrader, Keil, Toy and Charles assign the section to the Maccabean age - a quite likely date. On the other hand Hitzig, Kneucker and Schürer prefer a date subsequent to 70 ad. The last writer argues for the unity of this section, though he admits that the middle of chapter 1 comports ill with its context.

3. The Wisdom Section Baruch 3:9 Through 4:4

It has been pointed out (see above, II, 3) that Baruch 3:10-13 does not belong to this section, being manifestly a later interpolation. The dependence of this Wisdom portion on Job 28 and on Deuteronomy implies a post-exilic date. The identification of Wisdom with the Torah which is evidently a synonym for the Pentateuch, argues a date at any rate not earlier than 300 bc. But how much later we have no means of ascertaining. The reasons adduced by Kneucker and Marshall for a date immediately before or soon af ter the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ad have not convinced the present writer.

4. Words of Cheer Baruch 4:5 Through 5:9

The situation implied in these words may be Thus set forth:

(1) A great calamity has happened to Jerusalem (Baruch 4:9 f). Nothing is said proving that the whole land has shared the calamity, unless indeed this is implied in Baruch 4:5 f.

(2) A large number of Jerusalemites have been transported (Baruch 4:10).

(3) The nation that has sacked Jerusalem and carried away many of its inhabitants is "shameless," having "a strange language, neither reverencing old men nor pitying children" (Baruch 4:15).

(4) The present home of the Jerusalemites is a great city (Baruch 4:32-35), not the country.

Now the above details do not answer to any dates in the history of the nation except these two: ( a ) 586 bc, when the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians; ( b ) 71 ad, when the temple was finally destroyed by the Romans. But the date 586 bc is out of the question, and no modern scholar pleads for it. We must therefore assume for this portion of the book a date soon after 70 ad. In the time of Pompey, to which Graetz assigns the book, neither Jerusalem nor the temple was destroyed. Nor was there any destruction of either during the Maccabean war. In favor of this date is the dependence of Baruch 4:36ff on Psalter of Solomon 11 (see above, II, 5, (3)).

Rothstein (in Kautzsch) says that in this section there are at least three parts by as many different writers. Marshall argues for four independent parts. But if either of these views is correct the editor has done his work exceedingly well, for the whole harmonizes well together.

Kneucker, author of the fullest Commentary, endeavors to prove that the original book consisted of Baruch 1:1 f plus 3 a (the heading) plus 3:9 through 5:9, and that it belongs to the reign of Domitian (81-96 ad). The confession and prayer in 1:15 through 3:8 were written, he says, somewhat earlier and certainly before 71 ad, and as a separate work, being inserted in the book by the scribe who wrote 1:4-14.

V. Versions

The most important versions are the following. It is assumed in the article that the Greek text of the book up to Baruch 3:8 is itself a translation from a Hebrew text now lost. The same remark may be true of the rest of the book or of a portion of it (see above, III).

1. Latin

There are two versions in this language: (1) The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible , 390-405 ad) which is really the Old Latin, since Jerome's revision was confined to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Apocrypha being therefore omitted in this revision. This version is a very literal one based on the Greek It is therefore for that reason the more valuable as a witness to the Greek text. (2) There is a later Latin translation, apparently a revision of the former, for its Latinity is better; in some cases it adopts different readings and in a general way it has been edited so as to bring it into harmony with the Vatican uncial (B). This Latin version was published in Rome by J. Maria Caro (died circa 1688) and was reprinted by Sabatier in parallel columns with the pre-Jeromian version noticed above (see Bibliotheca Casinensis , I, 1873).

2. Syriac

There are also in this language two extant versions: (1) The Peshitta, a very literal translation, can be seen in the London (Walton's) Polyglot and most conveniently in Lagarde's Libr. Apocrypha. Syriac ., the last being a more accurate reproduction. (2) The Hexapla Syriac translation made by Paul, bishop of Telle, near the beginning of the 7th century ad. It has been published by Ceriani with critical apparatus in his beautiful photograph-lithographed edition of the Hexapla Syriac Bible.

3. Arabic

There is a very literal translation to be found in the London Polyglot , referred to above.

Literature

For editions of the Greek text see under Apocrypha . Of commentaries the fullest and best is that by Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (1879), who gives an original German rendering based on a restored Hebrew original. Other valuable commentaries are those by Fritzsche (1851); Ewald, Die Propheten 2, etc. (1868), III, 251-82 (Eng. translation); The Prophets of the Old Testament , V, 108-37, by Reusch (1855); Zöckler (1891) and Rothstein (op. cit.); and in English, Bissell (in Lange's series edited by D. S. Schaff, 1880); and Gifford ( Speaker's Comm. , 1888). The S.P.C.K. has a handy and serviceable volume published in the series of popular commentaries on the Old Testament. But this commentary, though published quite recently (my copy belongs to 1894, "nineteenth thousand"), needs strengthening on the side of its scholarship.

Arts. dealing with introduction occur in the various Bible Dictionaries (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible , Westcott and Ryle; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), J. T. Marshall, able and original; Encyclopedia Biblica , Bevan, rather slight). To these must be added excellent articles in Jewish Encyclopedia (G. F. Moore), and Encyclopedia Biblica (R. H. Charles).

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(APOCRYPHAL), follows next after the Book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint printed text, but in MSS. it sometimes precedes and sometimes follows Lamentations. It stands between Ecclesiasticus and the Song of the Three Children in the Engl. Auth. Vers. (See Apocrypha).

I. Contents. — It is remarkable as the only book in the Apocrypha which is formed on the model of the Prophets; and, though it is wanting in originality, it presents a vivid reflection of the ancient prophetic fire.

The subject of the book is

(1.) an exhortation to wisdom and a due observance of the law;

(2.) it then introduces Jerusalem as a widow, comforting her children with the hope of a return;

(3.) an answer follows in confirmation of this hope. A prologue is prefixed, stating that Baruch had read his book to Jeremiah and the people in Babylon by the river Sud (Euphrates), by which the people were brought to repentance, and sent the book with a letter and presents to Jerusalem.

It may be divided into two main parts, 1-3:8, and 3:9-end. The first part consists of an introduction (1:1-14), followed by a confession and prayer (1:15-2:8). The second part opens with an abrupt address to Israel (3:9-4:30), pointing out the sin of the people in neglecting the divine teaching of wisdom (3:9-4:8), and introducing a noble lament of Jerusalem over her children, through which hope still gleams (4:9-30). After this the tone of the book again changes suddenly, and the writer addresses Jerusalem in words of triumphant joy, and paints in the glowing colors of Isaiah the return of God's chosen people and their abiding glory (4:30-5:9).

II. Text:

1. Greek. — The book at present exists in Greek, and in several translations which were made from the Greek. The two classes into which the Greek MSS. may be divided do not present any very remarkable variations (Fritzsche, Einl. § 7); but the Syro-Hexaplaric text of the Milan MS., of which a complete edition is at length announced, is said to contain references to the version of Theodotion (Eichhorn, Einl. In Die Apoc. Schrift. p. 388 note), which must imply a distinct recension of the Greek, if not an independent rendering of an original Hebrew text. Of the two old Latin versions which remain, that which is incorporated in the Vulgate is generally literal; the other (Carus, Romans 1688) is more free. The vulgar Syriac and Arabic follow the Greek text closely (Fritzsche, l. c.).

2. Hebrew. — Considerable discussion has been raised as to the original language of the book. Those who advocated its authenticity generally supposed that it was first written in Hebrew (Huet, Dereser, etc.; but Jahn is undecided: Bertholdt, Einl. 1755), and this opinion found many supporters (Bendtsen, Gruneberg, Movers, Hitzig, De Wette, Einl. § 323). Others again have maintained that the Greek is the original text (Eichhorn, Einl. 388 sq.; Bertholdt, Einl. 1757; Havernick ap. De Wette, 1. c.) The truth appears to lie between these two extremes. The two divisions of the book are distinguished by marked peculiarities of style and language. The Hebraic character of the first part (1-3, 8) is such as to mark it as a translation, and not as the work of a Hebraizing Greek: e.g. 1:14, 15, 22; 2:4, 9, 25; 3:8; and several obscurities seem to be mistranslations: e.g. 1:2, 8, 2:18, 29. The second part, on the other hand, which is written with greater freedom and vigor, closely approaches the Alexandrine type. The imitations of Jeremiah and Daniel which occur throughout the first part (comp. 1:15-18 =  Daniel 9:7-10;  Daniel 2:1-2 =  Daniel 9:12-13;  Daniel 2:7-19 =  Daniel 9:13-18) give place to the tone and imagery of the Psalms and Isaiah. The most probable explanation of this contrast is gained by supposing that someone thoroughly conversant with the Alexandrine translation of Jeremiah, perhaps the translator himself (Hitzig, Fritzsche), found the Hebrew fragment which forms the basis of the book already attached to the writings of that prophet, and wrought it up into its present form. The peculiarities of language common to the Sept. translation of Jeremiah and the first part of Baruch seem too great to be accounted for in any other way (for instance, the use of Δεσμώτης , Ἀποστολή , Βόμβησες [ Βομβεῖν ], Ἀποικισμός , Μάννα , Ἀποστρέφειν [ Zeut. ] , Ἐργάζεσθαί Τινι , Ὄνομα Ἐπικαλεῖσθαι Ἐπί Τινι ); and the great discrepancy which exists between the Hebrew and Greek texts as to the arrangement of the later chapters of Jeremiah, increases the probability of such an addition having been made to the canonical prophecies. These verbal coincidences cease to exist in the second part, or become very rare; but this also is distinguished by characteristic words: e.g. Ὁ Αἰώνιος Ὁ Ἃγιος , Ἐπάγειν . At the same time, the general unity (even in language, e.g. Χαρμοσύνη ) and coherence of the book in its present form point to the work of one man. (Fritzsche, Einl. § 5; Hitzig, Psalm. 2:119; Ewald, Gesch. D. Volkes Isr. 4:232 n.). Bertholdt appears to be quite in error ( Einl. 1743, 1762) in assigning 3:1-8 to a separate writer (De Wette, Einl. § 322). (See Siebenberger's Hebrews Comm. Warsaw, 1840.)

3. The Epistle Of Jeremiah, Which, according to the authority of some Greek MSS., stands in the English version as the 6th chapter of Baruch, is probably the work of a later period. It consists of a rhetorical declamation against idols (comp. Jeremiah 10:29) in the form of a letter addressed by Jeremiah "to them which were to be led captive to Babylon." The letter is divided into clauses by the repetition of a common burden: They Are No Gods; Fear Them Not (vv. 16, 23, 29, 66): How Can A Man Think Or Say That They Are Gods? (vv. 40, 44, 56, 64). The condition of the text is closely analogous to that of Baruch; and the letter found the same partial reception in the Church. The author shows an intimate acquaintance with idolatrous worship; and this circumstance, combined with the purity of the Hellenistic dialect, points to Egypt as the country in which the epistle was written. — Smith, s.v.

4. A Syriac first Epistle of Baruch "to the nine and a half tribes" (comp. 4 Esdras 13:40, Arab. Vers.) is found in the London and Paris Polyglots. This is made up of commonplaces of warning, encouragement, and exhortation. Fritzsche (Einl. § 8) considers it to be the production of a Syrian monk. It is not found in any other language. Whiston (A Collection of Authentick Records, etc., London, 1727, 1:1 sq., 25 sq.) endeavored to maintain its authenticity. For this, and the ‘ "Apocalypse of Baruch," (See Spurious Revelations).

III. Writer. — The assumed author of the book is undoubtedly the companion of Jeremiah, but the de. tails are inconsistent with the assumption. If Baruch be the author of this book, he must have removed from Egypt to Babylon immediately after the death of Jeremiah, inasmuch as the author of the book lived in Babylon in the fifth year after that event, unless we suppose, with Eichhorn, Arnold, and others, that the reference ( Baruch 1:1) is to the fifth year from the captivity of Jehoiachim. Jahn ( Introductio In Epitomen Redacta, § 217, etc.) considers this latter opinion at variance with the passage in question, since the destruction of Jerusalem is there spoken of as having already taken place. De Wette ( Lehrbuch Zur Einleitung In Das A. Und N.T. ) ingeniously conjectures that Ἔτει (year) is a mistake or correction of some transcriber for Μηνί (month); and there is no question that the present reading, which mentions the year, and the day of the month, without naming the month itself, is quite unaccountable. If the reading in 1:1, be correct (comp,  2 Kings 25:8), it is impossible to fix "The Fifth Year" in such a way as to suit the contents of the book, which exhibits not only historical inaccuracies, but also evident traces of a later date than the beginning of the captivity (3, 9 sq.; 4:22 sq.; 1:3 sq. Comp.  2 Kings 25:27). Its so-called Epistle Of Jeremiah, however, is confessedly more ancient than the second book of Maccabees, for it is there referred to ( 2 Maccabees 2:2, comp. with  Baruch 6:4) as an ancient document. In the absence of any certain data by which to fix the time of the composition of Baruch, Ewald (1. c. p. 230) assigns it to the close of the Persian period; and this may be true as far as the Hebrew portion is concerned; but the present book must be placed considerably later, probably about the time of the war of liberation (B.C. cir. 160), or somewhat earlier.

IV. Canonicity. — The book was held in little esteem among the Jews (Jerome, Praef. In Jerem. p. 834 . . . Nec Habetur Apud Hebraeos ; Epiphanius, De Mens. Οὐ Κεῖν Ται Ἐπιστολαὶ [ Βαροὺχ ] Παῤ ῾Εβραίοις ) , though it is stated in the Greek text of the Apostolical Constitutions (v. 20, 1) that it was read, together with the Lamentations, "on the tenth of the month Gorpiseus" (i.e. the day of Atonement). But this reference is wanting in the Syriac version (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. 2:187), and the assertion is unsupported by any other authority. There is no trace of the use of the book in the New Testament, or in the Apostolic Fathers, or in Justin. But from the time of Irenaeus it was frequently quoted both in the East and in the West, and generally as the work of Jeremiah (Irenaeus, Haer. v. 35, 1, "significavit Jeremias,  Baruch 4:36 -v;" Tertullian, Gnost. 8, "Hieremiae, Bar. [Epist.] 6:3;" Clement, Paed. 1:10, § 91, ῾῾Διὰ Ι᾿Ερεμίου ,  Baruch 4:4;" id. Paed. 2:3, § 36, ῾῾Θειὰ Γραφή , Bar. 3, 16, 19;" Origen, ap. Euseb. H. E. 6:25, ῾Ιερεμίας Σὺν Θρήνοις Καὶ Τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ [?];" Cyprian, Test. Lib. 2:6, "apud Hieremiam, Bar. 3, 35," etc.). It was, however, "obelized" throughout in the Sept. as deficient in the Hebrew (Cod. Chis. ap. Daniel, etc., Romae, 1772, p. 21). On the other hand, it is contained as a separate book in the pseudo-Laodicene Catalogue, and in the Catalogues of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Nicephorus; but it is not specially mentioned in the Conciliar catalogues of Carthage and Hippo, probably as being included under the title Jeremiah. (Comp. Athanasii Syn. S. Script. ap. Credner, Zur Gesch. des Kan. 138; Hilary, Prol. in Psalms 15). It is omitted by those writers who reproduced in the main the Hebrew Canon (e.g. Melito, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius). Augustine quotes the words of Baruch (3:16)as attributed "more commonly to Jeremiah" (de Civ. 18:33), and elsewhere uses them as such (Faust. 12:43). At the Council of Trent Baruch was admitted into the Romish Canon; but the Protestant churches have unanimously placed it among the apocryphal books, though Whiston maintained its authenticity (Authent. Records, 1:1, sq.). Calmet observes that its "canonicity had been denied not only by the Protestants, but by several Catholics," among whom he instances Driedo, Lyranus, and Dionysius of Carthage. He considers that Jerome treats the book with harshness when (Preface to Jeremiah) that father observes, "I have not thought it worth while to translate the book of Baruch, which is generally joined in the Septuagint version to Jeremiah, and which is not found among the Hebrews, nor the pseudepigraphal epistle of Jeremiah." This is the epistle forming the sixth chapter of Baruch, the genuineness of which is questioned by several who acknowledge that of the former part of the book. Most modern writers of the Roman Church, among whom are Du Pin (Canon of Scripture), Calmet (Commentary), and Allber (Hermeneutica Generalis), reckon this a genuine epistle of Jeremiah's. Jahn, however, after Jerome, maintains its spurious and pseudepigraphal character. This he conceives sufficiently attested by the difference of style and its freedom from Hebraisms. He considers it to be an imitation of the Epistle of Jeremiah (ch. 29). Grotius, Eichhorn, and most of the German writers favor the idea of a Greek original. They conceive that the writer was some unknown person in the reign of Ptolemy Lagos, who, wishing to confirm in the true religion the Jews then residing in Egypt, attributed his own ideas to Baruch the scribe. There appears, however, no reason, on this latter hypothesis, why the author should speak of the return from Babylon. Grotius conceives that the book abounds not only in Jewish, but even in Christian interpolations (see Eichhorn's Einleitung in die Apokryph. Schriften).

See generally (in addition to the literature above referred to), Gruneberg, De libro Baruchi apocrypho (Gott. 1796); Whiston, A Dissertation to prove the Apocryphal Book of Baruch canonical (Lond. 1727); Bendsten, Specimen exercitationum crit. in V. T. libros apocryphos (Gott. 1789); Movers, in the Bonner Zeitschr. 1835, p. 31 sq.; Havernick, De libro Baruchi commentatio critica (Regiom. 1843); Capellus, Commentarii et notae crit. in V. T. (Amst. 1689), p. 564: Ghisler, Catenae (Lugd. 1623); Davidson, in Horne's Introduction (1856), 2:1033 sq.; Kneucker, Erklarung (Leips. 1879, 8vo).

2. The son of Col-hozeh and father of Maaseiah, of the descendants of Perez, son of Judah ( Nehemiah 11:5). B.C. ante 536.

3. The son of Zabdai; he repaired (B.C. 446) that part of the walls of Jerusalem between the north-east angle of Zion and Eliashib's house ( Nehemiah 3:20), and joined in Nehemiah's covenant (10. 6). B.C. 410.

Baruch, Book Of,

Apocryphal. By way of supplement we add that different from the Jewish Baruch Apocrypha is a later Christian one, which was published in the Ethiopic by Dillmann under the title Reliqua Verborumz Baruchi, in his Chrestomathia LEthiopica (Lipsiae, 1866); in Greek under thp title Paraliponzena Jeremice, by Ceriani, in his Monumenta Sacra et Profana, tom. v, fasc. 1 (Mediolan. 1868, p. 8-19); and in a German translation by Prsetorius, in the Zeitschrif fiur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1872, p. 230- 277. (B. P.)