Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

BARUCH

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V03, Page 454 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

BARUCH , the name (meaning " Blessed " in See also:

Hebrew) of a See also:character in the Old Testament (Jer. See also:xxxvi., See also:xxxvii., xliii.), associated with the See also:prophet See also:Jeremiah, and described as his secretary and spokesman. See also:BooK OF BARUCH. This deutero-canonical book of the Old Testament is placed by the LXX. between Jeremiah and See also:Lamentations, and in the See also:Vulgate after Lamentations. It consists of several parts, which cohere so badly that we are obliged to assume See also:plurality of authorship. Contents.—The book consists of the following parts: i. 1-14. The See also:historical See also:preface with a description of the origin and purpose of the book. i. 15-ii. 5. A See also:confession of See also:sin used by the Palestinian Remnant. This confession was according to i.

14 sent from See also:

Babylon (i. 4, 7) to See also:Jerusalem to be read " on the See also:day of the feast and on the days of the See also:solemn See also:assembly." The confession is restricted to the use of the remnant at See also:home (see next See also:paragraph). In this confession there is a See also:national See also:acknowledgment of sin and a recognition of the See also:Exile as a.righteous See also:judgment. ii. 6-iii. 8. A confession of the captives in Babylon and a See also:prayer for restoration. This confession opens as the former(in i. 15) with the words found also in See also:Daniel ix. 7, " To the .See also:Lord our See also:God belongeth righteousness, &c." The confession is of the Exiles and not of the remnant in See also:Palestine, as See also:Marshall has pointed out. Thus it is the Exiles clearly who are speaking in ii. 13, " We are but a few See also:left among the See also:heathen where See also:thou hast scattered us "; ii.

14, " Give us favour in the sight of them which have led us away See also:

captive "; iii. 7, " We will praise thee in our captivity "; iii. 8, " We are yet this day in our captivity where thou hast scattered us." On the other See also:hand the speakers in the confession in i.5 are clearly the remnant in Jerusalem. i. 15, " To the Lord our God belongeth righteousness, but unto us confusion of See also:face . . . to the men of See also:Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem." The Exiles are mentioned by way of contrast to the speakers; ii. 4, 5, " He hath given them to be in subjection to all the kingdoms that are See also:round about us to be a reproach among all the See also:people round about where the Lord hath scattered them.. Thus were they See also:cast down . . . because we sinned against the Lord our God." 1 iii. 9-iv. 4. The glorification of See also:wisdom, that is, of the See also:Law. See also:Israel is bidden to walk in the See also:light of it; it is the See also:glory of Israel and is not to be given to another.

iv. 5-v. 9. See also:

Consolation of Israel with the promise of deliverance and lasting happiness and blessing to Jerusalem. Integrity.—From the foregoing description it seems clear that the book is derived from a plurality of authors. Most scholars, such as Fritzsche, See also:Hitzig, Kneucker, See also:Hilgenfeld, See also:Reuss, agree in assuming that i.-iii. 8 and iii. 9-v. 9 are from distinct writers. But some critics have gone farther. Thus Rothstein (Kautzsch, Apok. and Pseud. i. 213-215) holds that there is no unity in iii.

9-v. 9, but that it is composed of two See also:

independent writings iii. 9-iv. 4 and iv. 5-v. 9. Marshall (See also:Hastings' See also:Bible See also:Dictionary, 1. 251-254) gives a still more complex See also:analysis. He finds in it the See also:work of four distinct writers: i. 1-14, i. 15-iii. 8, iii.

9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9. The See also:

evidence for a fourfold authorship is strong though not convincing. In any See also:case i.-iii. 8 and iii. 9-v. 9 must be ascribed to different authors. See also:Original See also:Language.—(1) Some scholars, as See also:Ewald, Kneucker, See also:Davidson, Rothstein and See also:Konig, believe that the whole book was originally written in Hebrew; (2) Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, See also:Gifford, See also:Schurer, and See also:Toy See also:advocate a Hebrew original of i.-iii. 8 and a See also:Greek original of the See also:rest; (3) Marshall argues that i.-iii. 8 is translated from a Hebrew original, iii.

9-iv. 4 from an Aramaic, and the rest from the Greek; (4) and lastly, Bertholdt, Havernick and See also:

Noldeke regard the Greek as the See also:primitive See also:text. The last view must be put aside as unworkable. For the third no convincing evidence has been adduced, nor does it seem likely that any can be. We have therefore to decide between the two remaining theories. In any case we can hardly err in admitting a Hebrew original of i.-iii. 8. For (I) we have such Hebraisms as ob. . . . See also:Ear' avrw = r5y . . . -we (ii.

Phoenix-squares

26) ; ob. . . . &a.=oe . . . 1178 (ii. 4, 13, 29; See also:

ill. 8); 'Wv . . TO arvevµa aurwv= See also:ems . . nmx (ii. 7). (2) We have meaningless expressions which are really mistranslations of the Hebrew. It is noteworthy that these mistranslations are for the most See also:part found in Jeremiah—a fact which has rightly See also:drawn scholars to the conclusion that we owe the LXX of Baruch i.-iii.

8, and of Jeremiah to the same translator. Thus in i. 9 we have bevµcvrr-s, "prisoner," where the text had .129p and the Greek should have been rendered " locksmith." The same mistranslation is found in Jer. See also:

xxiv. 1, xxxvi. (See also:xxix.) 2. Next in ii. 4 we have a f3arov, " See also:wilderness," where the text had e s and the See also:translation should have EKOVac nv. The same misrendering is found several times in Jeremiah. Again ipy4o'See also:Oat is used in i. 22, U. 21, 22, 24 as a translation of 12y in the sense of " serving," where bovXeieu, ought to have been the rendering. So also in Jer. xxxiv.

(See also:

xxvii.) i1, xxxvii. (See also:xxx.) 8, &c. Again in arOXewv 'Io0a Kai E w@ev 'IepovoaMu the ceOev is a misrendering of mums as in Jer. xi. 6, xl. Toy (Jewish Enc. ii. 556) thinks that the " them" in ii. 4, 5 may be a scribal slip and that we have here not the confession of the Palestinian remnant and that of the Exiles, but simply .a juxtaposition of two forms of confession. (xxxiii.) 10, &c., where the translator should have given YXareu v.l For Sbµl3rlois (ii. 29) See also:pan we should have it?ileos. (3) Finally there are passages where by re-translation we discover that the translator either misread his text or had a corrupt text before him. Thus µavva in i. to is a corrupt translation of ma as elsewhere in a dozen passages of the LXX. In iii.

4 reOP116TWv='c -which the translator should have read as 'so= avOpwnwv. From the above instances, which could be multiplied, we have no hesitation in postulating a Hebrew original of i.-iii. 8. As regards iii. 9-v. 9 the case is different. This See also:

section is See also:free from such notable Hebraisins as we have just dealt with, and no convincing grounds have been advanced to prove that it is a translation from a Semitic original. Date.—The See also:dates of the various constituents of the book are quite uncertain.. Ewald, followed by Gifford and Marshall, assigns i.-iii. 8 to the See also:period after the See also:conquest of Jerusalem by See also:Ptolemy I. in 320 B.C.; Reuss to some decades later; and Fritzsche, Schrade, Kell and Toy to the See also:time of the See also:Maccabees. Hitzig, Kneucker and Scharer assume. that it was written after A.D. 70t See also:Ryle and See also:James (Pss. of See also:Solomon, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.) hold that iv.

31-V. 9 is dependent on the Greek version of Ps. xi., and that, accordingly, Baruch was reduced to its See also:

present See also:form after A.D. 70. The most probable of the above dates appears to be that maintained by Fritzsche, that is, if we understand by the Maccabean times the See also:early decades of the 2nd cent. B.C. For during the palmy days of the Maccabean See also:dynasty the Twelve tribes were supposed to be in Palestine. The See also:idea that the Jewish See also:Kingdom embraced once again the entire nation easily arose when the Maccabees extended their dominion northwards over See also:Samaria and See also:Galilee and eastwards beyond the See also:Jordan. This belief displaced the older one that the nine and a See also:half tribes were still in captivity. With the downfall of the Maccabean dynasty, however, the older idea revived in the 1st cent. A.O. To the beginnings of the 2nd cent. A.D. the view of the dead given in ii.

17 would point, where it is said that those whose See also:

spirits had been taken from their bodies would not give glory unto the Lord. The statement as to the desolate See also:condition of the See also:Temple in ii. 264 is with Kneucker to be rejected as an See also:interpolation. Canonicity.—The Book of Baruch was never accepted as canonical by the Palestinian See also:Jews (Baba Batra 14b), though the Apostolic Constitutions, v. so, See also:state that it was read in public See also:worship on the loth day of the See also:month Gorpiaeus, but this statement can hardly be correct. It was in See also:general use in the See also:church till its canonicity was rejected by the See also:Protestant churches and accepted by the See also:Roman church at the See also:council of See also:Trent. Literature. Versions and See also:Editions.—The versions are the two Latin, a See also:Syriac, and an Arabic. The Latin one in the Vulgate belongs to a time See also:prior to See also:Jerome, and is tolerably literal. Another, somewhat later, was first published by Jos. Maria See also:Caro in 1688, and was reprinted by See also:Sabatier, See also:side by side with the ante-Hieronymian one, in his Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae. It is founded upon the preceding one, and is less literal. The Syriac and Arabic versions, printed in the See also:London Polyglot, are literal.

The 'Hexaplar-Syriac version made by See also:

Paul, See also:bishop of Tella, in the beginning of the 7th See also:century has been published by Ceriani. The most convenient editions of the Greek text are See also:Tischendorf's in the second See also:volume of his See also:Septuagint, and Swete's in vol. iii.; Fritzsche's in Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Graece (1871). The best editions of the book are Kneucker's Das See also:Buck Baruch (1879) ; Gifford's in the See also:Speaker's Apoc. ii. See also the articles in the Encyc. Biblica, Hastings' Bible Dictionary; Scharer, See also:History of Jewish People.

End of Article: BARUCH

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
BARTON, ELIZABETH (c. 1506–1534) 		[next]
BARUGO

Site © 2006 - Net Industries