Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/604

554 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

Baruch, Apocalypse of

reappear at the reconstruction of Jerusalem. Now, a tanna about the middle of the second century speaks in one and the same sentence of Eschathe heavenly Temple and of the fact tology. that it will be sent down to Jerusalem in order that sacrifices may be offered in it (Suk. 41«; see especially Rashi's explanation of the passage. Concerning other relations between the earthly Temple [ntSO hv tnpJDH JTO] and the heavenly one [rpjJQ PC pDrO], which in the future time will in certain respects be one, compare Talk., Isaiah, 472; Ta'anit bn). There are no grounds for the belief that the Apocalypse unites contradictory views on the Messianic era and the future world, and that, therefore, it must have been written by more than one person. It is true that it contains various revelations, independent of each other, on the Messianic era, the Messiah, and the future world but a Pharisaic work, esehatological in character, and written at the time of Jesus or even some decades before, must have treated of these three subjects. In some passages one point is more strongly dwelt upon; in other passages another point. The reconstruction of Jerusalem (xliv. 7. lxxi. 1), the gathering together of the Ten Tribes ("Kibbuz Galuyot," lxxviii. 7, lxxxiv. 10), and the doom of the heathen (lxxxii. 2-9, lxxxv. 9) form only one side, the national side, of Jewish eschatology. The hope of national redemption was connected with the hope of individual redemption. The Messianic era will not only bring Israel to its rights, but in the future world (' 'olam ha-ba ") reward or punishment will be meted out to the individual according to his deeds. The description of the Resurrection in the Apocalypse is significant for the agreement of its eschatological doctrines with those of the rabbinical authorities. "The earth will give up her dead as she received them, for it is necessary to show those who live that the dead have arisen, and that they have returned who had departed " (1. 2-4). This same idea and the same reasons for it are given in " Milhamot Melek ha-Mashiah " (Jellinek, "B. H."

.

.

.

vi. 119).

The words of the Apocalypse concerning the pious In the future world are also noteworthy. "They will shine with a varying glory, their countenances glow with a new beauty, so that they may partake of the immortal world " (li. 3). This glory (" ziw") is frequently referred to in rabbinical eschatology; for example, in Ber. l"n, and Gen. R. xi. 2; and, as can be seen from these passages, the " varying glory of the Apocalypse shows the degree of piety of the righteous (Sifre, Deut. 10, 47). Modern critics who doubt the unity of the Apocalypse do not agree as to the authorship of its parts. Two theories have been advanced concerning the various sources of this Apocalypse. Kabisch (in "Jahrbucher fur Protest antische Theologie," xviii. 66, 107) considers the groundwork to be i.-xxiii., xxxi.-xxxiv., xli.-xlvi. 7, lxxv.-lxxxvii. In addiwill

''

tion to this there are three old documents:

(1)

the

fragmentary Apocalypse, xxiv. 3. -xxix. 8; (2) the vision of the wood, cedar, and vine, xxxvi. 1-xl. 4; and (3) the vision of the clouds, lii. 8.-lxxiv. 4. Besides these elements there are certain shorter sections,

the

work

of a final redactor.

Kabisch's theory

is

in

554

part supported by De Faye '(" Les Apocalypse Juives," 1892, p. 195). ButDe Faye goes further and divides the groundwork into two parts, the "Assumption of Baruch " and the " Baruch Apocalypse." Charles, however ("The Composition of Apocalypse of Baruch, "London, 1896), the Apoc- though basing his theories on similar alypse. analyses, considers the Apocalypse to be the work of six or seven authors. He ascribes those parts which do not speak of a personal Messiah to three or four authors whom he calls (Baruch) B 1, 2, 3, and S. B 1 is a Pharisee who expects the reconstruction of Jerusalem and the return of the Diaspora, and who hopes for a Messianic era, but no Messiah. He is the author of i.-ix. 1, xliii.xliv. 7, xlv.-xlvi. 6, lxxvii. -lxxxii., lxxxiv., and lxxxvi. B 2 also is a Pharisee; but he expects nothing more of this wicked world, and bases his hopes entirely upon the future world, where the pious, risen from the dead, will be rewarded, and the godHe is the author of ix.-xii., less will be punished.

xxx.

xiii.-xxv.,

2-xxxv.,

and

xli.-xlii.,

B3

xliv.

8-15,

the author of lxxxv. The chief difference between him and the other authors lies in the fact that he wrote in exile, while they wrote in Palestine. S is the author of x. 6-xii. 4. He is possibly a Sadducee, but perhaps All these sections, according to identical with B 2. Charles, date from the period after the destruction of the Temple; but the Apocalyptic parts, xxxvi.-xl. and liii.-lxxiv. as to which Charles agrees with Kabisch in assigning them to two authors (xxxvi.3) date from the time xl. to 2 liii.-lxxiv. 1 to of the existence of the Temple. To this period, but to another author called 1, Charles ascribes also xxvii.-xxx. 1. These three apocalypses, the work of A 1, 2, and 3,have one point in common namely, they express Messianic beliefs, though they disagree as to the characteristics of the Messiah. It is this Messianic tendency which distinguishes these parts from the other constituents of the work. The various elements of the Apocalypse, according to Charles, were united by a redactor who was himself the author of the shorter sections. Though it is true that the Apocalypse consists of some dissimilar elements, the divisions of the work made by Charles are hardly justifiable. It is Clement (" Theologische Studienund Kritiken," 1898, pp. 227 et seq.) who has most fully shown that many supposed contradictions are not wholly such. The section x. 6-xii. 4, which Charles ascribes to a Sadducee, not only has its parallels in rabbinical literature, as shown above, but is based on Pharisaic institutions. Nor is it in conflict with this view that the author should have used some old material, such as the vision of the cedar, which dates from before the destruction of the Second Temple, while the greater part of the work originated in the time following this catastrophe. The integrity of the Apocalypse is also disputed by some scholars who believe that Its originally itwas longer than at present. Integrity. The missing parts are the cosmic revIxxv.,

xlvii.-lii.,

lxxxiii.

is

—

A

A



—

A

A

A



Baruch in lxxvi. two and one-half tribes spoken

elations promised to

and the

letter to the

of in lxxvii.

9.

Now,

it is

probable that the author