BARUCH

baruch, the name (meaning "blessed" in hebrew) of a character in the old testament (jer. xxxvi., xxxvii., xliii.), associated with the prophet jeremiah, and described as his secretary and spokesman. book of baruch. this deutero-canonical book of the old testament is placed by the lxx. between _jeremiah_ and _lamentations_, and in the vulgate after _lamentations_. it consists of several parts, which cohere so badly that we are obliged to assume plurality of authorship. _contents_.--the book consists of the following parts:-- i. 1-14. the historical preface with a description of the origin and purpose of the book. i. 15-ii. 5. a confession of sin used by the palestinian remnant. this confession was according to i. 14 sent from babylon (i. 4, 7) to jerusalem to be read "on the day of the feast and on the days of the solemn assembly." the confession is restricted to the use of the remnant at home (see next paragraph). in this confession there is a national acknowledgment of sin and a recognition of the exile as a righteous judgment. ii. 6-iii. 8. a confession of the captives in babylon and a prayer for restoration. this confession opens as the former (in i. 15) with the words found also in daniel ix. 7, "to the lord our god belongeth righteousness, &c." the confession is of the exiles and not of the remnant in palestine, as marshall has pointed out. thus it is the exiles clearly who are speaking in ii. 13, "we are but a few left among the heathen where thou hast scattered _us_"; ii. 14, "give us favour in the sight of them which have led us away captive"; iii. 7, "we will praise thee in our captivity"; iii. 8, "we are yet this day in our captivity where thou hast scattered us." on the other hand the speakers in the confession in i. 15-ii. 5 are clearly the remnant in jerusalem. i. 15, "to the lord our god belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of face ... to the men of judah and the inhabitants of jerusalem." the exiles are mentioned by way of contrast to the speakers; ii. 4, 5, "he hath given _them_ to be in subjection to all the kingdoms that are round about _us_ to be a reproach among all the people round about where the lord hath scattered _them_. thus were they cast down ... because _we_ sinned against the lord our god."[1] iii. 9-iv. 4. the glorification of wisdom, that is, of the law. israel is bidden to walk in the light of it; it is the glory of israel and is not to be given to another. iv. 5-v. 9. consolation of israel with the promise of deliverance and lasting happiness and blessing to jerusalem. _integrity_.--from the foregoing description it seems clear that the book is derived from a plurality of authors. most scholars, such as fritzsche, hitzig, kneucker, hilgenfeld, reuss, agree in assuming that i.-iii. 8 and iii. 9-v. 9 are from distinct writers. but some critics have gone farther. thus rothstein (kautzsch, _apok. und pseud._ i. 213-215) holds that there is no unity in iii. 9-v. 9, but that it is composed of two independent writings--iii. 9-iv. 4 and iv. 5-v. 9. marshall (hastings' _bible dictionary_, i. 251-254) gives a still more complex analysis. he finds in it the work of four distinct writers: i. 1-14, i. 15-iii. 8, iii. 9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9. the evidence for a fourfold authorship is strong though not convincing. in any case i.-iii. 8 and iii. 9-v. 9 must be ascribed to different authors. _original language_.--(1) some scholars, as ewald, kneucker, davidson, rothstein and koenig, believe that the whole book was originally written in hebrew; (2) fritzsche, hilgenfeld, reuss, gifford, schuerer, and toy advocate a hebrew original of i.-iii. 8 and a greek original of the rest; (3) marshall argues that i.-iii. 8 is translated from a hebrew original, iii. 9-iv. 4 from an aramaic, and the rest from the greek; (4) and lastly, bertholdt, havernick and noeldeke regard the greek as the primitive text. the last view must be put aside as unworkable. for the third no convincing evidence has been adduced, nor does it seem likely that any can be. we have therefore to decide between the two remaining theories. in any case we can hardly err in admitting a hebrew original of i.-iii. 8. for (1) we have such hebraisms as [greek: hou ... ep' autoi] = [hebrew: 'shr ... `lyw] (ii. 26); [greek: hou ... ekei] = [hebrew: 'shr ... shm] (ii. 4, 13, 29; iii. 8); [greek: hon ... to pneuma auton] = [hebrew: 'shr ... rwchm] (ii. 7). (2) we have meaningless expressions which are really mistranslations of the hebrew. it is noteworthy that these mistranslations are for the most part found in jeremiah--a fact which has rightly drawn scholars to the conclusion that we owe the lxx of baruch i.-iii. 8, and of jeremiah to the same translator. thus in i. 9 we have [greek: desmotes], "prisoner," where the text had [hebrew: masgeir] and the greek should have been rendered "locksmith." the same mistranslation is found in jer. xxiv. 1, xxxvi. (xxix.) 2. next in ii. 4 we have [greek: abaton], "wilderness," where the text had [hebrew: shmh] and the translation should have [greek: ekstasin]. the same misrendering is found several times in jeremiah. again [greek: ergazesthai] is used in i. 22, ii. 21, 22, 24 as a translation of [hebrew: `bd] in the sense of "serving," where [greek: douleuein] ought to have been the rendering. so also in jer. xxxiv. (xxvii.) 11, xxxvii. (xxx.) 8, &c. again in [greek: poleon iouda kai exothen ierousalem] the [greek: exothen] is a misrendering of [hebrew: bchwtswt] as in jer. xi. 6, xl. [v.03 p.0454] (xxxiii.) 10, &c., where the translator should have given [greek: plateion].[2] for [greek: bombesis] (ii. 29) [hebrew: hmwn] we should have [greek: plethos]. (3) finally there are passages where by re-translation we discover that the translator either misread his text or had a corrupt text before him. thus [greek: manna] in i. 10 is a corrupt translation of [hebrew: mnchh] as elsewhere in a dozen passages of the lxx. in iii. 4 [greek: tethnekoton] = [hebrew: meiteiy]--which the translator should have read as [hebrew: mteiy] = [greek: anthropon]. from the above instances, which could be multiplied, we have no hesitation in postulating a hebrew original of i.-iii. 8. as regards iii. 9-v. 9 the case is different. this section is free from such notable hebraisms as we have just dealt with, and no convincing grounds have been advanced to prove that it is a translation from a semitic original. _date._--the dates of the various constituents of the book are quite uncertain. ewald, followed by gifford and marshall, assigns i.-iii. 8 to the period after the conquest of jerusalem by ptolemy i. in 320 b.c.; reuss to some decades later; and fritzsche, schrade, keil and toy to the time of the maccabees. hitzig, kneucker and schuerer assume that it was written after a.d. 70. ryle and james (_pss. of solomon_, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.) hold that iv. 31-v. 9 is dependent on the greek version of ps. xi., and that, accordingly, baruch was reduced to its present form after a.d. 70. the most probable of the above dates appears to be that maintained by fritzsche, that is, if we understand by the maccabean times the early decades of the 2nd cent. b.c. for during the palmy days of the maccabean dynasty the twelve tribes were supposed to be in palestine. the idea that the jewish kingdom embraced once again the entire nation easily arose when the maccabees extended their dominion northwards over samaria and galilee and eastwards beyond the jordan. this belief displaced the older one that the nine and a half tribes were still in captivity. with the downfall of the maccabean dynasty, however, the older idea revived in the 1st cent. a.d. to the beginnings of the 2nd cent. a.d. the view of the dead given in ii. 17 would point, where it is said that those whose spirits had been taken from their bodies would not give glory unto the lord. the statement as to the desolate condition of the temple in ii. 26^a is with kneucker to be rejected as an interpolation. _canonicity._--the book of baruch was never accepted as canonical by the palestinian jews (baba batra 14^b), though the _apostolic constitutions_, v. 10, state that it was read in public worship on the 10th day of the month gorpiaeus, but this statement can hardly be correct. it was in general use in the church till its canonicity was rejected by the protestant churches and accepted by the roman church at the council of trent. _literature. versions and editions_.--the versions are the two latin, a syriac, and an arabic. the latin one in the vulgate belongs to a time prior to jerome, and is tolerably literal. another, somewhat later, was first published by jos. maria caro in 1688, and was reprinted by sabatier, side by side with the ante-hieronymian one, in his _bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae_. it is founded upon the preceding one, and is less literal. the syriac and arabic versions, printed in the london polyglot, are literal. the hexaplar-syriac version made by paul, bishop of tella, in the beginning of the 7th century has been published by ceriani. the most convenient editions of the greek text are tischendorf's in the second volume of his septuagint, and swete's in vol. iii.; fritzsche's in _libri apocryphi veteris testamenti graece_ (1871). the best editions of the book are kneucker's _das buch baruch_ (1879); gifford's in the _speaker's apoc._ ii. see also the articles in the _encyc. biblica_, _hastings' bible dictionary_; schuerer, _history of jewish people_. apocalypse of baruch. the discovery of this long lost apocalypse was due to ceriani. this apocalypse has survived only in the syriac version of which ceriani discovered a 6th century ms. in the milan library. of this he published a latin translation in 1866 (_monumenta sacra_, i. ii. 73-98), which fritzsche reproduced in 1871 (_libri apocryphi v. t._, pp.654-699), and the text in 1871 (_mon. sacra._ v. ii. 113-180), and subsequently in photo-lithographic facsimile in 1883. chaps. lxxviii.-lxxxvi., indeed, of this book have long been known. these constitute baruch's epistle to the nine and a half tribes in captivity, and have been published in syriac and latin in the london and paris polyglots, and in syriac alone from one ms. in lagarde's _libri v. t. apocryphi syr._ (1861); and by charles from ten mss. (_apocalypse of baruch_, 1896, pp. 124-167). the entire book was translated into english by the last-named writer (_op. cit._ pp. 1-167), and into german by ryssel (kautzsch's _apok. und pseud._, 1900, ii. pp. 413-446). the syriac is translated from the greek; for greek words are occasionally transliterated, and passages can be explained only on the hypothesis that the wrong alternative meanings of certain greek words were followed by the translator. the greek in turn is derived from the hebrew, for unintelligible expressions in the syriac can be explained and the text restored by retranslation into hebrew. thus in xxi. 9, 11, 12, xxiv. 2, lxii. 7 we have an unintelligible antithesis, "those who sin and those who are justified." the source of the error can be discovered by retranslation. the syriac in these passages is a stock rendering of [greek: dikaiousthai], and this in turn of [hebrew: tsdq]. but [hebrew: tsdq] means not only [greek: dikaiousthai] but also [greek: dikaios einai], and this is the very meaning required by the context in the above passages: "those who sin and those who are righteous."[3] again xliv. 12 the text reads: "the new world which does not turn to corruption those who depart _on its beginning_ and has no mercy on those who depart to torment." here "on its beginning" is set over antithetically against "to torment," whereas the context requires "to its blessedness." the words "on its beginning"--[hebrew: kr'shw], a corruption of [hebrew: b'shrw]--"to its blessedness." again in lvi. 6 it is said that the fall of man brought grief, anguish, pain, trouble and _boasting_ into the world. the term "boasting" in this connexion cannot be right. the word = [greek: kauchema] = [hebrew: thlh](?), corrupt for [hebrew: mchlh], "disease." a further ground for inferring a hebrew original is to be found in the fact that paronomasiae not infrequently discover themselves in the course of retranslation into hebrew. one instance will suffice. in xlviii. 35, "honour will be turned into shame, strength humiliated into contempt ... and beauty will become a scorn" contains three such: [hebrew: kbwd yhpk lqlwn `z ywrd 'l bwz wwpy yhyh ldwpy] (see charles, _apoc. bar._ pp. xliv.-liii). the necessity of postulating a hebrew original was first shown by the present writer, and has since been maintained by wellhausen (_skizzen u. vorarbeiten_, vi. 234), by ryssel (_apok. und pseudepig. a. t._, 1900, ii. 411), and ginzberg (_jewish encyclopaedia_, ii. 555). _different elements in the book and their dates_.--as there are undoubtedly conflicting elements in the book, it is possible to assume either a diversity of authorship or a diversity of sources. the latter view is advocated by ryssel and ginzberg, the former by kabisch, de faye, r. h. charles and beer (herzog's _realenc._, art. "_pseudepigraphen des alten testaments_," p. 250). a short summary may here be given of the grounds on which the present writer has postulated a diversity of authorship. if the letter to the tribes in captivity (lxxviii.-lxxxvi.) be disregarded, the book falls into seven sections separated by fasts, save in one case (after xxxv.) where the text is probably defective. these sections, which are of unequal length, are--(1) i.-v. 6; (2) v. 7-viii.; (3) ix.-xii. 4; (4) xii. 5-xx.; (5) xxi.-xxxv.; (6) xxxvi.-xlvi.; (7) xlvii.-lxxvii. these treat of the messiah and the messianic kingdom, the woes of israel in the past and the destruction of jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological questions relating to original sin, free will, works, the number of the saved, the nature of the resurrection body, &c. the views expressed on several of the above subjects are often conflicting. in one class of passages there is everywhere manifest a vigorous optimism as to israel's ultimate well-being on earth, and the blessedness of the chosen people in the messianic kingdom is sketched in glowing and sensuous colours (xxix., xxxix.-xl., lxiii.-lxxiv.). over against these passages stand others of a hopelessly pessimistic character, wherein, alike as to israel's [v.03 p.0455] present and future destiny on earth, there is written nothing save "lamentation, and mourning, and woe." the world is a scene of corruption, its evils are irremediable, its end is nigh, and the advent of the new and spiritual world at hand. the first to draw attention to the composite elements in this book was kabisch (_jahrbuecher f. protest. theol._, 1891, pp. 66-107). this critic regarded xxiv. 3-xxix., xxxvi.-xl. and liii.-lxxiv. as independent sources written before the fall of jerusalem,