RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Apocrypha
ing three parts, rather loosely connected: (a) i, 2iii 8: In the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (586 B.C.), the Jews in Babylon send messages to Jerusalem to the high priest Joiakim, forward money to provide sacrifices for the Temple, and ask prayers for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. In the letter which the messengers bring to Jerusalem the point is especially emphasized that the present misfortune is but a punishment for the people's sin and their disobedience to God's commandments, especially because they did not obey the king of Babylon, as God desired them; (b) iii, 9-iv, 4: Israel is exhorted to return to the source of all wisdom, who is God alone; (c) iv, 5-v, 9: The discouraged people are exhorted to take heart. Though Jerusalem is devastated and the people scattered, God will bring them back into the holy city.
Opinions differ much as to the date of composition. It is the more difficult to decide because the three pieces of which the work is composed are of different character and come from a± ),easfr trWQj possibly t,hrp.Pu fu^bors. The position of Roman Catholic theologians that the book really belongs to Baruch is untenable. The author was unacquainted with the circumstances of the times (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 170), and was in the dark as to the situation invented by himself, not having pictured it clearly to his own consciousness. On the one hand, he presupposed the destruction of the city by the Chaldeans (i, 2), yet spoke as if the ritual and the Temple itself still existed (i, 10, 14). Even Ewald's view, that the book originated in the latter Persian and first Greek period, is far from the truth. There are parallels with the Book of Daniel which make certain literary dependence of one upon the other. Daniel ix, 7-10 corresponds almost literally to Baruch i, 15-18. But it is hardly conceivable that such a very original and creative mind as the author of Daniel copied from Baruch. 3This brings the book down into the later Maccabean times, on account of the necessary interval between Baruch and Daniel. With this date most of the Protestant critics seem to be satisfied (so Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 173, and De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, p. 603). But it is very questionable whether this is correct, whether, with Hitzig (ZWT, I860, pp. 262 sqq.) and Kneucker (Das Buck Baruch, Leipsic, 1879), the date should not be brought down to the time of Vespasian.
Mention should be made of the fact, first noted by P. E. E. Geiger (Der Psalter Salomos, Augsburg, 1871, p. 137); that Baruch v has the same viewpoint as the Psalter of Solomon xi. The thoughts are in part derived from Isaiah. A literary relationship between Pseudo-Solomon and Pseudo- Baruch can hardly be denied. Considering the psalmlike character of Baruch, it seems more appropriate to grant priority to the psalms than to Baruch. This would lead at least into the time of £ompey, in which the psalms originated (cf. ochurer, Geschichte, iii, 150 sqq.). Besides, the nrst as well as the third part of the book presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and of the
Temple, the devastation and ruin of the country, and the removal of the inhabitants into captivity (i, 2; ii, 23, 26; iv, 10-16). To be sure, according to the author's plan, the action is placed in the time of the Chaldeans ; but the whole work, with all its exhortations and consolations, suits a similar situation, and is not sufficiently motived, unless the contemporaries of the author lived under the pressure of like conditions (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 172 sqq.). Circumstances similar to those of the time of the Chaldeans existed again in consequence of the great war of 66-70 a.d. Such a destruction of city and Temple took place neither in the time of the Maccabeans nor in the time of Pompey (to which Graetz assigns the book). Finally, some striking peculiarities suggest the war from 66 to 70. The author considers the misfortune of Israel a punishment for its rebellion against the king of Babylon, and exhorts the people to offer sacrifice and prayer to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (ii, 21 sqq., i, 10 sqq.). In like manner Josephus (T7or, II, xvii, 2-4) saw the real cause of the war in the abolition of the sacrifice for the Roman emperor. The entire unhistorical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar suggests Vespasian and Titus. That parents might eat the flesh of their children during a famine (ii, 3) was already threatened (Lev. xxvi, 29; Deut. xxviii, 53; Jer. xix, 9; Ezek. v, 10), and is stated as a fact (II Kings vi, 28 sqq.; Lam. ii, 20, iv, 10). It may be recalled that the very same thing is also narrated of the war under Vespasian (Josephus, War, VI, iii, 4). In view of these facts the inference is allowable that the Book of Baruch originated in the time of Vespasian. It is first quoted by Athenagoras (" Plea for the Christians," ix, where Baruch iii, 35 is quoted as the utterance of a prophet), and is also quoted by Irenseus (Hcer., IV, xx, 4; V, xxxv, 1), and Clement of Alexandria (Pcedagogus, I, x, 91-92; II, iii, 36).
The question of the unity of authorship can be treated only in connection with the question of the original language. In the latter respect Jerome says (Prolegomena in Jer.), " It is neither found nor read among the Hebrews." Over against this in the Hexaplar-Syriac there occurs three times (in i, 17 and ii, 3) the remark " This does not exist in the Hebrew " (cf . Ceriani's notes to his edition in the Monumenta sacra et profana, i, 1, Milan,1861- 1871). According to this, it may be assumed that a Hebrew Baruch, corresponding to the Greek which has been preserved, was known to antiquity; and the linguistic character, at least of the first part, confirms this assumption. But the diction from iii, 9 is perceptibly different. Accordingly the view of Fritzsche has much in its favor; viz., that the first part is a translation from the Hebrew; the rest, however, is from a Greek original (Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 171 sqq.). With this it is also decided that there were two authors; the translator of the first part added the rest from his own resources, but both are to be dated in the time of Vespasian. Finally it is worthy of remark that the use of Theodotion's version of Daniel can be shown (cf. L. E. T. Andre, Les Apocryphes de I'Ancien Testament, Paris, 1904, pp. 251 sqq.;
Apocrypha