APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH The discovery of this long lost apocalypse was due to Ceriani. This apocalypse has survived only in the Syriac version of which Ceriani discovered a 6th century ms. in the Milan library. The Syriac is translated from the Greek; for Greek words are occa sionally transliterated, and passages can be explained only on the hypothesis that the wrong alternative meanings of certain Greek words were followed by the translator. The Greek in turn is derived from the Hebrew, for unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew.
As there are undoubtedly conflicting elements in the book, it is possible to assume either a diversity of authorship or a diver sity of sources. A short summary may here be given of the grounds on which a diversity of authorship has been postulated. If the letter to the tribes in captivity (lxxviii.–lxxxvi.) be dis regarded, the book falls into seven sections separated by fasts, save in one case (after xxxv.) where the text is probably de fective. These sections, which are of unequal length, are—(1) 1.–v. 6; (2) v. 7–viii. ; (3) ix.–xii. 4; (4) xii. 5–xx. ; (5) xxi .–xxxv. ; (6) xxxvi.–xlvi. ; (7) xlvii.–lxxvii. These treat of the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theo logical questions relating to original sin, free will, works, the number of the saved, the nature of the resurrection body, etc. The views expressed on several of the above subjects are often conflicting. In one class of passages there is everywhere manifest a vigorous optimism as to Israel's ultimate well-being on earth, and the blessedness of the chosen people in the Messianic king dom is sketched in glowing and sensuous colours (xxix., xxxix. xl., lxiii.–lxxiv.). Over against these passages stand others of a hopelessly pessimistic character, wherein, alike as to Israel's present and future destiny on earth, there is written nothing save "lamentation, and mourning, and woe." The world is a scene of corruption, its evils are irremediable, its end is nigh, and the advent of the new and spiritual world is at hand.
The affinities of this book and IV. Ezra are so numerous that Ewald and Ryle assumed identity of authorship. But their points of divergence are so weighty that this view cannot be sustained. Three courses still remain open. If we assume that both works are composite, we shall perforce admit that some of the con stituents of IV. Ezra are older than the latest of Baruch, and that other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than the re maining ones of IV. Ezra. On the other hand, if we assume unity of authorship, it seems impossible to arrive at finality on the chronological relations of these two works. Langen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Stahelin, Renan, Hausrath, Drummond, Dillmann, Rosenthal and Gunkel have maintained on various grounds the priority of IV. Ezra; and Schiirer, Bissell, Thomson, Deane, Kabisch, De Faye, Wellhausen and Ryssel the priority of Baruch on grounds no less convincing.
A very close relation subsists between this book and rabbinical Iiterature; in some instances they are almost word for word.
In lxxvii. 19 it is said that Baruch wrote two epistles, one to the nine and a half tribes and the other to the two and a half at Babylon. The former is found in lxxviii.—lxxxvi. ; the latter is lost, but is probably preserved either wholly or in part in the Book of Baruch, iii. 9—iv. 29. On the other hand, it is not neces sary to infer from lxxv. that an account of Baruch's assumption was to be looked for in the book.
The literature is cited in R. H. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. xxx.—xliii. Ginzberg's article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, ii. is a fresh and valuable contribution.