(2) Relation to 4- Ezra. — It is obvious that the Apocalypse of Baruch and that of Salathiel, com- monly known as 4 Ezra, have a great deal in common, both in ideas and in language. § They must have issued from the same circle, if they are not actually the work of the same author. And, further, it is almost certain that they must have been originally composed in the same language, either both in Greek, or both in Hebrew or Aramaic. As has been indicated in the preceding paragraphs, most of the arguments for a Semitic origin of Baruch founded upon the Syriac text are inconclusive ; but if the Latin text of 4 Ezra (which is undoubtedly a literal translation of the lost Greek) creates the impression that this Greek was itself a translation, then after all we must regard the Greek of Baruch also as a translation.
* The reconstruction is practically certain, except the last
t In xli. 4, Charles translates ' fled for refugfe . . . ' But 'eraq means ' fled ' ; the ' taking refuge ' which is inherent in the Heb. non (Ruth 212 etc.) is not expressed in the Syriac.
X The same comparisons are used in 4 Ezra 658, which must similarly also be considered to show che influence of the Greek Bible.
§ A good account of these resemblances is to be found in H. St. J. Thackeray's art. ' Esdras, Second Book of,' in HDB i. 763 f. See also G. H. Box in Charles' Apoc. and Pseudepigr. ii. 553 B.
From the linguistic side the chief arguments concern the names used for God and the occurrence of the infinitive absolute. Beside words which imply Kvpios (as in the LXX), we tind Altissimus and Fortis (e.g. 4 Ezra Q'^'^) in both works ; these must correspond to 'TipicrTo^ and 'Icrxi'pos in the Greek.* "Ttpiaros in a Jewish writing corresponds to p"rj; (Aram, nx'?!') ; but as it was also a name of God in Greek its occurrence proves nothing as to the original language of our book. 'Iaxvp6%, on the other hand, is only found as a name of God in translations, and implies 'jx {El) ; it is characteristic of the later Jewish translators Aquila and Theodo- tion, to a less degree of Symmachus, and not at all of the genuine LXX, which only uses tVxvp^s as an adjective in the ordinaiy sense of ' strong ' (Ps 7^" 4P). Thus a reader of the Greek Bible would not be likely to use it by itself as a proper name for ' the Almighty.' Its presence in Ajjoc. Baruch and 4 Ezra must therefore be held to suggest that the Greek texts of these works are translations.
The use of the infinitive absolute points in the same direction. If it were merely attested in Syriac, it might be explained away as an idiom introduced by the translator. But its frequent occurrence in the Latin text of 4 Ezra ( e.g. exce- dens excessit, 4^) cannot thus be disposed of, and at present no real example of this idiom is known in works composed originally in Greek, though it is common in translations such as the LXX. The linguistic evidence, therefore, though not quite conclusively, points to a Semitic, and consequently to a Palestinian, origin for both 4 Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. But, as explained above, we are very far from being able to reconstruct the text of this hypothetical Hebrew or Aramaic original (Ixiv. 7, 8).
Not only the language, but also the contents, of Baruch favour a Hebrew or Aramaic original. The circle of thought and tradition is throughout Palestinian, and uninfluenced by Greek speculation and culture. The legends incidentally referred to are specifically Jewisli, and can be illustrated from the Talmud, such as that of Behemoth and Levia- than created to be the food of the saints (xxix. 4) ; or the story of Manasseh, who was cast into the brazen 'horse' (i.e. mule), and who, though he prayed from it to God and was delivered, yet was tinallj' tormented. t
3. Integrity. — In what has been said above, the Apocalypse of Bnrueh has been treated as an organic whole. This has been controverted by Charles, who splits the book up into no fewer than six (or seven) separate fragments, on the assumption that an apocalyptist's anticipations of the future will be clear-cut and self-consistent. But this is hardly to be expected in a work which reflects the mind of an orthodox Jew just after the Destruction of Jerusalem. The Temple with its priests and sacrifices, nay, the very national exist- ence, had been brought utterly to an end by the heathen. The individual Jews that remained were left with nothing but the Law and a tumult of im- possible hopes. The author is swayed by his sub- ject. He may believe that the captured city was not the true, the heavenly Jerusalem (iv. 2-6), and that it had been destroyed by the angels of God be- fore the enemy were allowed to capture it ( vi.-viii. ). Yet the catastrophe is too recent to allow him calmly to contemplate the Fall of Zion, and his
* The Greek fragment of Apoc. Baruch actually contains the word 'i.(Txv[pov\
t Another instance, important from the incidental manner of its occurrence, is in Ixxvii. 25, where we read : ' Solomon also . . . whithersoever he wished to send or seek for anything, commanded a bird and it obeyed him ' This is a manifest allu- sion to the story of the wildfowl by which Solomon sent a letter to the Queen of Sheba at Kittor (2nd Targum to Esther, L 2), a legend familiar in Arabic, but not current in Greek