I try by Nabuehodor.osor" (Coram, in Is. xxx, G, 7, p.
i 405). Josephus asserts that he was well skilled in the Hebrew language ; and that, after the taking of
: Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan treated Baruch*vith consid- eration from respect to Jeremiah, whose misfortunes he had shared, and whom he had accompanied to pris- on and exile (Ant. x, 9, 1 and 2). — Kitto; Smith.
BARUCH, BOOK OF (Apocryphae), follows next after the Book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint printed text, but in MSS. it sometimes precedes and some- times follows Lamentations. It stands between Ec-
; clesiasticus and the Song of the Three Children in the
I Engl. Auth. Vers. See Apocrypha.
1. ConUnts. — It is remarkable as the only hook 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 chil- dren 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 J sent the book with a letter and presents to Jerusalem. It may be divided into two main parts, i-iii, 8, and i iii, 9-end. The first part consists of an introduction (i, 1-14), followed by a confession and prayer (i, 15- '. iii, 8). The second part opens with an abrupt address to Israel (iii, 9-iv, 30), pointing out the sin of the peo- I pie in neglecting the divine teaching of wisdom (iii, 9- j iv, 8), and introducing a noble lament of Jerusalem i over her children, through which hope still gleams j (iv, 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 J colors of Isaiah the return of God's chosen people and their abiding glory (iv, 30 -v, 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 remark- able 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 ref- erences to the version of Theodoticn (Eiehhorn, Einl, in die Apoc. Schrifl. 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 incorpo- rated in the Vulgate is generally literal; the other (Cams, Horn. 1688) is more free. The vulgar Syriac and Arabic follow the Greek text closely (Fritzsth?, 1. c).
2. Hebrew. — Considerable discussion has been raised ' as to the original language of the book. Those who
BARUCH
G79
BARUCH
advocated its authenticity generally supposed that it was first written in Hebrew (Iluet, Dereser, etc. ; but Jabn is undecided : Bertholdt, Einl. 1755), and this opinion found many supporters (Bendtsen, Griineberg, Movers, Hitzig, De Wette, Einl. § 323). Others again have maintained that the Greek is the original text (Eichhorn,-&'»f.388sq.; Bertholdt, EM. 1757; Haver- nick ap. De Wette, 1. c.) The truth appears to lie be- tween these two extremes. The two divisions of the book arc distinguished by marked peculiarities of style and language. The Hebraic character of the first part (i-iii, 8) is such as to mark it as a translation, and not as the work of a Hebraizing Greek : e. g. i, 14, 15, 22; ii, 4, 9, 25 ; iii, 8 ; and several obscurities seem to be mistranslations: c. g. i, 2, 8, ii, 18, 29. The second part, on the other hand, which is written with great- er freedom and vigor, closely approaches the Alexan- drine type. The imitations of Jeremiah and Daniel which occur throughout the first part (comp. i, 15-18 = Dan. ix, 7-10; ii, 1, 2 = Dan. ix, 12, 13; ii, 7-19 = Dan. ix, 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 some 0113 thoroughly conversant with the Alexandrine transla- tion of Jeremiah, perhaps the translator himself (Hit- zig, Fritzsche), found the Hebrew fragment which forms the basis of the book alread3r 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 ota/twr/jc, c'nrocro\)), /3ojUj8/j(T(f [_0Ofi/3ttv], d—oiKirrpdc;, fidvva, dironrphpHv [_neut.~], tpyd^taOai nvi, vvofia tTracaXuaQai tiri run*) ; and the great discrepanc^y which exists between the Hebrew and Greek texts as to the arrangement of the later chapters of Jeremiah, increases the proba- bility of such an addition having been made to the canonical prophecies. These verbal coincidences ceasj to exist in the second part, or become very rare ; but this also is distinguished by characteristic words : c. g. b atioinoQ b uyiOQ, iirdyuv. At the same time, the gen- eral unity (even in language, e. g. y«p/to<7<;i');) and co- herence of the book in its present form point to th:s work of one man. (Fritzsche, Einl. § 5 ; Hitzig, Psalm. ii, 119 ; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. iv, 232 n.). Ber- tholdt appears to be quite in error {Einl. 1743, 17G2) in assigning iii, 1-8 to a separate writer (De Wette, Einl. § 322). (See Siebenberger's Ileb. Comm. Warsaw, 1840.)