5. The Author, Date, and Original Language of the Epistle. —That Baruch, the companion of Jere miah, is the personated and not the real author of this epistle is evident from its historical inaccuracies and contradictions, of which neither Baruch, nor any one else contemporary with the circumstances therein described, would have been guilty, as wi.l be seen from the following instances :—x. The epistle is dated the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, whereas Baruch was at that time in Egypt with Jeremiah (Jer. xliii. 3, 6, etc.) 2. Jer usalem is said to have been burnt with fire in the reign of Jeconiah (2, 3), whereas it was only cap tured. 3. Jeconiah is described as present in the great assembly, before which Baruch read thk. epistle (3), whereas he was in prison till the begin ning of Evil-Merodach's reign (2 Kings xxv. 27). 4. Joahim is mentioned as high-priest at Jerusalem (i. 7), whereas Jehozadak filled this office in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem Citron. vi. 15). 5. In chap. i. 2, Jerusalem is described as burnt with fire, whereas in i. the temple service is represented as still in ex istence. 6. Israel is addressed in iii. io, as `waxen old in a strange country,' whereas according to i. 2, it is only the fifth year of their captivity. 7. The writer uses the Septuagint translation of Jere miah, which was made several centuries after Baruch (comp. i. 9 with Jer. xxiv. I ; ii. 4 with Jer. xl. i 1 (Sept. xlix.), 18 ; ii. 23 with Jer. xxxiii. (xl.) io, l i ; ii. 25 with Jer. xxxvi. (xliii.) 30). 8. He moreover uses portions of the Old Testament which were written after Baruch (comp. i. 15-17, with Dan. ix. 7-10; Neh. ix. 32 ; ii. I, 2, with Dan. ix. 12, 13 ; ii. 7-19, with Dan. ix. 13-18, Neh. ix. so). The fact that the writer used the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah and Daniel, shews that this epistle is of a late date, and was most probably written, as Keil remarks, about the middle of the second century, B. c. The opinion that the original language of this epistle was Hebrew (Huet, Calmet, Movers, Hitzig, de Wette, Herz feld, Ewald, etc.), or that only the first part (i.-Hi. 8) was written in Hebrew (Fritzsche, Riitschi, Davidson, etc.) is regarded by Grotius, Eichhorn, Berthold, and Keil, as having very little to sustain it, and is contradicted by St. Jerome (Pmf in Vers. Yen, Pray: in Expos. der. ), and Epi phanius (De mews. et pond, c. 5). The Hebraisms simply prove that it was written by a Greek speak ing Hebrew, whilst the so-called Greek mis-trans.
lations from the Hebrew are more apparent than real, and have been ably refuted by Keil (Einlei tang, p. 729).
6. The Canonicity of this epistle is neither quoted in the New Testament nor by the apostolic Fathers; it is not given in the Jewish catalogues of their canon (L'aba L'athra, 15) ; nor is it mentioned by the Fathers who reproduce these catalogues (e. g., Melito, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, etc.) It does not exist in Hebrew, and was regarded as uncanonical by those Fathers who were best acquainted with the Hebrews and their sacred literature. Thus St. Jerome remarks, • Libellum Baruch, qui vulgo editioni Septuaginta copulatur, nec habetur aped liebneos ; et 4,etZe epistolam Jereinim nequaquam censui dis serendam' (Prof. in expos. yen, comp. also Prof. in Vers. yer.), and Epiphanius (De mens. et pond. c. 5), oil iceivrat erwroXal (Bapoil) Eppatots. It is true that it was quoted by many Fathers, both in the east and in the west, since the time of Ire.
emus, as sacred and scripture, but they used these terms in a general sense, as John Driedo, one of the chief Roman Catholic writers, who also dis putes the canonicity of this epistle, remarks :— Cyprianus, Ambrosius, ceterique patres citant sententias ex libro Baruch, et 3 et 4 Esrm, non tanquam ex canonicis libris, sed tanquam ex libris contincntibus qumdam pia, juvantia et non con traria sed consona potius fidei nostrm' (De Cat. Script. lib. I. c. 4 ad Difficult, 11. Opp. Lovan 155o, t. i., p. 22). So also Melchior Canus, Nam ut in secundo libro docuimus, libellum Baruch non adeo explorate et firmiter in sacrorum immero ecclesia reposuit, ut ant illum esse sacrum fidei catholicm vcritas expedita sit, aut non esse sacrum hmresis expedita sit' (Opp. Colon., 1605, p. 588 ; see also Whitaker's Disputation on Scripture, p. 67, etc., Parker Society edition).
7. Literature on the Epistle.—Arnald, A Critical Commentary upon the Apocryphal Books; Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Israel von der Zerstoruseg des ersten Tempels, etc., 1847, pp. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, iv. pp. 230-233 ; De Wette, Einleit sing in die Bibel, 1852, p. 424, etc. ; Davidson, The Text of the Old Testament Considered, etc., p. 103, etc. ; Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches IIandbuck zu den Apocsyphen des A. T., i., p. 167, etc. Keil, Einleitung, etc., 1859, p. 725, etc.—C. D. G.