(5) Among the fathers the book of Baruch is cited generally as part of the book of Jeremiah— by Irenreus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and others. Augustine, having cited under the name of Jeremiah the passage in our Bibles, Bartsch iii :35-37, observes : 'Some ascribe this saying not to Jeremiah, bta to Baruch, his amanuensis, but it is now known under the name of Jeremiah (City of God, chap. xxxiii). The book of Baruch is also cited as part of Jeremiah in the Roman office for the Saturday in \Vhitsun week. This mode of citing it most probably ac counts for the fact of its nama being omitted in the ancient catalogues, including those of Flippo and Carthage. It was at length cited as a sep arate book by the Council of Florence, and after wards, not without a struggle (see Father Paul's history), by the Council of Trent.
(6) It is at the same time observed by Calmet that its 'canonicity had been denied not only by the Protestants, but by several Catholics,' among whom he instances Driedo, Lyranus and Diony sius of Carthage. He considers that Jerome treats the book with harshness when (Preface to Jeremiah) that father observes: 'I have not thought it worth while to translate the book of Baruch, which is generally joined in the Sep tuagint version to Jeremiah, and which is not found among the Hebrews, nor the pseudepi graphal epistle of Jeremiah.' This is the epistle forming the sixth chapter of Baruch, the genuine ness of which is questioned by several who ac knowledge that of the former part of the book. Most modern writers of the Roman church, among whom are Du Pin (Canon of Scripture), Calmet (Commentary), and Aliber (Hermeneutica Gcn eralis), reckon this a genuine epistle of Jere miah's. Jahn, however, after St. Jerome, main tains its spurious and pseudepigraphal charac ter. This he conceives sufficiently attested by the difference of style, and its freedom from He braisms. considers it to be an imitation of the epistle of Jeremiah (chap. xxix). This epistle, however, is confessedly more ancient than the second book of Maccabees, for it is there referred to (Macc. ii :2; Comp, with Baruch vi :.I) as an ancient document. The position of this letter varies in manuscripts; it sometimes precedes and sometimes follows Lamentations.
(7) The subject of the book is (r) an exhorta tion to wisdom and a due observance of the law; (2) it then introduces Jerusalem as a widow, comforting her children with the hope of a return; (3) an answer follows in confirmation of this hope. A prologue is prefixed, stating that Baruch had read his book to Jeremiah and the people in Babylon by the river Sud (Euphrates), by which the people were brought to repentance, and sent the book with a letter and presents to Jerusalem.
\V. \V.
(8) The Epistle of Jeremiah, which, according to the authority of some Greek Al SS., stands in the English version as the 6th chapter of Baruch, is the work of a later period. It consists of a rhetorical declamation against idols (Comp. Jer. x; xxix), in the form of a letter addressed by Jeremiah "to them which were to be led captive to Babylon." The letter is divided into clauses by the repetition of a common burden ; they are no gods; fear them not (vv :t6, 23, 29, 66) ; how can a ratan think or say that they are gods? (vv :40, 44, The condition of the text is closely analogous to that of Baruch, and the letter found the same partial reception in the church. The author shows an intimate acquaintance with idola trous worship, and this circumstance, combined with the purity of the Hellenistic dialect, points to Egypt as the country in which the epistle was written. There is no positive evidence to fix its date, for the supposed reference in 2 Macc. ii :2 is more than uncertain, but it may be assigned with probability to the first century B. C.
(9) A Syriac first epistle of Baruch "to the nine and a half tribes" (Comp. 2 Esdr, xiii :40, Vers.
Arab.) is found in the London and Paris Poly glots. This is made up of commonplaces of warn ing. encouragement and exhortation. Fritzschc (Lint.. sec. 8) [with whom Davidson agrees tintrod. to the O. T., in:424)] considers it to be the production of a Syrian monk. It is not found in any other language. Whiston (A Cr llection of Authentic Records, etc.. London. 1727. 1:1 IT., 25 ff.) endeavored to maintain the .anonicity of this epistle as well as that of the B ok of Baruch (Brooke Foss Westcott. Smith's bib. Diet.) (10) The epistle called the Apocalypse of Baruch was discovered by Ceriani. This hook has survived only in the Syrian version, of which Ceriani hail the good fortune to discover a sixth century MSS. in the Milan Library. Of this MSS. he published a Latin translation in t866 (Mon. JaCY. 1. 11:73-981. which Fritzsche repro duced with some changes in 187t (Libri Apn r3thi U. T. pp. 654-099). The Syriac text ap il'•red in 'S71 (.1/on. Sacr. v. ii:It3-18o), and a Aoto-lithographical facsimile of the MS. in 18.81.
fragment of this hook has long been known the Ykorld, viz., ells. IX XViii •IXXXVII. which ,onstaute Baruch's Epistle to the nine and a half tribes that had been carried away captive. This letter is to be ;mind in the London and Paris Polyglots in Syriac, with a Latin rendering; in Syriac alone in Lagarde's Libri I*. T. Apocryphi Syriace, Ott. The Latin translation is also found in Fabricius' Cod. Pseudepig. V. T., and the English in Whiston's Authentic Records (R. 11. Charles, I lastings' Bib. Diet.) •