Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/605

555 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

555 did not

mean

to give a full account of the cosmic but merely mentioned them because, according to a wide-spread opinion (Sifre, Num. 136 compare Ascension), every pious man before bis death obtained a view of the world and its doings, and the experience could not fail to be ascribed to Baruch. In regard to the letter to the two and one-

revelations,

half tribes, Charles (ib., Introduction, p. 65) has propounded a very likely theory. He suggests that a part of the Book of Baruch namely, iii. 9-iv. 29 is a recast of the letter to the two and one-half tribes mentioned in the Apocalypse of Baruch, and that i. 1-3 of the Book of Baruch was originally the introduction to the letter. But it is not impossible that both letters the one to the two and one-half tribes and that to the nine and one-half tribes originally formed one work, from which both the Book of Baruch and the Apocalypse of Baruch were derived. Details concerning the destruction of the Temple, which were merely touched upon in the letters, were added and, with the addition of other kindred material, each letter gave rise to a new book. If it be granted that with the exception of a few additions the Apocalypse is the work of one writer, the question arises as to the time of its authorship. The earliest possible date is 70 for though the author is silent concerning the overthrow of the Temple, and seeks to convey the idea that Baruch is the real author, he betrays the fact that the destruction has taken place (xxxii. 2-4). There is only one datum for a decision of the latest possible date, and that is derived from an investigation of the relationship of IV Esdras and the Apocalypse. That some relationship does exist between them is indubitable. The mode of expression, the line of thought, and the arrangement agree in a number of instances (these are enumerated by Charles, ib. pp. 170

—

—

—

—





The Apoc-

et

seq.).

It is difficult to

determine

alypse

which is the earlier work, since there are no internal evidences to judge by. and IV Esdras. The fact that the author of IV Esdras was a far better stylist than the author of the Apocalypse is not to be disputed but the deduction made by Gunkel (Kautsch, " Apokryphen

diately after,

Baruoh, Apocalypse of

Baruch

sees his visions;

while Ezra

gives his revelations thirty years after the destruction. Consequently, the exact date can not be determined but it is probable that it was written between the years 70 and 130. Though there is no evidence that Papias, the disciple of the apostles, used the Baruch Apocalypse, yet, since there are no allusions to the persecutions of Hadrian, the Apocalypse was in all likelihood written before Bar Kokba's revolt. There is no doubt that the present Syriac form of the Apocalypse was derived from the Greek but that language is scarcely to be regarded as the one in which it was originally written. Though the many Hebraisms do not necessarily indicate a Hebrew original, certain passages distinctly point to a Hebrew source. For instance, verse 13 of chapter x. can not be fully understood unless it is assumed that the NeoHebrew DJ3 stood originally in the passage. The betrothed men are told not to marry (D'JJin DJ1K1



1DJ3D PX) and the Syriac " enter " could have come only from DJ3 with its double meaning of " marry " and "enter a house." A translation into Hebrew of

xxi. 14

Wv

would read nyiV, 'prb 1SHJ, ^n DH ]1T"6 ptD and this affords a pretty exam-

'SH^, BT

I



ple of the favorite Neo-Hebraic paronomasia.

In the

same chapter the "holy beings," who elsewhere can not be identified with angels, are properly the " hayyot ha-kodesh " of Jewish angelology. This expression was rendered by the S3'rians and before them by the Greeks as " holy beings " instead of " holy animals." In lvi. 6 it is said that the fall of man brought mourning, sorrow, misery, and boastfulness The term "boastfulness" is eviinto the world. dently inappropriate the translator may have mis:

taken the Hebrew D^an (" pangs ") for D^Hn (" nothings," "vanity"), which would then easily suggest "boastfulness."

noteworthy that the Apocalypse contains idiomatic expressions peculiar not to the Hebrew of the Bible, but to Neo-Hebrew, Language especially to the old liturgy. "The righteous who sleep in the earth," in and Locality, xi. 4, is a phrase occurring in the " Shemoneh 'Esreh" and the exaggerated figure in liv. 8 is remarkably like similar phrases The expression in xli. 4, in the Nishmat prayer. "have taken refuge under Thy pinions," is modeled after the Neo-Hebraic " to run away from the pinions of the Shekinah" (Sifre, Deut. 306 [ed. It

is

many



und Pseudepigraphen, "

ii.

351), that

IV Esdras is the

work, is not necessarily to be drawn from it a better style does not bespeak originality. Wellhausen ("Skizzen und Vorarbeiten," vi. 249) argues no better for the opposite view, that the Apocalypse He bases his opinion on the is the earlier work. choice of the name " Baruch" since Baruch preceded Ezra in time, having actually witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, therefore the work bearing his name should be the earlier. But that Ezra lived earlier

•

after the destruction of the city is no argument for In rabbinical the later date of the Ezra Apocalypse. literature Ezra holds a position similar to that of

Moses (Sifre, Deut. 48 [ed. Friedmann, 846)] while Baruch is not generally recognized as a prophet (compare Baruch ben Neriaii in Rabbinical Literature). Ezra, as the more important person, might naturally have been first thought of as the author of an apocalypse. The name once adopted, the situation had to be in accordance with it and, therefore, in the Baruch Apocalypse the period of the destruction of Jerusalem is described, and, imme;



Friedmann, VSOb], but comp. Ruth ii. 12). Another proof that Hebrew was the original language of the Apocalypse is its almost literal agreement with the Pesikta Rabbati in several passages. There is no reason to suppose that the author or, to be more exact, the redactor— of the Pesikta used the Apocalypse in its present form and the agreement is to be explained on the ground that the old Midrash upon which the Pesikta drew in describing the destruction of the Temple was derived from a time when the Apocalypse was still read by the Jews. The poetical parts of the Apocalypse are especially Hebraic in character. Following is a specimen taken from Baruch's lament over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple it is one of the few existing specimens of Hebrew poetry from the period immedi-

—





ately following Scriptural times