2 Baruch

Historical printed page 475

INTRODUCTION It is interesting to find that some of Kabisch’s conclusions were reached independently at about the same date by a French scholar, De Faye, Les Apocalypses juives, 1892, pp. 25-8, 76-103, 192-204. De Faye like Kabisch distinguishes xxxvi-xl and liii-Ixxv as distinct works written before A. Ὁ. 70. The rest of his conclusions are less satisfactory. i-xxxii. 6 constitute an Apocalypse of Baruch _ written after A.D. 70; i-v and vi-xxxii. 6, however, being originally derived from two different authors. Another distinct work was the Assumption of Baruch, i. e. xlviii—lii, xliii. 1-2, Ixxvi. 1-4, written after A.D. 70, xxxii. 7—xxxv, xli-xlvii. 2, Ixxvi. 5-Ixxxvii are for the most part the work of the final editor, but xliv. 9-15, xlvi. 7 was due to a Christian reviser. On the whole this analysis is less convincing than that of Kabisch. Since the above solutions of the complex problems before us are inadequate, the present writer addressed himself afresh to the task in 1895-6. From the conclusions then arrived at he has seen no good ground for departing save in a few minor points. With Kabisch and De Faye I recognize the fact that two distinct types of documents are present in our book, the one of an optimistic character as to Israel’s future on Earth and the other of a pessimistic character in this respect. To the former type I assign the three Messianic Apocalypses xxvii-xxx. I ; xxxvi-x] ; liii-lxxiv, which for convenience’ sake I designate A}, A?, A%, and a short original Apocalypse of Baruch Β΄. In the remaining sections are B?, B°, the contents of which we shall determine presently, the doctrine of a Messianic kingdom is absolutely relinquished. : Different documents behind the Text. Thus A‘, A*, A®, B' agree in presenting an optimistic view of Israels future and inculcating the hope of a Messianic kingdom: whereas in B*, B® the hopes of the righteous are directed to the immediate advent of the final judgement and the spiritual world. (For details see my edition pp. 49, 61, 87, 65-69, 119, 140.) But at this point a difference between Αἰ, A?, Α3 and B! emerges. The former look for a Messiah at the head of the kingdom, but B! for a kingdom without the Messiah. Their relative dates. As we pursue our study we discover further that: 1° In A}, Α", A3 Jerusalem is still standing—hence they were written before A.D. 70; whereas in B}, B2, B® it is already destroyed (though in B! it is to be restored): 2° In ΑἹ, A®, A%, it is only to the actual inhabitants of Palestine that the promise of protection is given in the time of the Messianic woes (see xxix. 2; xl. 2; xxi. 1)—thus the Jews are still in Palestine ; but in B!, B*, B®, they are already in exile. In B! they are ultimately to be restored. Facts confirming the above conclusions. A cursory examination of the books reveals the scheme of the final editor. According to this scheme the book was divided into seven sections separated by six fasts. Each of the last six of these sections thus opens with or is preceded by a fast: cp. v. 7, ix. 2, xii. 5, xxi. 1,(mention of fifth fast which should occur after xxxv is,lost), xlvii. 2. In each section a definite movement or order of events is observed. This order briefly is: first a fast, then a divine command or revelation and finally the publication of the command or matter revealed unless accom- panied by a prohibition. to do so as in xx. 3. In some cases a prayer follows the fast xxi. 3, xlviii. 1, and a lamentation the publication of the divine disclosure x. 6 (see the notes in my edition pp. 1, 9, 13, 36,61). This being so, it is significant that in the addresses on xxxi. 2-xxxiv, xlvi. 4-6, Ixxvii. 1-17 there is not a single reference to the Messianic Apocalypses Αἱ, Α΄, A, From this it follows that A’, A?, A® have no real organic connexion with the rest of the book B!, B?, B*. Their removal serves to restore some cohesion to the text (see my edition xxx. 2 note, xli note, Ixxv-Ixxvi note). The relations of A‘, A*, A® to each other. A’ is of distinct authorship from A? and A®; for whereas in A’ the Messiah pursues a passive réle and does not appear till the enemies of Israel are destroyed and the kingdom established, in A*, A® it is the Messiah that destroys the enemies of Israel and establishes the kingdom. A* and Αϑ though differing in some respects may come from the same author. ΑἹ] three Apocalypses were written before A.D. 70. The relations of B, B*, ΒΡ to each other. Since B* consists of a single chapter we shall deal with it first. B* = lexxv. This chapter agrees with B, B® in being written after A.D. 70; but differs from Β' and agrees with B? in despairing of a national restoration, and in looking only for spiritual blessedness in the world of incorruption. But again it differs from B? also, in that B® was written in Jerusalem or Judaea, whereas B* was written in Babylon or some other land of the dispersion, Ixxxv. 3—in the former most probably ; for it was written in Hebrew. “Again whereas, according to B*, Jeremiah was with the captivity in Babylon, it is here definitely stated that the righteous and the prophets are dead, and that the exiles have none to intercede for them, Ixxx. 1,2. Thus B® is a fragment written in Hebrew after‘a.D. 70 by an exile probably in Babylon. 81 B’—their extent and characteristics. Even the elimination of the preceding sections does not leave a coherent whole as we have already seen. Thus i-ix. 1, xxxii. 2-4, xliii-xliv. 7, xlv-xlvi, 475