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 dec- lamation against idols (comp. Jerem. x, xxix) in the form of a letter addressed by Jeremiah "to them which were to be led captive to Babylon." The letter is di- vided into clauses by the repetition of a common bur- dan : they arc no gods ; fear them not (vv. 10, 23, 29, 6G) : how can a man thin'; or s vj that they are gods? (vv. 40, 44, 5G, G4). The condition of the text is closely analo- gous 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 Esdr. xiii, 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 (.4 Collection of Au- thentick Records, etc., London, 1727, i, 1, sq., 25 sq.) endeavored to maintain its authenticity. See a full introd. by Ginsburg, in the new ed. of Kitto's < '/,r/<y>.
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 Jere- miah, inasmuch as the author of the book lived in Bab- ylon in the fifth year after that event, unless we sup- pose, with Eichhorn, Arnold, and others, that the refer- ence (Baruch i, 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 der Einleitung in das A. I und N. T.) ingeniously conjectures that tru ()rear) is a mistake or correction of some transcriber for prp>i (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 un- accountable. If the reading in i, 1, be correct (comp. 2 Kings xxv, 8), it is impossible to fix "the fifth year'" in such a waj' 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 (iii, 9 sq. ; iv, 22 sq. ; i, 3 sq. Comp. 2 Kings xxv, 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 Mace, ii, 2, comp. with Baruch vi, 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 concern- ed ; but the present book must be placed considerably later, probably about the time of the war of liberation (B.C. cir. 1G0), or somewhat earlier.
IV. Canonicity. — The book was held in little esteem among the Jews (Jerome, Prof, in Jerem. p. 834 . . . nee habetur apud Hebreeos ; Epiphanius, demens. oil Ktly- Tai tTTiaroXai [Bo-poi'v] Trap 'Eiipaioic), though it is stated in the Greek text of the Apostolical Constitutions (v, 20, 1) that it was read, together with the Lamenta- tions, " on the tenth of the month Gorpiaeus" (i. e. the day of Atonement). But this reference is wanting in the Syriac version (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. ii, 187), and the assertion is unsupported by any other author- ity. 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 Irenams it was fre- quently quoted both in the East and in the West, and generally as the work of Jeremiah (Irenaaus, Ilcer. v. 35, 1, " significant Jermms, Bar. iv, 36-v ;" Tertullian, Gnost. 8, " Ilieremim, Bar. [Epist.] vi, 3;" Clement, Peed, i, 10, § 91, " 81a 'lepipiov, Bar. iv. 4 ;" id. Peed. ii, 3, § 36, "0«d ypaQi), Bar. iii, 16, 19;" Origen, ap. Euseb. //. E. vi, 25, "'Itptpiag avi' Opi'ivoic. Kai ry t7n<TTo\y [?] ;" Cyprian, Test. Lib. ii, G, "apud Hiere- miam, Bar. iii, 85," etc.). It was, however, "obelized" throughout in the Sept. as deficient in the Hebrew (Cod. Chis. ap. Daniel, etc., Eomre, 1772, p. xxi). 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 Psalm. 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 (iii, 16) as attributed "more commonly to Jeremiah" (de Civ. xviii, 33), and else- where uses them as such (Faust, xii, 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 main- tained its authenticity (Authent. Records, i, 1, sq.). Cal- met observes that its "canonicity had been denied not