3. The Unity of the foregoing analysis will spew that every part of this epistle contributes to the development of the main design of the writer, thus demonstrating the unity of the whole. This is moreover corroborated by the uni formity of diction which prevails throughout this document. It must, however, be admitted that hypercriticism may find some ground for scepticism in the latter part of it, viz., ii. 21-41. But even if it could. be shewn that this is a later addition, it would not interfere with the design of the whole.
4. The Author, Date, and Canonicity of the the solitary exception of the learned and eccentric William Whiston (A Collection of Authentzc Records, part i., page 25, London, 1727), this epistle has been and still is regarded by all scholars as pseudepigraphic, and we question whether a critic could be found in the present day bold enough to defend its Baruchic authorship. All that we can gather from the document itself is-r. That it was written by a yew, as is evident, A, from the Hagadic story, mentioned in i. 13-15, about the destruction of the walls and forts by the angels, and the hiding of the holy vessels (comp. also z Mace. ii. 1-4) ; B, from the solemn admoni tion strictly to adhere to the law of/I:roses ; C, from the charge that this epistle be transmitted by the Jews to their posterity, together with the law of Moses, and be read in their assemblies at their fasts. And 2, that it was written most probably about the middle of the second century B. C. , as ap pears from the admonition to be patient under the sufferings from the Gentiles, and to wait for the day of judgment which is close at hand (i. 37-41), and the
frequent reference to a future life. The canonicity of this epistle has not been defended even by the Romish Church, and yet strange to say, Whiston maintains that it is canonical. But in this, as in the authorship of it, Mr. Whiston, as far as we know, has not been followed by any one.
5. The Literature on this Epistle-We have already remarked that this epistle has only been preserved to us in Syriac, which is printed in the Paris and London Polyglots, and in Latin in J. A. Fabricii Cod. Pseudepigr.V.T., ii. p. 147, etc. Yet strange to say, though numerous expositors, both ancient and modern, have commented upon all the other apocryphal books, this interesting relic has been almost totally neglected. Ewald (Geschi ate des Volkes Israel, iv., p. 233), and Fritzsche (Exege tisches Handbuch an den Apobyphen, i. p. 175), contemptuously dismiss it in a few lines, and most unjustly regard it as written ' in a prolix and sense less style' by a monk. Whiston, as far as we know, is the only one who has, though faultily, translated it into English (Collection of Authentic Records, part i., p. 13, etc.; London, 1727). It is high time that this relic of antiquity should have due attention paid to it, especially as the beautiful edition of the Apocrypha, in Syriac, just published Veteris Testamenti Apocryphi Syriace, Re cogn., Paul. Anton. de Lagarde, Lond., I86r), has made it accessible to all scholars.