2 Baruch

Historical printed page 473

INTRODUCTION during the years in which I was engaged in the preparation of the work which was published in 1896. The necessity for postulating a Hebrew original which was first shown in this work was subsequently maintained by Wellhausen (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. 234), Ryssel (Apok. und Pseudepig. A. T., 1900, ii. 411), and Ginzberg (Fewish Encyc. ii. 555). As regards the grounds for this conclusion, I will here be as brief as possible, and adduce only the following. 1° What is true of 4 Ezra the sister work, which was written in Hebrew, is true also of our Apocalypse. 2°. The quotations from the Old Testament agree with the Massoretic text except in one case. 3°. There are many paronomasiae which discover themselves on retranslation into Hebrew. 4°. Many passages in the book have been preserved in Talmudic and Rabbinic writings. 5°. Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew. 1°. It is now an accepted view that 4 Ezra was written in Hebrew. Since the two books show in nearly every respect the closest affinities it may provisionally be accepted that as the former is derived from a Hebrew original so also is the latter. In my edition of 2 Baruch in 1896 I pointed out (p. lxxii) the necessity of assuming a Hebrew original for 4 Ezra. Inthe same year Wellhausen (Gott. Gel, Anz., pp. 12-13) insisted on the same necessity, and demonstrated this necessity in his Skissen u. Vorarbetten, vi. 234-40, 1899. 2°. See my edition, pp. xlv sq., 169. 3°. In xv. 8 there are two paronomasiae. Thus ‘Labour with much trouble’ = pwa dyy and ‘crown with great glory’ ΠΊΝΒΠΣ Ay (see notes 27 Joc.). But these need not necessarily postulate a Hebrew original; the following cases undoubtedly do. Thus in xxi. 14 (see note for the Hebrew) we have a stanza of three lines, each line of which contains a rhyme within it. The writer is so fond of the last of these that he repeats it exactly in xlviii. 35 and partially in Ixxxiii.12. In xlviii. 35 we have another and still more remarkable instance of paronomasia. In this stanza there are three lines, the first, second, and fourth of which respectively contain this rhyming or alliterative character, but not the third. But even a cursory examination makes it clear that the third line is corrupt. It is against the parallelism and structure of the adjoining three lines. In the notes on the passage the reader will find an attempt to restore the original text, in which a paronomasia is recovered and also a parallelism in sense and structure with the adjoining lines. Again, in Ixiii. 3, 4 there were undoubtedly plays in the Hebrew on the names of Hezekiah and Sennacherib. There is probably another instance of this play on words in Ixxxiii. το, certainly in 1xxxiii. 14, and possibly in Ixxxiv. 2. The above evidence is of a very convincing character. 4°. Many sections of our book have exact parallels in the Talmudic and Rabbinic writings. Thus in ii. 1-2 Jeremiah is bidden to leave Jerusalem (implicitly) on the ground that it could not be destroyed so long as Jeremiah was in it. This is explicitly stated in Pesikta r.c. 26 (131a ed. Friedmann). On the interpolated passage on the heavenly Temple cf. Sakka 41a, Taanith 5a. The account of the destruction of Jerusalem, vi-viii, is substantiated at times verbally by Pesikta r. (loc. cit.). The poetical incident in x. 18 is recounted as a literal fact in Taanith 29a, Lev. τ. xix. 6 ; Pesikta v. 26. See note iz Joc. With the marvel of the burning of the bodies of the host of Sennacherib, Ixiii. 8, cf. Sanh. 94a, while the legend of the brazen horse, Ixiv. 8, is found in Pesikta Rab Kahana, xxv. 162. See Ginzberg in Few, Encyc. ii. 553. 5°. Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew. We have here the clinching evidence of a Hebrew original. First of all in the following five passages xxi. 9, 11, 12; xxiv. 2; Ixii. 7 I have been able to explain and restore an unintelligible text by retranslation first into Greek and thence into Hebrew. The Syriac in these verses is the stock rendering of δικαιοῦσθαι, αηα this in turn of pty. Now pty can mean either δικαιοῦσθαι or δίκαιος εἶναι. In the five passages above cited the context can admit only of the latter meaning ; but the translator, who was probably a Christian and therefore influenced by the Christian doctrine of justification, wrongly adopted the former rendering. Ryssel has accepted without acknowledge- ment my restoration of these five passages. Next in vi. 7 ‘ephod’ is undoubtedly corrupt for ‘ark’ (see note). The corruption can have arisen either in the Hebrew or even in the Syriac, i.e. Jya9/ corrupt for οὐ, but the former is more likely. In xxi. 22 the text can be restored by retranslation into Hebrew. See note. In xliv. 12 we arrive at a very interesting restoration, which Ryssel adopts without acknowledgement. In the Syriac the phrase ‘on its beginning’ is set over against ‘to torment’ as its antithesis. Here the context requires ‘to its blessedness’. Now the Syriac = wena, which is obviously a corruption of ὙΦ = ‘to its blessedness’. In lvi. 6 ‘boasting’ is out of place, enumerated as it is along with 473