Who was the translator? A comparison of the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah with that of Baruch will suggest the answer. The agreement between the two is remarkable. Constructions, phrases, and words are the same in them, so that we may conjecture with Ewald and Hitzig that the same translator appears. The words /3a8iw, aTroa-ToX-rj, ^apfj.oa"uinj, yaupia/xa, SeoyAWT^?, aTroiKicr/xos, ovofj.a p.ov fTTLKaXeLo-dat lirL TLVI are common to both. The LXX. ver sion of Jeremiah was not made till the 1st century B.C. or later ; and Theodotion s translation or recension of it in the second. It is some confirmation of the opinion that Greek was not the original when marginal notes are found in the Hexaplar-Syriac version printed by Ceriani, in which the Hebrew is repeatedly referred to. Nothing seems to disprove the assumption that Theodotion, from whose version that of Paul of Tela was taken, had the
Hebrew original before him.Though Baruch professes to have written the book, a later writer speaks in his name. Jeremiah s faithful friend is said to have composed it at Babylon. This view is untenable on the following grounds:—
1. The work contains historical inaccuracies. Jeremiah was living in the fifth year after the destruction of Jeru salem, yet the epistle is dated that year at Babylon. It is unlikely that Baruch left Jeremiah, since the two friends were so united. According to Baruch i. 3, Jeconiah was present in the great assembly before which the epistle was read, whereas we learn from 2 Kings xxv. 27 that he was kept a prisoner as long as Nebuchadnezzar lived. Joakim is supposed to be high priest at Jerusalem (i. 7). But we learn from 1 Chron. vi. 1 5 that Jehozadak filled that office the fifth year after Jerusalem was destroyed. In i. 2 there is an error. The city was not burned when Jehoiachim was carried away. And if the allusion be to the destruc tion of the city by Nebuchadnezzar, the temple and its worship are supposed still to exist in i. 8-10. The parti culars narrated are put into the fifth year of the exile; yet we read, "Thou art waxen old in a strange country" (iii. 10).
2. Supposing Baruch himself to have been the writer, books later than his time are used in the work. Nehemiah is followed, as in ii. 11 (comp. Nehem. ix. 10). But Eichhorn s language is too strong in calling the contents "a rhapsody composed of various writings belonging to Hebrew antiquity, especially Daniel and Nehemiah."[1]
The date of the work is given indefinitely in i. 2, " In the fifth year, and in the seventh day of the month, what time as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire." The natural meaning of these words is, " The fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar," not " the fifth year of Jehoiachim s captivity." The day is given, not the month ; and therefore De Wette conjectures that eret should be fn-qvi; but MS. authority is against him. It is probable that the name of the month has dropped out, i.e., Sivan. The Palestinian abode of the writer is pretty clear, especially from the melancholy view of death pre sented in ii. 17, iii. 19, resembling that in Psalms vi. 6, Ixxviii. 18, ciii. 29. In Alexandria the Jews had attained to a clear idea of immortality, in Palestine not. The translation was made in Egypt, which accounts for various expressions savouring of Alexandrianism, as in iii., 23, 24, 26. There are evident points of contact between Daniel and Baruch, as appears from Baruch i. 15-18, which agrees almost verbally with Daniel ix. 7-10. So ii. 1, 2 coincide with Daniel ix. 12, 13; and ii. 7-17 with Daniel ix. 13-18. Hitzig thinks the two authors were identical, but this can hardly be allowed; for the tone and atmosphere of Baruch bear no perceptible trace of the Syrian persecutions or Maccabean struggle. Daniel bor rowed from Baruch pretty closely in some passages. We suppose that the translator was separated from the author by a considerable period, probably 200 years. Perhaps the author lived about 300-290 B.C.
According to Jerome and Epiphanius, the Jews did not receive the book into their canon ; nor is it in the lists given by Josephus, Melito, and others. It has been thought, however, that Origen considered it canonical, because in his catalogue of sacred books he gives Lamentations and "the epistle" along with Jeremiah; and Jeremiah s epistle formed a part of Baruch. The testimony of Origen on this point is perplexing ; but it is conceivable that some Jews may have thought very highly of the book in his time, though its authority was not generally admitted among their co-religionists.[2] From the position which the book occupied in the Septuagint, i.e., either before or after Lamentations, it was often considered an appendix to Jeremiah by the early Christians, and was regarded in the same light, and of equal authority. Hence the words of it were often quoted as Jeremiah s by Irenseus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. Cyril of Jerusalem reckons it with the canonical books, among the at OeoTrveva-Toi or $etai ypaqW ; and the epithets so applied cannot be ex plained away by Protestants.
The versions are the two Latin, a Syriac, and an Arabic. The Latin one in the Vulgate belongs to a time prior to Jerome, and is tolerably literal. Another, somewhat later, was first published by Jos. Maria Caro in 1688, and was reprinted by Sabatier, side by side with the ante-Hieronymian one, in his Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinos Versiones Antique.[3] It is founded upon the preceding one, and is less literal. The Syriac and Arabic versions, printed in the London Polyglott, are literal. The Hexaplar-Syriac version, made by Paul, bishop of Tela, in the beginning of the 7th century, has been published by Ceriani.[4] The most convenient editions of the Greek text are Tischendorf s, in the second volume of his Septuagint, and Fritzsche s in Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Greece, 1871. (See David son s Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. iii ; Kurzge- fasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des alien Testaments, erste Lieferung; Ewald s Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iv. ; De Wette s Einleitung, 321-323; Welte s Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des A. T., zweyter Theil, dritte Abtheilung.
Epistle of Jeremy.—An epistle of Jeremiah s is often appended to Baruch, forming the sixth chapter. Accord ing to the inscription, it was sent by the prophet by God s command to the Jews who were to be carried captive to Babylon. The writer describes the folly and absurdity of idolatry in a declamatory style, with repetitions somewhat like refrains. Thus, in verses 16, 23, 29, 65 occurs the sentence, " Whereby they are known not to be gods ; there fore fear them not ;" " How should a man then think and say that they are gods," in 40, 44, 56, 64, 69; "How then cannot men perceive that they be no gods," in 49, 52. These and other repetitions are unlike Jeremiah s. The concluding verse is abrupt.
the contents and form are derived from Jeremiah x. 1-16 and xxix. 4-23. Its combination with Baruch is purely accidental. It could not have been written by Jeremiah, though many Catholic theologians maintain that it was. The Hellenist betrays himself in a few instances, as when he speaks of kings, verses 51, 53, 56, 59. Though Welte tries
to prove that the epistle was written in Hebrew, which is
