(69-74). Baruch then expi-esses his wonder over God's wisdom and mercy, o.^d receives a fresh revelation as to his coming departure from the earth. First, however, he is to summon the people together and instruct them (75. 76). This Baruch does, and admonishes the people to be faithful ; for though teacher and prophet may pass away, yet the law ever standeth. At the request of the people Baruch writes two epistles— one to their brethren in Babylon, and the other to the tribes beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in 78-87, but the former is lost.
iv. Different Elements in the Book, and THEIR Dates. — This question cannot be discussed here save in the briefest manner ; but no treatment of the book is adequate without some consideration of it. TUl 1891 this book was taken to be the work of one author. In that year, however, Kabisch, in an article entitled, ' Die Quellen der Apocalypse Baruchs' {Jahrbiicher /. protestantische Theologie, 1891, pp. 66-107), showed on several grounds that the book 18 sprung from at least three or four authors. Thus he distinguishes 1-23, 3P-35, 41-52, 77-87 as the groundwork written subsequent to A. D. 70, since the destruction of the temple is implied throughout these chapters. Further, these sections are marked by a boundless world-despair which, looking for nothing of peace or happiness in this corruptible world, fixes its regard on the afterworld of incor- ruption. In the remaining sections of the book, however, there is a faith in Israel's ultimate triumpli here, and an optimism which looks to an earthly Messianic kingdom of sensuous delights. In these sections, moreover, the integrity of Jerusalem is throughout assumed. Kabisch, therefore, rightly takes these constituents of the book to be prior to A.D. 70. These sections, however, are not the work of one WTiter, but of three, two of them being unmutOated productions, i.e. the Vine and Cedar Vision, 36-40, and the Cloud Vision, 53-74, but the third a fragmentary Apocalypse, 24'-29. From the bulk of this criticism there is no ground for variance. By independent study, and frequently on ditJerent grounds, I have arrived at several of Kabisch's conclusions. Other parts of his theory, however, call for modification. As the result of an exhaustive study of the book, I offer the following analysis, for the grounds of which the reader must refer to my recent book. The Apocalypse of Baruch. The main part of the book was written after the fall of Jerusalem, i.e. 1-26, 31-35, 41-52, 75-87. All these chapters are derived from one writer, save 1-8, 44'-', 77-87. These must be discri- minated from the rest, as their diction and their out- look as to the future of Jerusalem differ from those adopted in the rest of these chapters. The rest of the l)Ook was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem. It consists of the two visions mentioned above, i.e. 36-40 and 53-74, and a fragmentary Apocalypse, 27- 30. Jewish religious thought busied itself mainly with two subjects, the Messianic Hope and the Law, and, in proportion as the one was emphasized, the other fell into the background. It is noteworthy that the parts of this book written prior to the fall of Jerusalem are mainly Messianic, and only mention the law incidentally, whereas in the sections written after its fall all the thought and the hopes of the writers centre in the law, and the law alone. More- over, whereas the earlier sections are oiitimistic as regards the destinies of Jerusalem, the later are permeated with the spirit of an infinite despair. The dillerent elements of the book were combined not earlier than A.D. 100, and not later than A. I). 130. The grounds for this determination cannot be given here. It should be observed that a portion of the short Apocalypse, 27-.30, is quoted by Papias, and attributed by iiim to our Lord. See lieniBua, Adv. B<BT. V. 33. 3.
BARUCH. APOCALYPSE OF
BARUCH, BOOK OF
25)
V. Authorship. — All the ^Titers from whom this book is derived were Pliarisees. Thej' all agree in teaching the doctriue of works. Jeremiah's works are a strong tower to the city, 2' ; the righteous have no fear by reason of their good works, 14'; they are iustilied thereby, 21» '24'-' 51'; they trusted in their works, and therefore God heard them, 63'-' 8o'; righteousness is by the law, 67'.
Again, as regards the law, the teaching is like- wise I'harisaic. It was given to Israel, 17'' 19' 59^ 77''; the one law was {jiven by One, 48^; it will protect those who receive it, 32', and requite those who transgress it, 48" ; so Ion" as Israel observes the law it cannot fall, 48^" ; God's law is life, 38-. Again, the carnal sensuous nature of the Messiah and His kin^'dom, wliicli are described only in the earlier jiortions, 28-30, 39'-40, 72-74, is essentially Pharisaic. The future world is created on behalf of Israel, according to one of the later writers, 1.5'; according to the earlier WTiters the present world was ultimately for Israel, and their enemies would suffer destruction, 27, 40, 72.
vi. Kelation to 4 Ezra (2 Esdras).— The affini- ties of this book with 4 Ezr are both strikint; and numerous. (1) They have one and the .same object — to deplore Israel's present calamities and to awake hope either of the coming Messianic king- dom on earth, or of the bliss of the righteous in the world to come. (2) In both, the speaker is a notable figure in the time of the Babylonian Captivity. (3) In both there is a sevenfold division of the work, and an interval (generally of seven days) between each division ; and as in the one Ezra devotes forty days to the restoration of the Scriptures, in the other Baruch is bidden to spend forty days in teaching Israel before his departure from the earth. (4) They have many doctrinal peculiarities in common: man is saved by his works, 2 Es [G"] 8*' 9', Apoc Bar 2^ 14'^ etc. ; the world was created on behalf of Israel, 2 Es gM 'jii gu^ Apoc Bar 14'" lo' ; man came not into the world of his own will, 2 Es 8», Apoc Bar 14" 48"; a predetermined number of men must be born before the end, 2 Es 4"- '■", Apoc Bar 2.3<- " ; Adam's sin was the cause of physical death, 2 Es 3', Apoc Bar 23' ; the souls of tne good are kept safe in treasuries till the resurrection, 2 Es 4^- ■" 7^ [6"- "], Apoc Bar 30'. But the points of disagreement are just as clearly marked. In 2 Es the Messianic reign is limited to 400 years, l^-^, whereas in Baruch this period is indeterminate. Again, in 2 Es the Messiah IS to die, 1'^, and His reign to close with the death of all living things ; whereas according to Apoc Bar 30' the Messiah is to return in glory to heaven at the close of His reign, and according to 73. 74 this reign is to be an eternal one. Again, in 2 Es the writer urges that God's people should be puni.shed by God's own hands and not by the hands of their enemies, 5^- ^ ; for these have over- thrown the altar and destroyu<l the temple, lO"-^-; but in Baruch it is told how angels removed the holy vessels and demolished the walls of Jeru.salem before the enemy drew nigh, G-8. On the question of original sin, likewise, these two books are at variance. While in 2 Es the entire stream of jijiysical and ethical death is traced to Adam, 3'- •'•'•" 4*' 7", and the guilt of his descendants minimised at the cost of their fust parent (yet see K"'*), Baruch derives physical death indeed from Adam's transgression, 17' 23' 54", but aa to ethical death declares that ' each man U the Adam of his own soul,' 54" (yet see 48").