Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/370

 BARUCH

320

BARUCH

smd \\'itnessed the purchase by the prophet of his

ancestral estate in Anathoth (Jer., xxxii). After the fall of the Holy City and the ruin of the Temple (oSS B. c.) Baruch lived probably for some time with Jeremias at Masphath. His enemies accused him of having prompted the prophet to advise the Jews to remain in Juda, instead of going down into Egj'pt, as they were contemplating. In consequence, he was carried, together -n-ith his master, to Egj-pt (Jer., xliii), where, according to a Hebrew tradition pre- served by St. Jerome (In Isai., x.xx, 6, 7), both died before Nabuchodonosor invaded that countrj'. This tradition, however, conflicts with the data found in the opening chapter of the Prophecy of Baruch, wherein we are told of Baruch wTiting his book in Babylonia, reading it publicly in the fifth year after the burning of the Holy City, and apparently being sent to Jerusalem by the Jewish captives with sacred vessels and gifts destined to the sacrificial service in Yahweh's Temple. It conflicts likewise with various traditions, both Jewish and Christian, which perhaps ■contain some particles of truth, but which do not allow us to determine the date, place, or manner of Baruch's death, with anything like probability.

In the Catholic Bible "the Prophecy of Baruch" is made up of six chapters, the last of which bears the special title of an "Epistle of Jeremias", and does not belong to the book proper. The Prophecy opens ■n-ith an historical introduction (i, 1-14), stating first (1-2) that the book was ■nTitten by Baruch at Babylon in the fifth year after Jerusalem had been burned by the Chaldeans, and next (vv. 3-14) that it was read in an assembly of King Jechonias and other Babylonian exiles upon whom it produced the most beneficial effects. The first section in the body of the book (i, 15; iii, S) contains a twofold confession of the sins which led to the exile (i,15 — ii,5; ii, 6-13), together with a prayer that God may at length forgive His people (ii, 14; iii, 8). While the foregoing section has much in common with the Book of Daniel (Dan., ix, 4-19), Baruch's second section (iii. 9; iv, 4) closely resembles passages in Job, xxviii, xxxviii. It is a beautiful p.anegyric of that Divine "Wisdom which is nowhere found except in the Law given to Israel; only in the guise of the Law has Wisdom appeared on the earth and become accessible to man; let, therefore, Israel prove faithful again to the Law. The last section of the Book of Baruch extends from iv, 5 to v, 9. It is made up of four ■odes, each beginning with the expression, "Take courage" (iv, 5, 21, 27, 30), and of a psalm closely connected with the eleventh of the apocrj'phal Psalms of Solomon (iv, 36; v, 9). Chapter vi contains as an appendix to the whole book "The Epistle of Jeremias", sent by that prophet "to them that were to be led away captives into Babylon" by Nabucho- ■donosor. Because of their sins they were to be re- moved to Babylon and to remain there "for a long time, even to seven generations". In that heathen ■city they would witness the gorgeous worship paid to ""ods of gold, and of silver, and of stone, and of wood", but should not conform to it. All such gods, it is argued in various ways, are powerless and perish- able works of man's hand; they can do neither harm nor good; so that they are not gods at all.

It is certain that "this sixth chapter of Baruch is truly distinct from the rest of the work. Not only its special title, "The Epistle of Jeremias", but also its style and contents clearly prove that it is a WTiting wholly independent of the Prophecy of Baruch. Again, while some Greek MSS. that" have Baruch have not the " Epistle", others, among the best, have it separate from the Book of Baruch and immedi- ately before the Lamentations of Jeremias. The fact that the sixth chapter of Baruch bears the title, ^'The Epistle of Jeremias", has been, and is still in the eyes of many, a decisive reason for holding the

time-honoured view that that great prophet is its author. It is also urged that the vivid and accurate description of the splendid, but infamous, worship of the Babylonian gods in Baruch, vi, makes for the traditional authorship, since Jer., xiii, 5, 6, probably speaks of the twofold journey of Jeremias to the Euplu-ates. Finally it is affirmed that a certain niunber of Hebraisms can be traced back to a Hebrew original point in the same direction. Over against this traditional view, most contemporarj' critics argue that the Greek stj-le of Baruch, vi, proves that it was originally written not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that consequently Jeremias is not the author of the Epistle ascribed to him. For this and for other reasons suggested by the study of the con- tents of Baruch, vi, they think that St. Jerome was decidedly correct when he called this 'WTiting ^cvSeirl- 7pa0o!, that is, inscribed with a false name. How- ever this may be, an impartial study of the Canon of Holy Writ proves that, despite the assertions of Protestants to the contrarj-, Baruch, vi, has always been recognized by the Chtirch as an inspired work. With regard to the original language of the Book of Baruch proper (chaps, i-v), a variety of opinions prevail among contemporarj' scholars. Naturally enough, those who simply abide by the title which ascribes the Book to Baruch, admit that the whole work was originally \\Titten in Hebrew. On the con- trary, most of those who question or reject the cor- rectness of that title think that this writing was totally, or at least partially, composed in Greek. It is indeed true that the Greek literarj' features of the various sections do not point back with equal force to a Hebrew original. Yet, it can hardly be doubted that the whole of Baruch proper in its extant Greek form looks like a translation. The linguistic evidence is also confirmed by the following considerations: (1) It is highly probable that Theodotion (end of the second centurj' of our era) translated the Book of Baruch from a Hebrew original. (2) There are some marginal notes of the SjTO-Hexaplar text stating that a few words in the Greek "are not foiuid in the Hebrew". (1) Baruch, i, 14, says that the book was meant to be read publicly in the Temple; hence it must liave been composed in Hebrew for that pur- pose. Besides this unity as regards its original language, Baruch presents a certain unity in point of subject-matter, so that most of these who main- tain that the whole work was primitively NTitten in Hebrew admit also its unity of composition. There are, however, in the Book of Baruch many traces of the compilatorj' process whereby its various parts were apparently brought together. The difference in literary form between i-iii. 8, on the one hand and iii, 9-5, is very gre t indeed, and, taken together with the abrupt manner in which the panegj-ric on Wis- dom is introduced at iii, 9, suggests a difference with respect to origin. The two confessions of the sins which led to the exile in i, IS; iii. 8, are put side by side without any natural transition. The literary differences between iii, 9 — iv, 4, and iv, 5 — v, 9, are considerable, and the beginning of the third section at iv, 5, is no less abrupt than that of tlie second at iii, 9. Again, the historical introduction seems to have been composed as a preface to only i, 15 — ii, 5. In \-iew of these and other such facts, contemporary critics generally think that the work is the outcome of a compilatorj' process, and that its unity is due to the final editor, who ptit together the various docu- ments which obviously bore upon the exile. Such a literarj' method of composition does not necessarily conflict with the traditional authorship of the Book of Baruch. Manj' of the sacred WTiters of the Bible were compilers, and Baruch may, and, according to the Catholic scholars who admit the compilatory character of the work inscribed to him, must, be ntimbered among them. The grounds of Catholics