4 Baruch: Paraleipomena Jeremiou (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature) [1 ed.] 3110269732, 9783110269734

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
INTRODUCTION
I. Greek Texts and Versions
II. Title and Genre
III. Structure
IV. Major Themes and Motifs
V. Original Language and Style
VI. Jewish or Christian?
VII. Scriptural Intertextuality
VIII. Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History
IX. Date, Place, Sitz im Leben
X. Reception History and Modern Scholarship
XI. Bibliography
COMMENTARY
Chapter 1: Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem
Chapter 2: Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch
Chapter 3: The Preservation of the Temple Vessels and Abimelech
Chapter 4: Destruction and Exile
Chapter 5: Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs
Chapter 6: Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah
Chapter 7: Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch
Chapter 8: The Origin of the Samaritans
Chapter 9: Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom
List of Abbreviations
Index of References
Index of Names and Subjects

Citation preview

Dale C. Allison, Jr. 4 Baruch

Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL)

Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Pieter W. van der Horst · Hermann Lichtenberger Doron Mendels · James R. Mueller

De Gruyter

Dale C. Allison, Jr.

4 Baruch Paraleipomena Jeremiou

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-026973-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-026980-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-038548-9 ISSN 1861–6003 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Allison, Dale C., Jr., 1955- author. Title: 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) / Dale C. Allison. Other titles: Four Baruch Description: Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter, [2018] | Series: Commentaries on early ­Jewish literature | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: LCCN 2018016482| ISBN 9783110269734 (print) | ISBN 9783110269802 (e-book : pdf) | ISBN 9783110385489 (e-book : epub) Subjects: LCSH: Paralipomena Jeremiae--Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS1830.P23+ | DDC 229/.913--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018016482 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface My first commentary for the CEJL series was on the Testament of Abraham. I so much enjoyed working on it that, after finishing, I asked the editor of the series, Loren Stuckenbruck, if I could contribute another volume to the series. Happily, no one had yet signed up for the Paraleipomena Jeremiou, so the task became mine. Once again, working outside of my usual area of research, the New Testament, has proven to be both pleasant and profitable. When, many years ago in graduate school, I first read the Paraleipomena, in Jim Charlesworth’s class on the Pseudepigrapha, I assumed that it was Jewish. That assumption held the first time that, decades later, I taught the book in my own class on the Pseudepigrapha. But when, a few years after that, I returned to the book and worked through the Greek with PhD students, I began to have doubts. The Christian elements no longer seemed to me to be confined to the story of Jeremiah’s vision and martyrdom in ch. 9. Indeed, I began to entertain the possibility that the book, although much indebeted to Jewish tradition, could be entirely Christian. Working on this commentary, however, has moved me to revert to a more conventional view, that there was a Jewish edition before the Christian edition. Unlike many, however, I believe that Christian hands have been at work in several places prior to ch. 9. I wish to thank my student assistants, J. P. O’Connor, James Neuman, and Theron Clay Mock, III, for their help with various tasks. I wish further to acknowledge the support of my colleagues in New Tesatment here at Princeton and, above all, my wife’s constant loving encouragement and counsel. She is better than I deserve. Abbreviations are those of the The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). Dale Allison

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-201

Contents Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

INTRODUCTION Greek Texts and Versions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I. II. Title and Genre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. Major Themes and Motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 V. Original Language and Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 VI. Jewish or Christian?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 VII. Scriptural Intertextuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 VIII. Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 IX. Date, Place, Sitz im Leben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 X. Reception History and Modern Scholarship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 XI. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

COMMENTARY Chapter 1: Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem. . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Chapter 2: Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Chapter 3: The Preservation of the Temple Vessels and Abimelech. . . 127 Chapter 4: Destruction and Exile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Chapter 5: Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs. . . . . . 204 Chapter 6: Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Chapter 7: Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Chapter 8: The Origin of the Samaritans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 Chapter 9: Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Index of Names and Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630

INTRODUCTION

I.  Greek Texts and Versions The Greek of the Paraleipomena Jeremiou has come down to us in two recensions, one long, one short. Two dozen mss. preserve the former.1 Harris, for his influential 1889 edition, worked primarily with mss. A (15th cent.; Milan Braidensis AF IX 31 fol. 1–10),2 B (10th century; Jerusalem Panagios Taphos [Patriarchal Library] cod. 34 fol. 251–67b), and C (10th–11th century; Jerusalem Panagios Taphos [Patriarchal Library] cod. 6 fol. 242r–47r).3 These remained, along with ms. P (11th century; Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 1534 fol. 159–69), the main Greek witnesses for the Kraft-Purintun edition.4 Herzer’s edition further took into account ms. R (12th century; Leningrad National Library of Russia 96 fol. 78v-89). For Harris, the combined witness of C and the Ethiopic was, on the whole, the best text.5 Kraft and Purintun, by contrast, were often favorable to the combined testimony of A and B. For Herzer, although the agreement of C and the Ethiopic is “normally” of greater worth than A and B, “each case is to be considered on its own merits.”6

  1

For inventories see Kraft and Prunintun, Paraleipomena, 3–4; Denis et al., Introduction, 682, 691–93; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxviii–xxxix; Hentschel, “Beobachtungen,” 154. With Herzer, this commentary follows the chapter and verse divisions in Harris rather than those of the Kraft-Purintun edition.   2 This text is the basis of Ceriani, Monumenta, 11–18.   3 C breaks off at 8:4 and offers an idiosyncratic ending consisting mostly of lines from Baruch and 1–2 Esdras. See the Textual Notes ad loc. It is presumably a coincidence that the large omission in ms. v of the short recension (Vatican Barberini 3 fol. 153–72) commences at 8:3b.   4 One drawback with using the Kraft-Purintun edition is that the variants are given in English, not Greek.   5 Cf. Harris, Baruch, 30: “we should … be led to take generally the consensus of aeth and c as furnishing the earliest reading; but this would require, first, that there should be a margin left for occasional cases in which a, b may have preserved the right reading: and second, that the consensus of a, b with either of the pair aeth and c against the other should be regarded as almost to a certainty, the primitive reading.”   6 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 689. Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 689. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-001

4

INTRODUCTION

More recently, the University of Würzburg sponsored a venture to produce a new critical Greek edition of Paraleipomena Jeremiou.7 Regrettably, the project was never completed, and the preliminary results were never published. Nonetheless, Bernhard Heininger’s participation led him to judge that the mss. can be ranked, largely following their dates, as to their value.8 C, the oldest Greek witness, is, in general, and as Harris already judged, of greatest significance.9 Next in line, from the 10th–12th centuries, are B, U, P, and O.10 After that are the Ethiopic and F, T, G (tentatively), and J, from the 11th–16th centuries.11 R, A, H, L, V, W, X, and D (tentatively), from the 12th–16th centuries, constitute the next group.12 Finally, of least value are Y, I, N, Z, and M, from the 15th–17th centuries.13 Another participant in the unfinished project, Anni Hentschel, was able to sort the mss. of the long version into families and improve upon the three-fold classification of Kraft and Purinthun.14 According to Hentschel, C and L are allied whereas B, F, A, H, and V constitute a second group,

  7 For

information see: http://www.paralipomena.theologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/php_ html/projektbeschreibung.php. The goal included, among other things, collating all witnesses to the long version.   8 Heininger, “Brief.” See esp. the chart on p. 95.   9 So Heininger, “Brief,” 93: for the reconstruction of the oldest text, C must always be the starting point.  10 For B and P see above. U = Vatican Palatina 27 fol. 149–54, 10th or 11th century. This has only 3:4b-9:30a. O = Oxford Bodleian Barocci 240 fol. 1v-9, 12th century.  11 F = Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana plut. IV cod. 6 fol. 232–49r, 11th century. T = Cambridge Trinity 191 (= B 8.7.58) fol. 422–31, 11th or 12th century. G = Athens Ethnike Bibliotheke 1027 fol. 402–411, 12th century. J = Jerusalem Patriarchal Library Saba 281 fol. 118–25r, 13th century. Heininger assigns less value to the Ethiopic than did Harris.  12 For R and A see above. H = Oxford Bodleian Holkham Graecus 27 fol. 292–303v, 15th century. L = Leiden Universitätsbibliothek Graeca 99 fol. 119, 14th century. This ms. contains only 5:23b-7:36a. V = Rome Vatican Graecus 620 (= 420) fol. 201– 206, 16th century. W = Vienna Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Hist. Graecus 126 fol. 39–48r, 14th century. X = Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 760 fol. 176v–81, 14th century. D = Utrecht Universitätsbibliothek Univ. bibl. 21 Graecus 22 fol. 18–25.  13 Y = Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 776 fol. 9–16, 15th century. I = Jerusalem Patriarchal Library Saba 373 fol. 129–42, 16th century. N = Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 136 fol. 107–134, 16th century. Z = Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 1190 fol. 186v–96, dated 1568. M = Venice Biblioteca Nazionale Marcian VII 45 fol. 254–62, dated 1616–18.  14 Hentschel, “Beobachtungen.” Kraft and Purinthun, Paraleipomena, 3–4, found three main families of mss.: (i) B, A, H, and F; (ii) P, O, W, S, and J; and (iii) C and L. They

I.  Greek Texts and Versions

5

with V deriving directly from A, and with H containing some readings independent of this text type. T, G, and D—D is based directly on T—comprise a third family, one closely related to the B group.15 Manuscripts U, P, O, R, and W make up a fourth cluster, J and X (the latter perhaps directly dependent upon J) a fifth. Y, N, and Z belong to a sixth textual tradition. I and M constitute the final group, one which Hentschel judges to be secondary and of little value. The short form, when compared with the long form, turns ch. 2 into a single sentence, cuts out Baruch’s lamentation in ch. 4, briefly summarizes the letters of Baruch and Jeremiah in chs. 6 and 7, and adds at the beginning and/or end material from the Life of the Prophet Jeremiah.16 This recension, whose earliest witnesses appear to be from the 13th or 14th century,17 is largely secondary,18 although in rare instances it may preserve early readings otherwise unattested.19 It is better represented in terms of the number of mss., these being over forty.20 Moreover, the various editions of the Orthodox Menaion collect legends about Jeremiah in a section (for May 1 or Nov. 4) that reproduces or depends upon the short recension.21 further urged that the Armenian and Slavic texts are closest to the B family and the Ethiopic version closest to C and L.  15 Hentschel, “Beobachtungen,” 155: B, T, and G go back to a common, older witness.  16 For addtional differences see Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 317–19.  17 According to Kraft and Purintun, Paraleipomena, 5, ms. ww (Paris Bibliothèque nationale de France Graecus 1582 fol. 109v–114) is from the 13th or 14th century.  18 The long Greek recension is supported by the Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavic translations. On these see below. According to Michael E. Stone, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 153, n. 3, the short recension of 4 Baruch “most probably” results from its “service in the church’s calendar of saints” and relates “to the ongoing revisions of that calendar.” He refers in this connection to unpublished work of Beatriz Moncό, who, according to Stone, shows “the relationship between the various manuscript groupings of the short recension … and the revisions of the Byzantine hagiographical collections.”  19 See e.  g. on 3:8, where some versions of the Orthodox Menaion have ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ, a reading some scholars have, without knowledge of this variant, conjectured to be original.  20 See the lists in Kraft and Purintun, Paraleipomena, 4–5; Denis et al., Introduction, 694–97; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxix–xl. For an online update (1996) of the Kraft-Purintun catalogue see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/other/courses/rels/735/jeremiah/ parjer.int.  21 There are many editions; see e.  g. Μηναῖον τοῦ Νοεμβρίου (Athens: M. Saliberos, n.  d.), 40–41. This last has, under the title, “Narrative concerning the lamentation of the Prophet Jeremiah over Jerusalem and concerning its capture and concerning the trance of Abimelech,” first several paragraphs of HB/OT material about Jere-

6

INTRODUCTION

The most accesible Greek edition remains Vassiliev’s 1893 publication of a representative witness, ms. v (Vatican Barberini 3 fol. 153–172).22 The online English translations of the short recension (by William Newby) appears in large measure to agree with this.23 The long form of the Paraleipomena is well attested in Ethiopic mss., which descend from a translation of the Greek made between the 4th and 7th centuries.24 The mss. are most closely related to Greek mss. C and L. In 1866, Dillmann published a critical edition based upon three mss.25 Subsequently, Franz Prätorius and Eduard König translated Dillmann’s text into German, and R. Basset published a French translation.26 In constructing their critical appartuses, Harris, Kraft, Pruintun, and Herzer used those modern translations. Dillmann’s work, however, became obsolete with Piovanelli’s 1986 critical edition of the Ethiopic, which is based upon an examination of twenty-seven mss. (which, according to Piovanelli, fall into

miah and then a truncated version of the short recension of 4 Baruch. For a critical overview of the complex problems of the Greek Menaion see Albert Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen Literatur der Griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols. (TU 50–52; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1937–39). For a brief introduction see Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 319–20. On the chronographers who copied from the Menaion see ibid., 332–38. On the 11th century imperial menology for emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian, which paraphrases and reproduces portions of the long recension, see below, p. 68. Contrast the Synaxarium Ecclesia Constantinopleos from the 10th century, which commemorates Jeremiah on May 1: it contains material from the Life of the Prophet Jeremiah but nothing from 4 Baruch.   22 Vassiliev, Anecdota, 310–316. The ms., which lacks 8:3b–9:14, is dated 1497. When the textual notes or commentary herein refer to the short recension, the references are in most cases to Vassiliev’s text.  23 http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/pseudepig/ParJer-Eng.html. Note that Vassiliev’s Greek edition (p. 315) has nothing corresponding to 8:3–9:13, which is represented in Newby’s translation.  24 So Denis et al., Introduction, 700, citing Basset, Apocryphes: the Ethiopic represents the early period of Ge‘ez. Cf. Simon, “Notes,” 286 (4th – 7th centuries); Witakowski, “Baruch,” 489 (4th – 7th centuries); and see further Ignazio Guidi, Storia della Letteratura Etiopica (Rome: Istituto per l᾽Oriente, 1932), 11–21.  25 August Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica, edita et Glossario Explanata (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1866). A transliterated edition of Dillmann’s Ethiopic, with a few emendations, appears in Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) (HSS 24; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 276–97.  26 Prätorius, “Baruch”; König, “Rest der Worte Baruchs”; Basset Apocryphes, 6–24.

I.  Greek Texts and Versions

7

seven subgroups).27 The importance of his new edition can be seen in the textual notes to Piovanelli’s Italian translation of 4 Baruch.28 One significant conclusion is that Harris’ influential conjecture that ὁ θεὸς Ζάρ was the original reading in 7:25 is almost certainly wrong.29 The long form exists also in Armenian and goes back to at least the tenth century.30 In 1896, Yovse-p‘ianc’ published three text types.31 All three appeared in English translation in 1900.32 The most significant study of the Armenian witnesses remains that of Stone, who showed that the Armenian textual tradition does not simply derive “from a [Greek] text of the type of [mss.] A B”; rather, “its Vorlage also showed affinities to [Greek mss.] C, P, and the Greek from which the Ethiopic version was made.”33 4 Baruch further circulated in Romanian and Slavic languages.34 The Slavic mss.—in Russian, Serbo-Macedonian, and Middle Bulgarian—attest

 27

Piovanelli, “Ricerche.” This work is now available online: https://www.academia.edu/ 28960160/Piovanelli_1Enoch_4Baruch_etiopici_1987. See pp. 156–67 for his catalogue of mss. For a summary of his family groups see p. 177. Note also the list of 18 Ethiopic mss. in Denis et al., Introduction, 698–99. Already, in 1896, Charles, Baruch, xviii, judged Dillmann’s three mss. to be “inferior.” Charles himself hoped to produce, but never did, a critical edition based upon eleven Ethiopic mss. known to him.  28 Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 305–333.  29 See below, pp. 316, 357–60.  30 According to Stone, “Armenian Version,” 58, B. Sarghissian, in Studies in the Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament, published in Armenian in 1898, observed that recension I (see next note) is attested in an Armenian collection of sermons dated 901. - p‘ianc’, Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘. The mss. are Venice 144 (without  31 Yovse date), Venice 345 (dated 1220), Etchmiadzin 920 (now 993; dated 1465), and Venice 1447 (dated 16th cent.). See further Denis, et al., Introduction, 700, and esp. the discussion in Stone, “Armenian Version,” who speaks of three recensions: recension I = mss. 345 and 1147; recension II = ms. 144; recension III = 993 (= 920) plus a text unknown to Yovse-p‘ianc’, Erevan 1500. Recension III, is much longer than recensions I and II and is closest to the long Greek recension. Recensions I and II, according to Stone, descend “from a common ancestor since they are both abbreviated in more or less the same places and also have a great many readings in common against the evidence of all the other textual witnesses” (52).  32 Issaverdens, Writings, 252–304.  33 Stone, “Armenian Version,” 56.  34 For overviews see Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 306–347 (“La Légende du Prophète Jérémie en roumain”), 348–63 (“Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie en slave”). Note also the list of mss. in Denis et al., Introduction, 701–703, and the bibliography in Lorenzo DiTommaso, A Bibliography of Pseudepigrapha Research 1850–1999 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 294–95.

8

INTRODUCTION

to both the shorter and longer forms. The latter appears to go back to a translation of the Greek made in the tenth or eleventh century in Western Macedonia.35 Wolff has conveniently supplied a German translation of several Slavic mss.36 The Romanian texts derive from the Greek Menaion and so represent the short recension.37 Given that the Würzburg project did not reach its goal, we still do not have a standard critical edition of 4 Baruch based upon all the Greek and versional evidence. So the commentator can only judge the variants, in so far as they are available in Harris and other editions, on their individual merits. The text in this commentary is, accordingly, eclectic. The present commentary, moreover, does not offer a large textual apparatus. For that readers must consult the notes of Harris, Kraft and Purintun, Piovanelli, and Herzer. Remarks on the text herein are selective, the focus being largely on variant readings that (i) are especially difficult to adjudicate; (ii) affect significantly the sense of the text; (iii) highlight important discrepancies between the most important Greek witnesses and the Ethiopic; (iv) exemplify a tendency in the textual tradition; and/or (v) are of intrinsic interest.

II.  Title and Genre A. Title. Just as we do not know whether our book first appeared as a scroll or codex, so we do not know whether it initially came with a title or superscription. The title in Greek manuscripts A, B, C, and F is: Τὰ Παραλειπόμενα Ἰερεμίου τοῦ Προφήτου.38 The sense of παραλειπόμενα may be gathered from Ps.-Chrysostom, Syn. script. PG 56.357, which

 35

For details see Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 306–347. Jeremie, 194–273. This commentary employs Wolff’s nomenclature rather than that of Turdeanu or Schaller: Wolff N = Turdeanu No = Schaller SlA (14h-cent., Serbo-Macedonian, long version); Wolff T2 = Turdeanu Ma = Schaller SlB (16th cent., Russian, long version); Wolff S = Turdeanu Sr = Schaller SlC/S (12th–14th cent., Russian, long version); Wolff T1 = Turdeanu Tr = Schaller Sla (15th cent., Russian, short version). All these mss. are copies of Slavic predecessors, not of Greek mss.; see Wolff, Jeremia, 195. Bonwetsch, review of Harris, Words of Baruch, ThLBl 44 (1981), 421–22, compares T2 with Harris’ Greek text.  37 See Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 306–347.  38 Arm. 993 (= 920) reflects this or a closely-related title: “From the Book of the Paraleipomena.” Cf. the very similar title of the Jeremiah Apocryphon: “These are the Paraleipomena (neparalupomhnon) of the Prophet Jeremiah.” 4 Baruch otherwise never uses the word, “prophet,” of Jeremiah or anyone else.  36 Wolff,

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-002

II.  Title and Genre

9

explains the Greek title of 1 Chronicles—Παραλειπόμενα βιβλίον α’—with these words: “It is called Παραλειπόμενα because it contains many things that are left out of (παραλειφθέντα) the Books of Kings.” The author or an early tradent thought of 4 Baruch as recounting matters that Scripture fails to recount, and probably in part on the analogy of Chronicles vis-à-vis Samuel-Kings.39 Kraft and Purintun aptly translate: “The Things omitted from Jeremiah the Prophet.”40 Nothing is claimed or implied about the author. The Ethiopic names Baruch rather than Jeremiah: “The Remainder (tarafa)41 of the Words of Baruch.” (Some mss. add: “(which are not Apocryphal), Concerning the Time of the Captivity to Babylon.”42) Armemian ms. 345 by contrast names both Baruch and Jeremiah—“Concerning the Prophet Jeremiah from the Book of Baruch”—while arm. 144 adds Abimelech: “The History of the Prophet Jeremiah and his Disciples Baruch and Abimelech.” Slavonic ms. P also manages to name all three: “Narrative concerning the Weeping and Lamentation of the Prophet Jeremiah over Jerusalem and its Desolation and concerning the Ecstasy of Abimelech and Baruch.”43 By contrast, Slavonic mss. N—“Word of the Prophet Jeremiah concerning the Captivity of Jerusalem”—and T2—“Account of the Holy and Great Prophet Jeremiah concerning the Exile and the Expulsion from Jerusalem”—name only Jeremiah. Vatican Barberini 3, which represents the short recension, refers to Jeremiah and Abimelech but omits Baruch: Διήγησις εἰς τὴν ἅλωσιν τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ εἰς τὸν θρῆνον τοῦ προφήτου Ἰερεμίου καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐκστάσεως Ἀβιμέλεχ (ed. Vassilev, p. 308).

Cf. T. Job 40:14 (“You will find the lament made by them in the Παραλειπομένοις”) and 41:7 (“Elious … uttered words against me that are recorded in the Παραλειπομένοις of Eliphaz”). These lines presumably refer to (fictitious?) extra-canonical texts about Job.  40 Kraft and Purintun, Paraleipomena, 13. “Jeremiah the Prophet” may include Lamentations, apocryphal Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah, and maybe even certain pseudepigraphical works.  41 Cf. the traditional Ethiopic title of Chronicles: Tera-fa-ta Nagašt = “The Remainder of (the Book of) Kings.” Note also that τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων + proper name appears repeatedly in the LXX: 3 Βασ 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:14, 20, 27; 4 Βασ 1:18; 15:11; 2 Chr 33:18; 36:8; 1 Macc 16:21; etc.  42 See Piovanelli, “Apocryphes,” 202.  43 Closely related but shorter is slav T1: “Narrative concerning the Weeping and Lamentation of the Prophet Jeremiah over the Desolation of Jerusalem.”  39

10

INTRODUCTION

In scholarly circles today, both “4 Baruch” and “Paral(e)ipomena Jeremiou” are customarily used.44 The former associates our book with three other books connected with Jeremiah’s scribe—deuterocanonical Baruch, 2 Baruch (the Syriac apocalyptic), and 3 Baruch (the Greek apocalypse). Although all of these are indeed related in important ways, “Paral(e)ipomena Jeremiou” is the better, if longer and more cumbersome, title. It rightly recognizes that Jeremiah is the main character,45 and it underscores that the content does not appear in Scripture associated with Jeremiah.46 B. Genre. Harris and Goodenough label 4 Baruch an “apocalypse.”47 It is true that ch. 9 relates a vision seen while out of the body and so presumably in heaven, and further true that 3:8 presupposes a numerical outline of history, both of which commonly appear in the genre, “apocalypse.” Yet the vision in ch. 9 is likely secondary, and 4 Baruch does not otherwise feature revelatory visions. It is notable, moreover, that “apocalypse” appears in none of the pre-modern titles of our book.48 The use, in the Greek tradition, of Παραλειπόμενα in connection with our book raises the possibility that it may have been intended as history of a sort, perhaps as a supplement to or clarification of the biblical narrative, along the lines of 1–2 Chronicles. Yet one wonders whether 4 Baruch contains enough clues for an ancient audience to have inferred that the narrator intended to relate edifying fiction—a bit like a modern historical novel or docudrama—rather than recount the past.49 Michael Chyutin has identified several criteria by which an educated Jewish audience in antiquity might have recognized an historical fable as  44

One can also find “2 Baruch” and “3 Baruch” in some earlier works. See Denis et al., Introduction, 682.  45 Although it was probably not the intent of the Ethiopic title to make Baruch the main character; seemingly the point was rather to claim that he wrote the text; cf. Jer 36:27–32 and Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 237 n. 1.  46 Nonetheless, in accord with The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 125–26, and for the sake of brevity, I have used “4 Baruch” and “4 Bar.” throughout this commentary.  47 Harris, Baruch, 1 (“a fragment of Apocalyptic literature”; the title page calls 4 Baruch “a Christian apocalypse”); Goodenough, Symbols, 8:137 (“strange and little read apocalypse”). Cf. Denis et al., Introduction, 682: “une apocalypse historique sous forme de midrash hagiographique.”  48 See above. 4 Baruch contains an assortment of subgenres or Gattungen: narrative, dialogue (1:1–10; 2:2–9; 3:4–12; 5:17–34; 7:1–12), lamentation (2:5; 4:6–10), beatitude (4:9; 5:14), fable (5:1–34; 7:1–13, 30–31), prayer (6:2–7, 9–10; 9:3–6, 25), letter (6:17–23; 7:23–29), miracle story (7:17–18), parable (7:24), prophecy (9:13–18).  49 An oral recitation would presumably have contained additional clues.

II.  Title and Genre

11

opposed to history: (i) distortion of known facts; (ii) hints of allegory or symbolic meaning; (iii) unreasonable situations and unnatural phenomena; and (iv) ciphers and meaningful pseudonyms.50 4 Baruch satisfies all these criteria. (i) It not only goes beyond the HB/OT but, at points, contradicts it. For instance, whereas, in the Bible, the exile ends when Cyrus, the Persian king, issues a decree, 4 Baruch says nothing about Cyrus; it indeed leaves the impression that Nebuchadnezzar may still be on the throne; and in any case the Israelites depart in secret, without their captors’ knowledge, which implies without their consent (8:7). Again, whereas 4 Baruch 8 has the city of Samaria being founded only after the exile, and by Jews from Babylon who refused to separate from their foreign spouses, this is “sharply contradicted”51 by 1 Kings 16, which has King Omri founding and naming that city long before the exile, and it goes against Ezra and Nehemiah, which identify the Samarians with colonists imported by Esar-haddon, king of Assyria. (ii) With respect to symbolic meaning, 6:3–7 explicitly states that the preservation of the basket of figs for sixty-six years is a sign of the eschatological resurrection of the flesh, and the same lesson is implicit in Abimelech waking up after having slept for decades. Again, the literal “rest” of Abimelech in 5:1 and 26 becomes a theological sign in 5:32: God is “the rest of the souls of the just in every place.” (iii) As for unnatural phenomena, 4 Baruch is full of miracles and, beyond that, contains fablesque elements, such as a talking eagle, a sixty-six year sleep, and the earth opening upon command to swallow sacred items. (iv) Concerning Chyutin’s fourth criterion, “Babylon” is, throughout our book, a cipher for Rome in the post-70 period; see on 2:7. In addition to these reasons for ancient hearers or readers to judge, like modern historians, that 4 Baruch is fiction, there are the seemingly anach-

 50 Chyutin,

Hagiographies, 261–68. On the topic in general see further Dale C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 434–61. Questions about 4 Baruch are akin to those concerning how the rabbis understood their fantastic, haggadic tales. See on this C. Milikowsky, “Midrash as Fiction and Midrash as History: What Did the Rabbis Mean?,” in Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christianity and Jewish Narrative (SBLSCS 32; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 117–27, and idem, “Rabbinic Interpretation of the Bible in the Light of Ancient Hermeneutical Practice: The Question of Literal Meaning,” in “The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious” (Qoh 10,12): Festschrift for Günther Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, ed. Mauro Perani (SJ 32; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005), 7–28.  51 So Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 416.

12

INTRODUCTION

ronistic references to the first-century king Agrippa in 3:10, 15; and 5:15. This certainly points away from history. So too the strong comedic element in ch. 6. When Abimelech, after sleeping through the exile, complains that he has not gotten enough sleep and wants to rest some more (vv. 2–4), the story is winking, and surely the audience is supposed to laugh. The humor may be yet another signal of the fictional nature of the narrative, just as it is in some rabbinic texts.52 This is not to say that 4 Baruch was never intended to be taken seriously as a deposit of religious instruction. Although it may be entertaining historical fiction, it also aims to edify, and it has strong didactic elements. In this it is akin to the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Job, the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, Joseph and Asenath, and many haggadic legends of the rabbis.53 These are all scripturally-inspired didactic fiction. One might wish, beyond this, to classify 4 Baruch as an example of so-called “rewritten Bible” or “rewritten Scripture.”54 It largely is this in

 52

Cf. the famous tale of the moving carob tree, the backward flowing stream, and the wall that falls halfway to the ground in b. B. Met. 59b and its variant in y. Mo̔ed Qat. ˙ ˙ 81c-d (3:1). Even God laughs in this story. For the explicit recognition of haggadah as the product of the imagination, see the rabbinic authorities cited by Judah Goldin, “Freedom and Restraint of Haggadah,” in Midrash and Literature, ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Budick (New Haven/London: Yale University, 1986), 57–76.   53 Some have likened 4 Baruch to rabbinic haggadah; so e.   g. Kohler, “Haggada,” 408 (4 Baruch “betrays Haggadic knowledge and style throughout”); Licht, “‫ספר‬ ‫מעש ירמיה‬,” 66–67; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 81–87; Kaestli, “Influence,” 220; Herzer, “Direction,” 10 (4 Baruch “can be defined form-critically as a haggadah”); Schaller, Paralipomena, 681–82 (4 Baruch is a “‘supplementary’ Haggadah,” that is, it adds a “contrasting” narrative to the scriptural sources); Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen, 144. Note the title of Herzer’s first book on 4 Baruch: Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums.  54 On these terms and their history in modern scholarship see the collection of essays, Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. J. Zsengellér (JSJSup 166; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014). 4 Baruch does satisfy most of the criteria for the “rewritten Bible” genre as outlined by Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 99–121. Daniel J. Harrington, “The Bible Rewritten (Narratives),” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 239–47, entertains the possibility that 4 Baruch “might” be an example of “rewritten Bible” even though the book is “less obviously keyed to the structure and flow of the biblical narrative” than Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, and other works he puts into this category.

III. Structure

13

chs. 1–4; and while chs. 5–9 tell stories not in the HB/OT, all of them involve, and several are the products of, imaginative scriptural interpretation.55 Even if, however, one deems “rewritten Scripture” to be a literary genre to which 4 Baruch belongs, one must not overlook that, unlike other assumed exemplars of the genre—Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo, for instance— (i) it may present itself as in large part fiction (see above); (ii) it pays little attention to the narrative flow of any part of the HB/OT; and (iii) it does not much concern itself with clarifying problems in its authoritative precursor texts.56

III. Structure 4 Baruch falls into three large segments whose subsections line up fairly well with the traditional chapter divisions.57 The first major unit, which stretches from ch. 1 to ch. 4, focuses on Jerusalem’s destruction. God announces the disaster in the very first sentence—1:1: “I am about to destroy it on account of the many sins of those who dwell in it”—and ch. 4 narrates the fulfilment of the prophecy. Beyond being foretold (1:1, 7), the destruction is, no less importantly, lamented at length repeatedly (2:1–9; 3:3, 14; 4:5–11). This initial section also stresses that, despite destruction and exile, certain holy vessels or implements will be preserved (3:7–8, 14)—not all will be lost—and that one righteous individual, Abimelech, will be spared the following decades of misery (3:9–10, 15; cf. 5:1). The central section, which spans chs. 5, 6, and 7, opens with the episode of Abimelech sleeping for sixty-six years and with explication of its meaning (5:30–34; 6:2–7).58 In doing so, it looks beyond ordinary history by introducing the idea of an upper Jerusalem (5:34)—a place presum-

 55

See below, p. 36. as Kaestli, “Influence,” 226, observes, the stories of Abimelech and Baruch can be understood as unfolding the content of the promises to them in Jer 39:15–18 (God to Abimelech: “I will surely save you”) and 45:1–5 (God to Baruch: “I will give you your life”).  57 The only point at which one might quibble about the traditional chapter divisions is the transition from ch. 6 to ch. 7. Given that 7:1–12 narrates how Baruch’s letter got to Jeremiah, those verses could have been included in ch. 6, which gives the content of that letter.  58 Contrast Riaud, Paralipomènes, 17–25, who finds the central section in 5:1–6:7, the final section in 6:8-end. For Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen,140–41, the three main sections are rather 1:1–4:5 (destruction); 4:6–6:10 (exile); 6:11–9:9 (return). Schaller,  56 Yet

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-003

14

INTRODUCTION

ably beyond sin and free of all earthly troubles—as well as the doctrine of the resurrection of the body on the last day (6:3–7). The section contains Baruch’s letter to Jeremiah, notifying him that the time for departure from Babylon has, as signified by Abimelech’s awakening, come (6:17–23), and it quotes as well Jeremiah’s epistolary response (7:23–29). These two letters and the circumstances surrounding them occupy the bulk of chs. 6 and 7. The closing section, covering chs. 8–9, narrates the return to Jerusalem under Jeremiah’s leadership.59 Part of this is a long parenthesis on the origin of the Samaritans. As it stands, in its current Christian form, however, the emphasis of the final two chapters falls upon Jeremiah’s trance, vision, and martyrdom (9:7–32). One can, then, outline our book like this: I. The destruction of the temple and the exile to Babylon (1–4) a. Prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (1:1–11) b. Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch (2:1–10) c. Preservation of the temple vessels and Abimelech (3:1–16) d. Destruction and Exile (4:1–11) II. The time of the exile and its completion (5–7) a. Abimelech’s sleep and the preservation of the figs (5:1–34) b. Baruch’s letter to Jeremiah (6:1–23) c. Jeremiah’s letter to Baruch (7:1–32) III. The return from exile and Jeremiah’s martyrdom (8–9) a. The return to Jerusalem and the founding of Samaria (8:1–9) b. Jeremiah’s offering, prayer, and vision (9:1–18) c. Jeremiah’s martyrdom (9:19–32)

The order is chronological,60 and the movement is from Jerusalem to Babylon then back to Jerusalem. Section I seemingly recounts the events of a twenty-four-hour period. Section II, which narrates Abimelech’s sleeping in a single sentence, covers the following sixty-six years. Section III, which includes the trek from Babylon to Israel, appears to tell of events that transpire between the 12th of Nisan (5:33) and Yom Kippur (see on 9:1), which entails a span of about half a year.

Paralipomena, 663–64, views ch. 5 on the one hand and chs. 6–7 on the other as separate sections.  59 But Schaller, Paralipomena, 664, regards 8:1–9:1 as “the return to Jerusalem” and 9:1–37 as “the end of Jeremiah.”  60 References to past events occur in 3:3; 5:21, 25–26; 7:10, 14, 25–29.

III. Structure

15

In the opinion of de Jonge, 4 Baruch does not hang together as “a really coherent story.”61 Such a verdict is inevitably subjective,62 and it is possible to take a more charitable view of our narrative.63 While the main author has woven together several independent traditions, and while the seams sometime still show, a single hand is, aside from later Christian additions—above all in ch. 9—evident throughout. Not only is there a stylistic unity,64 but each section leads naturally to the next. Chapter 1 prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem, which ch. 4 recounts; and the mourning of ch. 2 logically follows the news of what will soon happen. Chapter 3 opens by having Jeremiah and Baruch ascend the walls of the city in accordance with the divine command in 1:10, and Jeremiah’s requests in this chapter concern two things—preservation of temple vessels and Abimelech—that must be arranged before the destruction of Jerusalem and the onset of exile recounted in ch. 4. Chapter 4 then narrates the fulfillment of 1:1 and draws together most of the threads of the previous narrative. Chapter 5, in relating the tale of Abimelech, unfolds the upshot of Jeremiah’s prayer in 3:9 and of God’s instructions in 3:10 (cf. 3:15). Next, ch. 6 tells of Baruch’s response upon learning of Abimelech’s miraculous sleep—he writes to Jeremiah—while ch. 7 tells of Jeremiah’s response upon receiving that letter: he writes his own. Chapter 8 then reports that Jeremiah, following the announcement, in Baruch’s letter, that the time to return to the land has come (7:17–23), guides the exiles back to Jerusalem—although the disobedient, in accord with 6:22 (“the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon”), depart for Samaria. Finally, ch. 9 narrates the return to Jerusalem promised in 6:22 (“the one who heeds I will bring him back from Babylon”),65 and it tells what happened soon after arrival: sacrifices were joyously offered, Jeremiah had a vision, and that vision led to his death.

 61

de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha, 53. the even more negative verdict of J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch: Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung auf Grund des wiederhergestellten hebräischen Urtextes: mit einem Anhang über den pseudepigraphischen Baruch (Leipzig: F.  A. Brockhaus, 1879), 196: 4 Baruch is a “tasteless imitation” of 2 Baruch. For Harris, Baruch, 17, our author was “simple-minded.”  63 Cf. Alexander, “4 Baruch”: “4Bar is a skillfully told tale, which manages well plot, causation, characterization, and location.”  64 Helpful here are the lists in Schaller, Paralipomena, 667 n. 19 and 668 ns. 20, 21, of terms, phrases, and motifs that run throughout 4 Baruch.  65 “Thematically and structurally, the plot is resolved when Jeremiah leads the people back to Jerusalem.” So Nickelsburg, Literature, 316.  62 Cf.

16

INTRODUCTION

Given that two thirds or more of the closing chapter comes from a later Christian hand, we do not know how 4 Baruch originally ended; and given how important endings can be for understanding a narrative, this is a major problem for assessing the Jewish edition. Maybe the book ended with ch. 8, or maybe it concluded with Jeremiah dying of old age, or maybe it featured another version of the prophet’s martyrdom, or maybe it wrapped up as does the Jeremiah Apocryphon, with Jeremiah offering sacrifice with the recovered temple vessels and the people celebrating a feast.66 In the latter case, the book would display an agreeable thematic balance: Exile and lamentation    The time of exile and how it ended Return and rejoicing

As it stands, however, the happy return to Jerusalem becomes, due to Christian redaction, anticlimactic, because soon thereafter the people reject Jeremiah and stone him.

IV.  Major Themes and Motifs 4 Baruch is not a weighty tome for religious or scribal experts, nor does it begin to approach the profundity of 4 Ezra. Our “curieux écrit”67 is rather a popular text aimed at a wide audience.68 One might even associate it with the characterization in y. Sanh. 28a (10:1): certain books were given “for reading … but for laborious study they were not given.” 4 Baruch was, it appears, composed to be recited at a single setting and, in that context, to entertain. Still, it is not a story told solely for the sake of the story. Despite the humor in the episode with Abimelech, our text is not devoid of serious lessons, including serious theological lessons; and within a post-70 Jewish context, 4 Baruch would make multiple points: (1) Divine sovereignty. 4 Baruch assumes from beginning to end that God, the Κύριε παντοκράτωρ (1:5; cf. 9:6), controls history.69 It is not the Babylonians who destroy Jerusalem but, as 1:1 explicitly declares, God (cf.  66

For these options and proponents of them see below, pp. 400–402. So Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxvii.  68 Our book appears designed for public reading, not for rabbinic-like discussion or the sort of elite community study discussed by W. A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).  69 On the idea of God in 4 Baruch see esp. Herzer, “Direction.”  67

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-004

IV.  Major Themes and Motifs

17

2:7). The Babylonian king does only what the Lord permits—cf. 1:8: “neither the king nor his host will be able to enter into it unless I first open its gates“—and only after Jeremiah and Baruch are commanded to leave, and only after God sees to it that certain sacred items will not fall into foreign hands (3:8, 14). Indeed, it is the angels, at God’s command, who initiate the destruction (3:2–4). The divine hand upon history is further evident in the presence of multiple miracles. The earth opens up and swallows temple vessels upon command (3:14). Angels come and go (3:2; 4:11, 15; 6:15). Abimelech sleeps for sixty-six years (5:1). A basket of figs stays fresh for decades (5:3, 26–31; 6:2). An eagle understands human language and can respond in kind (7:2– 12, 15). A dead man comes back to life (7:17). God is the agent of all these wonder-inducing events and through them controls the course of the narrative and so, by implication, history. The divine sovereignty remains prominent at the end of the story as well. God alone decides when it is time for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem (6:18–23). The will and desire of the Babylonians on this matter are wholly irrelevant. And in connection with the return they have no narrative role. In line with this, 4 Baruch omits the biblical role of Cyrus. God’s decree that the exile is over is, in our book, the only decree that matters. The Christian edition of 4 Baruch offers more of the same. Jeremiah’s speech in ch. 9 offers an outline of the distant future: the Son of God will come in 477 years, Gentiles will be converted, Israel will be judged, twelve apostles will proclaim the good news, and so on. Jeremiah’s ability to see the future in such detail entails a God who controls the future. (2) Hope in God. 4 Baruch promotes theological hope in three large ways—by narrating the realization of hope in history past, by speaking of a heavenly realm beyond the miseries of history, and by promising that history’s telos will witness the resurrection of the dead. Regarding hope within history, because Jerusalem’s destruction (1:1– 4:11) and the miseries of the Babylonian exile (7:23–29) are due to the sins of the people (1:1, 7; 2:2–5; 6:21), repentance from those sins, accompanied by separation from the Babylonians, will bring deliverance.70 (4 Baruch, unlike Job, 4 Ezra, and Lamentations Rabbah, fails to question the deity or  70

6:13–14, 22; 7:22, 28, 32; cf. 1:1, 7; 2:2–3; 6:21 and see further below, pp. 303–305. In the background may be the well-attested topos of Israel repenting before the end and so making redemption possible; cf. T. Dan. 6:4; T. Sim. 6:2–7; T. Jud. 23:5; T. Mos. 1:18; Acts 3:19–20; 2 Bar. 78:6–7; Sifre Deut.41; b. B. Bat. 10a; b. Sanh. 87b–98a; b. Šabb. 118b; etc. While many of us would reject this sort of theological thinking, a psychologist could observe that it might counter a sense of helplessness:

18

INTRODUCTION

struggle with the problem of evil.71) The God of Israel will not forget the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but will have compassion on the tears of his people (6:18). Baruch can declare, early in the story, “Our God will have mercy upon us, and he will return us to our city” (4:8). The narrative recounts the fulfillment of this confident faith in the last two chapters, when the people leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem, where they rejoice (8:1–9:1); and without the Christian addenda, there is no hint of anything like the spirit of Malachi, which indicts exiles who have returned to the land. As for hope above history, Abimelech declares in 5:34, “May God light your way to the upper city, Jerusalem.” The commentary urges that this is most likely a reference to entering a blessed realm at death. This coheres not only with the book’s dualistic anthropology (see on 6:3, 17; 9:11, 13) but also lines up with Jeremiah’s words in 9:3: “until I am taken up to you” almost certainly anticipates his ascension to heaven after martyrdom. And 9:5—Michael the archangel opens “the gates” and ingathers “the righteous”—envisions the angel opening the gates to the upper Jerusalem so that the dead can enter therein. There is, then, hope at life’s end, even before history’s end.72 4 Baruch also, however, promotes the expectation of eschatological restoration. On the last day, the righteous will arise in their bodies. Both Abimelech’s awakening after a slumber of sixty-six years and the preservation of his figs (6:4–7) foreshadow this hope, which appears to be quite literal. The book neglects to say whether the dead rise to life in this world or another. The former option, however, is likely implicit if the termination that 3:8 envisages—“Guard then the vessels of the service until the gathering of the beloved”—is the eschatological rebuilding of Jerusalem.73 Further-

being responsible for a circumstance raises the possibility that one can contribute to undoing it. In our text, obeying God’s messenger will end exile (6:22; 7:22, 32).  71 Cf. Saylor, Promises, 141: “The efficacy of God’s justice and power are not in question in this book.”  72 If 5:34; 6:3; and 9:3 are all secondary—a possibility in this commentator’s judgment—then the original Jewish 4 Baruch may have implied nothing about post-mortem existence or an other-worldly Jerusalem. This is the argument of Lee, “Development.”  73 But Wolff, “Jerusalem”; Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah”; Herzer, Parlipomena, 104– 114; idem, 4 Baruch, 95, 99; and Mittmann-Ritschl, Erzählungen, 146–48, stress the other-worldly orientation of our text toward the heavenly Jerusalem while downplaying or even eliminating the historical hope for the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem; cf. 5:32. One wonders, with Lee, “Development,” whether a later hand played a role in making the current text more other-worldly; cf. the previous note

IV.  Major Themes and Motifs

19

more, “the physicality of the return to, and sacrificial activity in, Jerusalem would suggest an ongoing significance of the city and the site of the altar.”74 Whatever precise interpretation one gives to 3:8, 4 Baruch as a whole teaches that overwhelming loss need not be absolute. Holy things thought irrevocably lost may not be so. This is in part the lesson of the hiding of the vessels in ch. 3 and the giving of the keys to heaven in ch. 4. Even dead bodies are not gone for good. Whatever God intends to endure will endure, despite all appearances to the contrary. (3) Lamentation. Weeping and mourning—which are immediate, involuntary responses to tragedy—are major motifs in 4 Baruch.75 The main characters, who know no separation between the private and the public, are emotionally demonstrative. Most prominent are the notices in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:76 2:1: “Jeremiah tore his garments and put dust on his head” 2:5: “Let us rend our hearts … let us cry” 2:8: “Baruch … tore his garments” 2:10: “so both of them remained at the altar, weeping” 3:3: “Jeremiah and Baruch wept” 3:14: “the two [Jeremiah and Baruch] sat, and they cried” 4:5: “While Jeremiah was yet weeping for the people” 4:10: “Baruch went out of the city and wept, and he said, ‘Grieving because of you, Jerusalem, I went out from you’” 5:15: Abimelech “continued grieving”

Grief is also closely associated with life in exile: 7:20: “When all the people heard it, they wept and threw dust on their heads” 7:24: “ever since we arrived here, our grief has not ceased” 7:25: “often I found some of the people who had been hung up … weeping” 7:26: “I would grieve and cry a double lamentation” 7:27: “I [Jeremiah] would groan, and I would return to my house in agony and in tears” 7:31: Baruch “cried when he heard of the grief and the mistreatment of the people”

and de Jonge, “Remarks.” For Lee, the second edition was still Jewish. For de Jonge, the second edition was Christian.  74 So Doering, Letters, 254 n. 198.  75 Although he nowhere discusses 4 Baruch, very helpful here is Basser, “Weeping.” Our book, unlike t. Sotah 15:8–15, nowhere broaches the topic of excessive mourn˙ ing.  76 It is important to keep in mind the affective nature of the temple in addition to its theological and economic roles; see Stephen C. Barton, “Why Do Things Move People? The Jerusalem Temple as Emotional Repository,” JSNT 37 (2015), 351–80.

20

INTRODUCTION

In addition, weeping and acts of mourning attend Jeremiah’s apparent death: 9:8: “Baruch and Abimelech remained weeping and crying” 9:9: the people “tore their garments and put dust on their heads and wept most bitterly”

Not all, to be sure, is bleak. There is rejoicing over the miracle of the figs and what it symbolizes: 6:3: “Be glad, and rejoice in your body … grief has been turned into joy” 6:17: “Be glad … God has not abandoned us”

Rejoicing also accompanies the return to Jerusalem: 9:1:

“Those associated with Jeremiah remained, rejoicing”

Finally, in the Christian add-on at the end, the future prospect of the Gentiles turning to God is cause for joy: 9:16: “the salty will become sweet in the great light of the joy of God”

Despite the occasional notes of joy, the emphasis falls upon tears and mourning. The textual fact not only shows an emotional nearness to the events of 70 but well suits the circumstance that the main character is Jeremiah, who was remembered as the author of Lamentations and of a prophetic book full of tears.77 Furthermore, weeping is part of the theology of 4 Baruch. The key here 6:18: “For this reason the Lord had mercy upon our tears, and remembered the covenant he established with our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” According to this verse, it was the tears of the people that moved God to remember the covenant and return the people home from exile.78 The psychology of this for a post-70 setting is obvious. Not only would mourners be comforted by the thought that their experience was like that

 77 See

esp. the texts cited below on 2:5; also Jer 31:14–17, which is quoted in Matt 2:18. 4 Baruch, however, fails to pick up the image of God weeping (see Jer 14:17), which became important in later Jewish thought; cf. b. Ber. 59a; b. Hag. 5b; Lam. ˙ Rab. proem 24; and see Peter Kuhn, Gottes Trauer und Klage in der rabbinischen Überlieferung (Talmud und Midrasch) (AGJU 13; Leiden: Brill, 1978).  78 Cf. b. Ber. 32b = b. B. Mes 59a: “R. Eleazar said: ‘From the day on which the temple ˙ was destroyed the gates of prayer have been closed, as it says, “Yes, when I cry and call for help he shuts out my prayer.” But though the gates of prayer are closed, the gates of weeping are not closed, as it says, “Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear unto my cry; keep not silence at my tears.”’”

IV.  Major Themes and Motifs

21

of renowned saints in a similar situation before them,79 but the idea that their tears might actually be effectual, that they might move God to act, would honor the inevitable ongoing lament.80 (4) Prayer. 4 Baruch is suffused with prayer. Jeremiah makes requests and asks questions of God (1:4, 5–6; 3:4, 6–7, 9; 7:16; 9:3–6), praises God (7:16), and implores Baruch and Abimelech to pray for the people (7:23, 28).81 Abimelech blesses God (5:8, 14, 32) and prays to God (6:1). Baruch addresses words to God (6:2–7), exhorts Abimelech to pray for revelation (6:8), and asks for guidance (6:9–10). The book assumes that prayer is the natural and immediate recourse of the faithful to the problems they face, and further that it is powerfully effective; cf. 1:2: the prayers of Jeremiah and Baruch are “like a solid pillar within” Jerusalem, and “like an adamantine wall surrounding her.” The content of the prayers is notable in at least two respects. First, the petitions are, with the partial exception of 9:3–6, uniformly communal; that is, they are not about individual need but rather concern Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple. Second, the content of the prayers is directly related, for the most part, to the surrounding narrative. They either reflect what has happened or what will happen. There are, however, some striking exceptions in the latter half of the book, where the language goes beyond the narrative or even appears gratuitous, for reasons that remain unclear. Instances of this include the title in 6:9 (“the elect light, which goes forth from your mouth”) and phrases in 9:3 (“incense of the living trees,” “the sweet voice of the two Seraphim”) and 6 (“in whom every judgment has been hidden before it comes to pass”). These expressions either preserve lost liturgical traditions or reveal an author or redactor consciously seeking to be inventive. (5) New exodus and new Moses. Baruch’s epistle to Jeremiah contains these words: “These then are the words which the Lord … who brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the great furnace, has spoken: ‘Because you

 79 Cf.

Lam. Rab. proem 24, where the patriarchs and Moses weep and rend their garments when they learn of the destruction of the temple and of Israel’s exile. Note also the close link in b. Hag. 5b between weeping for the destruction of the first ˙ temple, weeping for the destruction of the second temple, and weeping for the exile: “one tear for the first temple, and one for the second temple, and one for Israel, who have become exiled from their place.” This passage goes on the include the angels in mourning.  80 Cf. the sympathetic psychology in b. Šabb. 105b: God counts and stores up tears in his treasure house.  81 In 1:4, 7–10; 3:5, 8, and 10–12, God speaks in response to requests and questions, so here prayer is two-sided conversation.

22

INTRODUCTION

did not keep my statutes, but your heart was arrogantly exalted, and you were stiff-necked before me, I became angry, and in wrath I handed you over to the furnace in Babylon. If then you heed my voice, says the Lord, from the mouth of Jeremiah my servant—the one who heeds I will bring him back from Babylon. But the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon. You will test them by the water of the Jordan” (6:20–23). The “you” in the last sentence is Jeremiah. He will lead Israel out of the furnace in Babylon, just as Moses led Israel out of the furnace of Egypt; and he will conduct Israel through the waters (cf. 8:1–5), which recalls Moses taking Israel through the Red Sea. In ch. 7, after the eagle resurrects a dead man, the people exclaim, “Is this not the God who appeared to our fathers in the wilderness through Moses, and who now has appeared to us through this eagle?” (v. 18). This makes explicit and so underlines the new exodus typology—as it was then, so is it now—as well as Jeremiah’s status as “the Moses of the exilic period.”82 Given this, it is no coincidence that God leads Israel out of Babylon because of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (6:18)—precisely the same motivation behind the Egyptian exodus according to Exod. 2:24 (cf. 6:5).83 In the light of all of this, it is natural to see in the repeated “heed” of 6:22 (ἀκούσητε … ἀκούων … μὴ ἀκούων; cf. also 8:3) an allusion to Deut 18:15–19: Jeremiah is the/a prophet like Moses, whom Israel must “heed” (LXX: ἀκούσεσθε … μὴ ἀκούσῃ). In accord with Jeremiah’s Mosaic role, he is the leader of Israel and the mediator between them and God; he seemingly speaks to God face to face (see on 1:1); he proclaims God’s law (5:19: τὸν λόγον; cf. Deut. 30:14); he is God’s “elect” (see on 1:1) and God’s “servant” (see on 1:4); he gathers the people together in a desert place (τόπον ἔρημον) outside the city (see on 7:13, 15); and he recites God’s commands aloud (see on 7:19, 22, 28).84

 82 So

Wolff, Jeremia, 80. Cf. Nickelsburg, Literature, 316; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 53–54; idem, “Figure of Jeremiah”; Mittmann-Ritschl, Erzählungen, 152.  83 That the theme of a new exodus played a role in eschatological expectation—cf. Isa 51:10–11; 4 Ezra 13:46–47; Mek. Pisha 14:113–15; Frg. Tg. P on Exod 15:18; Tg. ˙ Neof. 1, Tg. Ps.-J., and Frg. Tg. V on Exod 12:42; b. Sanh. 99a; etc.—would encourage readers to see beyond the “historical” referent of 4 Baruch to the eschatological future.  84 There was a tradition of seeing Jeremiah as a Mosaic figure; see Wolff, Jeremia, 79–83; Allison, New Moses, 53–62; Devorah Dimant, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in Light of Qumran Literature,” in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, ed. Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini (JSJ 164; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 57–60.

IV.  Major Themes and Motifs

23

(6) Severance from the Gentiles. According to Delling, “the most important theme” of 4 Baruch, “which rules the writing from 6:10 on, is … clearly separation from the Gentiles, especially the avoidance of cohabitation with them.”85 This gives more prominence to the theme than seems prudent. Nonetheless, the call to separate from the Gentiles is a significant plot element.86 In 6:13–14, an angels tells Baruch to write: “Let the alien who is among you be removed, and let fifteen days go by; and after that I [God] shall lead you to your city … The one who does not separate himself from Babylon, O Jeremiah, will not enter the city. And I shall punish him, so that he will not be welcomed in turn by the Babylonians.” The imperative is reinforced by later injunctions to obey the epistle (6:22–23; 7:22) and by the narrator’s notice that Jeremiah exhorted the exiles to isolate themselves from the defilement of the Babylonians (7:32). All this leads to ch. 8, where a group of Israelites refuses to separate from their pagan spouses and is forced, as a consequence, to establish its own community. The attitude toward Gentiles in 4 Baruch has parallels in numerous post-exilic sources and is not of much use in dating the book or determining a precise Sitz im Leben, although it is not unreasonable to surmise that one of the aims of the book was to emphasize, in a context where such emphasis was felt particularly needed, that Jews refrain from marrying Gentiles or assimilating to their world. At the same time, a note of caution is in order. Such a hortative, mirror-reading of 4 Baruch is not demanded, especially as Abimelech, one of our book’s heroes, is introduced as an Ethiopian and presumably a Gentile (3:9). The theme of separation can also be understood on a purely literary level as part and parcel of the anti-Samaritan polemic: the Samaritans descend from mixed-marriages. Whatever judgment one holds on this matter, there is a disjunction between the current Christian ending and the preceding calls to withdraw from Gentiles. The supercessionism of ch. 9, with its depiction of Gentiles welcoming the gospel, sits uneasy beside the rest of the book, with its censorship of mixed marriages and rejection of “the practices of Babylon” (8:2).

 85 Delling,  86

Lehre, 69. It becomes even more prominent if one agrees with Jones, Jewish Reactions, 169–70, for whom the return to Jerusalem is symbolic: “the return is encompassed in the rejection of the things of Babylon. That is to say, the return is a matter of means rather than an end. Rejecting Babylon, understood symbolically, is the return from exile” (169–70).

24

INTRODUCTION

V.  Original Language and Style 4 Baruch is written in simple koine Greek, and its style—not the content— is artless.87 It does not employ classical constructions and contains only a few rare words.88 The vocabulary is relatively small and repetitive,89 many expressions appear multiple times, and there are some awkward expressions.90 There is no sign of a traditional Greek education, although our writer certainly had a better command of Greek than the author of Revelation, who never mastered what to him was a foreign language. Perhaps we should think of a story-teller at home in the language of the Greek-speaking synagogue. 4 Baruch has a strong Hebraic ring, much like Luke 1–2; and just as scholars have debated whether Luke’s infancy narrative is best understood as translation Greek or the work of someone imitating the LXX, so too is it with our book. Some have urged that the Greek goes back to a Semitic original.91 The hypothesis is one way of explaining the book’s numerous apparent Semitisms, among them the following: fondness for placing verb before

 87 So

Schaller, Paralipomena, 677 (artlos). He cites, among other illustrations, 4 Baruch’s habit of introducing sentence and phrases with καί.  88 E.  g. ἐπικαταγελάω in 5:23 (a hapax for all of Greek literature); Βαβυλωνίτης in 6:14; ἀλίσγημα in 7:32.  89 Schaller, Paralipomena, 677 n. 640, counts 640 words and contrasts the 1177 of the Testament of Job.  90 Note e.  g. αἱ προσευχαί … ἐστίν in 1:2; τοῦ κτίσαντός σε … ὁ σφραγίσας σε in 3:8; ὁ ἀφοριζόμενος … αὐτοῖς in 6:14; Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν … ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος in 9:13.   91 So Kilpatrick, “Acts VII. 52” (Hebrew); Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” 71 (Hebrew); Delling, Lehre, 72 (“einer palästinischen Landessprache abgefasste Schrift”); Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 177 n. 2 (he follows Delling); Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 88; Wolff, Jeremia, 45 n. 1 (Hebrew); Schürer et al., History, 3:1:292 (“likely” a Hebrew or Aramaic original); Robinson, “Fourth Baruch,” 414 (“a Semitic original”); Evans, Writings, 34 (“probably … Hebrew”); Helyer, Literature, 439 (“probably Hebrew); Witakowski, “Baruch,” 489 (Hebrew or Aramaic). For methodological reflections on how one might discern a Hebrew or Aramaic original behind a Greek text see Klaus Beyer, “Woran erkennt man, daß ein griechischer Text aus dem Hebräischen oder Aramäischen übersetz ist?,” in Studia Semitica Necon Iranica: Rudolpho Macuch Septuagenario ab Amicis et Discipulis Dedicata, ed. Maria Macuch, Christa Müller-Kessler, and Bert G. Fragner (Wiesbaden: Otto harrassowitz, 1989), 21–31; Schaller, “Greek Version”; Davila, “Greek Apocryphon.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-005

V.  Original Language and Style

25

subject (1:1, 4, 5, 7, 2:4, 5, etc.);92 verb of speaking + πρός + indirect object (1:1; 3:4, 5; 8:2, 4 bis, 6);93 ἐγένετο + ἡνίκα + verb + subject (1:1); lack of matter between the definite article and the noun it introduces;94 avoidance of dependent genitives preceding the word upon which they depend;95 παραδίδωμι + εἰς χεῖρας (1:5; 2:7; 3:6; 4:6); καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγένετο (3:2); καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ (5:18); προσηύξατο πρός (6:1); ἐφυλάξατε τὰ δικαιώματά (6:21); causus pendens followed by unemphatic resumptive pronoun (6:22; 9:6);96 καὶ ἀποκριθείς … εἶπεν (7:2); εἰ introducing an indirect question (7:6);97 ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ (7:9); ἐξέρχομαι + εἰς συνάντησιν (8:7); τοῦ ποιῆσαι καρπός (9:17).98 The more common position, however, is that 4 Baruch first appeared in Greek.99 Not only does it contain features that are not characteristic of translation Greek,100 but most of its apparent Semitisms appear in the  92

On the issues surrounding this apparent Semitism see Maloney, Semitic Interference, 51–53.  93 Although the construction occurs occasionally in classical and Hellenistic Greek, it recurs often in the LXX: Gen 16:3; Exod 6:29; 7:1, 8; 31:1; Deut 20:9; Josh 12:1; etc.  94 On this as a characteristic of translation Greek see Martin, Syntactical Evidence, 21–23. Exceptions: αἱ γὰρ προσευχαί (1:2), τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν (1:5, 6), τοῦ ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ (4:6), τὴν ἄνω πόλιν (5:34), ἡ παρθενική μου πίστις (6:4), τῆς γὰρ αὐγῆς (7:3), τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἀκούοντας (8:3), ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος (9:13), τὰ γλυκέα ὕδατα (9:16), τὰς πεινώσας ψυχάς (9:18), τῷ ἐκείνου θανάτῳ (9:21). The constructions in 6:4; 9:13, 16, 18, 21 and perhaps 5:34 come from a later Christian hand.  95 Cf. the ubiquitous construct state in Hebrew and Aramaic and see Martin, Syntactical Evidence, 23–25. Note that, in 27 instances of μου qualifying a noun, it always directly follows it, and that in 20 instances of σου qualifying a noun, it directly follows it 19 times, the exception being ἡ παρθενική μου πίστις in 6:4, which is from a later Christian hand.  96 On this as a Semitism see Maloney, Semitic Interference, 86–90.  97 See BDF 440.3 and cf. Matt 12:10.  98 For more apparent Semitisms see Ann Elizabeth Purintun, “Possible Semiticisms in Paraleipomena Jeremiou,” http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/courses/735/ParJer/semitic. html; Schaller, “Greek Version,” 62–73.  99 So e.  g. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, xviii; Frey, “Apocryphes,” 454; Bogaert, review of Delling, Lehre, 345–46; Philonenko, “Symmaque,” 143–45; idem, “Simples observations,” 159; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 129–30; Vegas Montaner, “Paralipomenos,” 357–58; Schaller, “Greek Version”; idem, Paralipomena, 676; Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxv. Cf. Jones, Jewish Reactions, 148: Schaller has made “a very strong case … for a Greek original.” 100 Schaller, “Greek Version,” 69–73, helpfully gathers the evidence, including instances of the genitive absolute, the substantivized infinitive, the particle ἄν, indefinite pronouns, and composite verbs prefixed with –εὐ and privative ἀ.

26

INTRODUCTION

LXX,101 so they could in part reflect a desire to imitate a biblical style.102 Moreover, given that, as seems probable, our book originated within the land of Israel, many Semitisms may reflect the author’s linguistic environment, the Greek spoken in and around Jerusalem.103 This would explain why not all of the apparent Semitisms are directly from the LXX.104 Indeed, it is possible that our author was bi-lingual or tri-lingual,105 and, beyond that, more than plausible that, as 4 Baruch contains so many stories and traditions its author did not invent, an indeterminate number of the Semitisms go back to sources, whether oral or written. In addition to these considerations, 4 Baruch at points seems to be indebted to the LXX.106 Given, then, that nothing in the book betrays itself as an obvious mistranslation of a Hebrew Grundschrift,107 it seems best to posit a Greek original.

101

See the list below, on pp. 39–40. the possibility of Jewish writers imitating the LXX see Davila, “Greek Apocryphon,” 31–37. One should keep in mind, however, that many expressions once thought to be typical of biblical Greek are attested in the documentary papyri and other Hellenistic sources; see Lee, Septuagint. 103 So Vegas Montaner, “Paralipomenos,” 358, who doubts that 4 Baruch imitates the LXX; rather, the book exhibits the “simple, popular, and semitizing [Greek] that characterized the Palestinian koine.” Cf. Schaller, “Greek Version,” 54–55: Semitisms may “mirror the multilingual cultural space in which the text, or rather its author, originated, and not necessarily the fact that the text began life in another language … Not a few Jews … were bilingual: they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic and Greek and some of them wrote in both as well. Thus, phenomena from the one language flowed into the other.” For the theoretical issues here see Davila, “Greek Apocryphon,” 37–42. 104 See here Schaller, “Greek Version,” 68. 105 One could even, in theory, imagine that our author had heard some of the stories and traditions that he uses recited in Hebrew and that he then later wrote them up in Greek. On speakers of more than one language in first-century Palestine see Lee, Bilingual Context, and Hughson T. Ong, The Multilingual Jesus and the Sociolinguistic World of the New Testament (LBS 12; Leident/Boston: Brill, 2016). 106 See e.  g. the commentary on 3:9; 6:13; 7:10, 12, 17, 29. Schaller, “Greek Version,” comes to the same conclusion even if our judgment differs regarding particular verses. 107 The argument that “the god Zar” in 7:25 betrays a Hebrew original is almost certainly based on a text-critical error; see below pp. 316, 357–60. Even if it is not, the implications are hardly straightforward; cf. Schaller, “Greek Version,” 58–59. 102 On

VI.  Jewish or Christian?

27

VI.  Jewish or Christian? The martyrdom of Jeremiah in ch. 9, which is 4 Baruch’s conclusion, is manifestly Christian, and the book survives because Christians read and copied it. Some have thought that the whole work was Christian from the beginning.108 Harris characterized 4 Baruch in its entirety as “the Church’s Eirenicon to the Synagogue, at the time of the Hadrian edict.”109 Philonenko suggested that the author belonged to a syncretistic Jewish-Christian baptist sect.110 Piovanelli has argued that the Paraleipomena is a Christian rewriting, after the second revolt, of the Jewish text behind the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon.111 For Nir, “the community described in the Paralipomena was an ascetic community” akin to what we know of “Syriac-speaking churches of the second and third centuries”; it came from a Christian group “that demanded of those joining it abstention from marriage, that is, bachelorhood, as a necessary condition of baptism.”112 The Christian elements do not, despite influential arguments to the contrary,113 appear to be confined to 9:10 and the following verses. As argued in this commentary, a number of phrases from earlier portions are, more likely than not, from a Christian hand. These include: • ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλημά σού ἐστιν: the phrase has precise parallels only in monastic literature; see on 1:6. • καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν Ἰερεμίας εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ κατηχῆσαι αὐτοὺς τὸν λόγον: κατηχέω + the unqualified, definite, singular λόγον is attested solely in Christian sources; and the co-ordinated use of εὐαγγελίζω and κατηχέω is also characteristically Christian; see on 5:21. • ἡ παρθενική μου πίστις: there are Christian but no Jewish parallels to this expression; see on 6:4.

108 On

some of the difficult methodological issues involved in coming to a verdict see Davila, Provenance, passim, and Bauckham, “Continuing Quest.” 109 Harris, Baruch, 14—who also, however, characterized the book as “the final farewell of the Church to the Synagogue” (1). Before Harris, Dillmann, Chrestomathia, ix-x, judged the work to be Christian. 110 Philonenko, “Simples observations.” For critical discussion of his thesis see Herzer, “Eine christlich-gnostische Schrift.” 111 Piovanelli, “l᾽Histoire”; idem, “Paralipomeni,” 265–73; idem, “Default Position.” 112 Nir, Destruction, 237. 113 See esp. Delling, Lehre; Herzer, Paralipomena, 171–76; Wolff, “Neue Testament.” Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 666. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-006

28

INTRODUCTION

• παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί σου τῆς ἀγαθότητός: both παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί and σου τῆς ἀγαθότητός are characteristically Christian, and παρακαλοῦμεν τὴν σὴν ἀγαθότητα was a liturgical phrase; see on 6:9. • Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ: if, as Piovanelli has forcefully argued, this is the original reading, it cannot be from a Jewish hand; see on 7:25. • μετανοήσατε· ἔρχεται γὰρ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης: this imperative with explanatory prophecy mitigates the polemical thrust of ch. 8 and has seemed to others to be secondary; it has the same formal structure as the well-known Matt 3:2 and 4:17 (μετανοεῖτε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανων); and the clause in which it is embedded contains hapax legomena for 4 Baruch; see on 8:9. • τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με: this is from John 1:9; apart from 4 Baruch, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν + φωτίζω appears solely in Christian texts familiar with John’s Gospel; see on 9:3. • ἀγέννητος and ἀπερινόητος of the deity: these two adjectives are characteristically, if not exclusively, Christian, and their combination occurs in Hippolytus and Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria; see on 9:6. In addition to these probable items, one could urge, in making the case for the Christian composition of 4 Baruch, that the apparent humor in the Christian ending—“and they stoned the stone, supposing that it was Jeremiah” (9:27)—is of a piece with the humor in ch. 6; and further that the proclivity of repeating, at close quarters, clauses verbatim or nearly verbatim, is characteristic not only of 4 Baruch as a whole but also of 9:10–32: 9:11          ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ 9:13 εἰσῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ      εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ 9:12 ἡμέρας τρεῖς 9:13 τρεῖς ἡμέρας 9:13 ἐν μέσῳ πάντων 9:29 ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ 9:30 ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν 9:13 δοξάσατε τὸν Θεόν 9:13 δοξάσατε τὸν Θεόν 9:13 τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων 9:25 τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων 9:18 ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον 9:19 ἔρχεται    εἰς τὸν κόσμον

VI.  Jewish or Christian?

29

9:21 λίθοις λιθοβολήσωμεν 9:27 ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν λίθον 9:27 νομίζοντες ὅτι        Ἰερεμίας ἐστίν 9:30 νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐγὼ Ἰερεμίας

Furthermore, certain notable words and expressions in 9:10–32 appear before that passage and so might reflect a common hand: imperative of ἐτοιμάζω + reflexive pronoun ἀκούω + τῆς φωνῆς περικυκλόω/περίκυκλος σκήνωμα of the human body ποῖος γλυκύς στόμα + genitive εὐαγγελίζω ῥῆμα δεῦτε λυπέω κλαίω πάντα ὅσα νομίζω + ὅτι τότε διὰ τί (οἱ) υἱοὶ  Ἰσραήλ τρέχω

6:3 9:10 3:8; 6:10, 22 9:12 1:2 9:12 6:3–4 9:12 2:2; 5:17, 33 9:12 9:3 9:16 6:9, 22; 7:28 9:17 3:11; 5:21 9:18 1:9; 2:9; 3:3, 4; 8:4 9:20 8:2 9:21 3:9; 4:10; 9:22 5:15; 6:17; 7:26 2:5, 10; 3:3,14; 9:23 4:5, 6; etc. 7:22 9:23, 25 5:26 9:27, 30 5:32; 7:13 9:30 4:6 9:30 1:1; 6:13 9:30 9:9 9:31

Given all this, as well as the fact that Christians could write pseudepigrapha that appear to be Jewish,114 one might follow Harris, Philonenko, and Piovanelli and infer that a follower of Jesus composed 4 Baruch. Most scholars who have examined the issue, however, have thought otherwise, and this

114

See Davila, Provenance, 74–119; idem, “Did Christians Write Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that appear to be Jewish?,” in Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Texts and Traditions, ed. Pierluigi Piovanelli and Tony Burke (WUNT 349; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 67–86. For some critical questions, however, see Christfried Böttrich, “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission. An Overview,” in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavic Only, ed. Andrei A. Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini (Studa Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden/Boston: Leiden, 2012), 63–65

30

INTRODUCTION

writer, despite the forgoing observations, sides with them. The best judgment remains that of Charles: 4 Baruch “seems in part to be a Jewish work recast.”115 The main reason to concur with Charles is the number of elements that are either characteristic of Jewish texts as opposed to Christian texts or are far more common in Jewish sources than in Christian sources: • The call to separate from foreign spouses is a significant plot element from ch. 6 on, and it signifies “a specifically Jewish interest.”116 Such an imperative, which conflicts with the Gentile triumphalism of 9:14–18, is not what we would expect from most Christians, especially given that Paul explicitly opposed separating from nonbelieving pagans (1 Cor 7:12–13; cf. 1 Pet 3:1). • A major motif in chs. 1–5 is lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem. Repeatedly we read that Jeremiah and Baruch wept. Moreover, life without the temple is liminal: Abimelech sleeps; Baruch sits in a tomb

115 Charles, Baruch,

xviii. Cf. Kohler, “Haggada,” 408; Emil Schürer, review of Harris, Baruch, 82; idem, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 vols. (4th ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901–1909), 3:393–94; Kautzsch, Apokryphen, 2:403; G. Beer, “Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments,” RE3 16 (1905), 262; Nathaniel Schmidt, “Baruch, Books of,” in New International Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1917), 729 (“clearly of Jewish origin”); Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1071; Frey, “Apocryphes,” 454; Rießler, “Baruch,” 1323; Meyer, “Paralipomena,” 103 (“originally Jewish”); Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949), 74 (chs. 1–8 are “basically Jewish”); Goodenough, Symbols, 8:139 (a Jewish original with Christian reworking that also contains “a sort of Gnosticism”); Stone, “Baruch,” 276 (“a Christian reworking of a patently Jewish source”); Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” 66; Wolff, Jeremia, 45; Schürer et al., History, 3:1:292 (“probably Jewish”; it is “reasonable to consider the main body of the book as Jewish”); Nickelsburgh, Literature, 316; Doran, “Narrative Literature,” 295; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 131–32 (118–30); Vegas Montaner, “Paralipomenos,” 356–57; Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 190; Taatz, Briefe, 78 (the author was a Jerusalem Jew); Schaller, Paralipomena, 677–78; Wolff, “Neue Testament”; Helyer, Literature, 439; Herzer, 4 Baruch, passim; Witakowski, “Baruch,” 489; Elgvin, “Editing,” 295 (there was a Jewish Grundschrift); Perdue, “Baruch,” 289 (“the earlier editions of the book are Jewish”); van der Horst, “Long-Sleepers,” 256–57 (there is a Jewish “Grundschrift”; “Abimelech’s long sleep does not serve any Christian purpose”; “the strong emphasis on typically Jewish halakhic elements in the Paralipomena Jeremiae as a whole makes it an unlikely candidate for composition as Christian propoganda”); Doering, Letters, 253; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2663. 116 So Kautzsch, Apokryphen, 2:403.

VI.  Jewish or Christian?

31

and mourns; and Jeremiah and the exiles pass their time in misery. All this reflects a post-70 Jewish ethos, one manifest in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch but not in Christian books from the same period or later.117 Instead of mourning the fall of Jerusalem, most Christians, including Jewish Christians such as the author of Matthew, discerned in it the vindication of Jesus—who predicted it—and of their own cause.118 Indeed, “virtually nowhere in the literature of early Christianity or Jewish Christianity do we find evidence of regret over Jerusalem’s loss … The available testimony points overwhelmingly toward an attitude of rejection and condemnation.”119 • Equally at home to Judaism but foreign to Christian sympathies is the depiction of the horrors of exiled Israel in the diaspora; see esp. 7:23– 29, where the people, echoing Ps 137:4, ask, “How shall we sing to you in a foreign land?”120 • Chapter 8 offers an unflattering etiology of the Samaritans: they descend from exiles who married foreign women and, in disobedience to God’s prophet, refused to separate from them.121 This legend is of a piece with negative portrayals of the Samaritans in several Jewish writings.122 Early Christian sources, by contrast, reflect a much more positive view of these people.123 On the whole, moreover, it is fair to say that Jews had

117 That

many Jews mourned the events of 70 is the only point here, not that the date marks a transformation of Judaism or a divsion between Jewish eras; on the latter question see Daniel R. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss, eds., Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Temple (AJEC 78; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012). 118 See G. W. H. Lampe, “A.  D. 70 in Christian Reflection,” in Jesus and the Politics of his Day, ed. Ernst Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 153–71; Harlow, Baruch, 96–108; Adele Reinhartz, “The Destruction of Jerusalem as a Trauma for Nascent Christianity,” in Trauma and Traumatization in Individual and Collective Dimensions: Insights from Biblical Studies and Beyond, ed. Eve-Marie Becker, Jan Dochhorn, and Else K. Holt (Studia Aarhusiana Neotestamentica 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 274–88. 119 So Harlow, Baruch, 108. 120 Although 1 Peter characterizes Christians in exilic terms and uses “Babylon” as a code for “Rome” (5:16), it lacks the anguished pathos and confusion of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 4 Baruch. 121 Chapter 8 is all the more negative if the concluding v. 9 be judged secondary. 122 See below, pp. 389–90. 123 E.  g. Luke 10:25–37; 17:11–19; John 4:4–42; Acts 1:8; 8:4–25.

32

INTRODUCTION

more interest in Samaritan origins than did Christians. That arm mss. 345 and 144 omit all of ch. 8 is no mystery.124 • 4 Baruch exhibits not only a keen interest in Jerusalem and the temple but also in the latter’s keys and instruments (3:7–8, 14; 4:3). It also presumes the validity of temple sacrifices and associates them with rejoicing (9:1). If 4 Baruch is Jewish, all this is unsurprising. If, however, 4 Baruch is Christian, we have an anomaly. Most Christians rejected the ritual laws of Judaism,125 and original Christian compositions otherwise show little or no interest in what happened to the temple’s keys and vessels. • The notion that Baruch was sinless (6:3) is foreign to conventional Christian theology, which came to venerate Jesus as the only perfect individual. This presumably explains why the Ethiopic drops the characterization from 6:3. Jewish texts, by contrast, speak of any number of individuals as perfect, blameless, or sinless; see on 6:3. It is suggestive that, in the Christian images from 4 Baruch in the Theodore Psalter of the 11th century,126 none of the items just listed find artistic expression. The illustrator was interested in the figs, the long-sleeper, and the eagle messenger, not the Samaritans or foreign spouses or lamentation over Jerusalem.127 One could, in responding to these points, protest that the argument is too simple, that it wrongly posits a clean antithesis between Judaism and Christianity and fails to take into account the complexity and diversity within both.128 Why not infer that 4 Baruch was composed by an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian author who rejected associating with Gentiles and who cared deeply about the temple and everything associated with it?129 124 Yet

one should note that, for whatever reason, the summary of 4 Baruch in Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r–v reduces chs. 1–7 to a few sentences—Abimelech is left out of account altogether—and then retells ch. 8 almost in its entirety. 125 See L. V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism (2nd ed.; CBET 20; Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 235–84. 126 On this see below, p. 331 n. 70. 127 Cf. the short recension, which omits the lamentation in 2:2–9 and 4:6–10 and drops most of the depiction of life in exile in ch. 7. Note also that some editions of the Greek Menaion break off the story of Jeremiah before the depiction of Jews in exile and the etiology of the Samaritans. 128 Relevant here are Davila, Provenance, 15–63, and Bauckham, “Continuing Quest.” 129 One should note, however, that the anti-Pauline Ebionites, or at least some of them, evidently opposed the sacrificial cult. Cf. frag. 6 of the Gospel of the Ebionites apud Epiphanius, Haer. 30.16.4–5: “I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you do not cease from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you.” The same hos-

VI.  Jewish or Christian?

33

This, however, would be at odds with the Gentile triumphalism of 9:14–17, where Israel exits salvation-history and the twelve apostles preach the good news among the nations. Note also the expression in 9:30: “O foolish sons of Israel.” The supercessionistic ending is anti-Jewish and—unlike Paul in Romans 9–11—implies no future for Israel; see on 9:15–18. Literary-critical considerations support the judgment that 4 Baruch is fundamentally not Christian but Jewish. The undisputedly Christian ending—which contains a large number of words found nowhere else in 4 Baruch130—has, for good reason, struck many as secondary. The disjunction between 9:9, where the people mourn the prophet’s apparent death, and 9:19–32, where they angrily stone him, is jarring; and nothing in the preceding narrative prepares the reader for Jeremiah’s violent execution.131 The people who, in one chapter, and unlike the Samaritans, prove themselves to be the obedient and faithful remnant, all of sudden, in the very next chapter, murder God’s representative. The Samaritans, one could urge, come out looking better than those who return to Jerusalem with joy. There is also a startling mismatch between the anti-Gentile attitude of chs. 6–8, with its denunciation of “the defilements of the Gentiles of Babylon,” and the glowing picture of Gentile conversion in 9:14–18. Furthermore, and with regard to the elements before ch. 9 that are likely to be Christian (see

tility appears in Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1.37.2–4; 39.2; 48.5–6; 54.1; 64.1–2, which likely preserves Ebionite teaching. 130 Κηδεύω: 9:10, 11, 12; περίκυκλος: 9:12; τρεῖς: 9:12, 13; ἀπορέω: 9:12; μέλλω: 9:12; Ἰησοῦς: 9:13; Χριστός: 9:13, 17; ἄσβεστος: 9:13; λύχνος: 9:13; τετρακόσιοι: 9:14; ἑβδομηκονταεπτά: 9:14; παράδεισος: 9:14; φυτεύω: 9:14; ἄκαρπος: 9:14; καρπός: 9:14, 17; αὐξάνω: 9:14; βλαστάνω: 9:14, 15; τέλος: 9:15; ἀήρ: 9:16; ἁλμυρός: 2x: 9:16 bis; ὕψος: 9:15; κλάδων: 9:15; ξηραίνω: 9:15; κρίνω: 9:15; στηρίζω: 9:15; κόκκινος: 9:15; ἔριον: 9:15; λευκός: 9:15; χιών: 9:15; μελαίνω: 9:15; εὐφροσύνη: 9:16; νήσος: 9:17; ἐπιλέγω: 9:18; δώδεκα: 9:18; ἀποστόλος: 9:18; κοσμέω: 9:18; ἐλαία: 9:18; ἐμπίμπλημι: 9:18; πεινάω: 9:18; ὀργίζω: 9:19; Ἠσαΐας: 9:20; Ἀμώς: 9:20; ἀποκτείνω: 9:21, 23; λιθοβολέω: 9:21, 27, 30; θανάτος: 9:21; λίθος: 9:21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32 bis; σφόδρα: 9:22; ἀπονοία: 9:22; πλήρης: 9:22; μυστήριον: 9:22, 28; διηγέομαι: 9:23, 25; ὁμοιότης: 9:25, 26; ἐκτελέω: 9:29; οἰκονομία: 9:29, 31; βοάω: 9:30; μωρός: 9:30; εὐθέως: 9:31; τρέχω: 9:9, 31; πληρόω: 9:31; τίθημι: 9:32; μνῆμα: 9:32; ἐπιγράφω: 9:32; βοηθός: 9:32. One may also observe that whereas, before 9:10, there is less than one instance per chapter of matter between a definite article and the noun it introduces, 9:10–32 contains four such constructions; see p. 25 n. 94. 131 Cf. Schürer, review of Harris, Baruch, 83: the martyrdom of Jeremiah is, in its larger context, “completely unmotivated and leaves the impression of being a clumsy Christian addition.”

34

INTRODUCTION

above), none are integral to the book. They are all easily attributed to later scribal revision. A Jewish original is consistent with four more facts. First, the three texts with which our book is most closely related—2 Baruch, the Jeremiah Apocryphon, and Pesiqta Rabbati 26—are Jewish compositions.132 Second, our book is full of stories, themes, and elements that otherwise appear in Jewish sources,133 and sometimes—as with the episode of the keys (4:3–4)—they appear exclusively there. Third, 4 Baruch reflects not only a knowledge of the LXX but, at points, agrees with, or seems to depend upon, the Hebrew text.134 Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that, although the popular legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus reflects the influence of 4 Baruch,135 most of the church fathers seemingly did not know our book or found no use for it, for traces of it in their writings are hard to find. 4 Baruch, then, appears to be a Christian edition of an older Jewish work. It is difficult to judge how extensive the Christian revision is, in part because there were probably subtractions as well as additions, and those we cannot uncover.136 This writer, however, has gained the sense that de Jonge’s judgment—“there is a case to be made for a much more thoroughgoing Christian redaction of the Paralipomena than is commonly accepted”137—likely claims too much. While the Christian contribution is not confined to 9:10–32, the document, for the most part, leaves the impression of being a Jewish composition, with Christian touches here and there.138

VII.  Scriptural Intertextuality 4 Baruch assumes that readers or hearers are already familiar with Jeremiah, Baruch, Nebuchadnezzar, and the deportation to Babylon, for all

132 The

view that 2 Baruch is Christian—see Nir, Destruction—remains marginal. On the Jewish character of the Jeremiah Apocryphon see Marmorstein, “Quellen”; Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 102–104; Piovanelli, “Default Position.” 133 Here the work of Delling, Lehre, retains its value. 134 See the commentary below, on 1:2; 2:5; 5:32; and 7:8. 135 See below, pp. 61, 215. 136 Points where the narrative is exceedingly laconic or where inconcinnities appear might be due to omission. 137 de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha, 55–56. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 2:1071: “an originally Jewish work, but with considerable Christian additions and interpolations.” 138 On the possibility of more than one Jewish edition see p. 18 n. 73. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-007

VII.  Scriptural Intertextuality

35

these appear at the beginning of the narrative without elucidation.139 Some knowledge of the HB/OT and attendant traditions is, then, presupposed, as it is throughout the rest of the book. This raises the issue of the extent to which the author anticipated hearers or readers who would recognize the dialogic nature of the book and its recurrent borrowing from the Bible. This writer’s judgment is that he likely expected many of his appropriations of scripture to function as allusions, to induce its audience, or at least some members of it, to recall texts of a common cultural encyclopedia. That is, he anticipated, for instance, that some would appreciate that 1:2 (“your prayers are like a solid pillar within her, and like an adamantine wall surrounding it”) rewrites Jer 1:18 (“I for my part have made you today a fortified city, an iron pillar, and a bronze wall”) and recognize that 7:29 (“Recite for us a song from the songs of Zion, and the song of your God” followed by “How shall we sing to you [since we are] in a foreign land?”) plays off of Ps 137:3–4 (“Our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’ How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?”). Whatever one’s estimate as to the scriptural literacy that 4 Baruch assumes or implies, the book, from beginning to end, reflects a profound familiarity with, and immersion in, Jewish Scripture and parasitic traditions. Indeed, it is perhaps as intertextually dense as any Jewish or Christian narrative from antiquity. Consider the following: (1) Biblical figures and episodes dominate. With the exception of “Agrippa” in 3:10 and 5:25, all the other named characters—Jeremiah, Baruch, Abimelech, Nebuchadnezzar, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Michael, and Isaiah—are from the HB/OT. Furthermore, after recounting the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of exile (chs. 1–4), 4 Baruch narrates the end of exile and the return to Jerusalem (chs. 5–9), so a scriptural series of events is basic to its plot and structure. Our tale also refers, in passing, to the creation account in Genesis (3:8), to Noah’s flood (7:10), and to the exodus from Egypt (6:20; 7:18), and it develops a typology wherein Jeremiah is a new Moses and the return from exile is another exodus.140 Finally, the geographical and religious center of 4 Baruch is Jerusalem and its temple. In short, Scripture has supplied the book’s main pieces.

139 Contrast

the Greek Menaion, which introduces Jeremiah and narrates part of his history before recounting our story. 140 See above, pp. 21–22.

36

INTRODUCTION

(2) 4 Baruch also tells stories that, while not in the HB/OT, are nonetheless scripturally inspired, or probably so inspired: • The phrase, “a breach was made in the city wall,” which occurs in 2 Kgs 25:4 = Jer 52:7, was the source of 4 Baruch’s belief that God wrecked Jerusalem’s wall; see pp. 109–110. • That God, or God through angels, and not the Chaldeans, burned Jerusalem, derives from Lam 1:13 (“From on high he sent fire; it went deep into my [Zion’s] bones”) and 2:5 (“The Lord … has destroyed Israel; he has destroyed all its palaces, laid in ruins its strongholds”); see pp. 136–37. • That some of the temple’s holy things were not carried off to Babylon but rather hidden in the earth could derive from an ‫ אל תקרי‬midrash upon Jer 27:19–22; see pp. 137–39. • That God will “protect” Abimelech (3:10; 5:30), that is, spare him the pain of the exilic period, derives from a creative reading of Jer 39:17– 18: “I will deliver you on that day, says the Lord, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you”; see on 3:10. • The basket that Jeremiah gives to Abimelech, full of figs that heal, is almost certainly the basket of good figs in Jer 24:1–7; see on 3:15. • The notion of a letter of instruction written from Jerusalem to Jews in the diaspora (6:16–23) goes back to Jeremiah 29, where the prophet sends an epistle to the exiles; see on 6:17. • That some of the figs from Abimelech’s basket are sent to Babylon can be read out of the Hebrew of Jer 24:5; see on 7:8. • That the Chaldeans crucified Jewish exiles (7:25) likely derives from an imaginative interpretation of Ps 137:2 or 3; see on 7:25. • That Chaldeans asked Jews to recite “a song from the songs of Zion,” who responded by saying, “How shall we sing to you (since we are) in a foreign land?’” (7:29), turns the lament in Ps 137:3 into a literal event. (3) 4 Baruch often clearly borrows from biblical texts and is accordingly full of potential allusions: • “Your prayers are like a solid pillar within her, and like an adamantine wall surrounding it” (1:2) rewrites Jer 1:18; see on 1:2. • “The elect city” (1:5) probably comes from Ecclus 49:5–6; see on 1:5. • “Guard against rending your garments; rather let us rend our hearts” (2:5) rewrites Joel 2:5; see on 2:5. • “God will hand over the city into the hands of the King of the Chaldeans, to carry the people captive to Babylon” (2:7) depends upon 1 Esdr 6:14– 15; see on 2:7.

VII.  Scriptural Intertextuality

37

• In 3:2, Jeremiah hears the sound of a trumpet, just as he does in Jer 4:19– 21; see on 3:2. • That God (through angels with torches) burned Jerusalem (3:2–4) comes from Lam 1:13 (“From on high he sent fire”); see on 3:2–4. • “Hear, O earth (ἄκουε, γῆ)” (3:8) borrows from LXX Jer 6:19 (ἄκουε, γῆ); see on 3:8. • That God created the land “in the superabundance of the waters” (3:8) alludes to the creation of dry land in Gen 1:2–10; see on 3:8. • “Abimelech the Ethiopian” (Ἀβιμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοπι; 3:9) is a variant of the formulation in LXX Jer 45:7: “Abdemelech the Ethiopian” (Ἀβδεμέλεχ ὁ Αἰθίοψ); see on 3:9. • That Abimelech has done many good deeds for Jeremiah (3:9) summarizes what he does in Jeremiah 38–39; see on 3:9. • “He pulled me up out of the pit of mire” (3:9) borrows from LXX Jer 45:6, 10, 13; see on 3:9. • That Baruch and Jeremiah sit and weep (ἐκάθισαν δὲ οἱ δύο, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν; 3:14) reflects the LXX title to Lamentations, “And it happened, after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem was laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping” (LXX: ἐκάθισεν … κλαίων); see on 3:14. • “The basket of figs” that Jeremiah hands to Abimelech is the basket of good figs in Jer 24:1–7; see on 3:15. • “Jeremiah was yet weeping for the people” (4:5) echoes LXX Jer 8:23; see on 4:5. • “Baruch put dust on his head, and he sat, and he cried this lamentation” (4:6) imitates the title of LXX Lamentations; see on 4:6. • “The beloved people has … been delivered into the hands of enemies” (4:6) draws upon LXX Jer 12:7, where God says of Israel: “I have given my beloved soul into the hands of her enemies”; see on 4:6. • “God will have mercy upon us (οἰκτειρήσει ἡμᾶς), and he will return (ἐπιστρέψει) us to our city” (4:8) probably echoes LXX Mich 7:19: “he will return (ἐπιστρέψει) and have mercy upon us” (οἰκτιρήσει ἡμᾶς); see on 4:8. • The story of Abimelech sleeping during the exile (5:1) has its origin in Ps 126:1: “When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those dream”; see p. 219. • That Jeremiah was a “priest” (so 5:18; cf. 9:1–2) originates from an interpretation of the superscription of Jeremiah; see on 5:18. • “Even if the cataracts of heaven had rained down upon them” (5:21) comes from the story of Noah’s flood; see on 5:21. • “The repose of the souls of the just” (5:32) appears to draw upon MT Jer 6:16; see on 5:32.

38

INTRODUCTION

• “Your grief has been turned into joy” (6:3) recalls Jer 31:13–14; see on 6:3. • When Baruch obtains paper and ink in order to write (6:16), he is doing what he does in canonical Jeremiah; see on 6:16. • “Who brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the great furnace” (6:20) following a reference to “the covenant” (6:18) has a close parallel in Jer 11:1–7; see on 6:20. • The imperative not to be like the raven that Noah sent forth and that did not return to him on the ark but to be like the dove which brought him news (7:10) recycles language from LXX Gen 8:6–12; see on 7:10. • That Noah was a “righteous” man comes from Gen 6:9; 7:1; cf. Ezek 14:14, 20; see on 7:10. • “Do not turn to the right or to the left” (7:12) is a verbatim citation of LXX Prov 4:27; see on 7:12. • “This happened in order that they might believe” (7:17) is a likely allusion to Exod 4:4–5; see on 7:17. • “Lest you see the mistreatment that has befallen the people under the Babylonians” (7:23) is modeled upon Exod 3:7; see on 7:23. • Εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου (7:28) occurs in LXX Exod 4:1 and adds to 4 Baruch’s Moses typology; see on 7:28. • “For I say to you that the entire time we have spent here, they have held us fast, saying, ‘Recite for us a song from the songs of Zion, and the song of your God.’ And we have said to them, ‘How shall we sing to you (since we are) in a foreign land?’” (7:29) redrafts Ps 137:3–4; see on 7:29. • “Jeremiah spoke these words to the people” rewrites LXX Num 11:24; see on 8:4. • “Holy, holy, holy” (9:3) comes from Isa 6:3; see on 9:3. • “My meditation is Michael” (9:5) reworks a refrain from LXX Psalm 118; see on 9:5. • “The tree of life, which is planted in the middle of paradise” (9:14) borrows from Gen 2:8–9; see on 9:14. • “That which is scarlet to become white as wool. The snow will be turned black” (9:15–16) reframes Isa 1:18; see on 9:15–16. • “On the Mount of Olives” (9:18) is from LXX Zech 14:4; see on 9:18. • “These are once again the words spoken by Isaiah the son of Amos when he said, ‘I saw God and the Son of God’” (9:20) recalls both Isa 1:1 and 6:1; see on 9:20. • “Taking the stone they set it up on his tomb, writing this (on it): This is the stone (that was) the helper of Jeremiah” depends upon 1 Βασ 7:12; see on 9:32.

VII.  Scriptural Intertextuality

39

These are only the most obvious and plausible examples of scriptural appropriation. As the commentary reveals, other possible instances of borrowing abound. The text is, in great measure, a scriptural mosaic. (4) Beyond the foregoing, 4 Baruch contains many words, expressions, and phrases that characterize, even if they are not exclusive to, the LXX and so make the book sound biblical:141 • ἐγένετο + ἡνίκα + verb + subject; see on 1:1. • οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ; see on 1:1. • διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν; see on 1:1. • λαλέω + πρός; see on 1:1 • ἀνάστα, ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης; see on 1:1. • κατοικοῦντες + ἐν αὐτῇ; see on 1:1. • ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων; see on 1:3. • καὶ ἀποκριθείς … εἶπεν; see on 1:4. • λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου; see on 1:4. • καὶ ἐλάλησεν + subject + λέγων; see on 1:5. • ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου = “by your power”; see on 1:6. • εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ; see on 2:1. • τί ἔστι σοι; see on 2:2. • καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ; see on 2:9. • καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγένετο; see on 3:2. • ἄγγελος = “angel” (not human messenger); see on 3:2. • λαλήσω πρὸς Κύριον ῥῆμα; see on 3:4. • δέομαι Κύριε; see on 3:4. • ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς; see on 3:8. • καθὼς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Κύριος; see on 3:14. • ἀποστέλλω + λέγων; see on 3:15. • ἐγερθείς + ἀπό + ὕπνου; see on 5:2. • ἀνίστημι + πορεύομαι; see on 5:6. • εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι; see on 5:8. • μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ; see on 5:8. • μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ; see on 5:21. • εὐλογήσω σε; see on 5:32. • προσηύξατο πρὸς Κύριον; see on 6:1. • καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε; see on 6:1. • ἄρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; see on 6:2. • ὁ ἱκανός as a divine title; see on 6:3.

141

Many of these are Semitisms or Hebraisms. The point here, however, is that they are characteristic of the LXX.

40 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

INTRODUCTION

ἡ σάρξ μου; see on 6:6. ἐν (τῇ) δυνάμει of divine power; see on 6:7. ἀνάστηθι + καί + a second imperative; see on 6:8. ἄκουσον τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ δούλου σου; see on 6:10. λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ; see on 6:13. λέγει Κύριος; see on 6:13. τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἔστησε μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακώβ; see on 6:18. τοὺς λόγους τούτους, οὓς ἀπέστειλα; see on 6:19. οὕτοι οὖν εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι, οὓς εἶπε Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ; see on 6:20. ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν; see on 6:21. ἐτραχηλιάσατε ἐνώπιόν μου; see on 6:21. πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; see on 7:3, 12. ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται; see on 7:11. μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ, μήτε εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά; see on 7:12. ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ πορεύσῃ; see on 7:12. πάντα ὅσα ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἠκούσατε, φυλάξατε; see on 7:22. δίκαιος γὰρ εὑρέθης ἐνάντιον τοῦ Θεοῦ; see on 7:23. ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς; see on 7:25. ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ; see on 7:25. ὅπως εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ τῶν κριμάτων τοῦ στόματός μου; see on 7:28. ἐπισκέψηται Κύριος; see on 7:30. τὰ ἔθνη = “Gentiles”; see on 7:32. ἐγένετο δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα, ἐν ᾗ ἐξέφερε ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος; see on 8:1. ἀνάστηθι, σὺ καὶ ὁ λαός; see on 8:2. εἶπον πρὸς ἑαυτούς· Ἀναστάντες ὑποστρέψωμεν … εἰς τὸν τόπον ἡμῶν; see on 8:6. ἐξέρχομαι + εἰς συνάντησιν; see on 8:7. ἐπονομάζω + τὸ ὄνομα + genitive pronoun + name of person or place; see on 8:8. ἀναφέρω + θυσία; see on 9:1. ᾧ πᾶσα κρίσις κέκρυπται ἐν αὐτῷ; see on 9:6. τοῦ ποιῆσαι καρπός; see on 9:17. ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ; see on 9:29.

The Tanak is our book’s literary foundation. Not only are 4 Baruch’s vocabulary and style scriptural, but its story arc—destruction, exile, return— derives from the HB/OT. Furthermore, while canonical Jeremiah, especially what it has to say about Jerusalem’s final days, is its main intertextual part-

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

41

ner,142 it makes use of and rewrites passages from all three divisions of the Tanak—the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings. Given that 4 Baruch consistently takes up pre-existing legends and materials, it is impossible to think of a particular author as responsible for all of its extensive intertextuality. Like everything else in the book, its interactions with Scripture derive largely from a tradition that evolved over time. This is most obviously the case for the stories that seemingly stem from imaginative, midrashic-like readings of Hebrew sentences. These were no doubt in circulation, and probably parts of narratives, before someone decided to make them part of a Greek text.

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History 4 Baruch is, as just indicated, largely a collection of traditions. We know this because almost every event in it has a parallel in other books. In this it is perhaps a bit like Matthew’s Gospel. The latter is full of sayings attributed to Jesus and stories about him that were in circulation and even brought together into another book—Mark—before Matthew appeared. 4 Baruch is in fact so full of traditional material that one might characterize the individual responsible for it as a redactor rather than an author. He certainly did not suffer from what Harold Bloom famously called “the anxiety of influence.” He was mostly content, with the possible exception of the story of the Samaritans in ch. 8,143 to reproduce and revise stories that others had told before him. (1) 2 Baruch. Most who have looked into the issue have inferred that the author of 4 Baruch knew 2 Baruch.144 There is, however, no consensus.

142

One may compare how canonical Baruch so often, esp. in its first two chapters, imitates Jeremiah; see Georg Fischer, “Baruch, Jeremiah’s ‘Secretary’? The Relationship between the Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, ed. Eibert Tigchelaar (BETL 270; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 136–55. 143 The qualification may reflect only our ignorance. That 4 Baruch 8 has no literary parallels—neither 2 Baruch nor the Jeremiah Apocryphon contains anything comparable—scarcely guarantees 4 Baruch’s originality at this point, for we cannot equate what has survived with what was once known. 144 So e.  g. Charles,  Baruch, xviii–ix (4 Baruch is “deeply indebted” to 2 Baruch); Harris,  Baruch, 17–20; Bruno Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1924), lxiv–lxvi; Frey, “Apochttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-008

42

INTRODUCTION

One might entertain the possibility that 2 Baruch used 4 Baruch,145 or that the books independently take up common tradition, whether oral or written.146 The most important parallels are these:147 2 Baruch

4 Baruch

1:2–5; 13:9–10; 77:9–10; 79:2: the city is destroyed on account of the people’s sins.

1:1, 7; 2:2–3; 4:6; 6:21: the city is de­stroyed on account of the people’s sins.

2:1: God commands Baruch that he, Jeremiah, and those like them must leave the city; it cannot be destroyed while they are in it.

1:1, 3, 7: God commands Jeremiah that he and Baruch must leave the city; it cannot be destroyed while they are in it.

2:2: “Your deeds are like a firm pillar for this city, and your prayers are like a strong city wall.”

2:2: “For your prayers are like a solid pillar within her, and like an adamantine wall surrounding it.”

5:1: Baruch worries that God’s enemies will boast; cf. 7:1; 80:3.

1:5; 4:7: Jeremiah worries that the Chaldeans and their king will boast.

6:1: “the host of the Chaldeans surrounded the city.”

4:1: “the host of the Chaldeans surrounded the city.”

ryphes,” 454; Meyer, “Paralipomena,” 103; Bogaert, Baruch, 1:177–221; Stone, “Baruch,” 277; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 88; Wolff, Jeremia, 45–46, 52; A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Charlesworth, OTP, 1:620; Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text (New York/ London: T. & T. Clark, 2009), 2. The most thorough defense of this position appears in Herzer, Paralipomena, 33–77, and idem, 4 Baruch, xvi–xxiii. He ascribes much in 4 Baruch to creative interaction with 2 Baruch, urging that the latter was a “template” for the former. 145 Cf. Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxviii. Although Riaud, Paralipomènes, 41, attributes this view to Kohler, “Haggada,” 408, this seems to be an error. Kohler claims only that 2 Baruch is “much younger” than 4 Baruch, not that 2 Baruch used 4 Baruch.  146 So Nickelsburg, “Traditions”; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 48; idem, “II Baruch”; Schaller, Paralipomena, 670–73; Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen, 143–44; Wright, Baruch, 65. While not committing himself to a source-critical solution, Barton, “Jeremiah,” 308, judges 2 Baruch to be “later” than 4 Baruch. 147 For lists of parallels between 4 Baruch and 2 Baruch see Charles, Baruch, xviii– xix; Kautzsch, Apokryphen, 2:403; Bruno Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in deutscher Gestalt (GCS 32; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1924), lxiv–lxvi; Bogaert, Baruch, 1:186–90; Schaller, Paralipomena, 670–72; Herzer, Paralipomena, 35–36; idem, 4 Baruch, xvii–xviii (he includes structural parallels). The parallels fall off in 4 Bar. 8–9.

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

43

2 Baruch

4 Baruch

6:3: Baruch is carried over the wall of Jerusalem.

4:1: Jeremiah and Baruch are on the walls of Jerusalem.

6:4–8:1: Baruch sees angels with torches in their hands; they burn the city, but only after being told to desist until items from the temple are saved; cf. 80:1–3.

3:1–8,14: Jeremiah and Baruch see angels with torches in their hands; they burn the city, but only after being told to desist until items from the temple are saved.

6:7–10: An angel takes holy items in the temple (enumerated) and consigns them to the earth, saying, “Earth, earth, earth … receive what I commit to you and guard them until the end times …”; the earth opens its mouth and swallows them; cf. 80:2.

3:8,14: Jeremiah and Baruch take holy vessels in the temple (unenumerated) and consign them to the earth, saying, “Hear, O earth … Guard then the vessels of the service until the gathering of the beloved”; the earth swallows them.

8:1–9:1: A voice from the temple says, “Enter, enemies, and come, adversaries. For he who preserved the house has abandoned it”; the host of the Chaldeans enters and leads the people into captivity; Baruch and Jeremiah remain, tearing their clothes and weeping.

4:1–6: An angel trumpets: “Enter the city, host of the Chaldeans, for the gate has been opened for you”; the king enters and takes the people captive; Baruch remains, putting dust on his head and weeping.

10:2–5; 33:2: Jeremiah goes to Babylon.

4:5 (?); 5:21: Jeremiah goes to Babylon.

10:5–12:4: Baruch makes a “lament”; this includes warning Babylon that wrath will eventually awaken against it; he declares, “Our fathers went to rest without grief and behold, the righteous sleep in the earth in peace. For they did not know this anguish, nor did they yet hear what happened to us”; they are more blessed than the living; cf. 10:6–7; 11:4–5.

4:6–10: Baruch cries a “lament”; this includes warning Babylon that that it will not survive; he declares, “Blessed are our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they departed from this world and did not see the destruction of this city.”

10:18: “You priests, take the keys of the sanctuary and throw them into the highest heaven, and give them to the Lord and say, ‘Guard your house yourself, for behold, we have been found to be false stewards.’”

4:3–4: “Jeremiah, taking the keys of the temple, went outside of the city, and he threw them before the sun, saying, ‘I say to you, O sun, take the keys of the temple of God, and guard them until the day on which the Lord asks you about them. For we have not been found worthy to guard them, for we have become false stewards.’”

44

INTRODUCTION

2 Baruch

4 Baruch

35:2: Baruch says: “O, that my eyes were springs, and my eyelids a fountain of tears.”

2:5: Jeremiah says to Baruch: “let us not draw from the places of water; rather let us cry and fill them with tears.”

77:17–26: Baruch writes a letter to the nine and one half tribes in the diaspora; he sends the letter by an eagle, whom he addresses with these words: “The Most High has created you that you should be higher than all birds … At the time of the flood, Noah received the fruit of an olive tree from a dove when he sent it from the ark. But also ravens cared for Elijah … Do not hesitate and do not turn to the right of to the left. But fly and go straight away.”

7:1–12: Baruch writes a letter to Jeremiah in Babylon; he sends the letter by an eagle, whom he addresses with these words: “Do not be like the raven which Noah sent forth and which did not return to him on the ark. Instead be like the dove which, on its third trip, brought news to the righteous one. … And do not turn to the right or to the left, but go straight as an arrow. Go in the might of God, and the glory of the Lord will be with you in every path you take.”

85:2: “They [righteous men and holy prophets] helped us when we sinned and they interceded for us with him who has created us … And the Mighty One heard them and forgave us.”

2:3: “Whenever the people sinned, Jeremiah would put dust on his head and pray for the people until their sin was forgiven.”

87:1: Baruch ties his letter to the neck of the eagle.

7:8: Baruch ties his letter to the neck of the eagle; Jeremiah does the same in 7:30.

A large obstacle to deciding, with conviction, whether one of our books depends upon the other is that we cannot, with assurance, determine precisely what, in either one, comes from tradition and what belongs to redaction. We cannot, for example, establish that one of our authors invented the tale of an eagle carrying a letter to Babylon. Such a story might have been part of Jewish oral lore, or it may have appeared in a book no longer extant. Scholars are, for obvious reasons, accustomed to explaining parallels in terms of the literature that has survived.148 This, however, is a haz-

148 Some

may further be inclined to utilize a book that they know well and judge to be important—2 Baruch—when accounting for a book that is not so well known and that they judge to be less important—4 Baruch.

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

45

ardous enterprise. Much of ancient Jewish literature has not survived.149 This includes literature about Jeremiah, Baruch, the destruction of the temple, and the Babylonian captivity. 4Q383, 385a, 387, 387a, 388a, 389, and 390 are evidently fragments of more than one Jeremiah apocryphon.150 2 Macc 2:4–8 tells of Jeremiah hiding the temple vessels and cites as the source for this story a “writing” (γραφή) unknown to us.151 Cyprian, Test. 3.29, attributes several prophetic sentences to “Baruch,” sentences otherwise unknown. There is another problem in this connection. One can think of literary dependence in terms of one author composing with another’s text before him. Given, however, the lack of verbatim overlap between them, such a scenario likely leads us astray. More credible is the proposal that the author of 4 Baruch had heard 2 Baruch recited more than once, or that the author of 2 Baruch had heard 4 Baruch, or something closely related to it,152 recited more than once. It is also feasible that both authors were independently familiar with a written source now defunct or with a complex of popular oral traditions about the exile. This is Henze’s judgment: “Variants of the same motif in the two texts are the result of variant performative renditions of the same, or of related, narrative traditions, developed independently as both documents gradually assumed their current form.”153

149 The

number of Qumran fragments that do not belong to known books is proof of this, and M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments (London: SPCK, 192), remains instructive on the general point. According to Christoph Markschies, “The Canon of the New Testament in Antiquity: Some New Horizons for Future Researach,” in Homer, the Bible, and Beyond: Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World, ed. Margaret Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa (Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 176, “we only possess 14 % of the Christian literature of the 2nd century that, according to our sources, must have existed.” It would not be surprising if the situation in Judaism were similar. 150 See Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 92–96, 117. 151 Cf. Wright, Baruch, 167: the evidence “suggests that there was a more extensive Baruch literature in antiquity than the fully preserved works themselves would indicate.” It is possible that 2 Macc 2:4–8 refers to one of the fragmentary texts from Qumran. 152 Perhaps something close to the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon; on this see below, pp. 46–53. 153 Matthias Henze, Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel: Reading Second Baruch in Context (TSAJ 142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 244. Cf. Henze’s article, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Literary Compositions and Oral Performance in First-Century Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 131 (2012), 181–200.

46

INTRODUCTION

There is, in addition, the possibility of secondary orality—that 2 Baruch or 4 Baruch influenced the other’s oral tradition. This author, whose judgment is that, where they overlap, neither 2 Baruch nor 4 Baruch is consistently more primitive,154 prefers to leave the question open.155 (2) The Jeremiah Apocryphon. This text is little known and little studied. It exists in Arabic (in two different recensions)156 and in Coptic.157 The former is late and dependent upon the latter,158 and the latter—whose title recalls the Greek title of 4 Baruch: “These are the Paraleipomena (neparalupomhnon) of Jeremiah the Prophet”—is in turn a translation from the Greek.159 While there are Christian elements, these are few, insubstantial, and easily detached, and the hypothesis of a Jewish original commends itself.160 As for the date, Marmorstein tentatively suggested either the third or fourth century.161 Schützinger placed it in the third century,

154 See

e.  g. pp. 133–36 below, on the angels of destruction, and pp. 181–85 below, on the episode of the keys. Nickelsburg, “Traditions,” 63, observes, regarding the latter, that Baruch’s exhortation about the keys in 2 Baruch presupposes a narrative, and that here 4 Baruch has a narrative. He further observes, on p. 64, in connection with the hiding of the vessels, that agreements between 4 Baruch and 2 Macc 2 over against 2 Baruch show the indebtedness of 4 Baruch to tradition beyond 2 Baruch and more primitive than 2 Baruch. Nickelsburg goes on to argue convincingly, on pp. 65–66, that the focus on Baruch in 2 Baruch is secondary vis-à-vis the prominence of Jeremiah in 4 Baruch. Cf. Gry, “Ruine,” 220. 155 Cf. Jones, Jewish Reactions, 156: it is “scarcely possible” to decide. 156 See Coquin, “Langue originelle.” The most convenient English translation of the Arabic is in Mingana and Harris, Christian Documents, 149–91, but it is not based on the best ms. 157 Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” is the standard critical edition and includes an English translation. 158 Nonetheless, it may at points be original, such as where it agrees with 4 Baruch against the Coptic. For instance, both the Arabic and 4 Bar. 9:3 cite the trisagion when Jeremiah resumes his priestly duties (see trans. Mingana and Harris, p. 188— although here Jeremiah is confusingly distinguished from the high priest; see p. 189). 159 See Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 103–104. 160 So Marmorstein, “Quellen”; Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 102–104; Coquin, “Langue originelle”; Pérez, “Apocrifo de Jeremias,” 391–93; Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 265–73; idem, “Default Position.” I have not had access to the unpublished Ph.  D. dissertation of J.-M. Rosenstiehl, “Histoire de la Captivité de Babylon, I–V” (Strasbourg, n.  d.). 161 Marmorstein, “Quellen,” 337 (“vielleicht”).

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

47

Gutmann in the second.162 Kuhn suggested somewhere between the second and seventh centuries.163 Piovanelli, with reasons that persuade this writer, has dated it between 70 and 132.164 The parallels between this work and 4 Baruch are abundant:165   Jeremiah Apocryphon (Coptic)166

4 Baruch

1:1, introductory sentence: “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah … saying.”

1:1, introductory sentence: “God spoke to Jeremiah.”

1:2; 11:2; etc.: Israel has sinned.

1:1, 7; 2:2–3; 4:6; 6:21: Israel has sinned.

1:6; 2:13; 4:5; 7:3; etc.: Israel calls upon foreign gods.

7:26: Israel calls upon foreign gods.

5–6, 12: Story of Ebedmelech drawing Jeremiah out of the pit of mire which includes the phrases, “he drew him up from the pit” and “brought up Jeremiah from the pit of mire.”

3:9: “He pulled me out of the pit of mire.”

8:5, 7: Baruch is Jeremiah’s “reader.”

5:18: Baruch is “the reader.”

9:2; 31:21; 35:1: Jeremiah sits/is in a tomb.

4:11; 6:1: Baruch sits in a tomb.

162 Heinrich

Schützinger, “Die arabische Jeremia-Erzählung und ihre Beziehungen zur jüdischen religiösen Überlieferung,” ZRGG 25 (1973), 11 (“dürfte etwa dem 3. Jahrhundert entstammen”); J. Gutmann, “Jeremia-Apokryphon,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica: Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 10 vols. (Berlin: Eschkol, 1928–1934), 8:1093. 163 Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 104; cf. Pérez, “Apocrifo de Jeremias,” 393. 164 Piovanelli, “Parlipomeni,” 273; idem, “Default Position.” The Coptic text seems to be independent of 2 Baruch and, in contrast to 4 Baruch, Baruch plays little role in the story. 165 In addition to what follows see Herzer, Paralipomena, 87–88; idem, 4 Baruch, xxiv– xxvi; Schaller, Paralipomena, 670–75. 166 The chapter and verse numbers here and throughout the commentary are those of G. Aranda Pérez, “Apocrifo de Jeremias sobre la Cautividad de Babilonia,” in Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento, 5 vols., ed. Alejandro Díez Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1982–1987), 401–442.

48

INTRODUCTION

Jeremiah Apocryphon (Coptic)

4 Baruch

12, 22, 38–39: Abimelech wants to rest “a little”; he sleeps during the time of exile, for seventy years; his basket of fruit is still fresh when he awakens; but his head is heavy; he finds Jerusalem changed and does not know anyone; he thinks a “delusion” has come upon him; he asks an old man if “this is not Jerusalem”; the man says, “Yes”; Abimelech asks about Jeremiah and the old man responds: “It is seventy years since Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem. They took the people to Babylon, (and) they also took Jeremiah with them”; Abimelech responds: “If you were not an old man, I would say that you are mad … Even if the cataract (pkataxrakths) had opened its mouth (and) had overwhelmed them, I would have encountered them”; the old man tells Abimelech: “O my son you are a righteous man whom God did not let see the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore God brought this sleep upon you until today … And as for these figs that are in your hand, it is not their season.”

5: Abimelech wants to rest “a little”; he sleeps during the time of exile, for sixty-six years; his basket of figs is still fresh when he awakens; he enters Jerusalem and does not recognize it, and he finds no one he knows; he thinks an “ecstasy” has come upon him; he asks an old man, “What city is this?”; he responds: “It is Jerusalem”; Abimelech then asks about Jeremiah; the old man responds: “Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people. For they were taken captive by King Nebuchadnezzar, and with them is Jeremiah”; Abimelech responds: “If you were not an old man … I would have laughed at you and said that you have taken leave of your senses … Even if the cataracts (καταρράκται) of heaven had rained down upon them, there has not been enough time (for them) to go to Babylon”; the old man tells Abimelech: “O my son, you are a righteous man, and God did not want to show you the destruction of the city. For he brought upon you an ecstasy”; he then says: “Observe also the figs, that it is not yet their season.”

14:4–5 God to Jeremiah: “If your petition were not like an adamantine wall surrounding them, surely I would now wipe them out. And if your prayer were not like a pillar of light in the midst of Jerusalem, surely I would destroy it to its foundations.”

2:2: God to Jeremiah: “For your prayers are like a solid pillar within her, and like an adamantine wall surrounding it.”

14:18: “I send Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, and … I [will] give them into his hands”; 15:7, 14: “that you should give them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, and he take them to his land”; “I have given them into your hand.”

1:5: “are you handing over the elect city into the hands of the Chaldeans?”; 2:7: “God will hand over the city into the hands of the King of the Chaldeans, to carry the people captive to Babylon”; 3:6: “you are handing over your city into the hands of its enemies … they will take the people away to Babylon.”

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

49

Jeremiah Apocryphon (Coptic)

4 Baruch

16:14: “Afterward I shall have mercy upon them because of their fathers”; 34:9–18: Ezra prays: “Remember the covenant which you made with our fathers”; God responds favorably.

6:18: “For this reason the Lord had mercy upon our tears and remembered the covenant he established with our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

22:1: Abimelech did “good deeds” for Jeremiah.

3:9: “He did many good deeds for the people and for your servant Jeremiah.”

22:3; 39:8: Abimelech goes to the garden of Agrippa to gather figs and grapes.

3:10, 15; 5:25: Jeremiah sends Abimelech to the vineyard/estate of Agrippa to gather figs.

24:12; 26: King Nebuchadnezzar hangs up (= crucifies) Jews.

7:25: King Nebuchadnezzar hangs up (= crucifies) Jews.

28–29: Jeremiah consigns the garment of the High Priest to the corner stone of the temple, which opens its mouth to receive it; he also takes the golden plate and looks into the sun and commands it to receive it and “guard it until” he asks for it back; he then casts it up; Jeremiah takes the keys and commands the tower to “keep them until the people return from captivity”; the stone opens its mouth and receives them.

3:8, 14; 4:3: Jeremiah commands the earth and the altar to keep the sacred things of the temple “until” a future time; the earth then swallows them; he also takes the keys and throws them before the sun, asking it to guard them “until the day on which the Lord asks you about them.”

29:9–11: Jeremiah prays and (when he appears clothed in white with ointment upon his head) God forgives the people.

2:3: Jeremiah “would pray for the people until the sin was forgiven them.”

29:6: Jeremiah covers his head with dust.

2:1, 3: Jeremiah covers his head with dust.

31:12–14: “The children of Israel were hanging their harps on the willow trees” (cf. Ps 137:2), and the Chaldeans said to them: “Sing us one of the songs that you sing in the house of God in Jerusalem. But they sighed, saying, ‘How can we sing the song of our God in a strange land?’” (cf. Ps 137:3–4); cf. ch. 33.

7:29: “They have held us fast, saying, ‘Recite a song from the songs of Zion, and the song of your God.’ And we have said to them, ‘how shall we sing to you (since we are) in a foreign land?’” (cf. Ps 137:3–4); there is also likely use of Ps 137:1–2 in 7:25–26; see the commentary.

41:15–17: when the exiles return to Jerusalem, the priests offer sacrifices in the temple, and the people celebrate a feast.

9:1–2: when the exiles return to Jerusalem, sacrifices are offered and the people rejoice.

50

INTRODUCTION

Harris and Kuhn supposed that the Jeremiah Apocryphon depends upon 4 Baruch.167 It is not at all clear, however, that 4 Baruch is the earlier work. Riaud defends the thesis that both works draw upon a cycle of legends associated with Jeremiah.168 Schaller thinks rather in terms of a common Grundtext, whose origin, extent, and peculiar features are beyond recovery.169 Piovanelli, by contrast, takes 4 Baruch to be a Christian reworking of the Jeremiah Apocryphon.170 Because of the large gaps in our knowledge, the prudent course might be to decline to offer a judgment on the matter. This writer, however, believes that the different scenarios of Riaud, Nickelsburg, Schaller, and Piovanelli all contain elements of truth. Like almost all writings from antiquity, 4 Baruch was composed in an oral environment and intended for oral recitation.171 Its author, moreover, cannot have been the first to put together traditions and legends, biblical and non-biblical, about the exile and return for the purpose of edifying and entertaining Jewish audiences. He must have heard others tell stories related to his own. Given this, it is significant that 4 Baruch is, at points, exceedingly laconic. It presupposes things it never explicitly says, as well as traditions that do not appear in it. Thus, while Jeremiah stops the angels of destruction in 3:1–5, the narrative never returns to them and their work, so we are never told— as we are in 2 Baruch and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6—that they burned the temple or the city, only that an angel bade the Chaldeans to enter Jerusalem (4:1).172 Nor is there any hint in 9:1–2 as to how, if the temple has been destroyed, sacrifices can be offered in Jerusalem. Nothing is said of its having been restored. Again, 4 Baruch as a whole assumes that Jeremiah is the High Priest without ever explicitly saying so. Then there is 8:5, where Baruch and Abimelech act in concordance with Jeremiah even though nothing has heretofore been said about the reunion of these three. Perhaps most confus-

167 Harris,

“Introductions,” 133; Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 101. Cf. Siegert, Einleitung, 623. According to Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxvi, “4 Baruch was not a literary model for the Apocryphon of Jeremiah but a known tradition freely used, shaped, and combined with others.” 168 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 49–51. In this he follows Rosenstiehl; see n. 160 above. Cf. Doering, Letters, 254 n. 197. 169 Schaller, Paralipomena, 674–75. 170 Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 265–73; idem, “Captivité”; idem, “Default Position.” 171 Possible traces of oral performance include the author’s love of parallelism and incessant repetition. 172 Cf. Nickelsburg, “Traditions,” 63: here our text “suggests” more than it narrates. He also thinks this true of 2 Baruch 6–8.

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

51

ing of all is 6:23: “You will test them by the water of the Jordan. The one not heeding will become manifest. This is the sign of the great seal.” When the people get to the Jordan, however, some declare that they will not separate from their spouses, and that is all. Everyone crosses. The real boundary is Jerusalem, and it is there that the future Samaritans are turned away. Part of the explanation for these inconcinnities must be that 4 Baruch combines several originally separate traditions.173 Yet it is also the case that the book has the feel of a pars pro toto, as though it were a written aid for a more expansive oral recitation174 or is a condensed version of a larger story. This commentator deems it likely 4 Baruch, in its written form, “presupposed and supplemented oral modes of communication.”175 One plausible hypothesis, then, is this. In its current form, 4 Baruch is a Christian revision of a Jewish 4 Baruch, and the latter may have been, in turn and in part, a condensed adaptation of an oral performance of an earlier edition or near relative of the Jeremiah Apocryphon.176 Consistent with such a hypothesis, which denies a simple, one-way literary relation-

173 See

further Schaller, Paralipomena, 668–69. Harris, Baruch, 2, wrote of “the places where the scissors and paste have been used.” 174 Relevant here is the work of John Miles Foley, Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-Croatian Return Song (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990). He documents how common it is, in worldwide oral epic, for a bard, on a single occasion, to perform only part of a larger tale. On the application of Foley’s work to the HB/OT see Raymond F. Person, Jr., “The Problem of ‘Literary Unity’ from the Perspective of the Study of Oral Tradition,” in Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, ed. Raymond F. Person and Robert Rezetko (AIL 25; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 217–38. What he argues for HB/OT literature is suggestive for understanding 4 Baruch and its relatives: “any specific manuscript is a written instantiation of a much broader tradition so much so that the manuscript is necessarily understood as an imperfect and partial representation of the whole” (p. 224); “the literary unity, including the consistency of story, did not exist primarily in literary texts, but rather in the broader tradition that existed in communal memory. Any performance of this broader tradition, whether orally composed or based on a public recitation of a text by memory or the public reading of a text, was necessarily pars pro toto, only an imperfect instantiation of a selection of the broader tradition that nevertheless represented the broader tradition in its fullness” (p. 235). 175 The phrase is from Samuel Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (WUNT 123; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 127. Byrskog’s words are his characterization of the relationship between written gospels and the oral Jesus tradition. 176 In thinking along these lines it is important not to draw artificial antitheses between oral tradition and written texts; see David M. Carr, “Orality, Textuality, and Memory: The State of Biblical Studies,” in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings:

52

INTRODUCTION

ship, is the circumstance that, when they overlap, neither 4 Baruch nor the Jeremiah Apocryphon is consistently more primitive.177 To illustrate: in Jer. Apocr. 39:8, Abimelech says: “Even if the cataract (kataxrakths) had opened its mouth (and) had overwhelmed them, I would have encountered them.” Although this is enigmatic, it is obviously related to 4 Bar. 5:24: “Even if the cataracts (καταρράκται) of heaven had rained down upon them, there has not been enough time (for them) to go to Babylon.” The two sentences are conditionals and share a significant word. The broad sense is, moreover, the same: not enough time has passed for the Israelites cannot be in Babylon. It is, however, implausible that one of our authors wrote his line with the book of the other open before his eyes. It rather appears that someone—probably the author of the Jeremiah Apocryphon or someone in his tradition—remembered a line imperfectly and, in doing so, created something new. If, in this instance, 4 Baruch seems more primitive, it is not always so. The sleep of Abimelech depends upon a folk tale that Jewish tradition reworked in the light of Ps 126:1 (“When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream”), and the story of the figs derives from an imaginative reading of Jer 24:1–10 (the vision of good and bad figs). Now in the Apocryphon—as in the parallels in y. Ta῾an. 66d (3:9); b.Ta῾an. 23a—Abimelech and his figs are all about the exile and return from exile.178 Their symbolism does not extend beyond that. In 4 Baruch, however, the chief significance of the miraculously preserved figs is that they presage eschatological resurrection. This seems to be a secondary development. It is not integral to the story and has no support in either Psalm 126 or Jer 24:1–10.179 Equally relevant is the legend about the keys of the temple. In Jer. Apocr. 29:2–4, the prophet lays out the keys “in the tower,” after which “the stone” opens its mouth and receives them. In 4 Bar. 4:3–4, however, Jeremiah throws the keys before the sun, asking the sun to take them and guard them, after which he confesses, “We have not been found worthy to guard them, for we have become false stewards.” The closest parallels to

Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production, ed. Brian B. Schmidt (AIL 22; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 161–73. 177 Cf. Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxviii. 178 On all this see the commentary below, pp. 212–20. This is consistent with figs being a natural symbol of Israel; cf. Isa 28:4; Jer 8:13; 24:1–10; Hos 9:10; Luke 13:6–9; Apoc. Pet. 2. 179 See further Piovanelli, “Sommeil.”

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

53

all this appear not in the Coptic Apocryphon180 but in other Jewish sources, including y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3), where King Jehoiachin takes the keys of the sanctuary, goes up on the roof of the temple, confesses the unfaithfulness of the priesthood, and then flings the keys toward heaven.181 Here is a clear case where, given the agreements of 4 Baruch and other sources against the Jeremiah Apocryphon, the latter does not appear to be the primary source of the version in 4 Baruch.182 In addition, as other parts of 4 Baruch lack parallels in the Jeremiah Apocryphon—for example, the descent of angels to burn the temple, the talking eagle who carries a letter to Babylon and back, the legend of Samaritan origins, and all the stories featuring Baruch183—4 Baruch, even if it is indebted to a text or traditions closely related to the Jeremiah Apocryphon, contains much beyond that. A final note about 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon. If, despite the arguments just made, one holds that the Apocryphon used 4 Baruch, the latter must have been in a Jewish edition. The former says nothing about Jeremiah’s Christian martyrdom in ch. 9, and it lacks altogether the lines or clauses in 4 Baruch that are probably Christian.184 If, on the contrary, one posits that 4 Baruch used an edition of the Apocryphon, the situation is similar, for the two obvious Christian interpolations in the Apocryphon— the episode of the cornerstone in ch. 28185 and the concluding trinitarian line—are without parallel in 4 Baruch. Again, then, one would envisage one Jewish source using another Jewish source. (3) Pesiqta Rabbati 26. The most salient parallels between Pesiq. Rab. 26186 and 4 Baruch are the following:

180

Although it does have a closely-related episode: in 28, Jeremiah casts the golden plate to the sun, confessing: “there is none among all living beings fit to be entrusted with this plate except you.” 181 For additional parallels and discussion see below, pp. 181–85. 182 One could circumvent the objection by urging the far-flung influence of 4 Baruch, but for that the evidence does not otherwise compel. 183 Baruch appears briefly in Jer. Apocr. 8–9 and nowhere else. 184 On these see above, pp. 27–28. 185 This refers to “the Son of God who is to come into the world” and to “the two covenants, the new and the old.” 186 Pesiqta Rabbati “probably dates from fifth or sixth century Palestine, but it contains much older material”; so Rivka Ulmer, Pesiqta Rabbati: A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon All Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps, vol. 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), xiii.

54

INTRODUCTION

Pesiqta Rabbati 26

4 Baruch

26:5: The story of Ebed-Melech, and how he raised Jeremiah “up out of the pit,” is retold.

3:9: “He pulled me out of the pit of mire.”

26:5: “Ebed-Melech stood out because of his good deeds (‫)מעשיו הטובים‬.”

3:9: Abimelech “did many good deeds (εὐεργεσίας) for the people and for your servant Jeremiah.”

26:6: Jerusalem is destroyed only after Jeremiah leaves it.

1:1–3: God tells Jeremiah to leave the city so that it can be destroyed.

26:6: the Chaldeans see “four angels descending, [and] in their hands four flaming torches which they placed at the four corners of the temple, setting it on fire.”

3:1–3: Jeremiah and Baruch see angels come forth from heaven, “holding torches in their hands, and they stood on the walls of the city.”

26:6: An angel breaches the walls of Jerusalem and declares, “Let the enemies come and enter the House.”

3:1–2; 4:1: An angel declares, “Enter the city, host of the Chaldeans. For behold! The gate has been opened to you.”

26:6: “When the High Priest saw that the temple was on fire, he took the keys and cast them heavenward. He … cried out, ‘Here are the keys of your house; I have been an unworthy custodian (‫)אפיטרופוס‬ of it.”

4:3–4: Jeremiah (who is in 4 Baruch the High Priest), takes the keys of the temple and throws them before the sun, saying, “I say to you, O sun, take the keys of the temple of God … For we have not been found worthy to guard them, for we have become false stewards” (ἐπίτροποι).

26:6: The angel enjoins the conquerors not to boast.

1:5; 4:7: Jeremiah worries that the Chaldeans and their king will boast.

26:6: Jeremiah leaves Jerusalem, following the exiles to the Euphrates (although then he turns around and returns).

4:5 (?); 5:21: Jeremiah goes to Babylon.

26:6: Jeremiah addresses the exiles as “my people,” and they, when imploring him not to leave them and go back to Jerusalem, address him as “our father.”

7:14; 9:8: Jeremiah speaks of the exiles as “my people,” and Baruch and Abimelech, when they think that he has “left us behind and gone away,” that is, died, speak of him as “our father.”

26:6: Quotation of Ps 137:1.

7:29: Quotation of Ps 137:3–4; likely use of Ps 137:1–2 in 7:25–26; see the commentary.

VIII.  Extra-Canonical Literary Relationships and Compositional History

55

Given that 4 Baruch is the earlier source, one could urge that Pesiq. Rab. 26 depends upon 4 Baruch or perhaps upon an oral tradition informed by it. The problem with this is that, at points, Pesiq. Rab. 26 agrees with 2 Baruch over against 4 Baruch. Thus the scene with four angels at four corners has its closest parallel in 2 Baruch. Should we, then, follow Herzer, who argues that “the commonalities are best explained in terms of a common use of 2 Baruch”?187 Yet how then do we account for the agreements of 4 Baruch and Pesiq. Rab. 26 over against 2 Baruch—the common interest in Ebed-Melech/Abimelech, the reference to his good deeds, and the similar use of Psalm 137 to depict life in exile? Alternatively, one could, if so inclined, theorize direct literary dependence upon both books. Rabbinic writings do not, however, otherwise reflect a knowledge of 4 Baruch. Beyond that, the evidence hardly demands positing such dependence. The agreements listed may be due to haggadic traditions that were widely known to post-70 Jews, traditions that found their way into more than one extant writing. One might also think of a now defunct common source. (4) The Gospel of John. 4 Baruch, in its current, Christian form, shows a knowledge of the Gospel of John. This appears from 4 Bar. 9:3. Its τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με is almost certainly inspired by John 1:9: ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον.188 Given this, the agreement between this same verse in John (the true light = Jesus who ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον) and 4 Bar. 9:19 (the Son of God = Jesus who ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον) is probably not coincidence; and there may be other places where 4 Baruch echoes John.189 Nonetheless, the possible links, even if established, are few and far between, and they tell us little more than that the Christian edition of 4 Baruch appeared after the First Gospel was in circulation.190 (5) The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah. In the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, Isaiah sees God’s “Beloved” (3:9; 4:13; 5:14) and is sawn in half (5:11–14; 11:41).191 In 4 Bar. 9:10–21, Isaiah claims to have seen God’s Son (cf. Isa 6:1–5), and he is spoken of as a martyr who died a death different from Jeremiah’s death, which probably assumes the tradition that Isaiah was sawn in two. 4 Baruch here likely depends upon the 187 Herzer,

4 Baruch, xxiv. See further idem, Paralipomena, 78–86. See the discussion below, p. 410. 189 For additional possibilities see the commentary on 4:8; 5:15; 6:2; 7:7, 17; 9:13. 190 If one could date the Christian version of 4 Baruch to the 130s (see below), it would be one of the earliest witnesses to the Gospel of John; cf. Phillips, “John i.9.” 191 For the sources and composition of the Ascension see Knight, “Ascension of Isaiah.” 188

56

INTRODUCTION

Ascension.192 That Isaiah was sawn in half is attested, to be sure, in several sources;193 and John’s Gospel—which, as just noted, a Christian editor of 4 Baruch knew—appears to interpret the famous theophany of Isaiah 6:1–5 as a vision of Jesus in his pre-incarnate state (John 12:41), so Isaiah’s declaration in 4 Baruch, that he saw God’s Son, could derive from John. Nevertheless, a literary relationship between the Ascension and 4 Baruch remains probable given that (i) the christological visions of both prophets are formulated as accusations in the mouths of their opponents; (ii) those visions include overviews of Christ’s earthly mission and achievements, overviews which attribute the Gentile mission to the twelve disciples/apostles; (iii) their visions are the proximate causes of the prophets’ executions; and (iv) after those visions, and near the end of both books, the prophet/martyr hands on esoteric revelation.194 If this is the right conclusion, it is worth observing that the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah is, in its present form, a Christian work from, most likely, the first half of the second century, and that the only solid evidence for its influence upon 4 Baruch is in ch. 9, in the indisputably Christian section. (7) Overview of the compositional history. Any compositional history of 4 Baruch must remain, given our lack of knowledge about so much, conjectural; and whatever conjectures we adopt, they are likely to simplify the historical complexities. This author has, nonetheless, come to the following working hypothesis. 4 Baruch was originally a Greek Jewish text. While presupposing a large number of Jewish traditions about Jeremiah, the first destruction of Jerusalem, and the exile, it was likely modelled upon something akin to the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, perhaps an antecedent of the Coptic narrative that has come down to us. The main author, who may have heard an ancestor of the Apocryphon, reduced it, rewrote it, and inserted additional traditions and legends, many of them derived from imaginative, rabbinic-like readings of the Hebrew Bible, above all Jeremiah.

192

Cf. Dillmann, Chrestomathia, x; Harris, Baruch, 20–22; Delling, Lehre, 14–17; Nickelsburg, Literature, 316; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 155. Contrast Schaller, Paralipomena, 675–76. According to Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2678, “the readers [of 4 Baruch] knew the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah in its final Christianized form.” So too Riaud, Paralipomènes, 57–58. The closely-related account of Manasseh sawing Isaiah in two in b. Yeb. 49b raises the possibility that the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah takes up Jewish tradition; but the Bavli may here depend indirectly upon the Martyrdom, and in any case 4 Baruch clearly knows a Christian form of the legend. 193 See the commentary on 9:21. 194 4 Bar. 9:22–23, 28; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 11:37–39.

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben

57

At some point—perhaps after a second Jewish edition195—Christians came into possession of this text. Maybe a Jewish Christian, familiar with the Jewish legend, passed it on to a Gentile Christian community; or perhaps a Gentile Christian happened upon 4 Baruch in a book shop. In any event, Christian hands added the tale of Jeremiah’s martyrdom, revised sentences, and inserted lines here and there. The result was a supercessionistic book that claims Jeremiah and his story for Christians.196 Instead of serving to comfort, encourage, and entertain post-70 Jews, it became an anti-Jewish, pro-Christian text with Jeremiah as a prophet of, and martyr for, Jesus.

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben (1) The Jewish edition. Most scholars, whether or not they have thought of 4 Baruch as Jewish or Christian, have concurred that it comes from the land of Israel.197 Their primary reason has been the author’s apparent knowledge of Jerusalem’s surroundings—“the vineyard/estate of Agrippa” (3:10; 5:25), “the way of the mountain” (3:10), “the marketplace of the Gentiles” (6:16). Although the argument is not devoid of weight, it is not decisive. For one thing, the identification of “the marketplace of the Gentiles” is uncertain and so of ambiguous import; and it is just possible that “the vineyard/estate of Agrippa” is a fictional touch rather than a real place.198 For another, even if, as seems likely, the phrases reveal some knowledge of Jerusalem, such knowledge could have been obtained by a visitor or recalled by someone who once lived there but later dwelt elsewhere;199 or it could have been preserved by the author’s tradition, that is, have been part and parcel of the stories he adopted. One thinks of the Gospel of John. At

195

See p. 18 n. 73 above. the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, which effectively turns Isaiah into a Christian. 197 Harris, Baruch, 12–13 (Jerusalem); Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 306 (Jerusalem); Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 88 (probably in or near Jerusalem); Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 415 (probably written in Palestine, “perhaps even in Jerusalem”); Kaestli, “Influence,” 219; Schaller, Paralipomena, 680–81; Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen, 144; Denis et al., Introduction, 703–704; Helyer, Literature, 439 (Jerusalem); Perdue, “Baruch,” 289 (“originated in Eretz Israel”); Doering, Letters, 255; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2663; Siegert, Einleitung, 618 (Judea). 198 See the commentary below, on 3:10 and 6:16. 199 Cf. 7:26 and 29: these can be thought of as exhibiting a nostalgia for Jerusalem. 196 Cf.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-009

58

INTRODUCTION

several places it shows a knowledge of pre-70 Jerusalem, and yet the book may been put together in Ephesus at the close of the first century. Nonetheless, composition in the land of Israel as opposed to the diaspora remains plausible.200 First, the focus on the Samaritans in ch. 8 makes good sense for a text written near Samaria. Second, 4 Baruch, even though a Greek text, preserves stories that seem to go back to imaginative interpretations of the Hebrew text, and such stories are more likely to have been, at least originally, known in Israel rather than the diaspora. Third, the Greek, as we have seen, has a strong Semitic flavor, a fact consistent with an origin in Palestinian.201 Fourth, the narrative sees everything from inside the land, not from without. The book ends and begins in Jerusalem, and knowledge of the Jews in Babylon comes primarily through a letter. So Jerusalem and the temple are both theologically and geographically central. Indeed, readers leave Israel only for a bit, in parts of chs. 7 and 8, and those chapters pay scant attention to the exile other than to depict it as misery and alienation. 4 Baruch offers no model for life in an autonomous diaspora. The focus is all on waiting to get home, to the land.202 Should we then think of Jerusalem as the place of composition? This is a possibility. Although the archaeological remains preserve no sign of an organized Jewish community in the capital between the two wars,203 there is likewise no record of a decree forbidding them to go there, and some texts depict Jews visiting the ruins.204 Moreover, there is evidence of a Jewish presence, and indeed of a possible scriptorium, on the outskirts

200 Although

Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxvi, envisages “an author whose mother tongue was probably Hebrew or Aramaic but who was working in a Hellenistic environment in the Diaspora,” in his more recent article, “Story,”, 378, he deems Jerusalem the likely place of composition. 201 On Greek in Palestine see John C. Poirier, “The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity,” JGRChJ 4 (2007), 55–134; Lee, Bilingual Context, 75–133. 202 In this connection it is important to note, with Michael E. Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel’s Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts (BZNW 138; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2006), 51, that “a community may utilize the paradigm of exile and return to describe an unsatisfactory predicament and the hope for restoration, even while already dwelling within the borders of the land of Israel. The assertion of exile functions as a symbol or literary trope to express woeful dissatisfaction with the status quo or [a] specific set of circumstances that may or may not be fully disclosed.” See further p. 66 n. 230. 203 See Hillel Geva, “Searching for Roman Jerusalem,” BAR 23/6 (1997) 34–45, 72–73. 204 E.  g. Josephus, Bell. 7.377; t. Ber. 6:19; t. ‘Ed. 3:3; ARN A 4:22; b. Ber. 3a; cf. 2 Bar. 10:5; 13:1; 35:1.

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben

59

of Jerusalem after 70.205 Yet nothing in the text demands composition in a particular place, so an origin somewhere else in the land, such as Galilee or Caesarea on the coast, cannot be excluded. As for the date, most scholars have placed 4 Baruch in the second century CE, most often in the first half of that century.206 The terminum post quem seems established by the references to the vineyard and estate of

205 See

the overview of recent discoveries in James H. Charlesworth, “4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Archaeology and Elusive Answers to Our Perennial Questions,” in Interpreting 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Jason M. Zurawski (LSTS; London/New York: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2014), 156–62. 206 Cf. Klein, Bewährung, 150 n. 483: on 4 Baruch’s date, there is “ein relativer Forschungskonsens.” A sampling of opinion: Dillmann, Chrestomathia Aethiopica, x (third or fourth century CE); Kohler, “Haggada,” 409 (not long after 70); Issaverdens, Writings, 253 (“probably … in existence more than a hundred years B.  C.”); Charles,  Baruch, xviii (second century); Harris, Baruch (shortly after the Bar Kokhba war); Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, 2 vols. in 4 (Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1893–1904), 1.2:852 (perhaps fourth century); Frey, “Apocryphes,” 454 (“written toward the middle of the 2nd century A.  D.”); Meyer, “Paralipomena,” 103 (100–40 CE); Kilpatrick, “Acts VII. 52” (70–130; he posits a Hebrew original translated into Greek before 130 and then adopted by Christians); Delling, Lehre, 3 (first third of the second century); Bogaert, Baruch, 1:216–20 (ca. 136); Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” 70 (ca. 136); Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 306 (between 70 and 132); Wolff, Jeremia, 45 (first half of the second century); Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 88 (first half of the second century); Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 414 (“the first third of the second century”); Schürer et al., History, 3:1:292 (“a late second Temple date cannot be ruled out of court”); Wilson, Strangers, 97 (the Bar Kokhba period, “before, or during the early stages of the rebellion, when Jewish hopes still ran high”); Evans, Writings, 34 (either first or second century); Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 190 (first part of the second century); Kaestli, “Influence,” 219 (first decades of the second century); Herzer, Paralipomena, 177–92 (probably between 125–32); idem, 4 Baruch, xxx–xxxiv (ca. 130); Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 264 (post Bar Kokba); Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen, 142–43, 145 (although most date 4 Baruch in the first third of the second century, a first-century date is not impossible); Wright, “Baruch,” 270 (post 70); Perdue, “Baruch,” 289 (“likely dates from the early second century”); Elgvin, “Editing,” 295 (probably 120–130); Jones, Jewish Reactions, 156 (first century “or later” in the Roman period”; “the complete absence of allusions to the situation under Hadrian and the suppression of circumcision incline toward acceptance of a date prior to the crisis during his reign. The pull of Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum and Sibylline Oracle 4 … makes a date in the later first century seem more likely … Certainty is impossible, but it would seem that 4 Baruch is looking more towards the catastrophe of 70 than that of 135”); Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2663 (ca. 130); Siegert, Einleitung, 612– 13, 618 (before 100); Lee, “Development,” 404 (after the second revolt; maybe 136).

60

INTRODUCTION

Agrippa in 3:10 and 5:25. Even if fictional, they suggest a date sometime after Agrippa 1 came to power, in 41 CE. This is consistent with 4 Baruch’s preoccupation, in its first four chapters, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the focus on mourning. As with 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, the destruction of the first temple is a transparent cipher for the destruction of the second temple. Our book, then, must have appeared after 70. Those who believe that 4 Baruch depends upon 2 Baruch will necessarily go further and date the former after the later, which is often thought to come from the early second century.207 As for the latest possible date, 4 Baruch must be prior to sources that show knowledge of it. One of these is the Διήγησις περὶ τοῦ Προφήτου καὶ Σοφωτάτου τοῦ Βασιλεὺς Σολομῶντος, a close relative of the Testament of Solomon. The date of this, however, may be quite late.208 The Greek title of 3 Baruch is also less than helpful: “A revelation of Baruch, who was upon the river Gel weeping over the captivity of Jerusalem, when Abimelech (Ἀβιμελέχ) had been saved in Agrippa’s estate (Ἀγροίππα τὸ χωρίον) by the hand of God, and he sat at the Beautiful Gates, where the Holy of Holies lay.” Although this is likely a reference to 4 Baruch,209 most 207

Although Martin Goodman, “The Date of 2 Baruch,” in Revealed Wisdom: Studies in Apocalyptic in Honour of Christopher Rowland, ed. John Ashton (AGJU 88; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014), pp. 116–21, entertains the possibility of a pre-70 date. If 2 Baruch, which was written in Hebrew, was a source for 4 Baruch, one must ask whether the author of 4 Baruch was familiar with 2 Baruch in Hebrew or Greek. 208 The ms., from the 18th century and written in modern Greek, is Sancti Saba No. 290, from the Library of the Greek Patriarchate in Jerusalem. See Chester Charlton McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1922), 123–26. Chapter 11, after speaking of “Jeremiah the priest of God Most High” and of Baruch and Abimelech, relates that, when God saw the arrogance and hard-heartedness of King Zedekiah, he told Jeremiah to go to the temple and take the holy vessels (τὰ ἅγια σκεύη) of Zion and consign them to the earth (ἐπαρέδωκεν αὐτὰ τὴν γῆν; cf. 4 Bar. 3:8: παράδος αὐτὰ τῇ γῇ). After this, Jeremiah took the keys from the holy altar of the temple and threw them to the earth before the sun (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἡλίου; cf. 4 Bar. 4:3: ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου), saying: “Take them and guard them until the Lord God asks for them back (ἔπαρε αὐτὰ καὶ φύλαξέ τὰ ἕως ὁποῦ νὰ ἐξετάσῃ Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς δι᾽ αὐτά; cf. 4 Bar. 4:3: λάβε τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ φύλαξον αὐτὰς ἕως ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ ἐξετάσει σε Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν), because we have not been found worthy to guard them” (ὅτι ἡμεῖς δὲν εὑρεθήκαμεν ἄξιοι διὰ νὰ τὰ φυλἀξωμεν; cf. 4 Bar. 4:4: διότι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι τοῦ φυλάξαι αὐτάς) (McCown, pp. 118*–119*). The agreements are no closer to the short text of the Menaion than they are to the longer Greek text. 209 And not the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, which rather speaks of Agrippa’s “garden,” not his χωρίον, his “property” or “estate,” as in 4 Bar. 3:15; 5:25.

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben

61

of the line may be secondary. The relevant words are not in the Slavonic, they employ the third person with reference to Baruch rather than the first person, as throughout the rest of the document, and Abimelech otherwise plays no role in 3 Baruch. More helpful is the legend of the seven sleepers. The earliest Greek version of this—Symeon the Metaphrast’s Menologion (see PG 115.427–48)— preserves a story that in its essentials goes back to the fifth century and is directly indebted to 4 Baruch.210 Not only is Ἰάμβλιχυς—the name of the sleeper who goes into Ephesus to ask questions—close to Ἀβιμέλεχ, but there are additional verbal parallels: Menologion

4 Baruch

The narrator comments that Iamblichus was out of his mind: ἐξέστη ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ αὐτοῦ.

The lost Abimelech thinks that a trance or ecstasy—ἔκστασις—has fallen upon him.

ἐπλανέθην, πλανηθῶ.

He speaks of being deceived and lost:

He speaks of being lost: πεπλάνημαι.

He asks, πῶς καλεῖται ἡ πόλις αὕτη;

He asks, ποία ἡ πόλις αὕτη;

There follows this: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· αὕτη Ἔφεσός ἐστι.

There follows this: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰερουσαλήμ ἐστι.

Perhaps Iamblichus seeing the “sign” (σημεῖον) of the cross before the walls of Ephesus is a transformation of Abimelech seeing the “signs” (σημεῖα) of Jerusalem. However that may be, that the legend Symeon preserves depends upon 4 Baruch is clear. This establishes the circulation of 4 Baruch before the fifth century. There is, however, a possible allusion to 4 Baruch from a much earlier time. According to Ps.-Cyprian, Adv. Jud. 25 (64), “they [the Jews] stoned Jeremiah as he was prophesying Christ” (Hieremiam lapidabant Christum uaticinantem). This text likely comes from late second century Rome.211 It is tempting to suppose that the close association of Jeremiah’s stoning with his prophesying of Christ reflects knowledge of 4 Baruch in its Christian

210

On this see below, pp. 215–16. Dirk van Damme, Pseudo-Cyprian Adversus Iudaeos gegen die Judenchristen: Die älteste lateinische Predigt (BALT 22; Fribourg, CH: University Press, 1969), 74–91.

211 So

62

INTRODUCTION

form.212 Unfortunately, we can do no more than suppose, and the external evidence takes us no further. Harris, in his attempt to date 4 Baruch, focused upon 5:1: Abimelech “fell asleep, and he slumbered for sixty-six years” (cf. 6:5). He argued that the choice of sixty-sixty over seventy, the more conventional span of the exile, must have been deliberate; and as adding sixty-six years to the date of Jerusalem’s destruction (70 CE) results in 136 CE, he inferred that “the book must have been written very soon after that time.”213 This was part and parcel of his thesis that 4 Baruch was “the Church’s Eirenicon to the Synagogue” following the Bar Kokhba revolt, after Hadrian banned Jews from Jerusalem. If only Jews would submit to Christian baptism—Harris found this imperative in the enigmatic 6:23—they could still have access to the holy city: “the meaning of it all is that the Christians, who are evidently not affected by the imperial edict … have suggested to Jews that by becoming Christian by way of baptism they can evade the force of the edict, and no longer be strangers to Jerusalem.”214 Several problems attend Harris’ reconstruction. One is his view that the first edition of 4 Baruch was Christian. The evidence, in the judgment of many, including this commentator, is against that. Another is that 4 Baruch nowhere clearly alludes to circumstances usually associated with the Bar Kokhba revolt or its aftermath. There is nothing about militant rebellion or a messianic claimant or the paganization of Jerusalem or the founding of Aelia Capitolina or an interdict against circumcision.215 On Harris’ reading, the Bar Kokhba revolt was the immediate crisis behind our book, and

212

Cf. Wolff, Jeremia, 91. 13. Cf. Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” 70; Bogaert, Baruch, 1:220; Saylor, Promises, 139. Nickelsburg, “Stories,” 74–75, entertains this option while regarding a slightly earlier date as possible. 214 Harris, Baruch, 14 (italics deleted). Cf. Herzer, Paralipomena, 189; idem, 4 Baruch, xxxv (there is “a missionary element”); Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2661 (the Christian edition of 4 Baruch is “a missionary work addressed to the Jewish people”). 215 There is also no trace of the wars under Trajan in 116–117. This perhaps suggests a date before then or composition in the land, since the most intense conflicts seem to have been centered in the diaspora; see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven/Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2003), 219–57. 213 Harris, Baruch,

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben

63

yet 4 Baruch takes no obvious notice.216 In sum, apart from the possible implication of the number, sixty-six, nothing points us to the mid-130s.217 The evidence rather suggests a date before the second revolt. 4 Baruch is a confident and optimistic text. While it is clear-eyed about the misery of exile, it is hopeful and promises return and restoration on the basis of God’s faithfulness. More appealing, then, is Herzer’s decision to date our book (shortly) before the Bar Kokhba war and its devastating outcome.218 What then of the sixty-six years? Perhaps the author took it from his tradition.219 But however derived, if 4 Baruch (without Christian addenda) happily concludes sixty-six years after the destruction, and if its first audiences, who did not think of their own religious story as yet happily concluded, found themselves in the book, it is unlikely to have been composed sixty-six or more years after 70. This inference is consistent with several additional observations: • Jewish texts adopted by Christians were typically composed before, not after, the Bar Kokhba revolt. • Although 4 Baruch contains a few late words and ecclesiastical expressions, its language is, on the whole, heavily Semitic and close to the LXX. On linguistic grounds, it does not appear to be a late text. One may contrast the longer recension of the Testament of Abraham, which, even though it goes back to a Jewish original, is full of patristic and Byzantine words and phrases. • 4 Baruch is akin in important respects to 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, which were composed between the two revolts. All three are full of mourning, and all three use the first destruction of Jerusalem as a cipher for the meaning of CE 70. (2) The Christian redaction. The most obvious Christian elements occur in ch. 9, most of which comes from a single redactor. How many of the Christian phrases that appear elsewhere in 4 Baruch are from the same

216 On

the proposal that “the marketplace of the Gentiles” in 6:16 reflects post-Bar Kokhba conditions see the commentary. 217 For additional criticism of Harris see Schaller, Paralipomena, 686; Herzer, Paralipomena, 177–78; idem, 4 Baruch, xxxi; Jones, Jewish Reactions, 149–50. 218 Herzer, Paralipomena, 178–89; idem, 4 Baruch, xxxi–xxxv, entertains a date ca. 130, after Hadrian established Aelia Capitolina—Herzer thinks 5:7 and 12 could reflect this. He also associates 4 Baruch with the successors of Johannan ben Zakkai who were then trying to reinterpret Judaism after the destruction of the temple. 219 On this possibility, which rests upon a conjecture regarding 4Q389, see the commentary on 5:1.

64

INTRODUCTION

individual is unclear. The textual variants prove that later Christian scribes continued to make revisions.220 Whoever added the new ending in ch. 9 knew both the Gospel of John and the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.221 Beyond that, it hard to say much, although a date in the second century is most plausible.222 As we have already seen, a line in Pseudo-Cyprian from the late second century may advert to the Christian 4 Baruch. Moreover, the theme of the Gentiles replacing Israel—4 Baruch does not speak of a “third race“—is prominent in 5 Ezra and other second and third century texts, such as Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos. Also relevant is 8:9, which holds forth hope for the Samaritans. If, as argued in the commentary, this is a Christian addition, it is more likely to come from an early period in church history; for whereas the Gospel of Luke and John reflect positive attitudes toward the Samaritans, “little sympathy is wasted upon them by such early Christian writers as Hegesippus in the 2nd century, by Origen, by Hippolytus of Rome (in his Philosophuemena) and by the Pseudeo-Clementine (in his homilies) of the 2nd/3rd century, and by Eusebius and Philaster of Brescia, of the 4th century. Epiphanius, who served in the 370’s as bishop in Cyprus, strikes in his Panarion a distinctly anti Samaritan note.”223 As for the local origin of the primary Christian redaction, the data do not allow an informed decision. One can, however, say a few things about the redactor’s theological orientation. The main Christian contributor to ch. 9 was, as argued in the commentary, a Gentile of trinitarian or binitarian persuasion. He was familiar with John’s Gospel and the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah.224 And he held a supercessionistic theology. Given the contents of 4 Baruch 6, we may further infer that he believed in the resurrection of the dead, and likely not along the spiritualizing lines of Origen. Yet certain other elements—τὸ μέγα ὄνομα, ὃ οὐδεὶς δύναται γνῶναι

220

According to Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxviii: 4 Baruch “has been the object of the intense editorial work of several hands.” Cf. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 158. 221 See above, pp. 55–56. 222 Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 131 (probably before 132); Elgvin, “Editing,” 295, 298 (shortly before or during the Bar Kokhba war); Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2663. The Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah in its Christian form may have appeared not long after John; see Knight, “Ascension of Isaiah.” 223 So Nathan Schur, History of the Samaritans (BEATAJ 18; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989), 81–82. 224 Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxix, speaks of “a Johannine-apocalyptic Christianity.” Cf. idem, Paralipomena, 164.

IX.  Date, Place, Sitz im Leben

65

(6:9), γενοῦ γνῶσις ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου (6:10), τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων πάντων (9:13)—might be thought to reflect a so-called Gnostic outlook.225 Additional formulations that one might suspect of being secondary—τὸ ἐκλεκτὸν φῶς τὸ ἐξελθὸν ἐκ στόματός σου (6:9); τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖόν ἐστι τῆς μεγάλης σφραγῖδος (6:23); ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ in a polemical formulation (7:25)—puzzle.226 Perhaps several hands with different points of view introduced various changes. (3) Sitz im Leben. On the assumption of a Jewish original composed within the land, the purpose of 4 Baruch was, in general, to retell and introduce scripturally-inspired legends in order to entertain and edify in the face of a cultural trauma.227 More particularly, those legends, although ostensibly about the distant past, were intended to be transparent to the audience’s own unhappy time after 70. Just as certain portions of the canonical gospels are in effect two-level dramas, being about the past and the present at the same time,228 and just as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch address theological issues of Roman times by writing about Babylonian times, so it is with 4 Baruch: the story about Jeremiah and his companions does not belong to the past alone but concerns itself typologically with the post-70 present.229 Our book in this way attempts to come to terms with a recent catastrophe

225

Cf. Wintermute, review of Delling, Lehre, 443; Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 417 (“terms and phrases that are similar to but not necessarily influenced by gnostic ideas”). Note also the thesis of Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” that 7:14–15a and 17–18 are a Gnostic interpolation that understands the return from exile as the salvific exit from this world and salvation beyond it. Heininger suggests a link with the docetic “secessionists” opposed in 1 John. 226 Cf. Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxix: the prayers and speeches of Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech contain some “strange expressions” that seem to belong to an “esoteric language” that remains to be explained. 227 On the notion of cultural trauma see Jeffry C. Alexander et al., Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). 228 See esp. Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2005), 7–17, 236–38; J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979). 229 This sort of typological thinking appears elsewhere in history. E.  g., Byzantines could think of the period of their banishment from Constantinople in the thirteenth century as a new Babylonian exile; see Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 174–75.

66

INTRODUCTION

by focusing on a long-ago disaster that Israel survived.230 In line with this, the repeated use of Jeremiah throughout 4 Baruch shows that it assumes what Josephus, Ant. 10.79, states, that the prophet’s writings—presumably Jeremiah and Lamentations—concern both “the recent capture of our city as well as the capture of Babylon.” Beyond such generalizations, not much more can be said. Some have urged that 4 Baruch comes from a Pharisaic or early rabbinic circle.231 Given the emphasis upon Torah and the resurrection of the dead as well as the substantial parallels with Pesiq. Rab. 26:5–6 and other rabbinic sources, they might be correct. The evidence, however, falls short. What is clear is that nothing in 4 Baruch suggests a connection with Essenes or Sadducees,232 and that its religious vision is far from the universalized Judaism of either Philo or the Testament of Abraham. As it stands, however, 4 Baruch is a Christian work with a Christian ending. By having Jeremiah prophesy the ministry of the Son of God, the end of Israel’s privileged status, and the salvation of the nations, and by depicting the prophet as a martyr for his Christian confession, a Jewish tale with a Jewish purpose became a Christian tale with a Christian purpose. The current, supercessionistic version of 4 Baruch belongs to the adversus Judaeos tradition and could never have been read in a non-Christian Jewish setting.233

230 The

implied parallels would be all the more effective for an audience—even one within the borders of Israel—that thought of the exile as an ongoing condition. For texts with such a view see James C. VanderKam, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill, 1997), 89–109. Also relevant is the fact that the rabbis could understand exile in a metaphorical fashion, to mean subjugation to a foreign power; see Chaim Milikowsky, “Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature,” in Scott, ibid., 265–96. Modern Jews can speak paradoxically of Galut ha-‘Aretz—“exile within the land.” 231 E.  g. Delling, Lehre, 71–72; Mittmann-Richert, Erzählungen, 143. Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxi–xxxv, aligns 4 Baruch with the reform of Johanan ben Zakkai as opposed to the messianic and anti-Roman orientation of Rabbi Akiva. According to Robinson, “Baruch, Book of 4,” 622, while Jeremiah was central to the first Jewish edition of 4 Baruch (chs. 1–4), a later Jewish redactor, esp. in chs. 7–8, elevated Baruch and “gave the document a distinctly Pharisaic character.” 232 The emphasis upon resurrection can be understood as anti-Sadducean. 233 Harris’ description of 4 Baruch as “the Church’s Eirenicon to the Synagogue” (Baruch, 14) does not do justice to the supercessionism in ch. 9; and despite Herzer, 4 Baruch, xxxv, the current edition of our book regrettably appears to be, in significant respects, “anti-Jewish.” Further, although some think of a Jewish Chris-

X.  Reception History and Modern Scholarship

67

X.  Reception History and Modern Scholarship The fate of 4 Baruch in Jewish circles is unknown. As with many of the so-called Pseudepigrapha, no sure trace of it appears in the rabbinic literature. It may be that, very soon after it appeared, a Christian edited the book, which thereafter was read only in ecclesiastical circles.234 Yet apart from a possible allusion to our book at the end of the second century in Ps.-Cyprian, Adv. Jud. 25 (64) and a note in the sixth-century travel book of Theodosius,235 patristic sources take no notice of 4 Baruch; and it fails to show up on the canon lists of the Greek or Latin church fathers as either canonical or apocryphal. Presumably it was not widely known. The fifth-century creator of the legend of the seven sleepers of Ephesus must, however, have been familiar with it,236 and eventually the text became popular in the Greek-speaking churches.237 The famous Theodore Psalter, produced in Constantinople and dated to the year 1066, has, beside its text of Psalm 33, striking illustrations of Baruch’s eagle and a man sleeping with a basket near his head (fol. 36r). Both colorful images are accompanied by short summaries establishing beyond doubt the direct connection with 4 Baruch.238 The page also includes stylized representations of Jerusalem

tian redactor or author—so e.  g. Harris, Baruch, 12–14; Bogaert, Baruch, 1:216–20; Philonenko, “Simples observations”; Wilson, Strangers, 97–98; Elgvin, “Editing,” 296 (observing that the theme of separation from foreigners might resonate with Jewish Christians); Young, “Eagle,” 397—the Gentile triumphalism of ch. 9 rather suggests a Gentile. Cf. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 415: the Christian addition “seems to reflect a Christianity that was already non-Jewish in its own self-understanding.” Certainly there is no trace of ideas usually associated with Ebionites or Nazoraeans. To make his thesis of a Jewish Christian hand more plausible, Elgvin, “Editing,” 298, proposes that the pro-Gentile, anti-Jewish 9:16–20 is a Gentile Christian addition to the Jewish Christian ending. 234 If, however, one were to judge that the Jeremiah Apocryphon is Jewish and that it is later than and depends upon 4 Baruch, this would show knowledge of the latter in non-Christian circles. 235 See below, p. 165. 236 See above, p. 61, and below, pp. 215–16. 237 The fate of 2 Baruch was quite different: the only Greek witness is a papyrus fragment. 238 The inscription above and to the right of the eagle reads: “The eagle sent to Babylon by Baruch carrying to Jeremiah figs from the field of Agrippa, along with a letter from Jerusalem, he (Jeremiah) being in Babylon with the captive people.” The inscription to the right and below the sleeping figure is in large part faded, but one https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-010

68

INTRODUCTION

and the Jordan River and, between the eagle and the sleeping figure, an image of the enthroned Christ against a background of stars.239 The date of the Psalter roughly coincides with the dates of the earliest extant Greek mss. of 4 Baruch—C (10th century), B (10th or 11th century), U (10th or 11th century), and P (11th century). Also important is the menology for the Byzantine emperor Michael IV the Paphlagonian (1039–1041). This has, for May 1, a memorial to Jeremiah that depends heavily upon the long recension of 4 Baruch and knows it under the name, Paraleipomena.240 At least by the turn of the millennium, then, 4 Baruch was becoming well known in Byzantium; and at some point, the short version of 4 Baruch became part of the Orthodox Menaion, which today celebrates the martyrdom of Jeremiah on Nov. 4.241 4 Baruch was translated into Ethiopic perhaps as early as the fourth or fifth century.242 Eventually it came to be read—like Jubilees, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah—as Scripture.243 This

can make out some of it: “Baruch sleeping (?) … figs … field (?) … from Jeremiah … because of the sick (?) … he slept …” This second summary may confuse Baruch and Abimelech. 239 The building in the middle and on the bottom representing Jerusalem is so named. The picture of the two farmers at the bottom on the left is marked simply: γεωργοί. On the possible significance of this see below, p. 238. 240 Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174–76, from the 14th century. The Greek text is conveniently printed in F. Halkin, “Le prophète ‘saint’ Jérémie dans le ménologe impérial byzantin,” Bib 65 (1984) 111–16. After an introduction that summarizes ch. 1 and uses phrases from several subsequent chapters, this text, which has links with arm 144, focuses primarily on the episode of the Samaritans and the Christian vision in ch. 9. The story of Abimelech’s sleep finds no place. 241 Recent editions of the Menaion with footnotes sometimes observe that our tale does not carry the authority of the Bible; cf. Μηναῖον τοῦ Νοεμβρίου (Athens: M. Saliberos, n.  d.), 41 n.: “The history concerning these figs” is not taken from holy scripture but is “received ἐκ παραδόσεως.” 242 See above, p. 6 n. 24. Perhaps 4 Baruch was brought by the so-called “Nine Saints,” the fifth-century missionaries from Syria and elsewhere who founded monasteries and translated or retranslated the Greek Bible into Ge‘ez. But the whole scenario may be a myth; see Michael A. Knibb, Translating the Bible: The Ethiopian Version of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 22–29. 243 It appears with the other books appended to Jeremiah—Lamentations, Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. See further R. W. Cowley, “The Biblical Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today,” Ostkirchliche Studien 23 (1974), 318–23. The notion of the canon in the Ethiopian church seems, however, to be very loose; see Bruk A. Asale, “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Canon of the Scriptures: Neither Open nor Closed,” BT 67 (2016), 202–222.

X.  Reception History and Modern Scholarship

69

explains the large number of references to the story of Täräfä Barok in Ethiopian literature,244 including biblical commentaries,245 as well as the occasional artistic depiction of the sleeping Abimelech.246 The Ethiopic Synaxarium (Mashafa Sĕnkĕsar) ̑ for the twelfth day of month of M ̑ıyazy ̑ ȃ ˙ ˙ this day God sent Michael the archangel to Jeremiah the includes this: “On prophet and delivered him from the narrow prison wherein Zedekiah the king had imprisoned him, and Abimelek the Ethiopian, the captain of the royal guard, brought him out. And straightway Jeremiah blessed him, and (the angel) told him that he should neither see the desolation of Jerusalem nor taste the bitterness of captivity and calamity; and this actually came to pass for him. And he fell asleep for seven and sixty years, and with Michael were wine, and figs, and he gave [them] to Jeremiah the prophet.”247 4 Baruch also became popular in Armenian—in the long form—and can be found on a few Armenian canon lists.248 It further circulated in Romanian—in the short form—and in Slavic languages—in both the long and

Giorgio of Sagla, in his Mashafa Mĕsţir (Book of the Mystery, dated 1424), ˙˙ wrote that the blood of Abel, the sacrifice of Isaac, and the death of Naboth the Israelite were not enough to pay the debt of sin, “nor was the blood of Isaiah, whom they sawed to pieces with a wooden saw, nor the blood of Jeremiah, who was put in a mud pit when he prophesied about Nineveh; (and) after the conversion of Nineveh they stoned him with stones when he said, ‘God’s Son.’ They said, ‘This is the discourse of Isaiah,’ and they became enraged against him and killed him.” Cited according to C. Conti Rossini, “Due capitoli del Libro del Misstero di Giyorgis da Saglā,” Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 7 (1948), 33–34. 245 For instances of the Ethiopian commentary tradition using 4 Baruch for the interpretation of Revelation see Roger W. Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 53, 106, 144–45, 223, 259, 348, 351. For additional examples see Piovanelli, Rechere, 153. 246 As in EMML 569 (Addis Ababa, 18th century). Folio 74r depicts the angel Michael waking the prone Abimelech from his long sleep. This is from a Synaxary. As in the Theodore Psalter, the slumbering figure is under a tree, and the basket is elevated and off to the right side of the sleeper. There is a photocopy of the miniature in Piovanelli, Ricerche, 151. 247 Trans. E. A. Wallis Budge, The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church III/IV (Hildesheim/New York: George Olms, 1976), 804–805. 248 See Theodor Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur V. Teil (Erlangen/Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893), 150, 157; Michael E. Stone, “Armenian Canon Lists III—The Lists of Mechitar of Ayrivank‘,” HTR 69 (1976), 298. 244 E.   g.

70

INTRODUCTION

short forms.249 In the Latin West, by contrast, the Paraleipomena appears to have remained unknown. Although an edition of the Greek Menaion with 4 Baruch was published in Venice in 1609, the first academic to refer to our work may have been J. J. Wettstein in 1751.250 It was only in the nineteenth century that 4 Baruch began to gain serious scholarly attention, first by way of short notices251 and then in Dillmann’s edition of the Ethiopic (1866) and Ceriani’s edition of the Greek (1868).252 The most important contribution of the nineteenth century was Harris’ 1889 critical Greek text and its long introduction.253 Despite Harris’ work, and with notable exceptions,254 most scholars of Judaism and early Christianity ignored 4 Baruch for decades.255 This was perhaps in large measure due to its absence from the famous translations of the Pseudepigrapha in English and German edited by R. H. Charles and E. Kautzsch—although neither editor ignored the book altogether.256 The situation did not much change until 1967, when Gerhard Delling published Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae.257 This short but incisive monograph compiled a huge body of relevant parallels and urged a Jewish original. Since then, and to some extent due to its impact, several recent collections of the Pseudepigrapha have included a

249

For all this see above, pp. 7–8. owe this fact to Schaller, Paralipomena, 694, who cites Johann Jacob Wettstein, Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ: Novum Testamentum Graecum 1 (Amsterdam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751), 611 (with reference to Mark 11:13, “it was not the season for figs”). As Schaller notes, it is unclear where Wettstein learned of 4 Baruch. 251 August Dillmann, “Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments und Apokryphen des Neuen Testaments,” RE 12 (1860), 314; Antonio Maria Ceriani, ed., Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Opera collegii doctorum ejusdem 1 (Milan: Typis et impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1861), xiii. The latter refers to Wettstein (see n. 250), notes the parallel in the Koran (see p. 216 below), and remarks on the parallels with 2 Baruch. 252 Dillmann’s Ethiopic was soon translated into German (Prätorius 1872; König 1877) and later into French (Basset 1893). 253 The annotated bibliography of Kraft and Purintun, Paraleipomena, 7–8, is quite helpful for gaining a sense of the scholarly contributions of the 19th century. 254 The most important being Kohler, “Haggada.” 255 Schaller, Parlipomena, 694–95, notes the dearth of references in Kittel’s Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (1933–1973). 256 See R. H. Charles, APOT 2:471 (urging that “a new edition is needed”); Kautzsch, Apokryphen, 402–403. 257 Note the reviews of Baars, Bogaert, and Wintermute in the bibliography below. 250 I

XI. Bibliography

71

modern language edition of 4 Baruch,258 and two new editions of the Greek text have appeared.259 There is now, moreover, and as the bibliography attests, a significant body of secondary literature that deals at length with all the critical questions attending the work. In the year 2000, the Journal of the Pseudepigrapha dedicated an entire issue to 4 Baruch, and with the appearance of the present volume, there are four full-length commentaries in three languages.260 If it was once true that 4 Baruch was “much-neglected,”261 it is true no longer.

XI. Bibliography Editions and Translations Basset, R. Les apocryphes éthiopiens traduits en français. I. Le livre de Baruch et la légende de Jérémie (Paris: Librairie de l’art indépendant, 1893; reprint Milan: Archè Ed., 1999), 6–24. [French translation of Dillmann’s Ethiopic] Ceriani, Antonio Maria, ed., Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesertim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Opera collegii doctorum ejusdem 5 (Milan: Typis et impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, 1868), 11–18. [Greek edition] Dillmann, August, Chrestomathia Aethiopica: Edita et glossario explanata (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1866; reprint ed.: Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1950), 1–15. [Ethiopic edition] Dupont-Sommer, André, Marc Philonenko et al., La Bible. Écrits intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987). [French translation with introduction and notes by Philonenko] Gaster, Moses, Chrestomathie Roumaine: Textes imprimés et manuscrits du XVIme au XIXme siècle; spécimens dialectales et de littérature populaire, Tome 1 (Leipzig/Bucharest: F. A. Brochhaus/Socecu, 1891), 147–49, 253–56. [Romanian edition] Hammershaimb, Erling, “Resten af Baruks Ord,” in De gammeltestamentlige Pseudepigrapher, vol. 2, ed. Erling Hammershaimb et al. (Copenhagen: Gads, 1976), 887–909. [Danish translation]

258

E.  g. Sparks and Thornhill (English, 1984), Robinson (English, 1985), Dupont-Sommer et al. (French, 1987); Vegas Montaner (Spanish, 1983), Riaud (French, 1987); Piovanelli (Italian, 1999), Torijano (English, 2013). 259 Kraft and Purintun, Paraleipomena; Herzer, 4 Baruch. On the Würzburg project to establish a critical text see above, p. 4. 260 Riaud, Paralipomènes; Herzer, 4 Baruch; Schaller, Parlipomena. 261 So Harris, Baruch, 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-011

72

INTRODUCTION

Harris, J. Rendel, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.  D. The Text Revised with An Introduction (London/Cambridge: C. J. Clay and Sons/Cambridge University Press, 1889). [Greek edition with introduction] Herzer, Jens, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (SBLWGRW 22; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005). [Greek edition with English translation, introduction, and commentary] Issaverdens, Jacques, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament Found in the Armenian Manuscripts of the Library of St. Lazarus, Translated Into English (Venice: Armenian Monastery of St. Lazarus, 1901). [English translation of three Armenian versions] Klausner, Joseph, “(‫ספר־ברוך בלשון כושית )חבשית‬,” in ‫מחקרים חדשים ומקורות עתיקים‬ [New Studies and Ancient Sources], Writings of Professor Joseph Klausner (Tel Aviv: Massada, 1957), 90–117. [Hebrew translation of the Ethiopic] König, Eduard, “Der Rest der Worte Baruchs. Aus dem Aetiopischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen,” TSK 50 (1877), 318–38. [German translation of Dillmann’s Ethiopic text] Kraft, Robert A., and Ann-Elizabeth Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBLTT 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972); available online at The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha: http://ocp.stfx.ca/. [Greek edition with English translation] Licht, J., “‫( ספר מעשי ירמיהו מן הספרים החיצנים‬Paralipomena Jeremiae),” Annual of Bar-Ilan University 1 (1963), 66–80. [Modern Hebrew translation] Novaković, Stojan, “Apokrifi jednoga srpskog ćirilovskog zbornika XIV. vieka,” Starine 8 (1876), 36–52. [Serbo-Macedonian edition] Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Ricerche sugli apocrifi veterotestamentari etiopici. I. Sulla Vorlage aramaica dell’Enoch etiopico. II. La traduzione etiopica dei Paralipomeni di Geremia: testo critico con introduzione e commento” (MA thesis, University of Florence, 1986), 109–231. [Critical edition of the Ethiopic with introduction and textual commentary.] Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Paralipomeni di Geremia,” in Apocrifi dell’Antico Testamento, ed. Paolo Sacchi, vol. 3 (Brescia: Paideia, 1999), 237–333. [Italian translation with Introduction and critical notes on the textual tradition] Popov, Andrej, Opisanie rukopisej i katalog knig cerkovnoj pečati biblioteki a.  i. Chludova (Moscow: Sinod. Tip, 1872). [Serbo-Macedonian edition] Prätorius, Franz, “Das apokryphische Buch Baruch im Aethiopischen,” ZWT 15 (1872), 230–47. [German translation of Dillmann’s Ethiopic text] Riaud, Jean, Les Paralipomènes du prophète Jérémie: Présentation, texte original, traduction et commentaires (Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherches en Histoire, Lettres et Langues 14; Angèrs: Université Catholique de l’Ouest, 1994). [Greek text with French translation, introduction, and commentary] Riaud, Jean, “Paralipomènes de Jérémie,” in La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires, ed. André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 337; Paris Gallimard, 1987), pp. 1733–63. [French translation]

XI. Bibliography

73

Rießler, Paul, “Rest der Worte des Baruch,” in Altjüdisches Schrifttum außerhalb der Bibel (Augsburg: Benno Filser, 1928; reprint ed.: Freiburg: Kerle, 1975), 903–919. [German translation] Robinson, S. E., “4 Baruch,” in Charlesworth, OTP, 2:413–25. [English translation with introduction] Schaller, Berndt, Historische und legendarische Erzählungen: Paralipomena Jeremiou (JSHRZ 1/8; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1998). [German translation with introduction and commentary] Sparks, H. F. D. and R. Thornhill, “The Paraleipomena of Jeremiah,” in H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 813–33. [English translation with introduction] Sresnewski, Izmail Ivanovič, “Skasanije Ioanna Bogoslowa,” in Drewnije slawjanskije pamjatniki jussowago psima I (St. Petersburg, 1868), 185–87. [Bulgarian edition] Stone, Michael E., and E. Shefer, (‫ ספר שאר דברי ברוך )ס׳ ברוך ד׳‬.‫ספרי חיי אדם וחווה‬ (Jerusalem: Akedemon, 1970), 67–78. [Modern Hebrew Translation] Tichonravov, Nikolaj S., Pamyatniki otretschennoi russkoi literatury (Saint Petersburg, 1863; reprint ed.: The Hague: Mouton, 1970), 273–97. [Edition of Slavonic mss. T1 and T2] Torijano, Pablo, “4 Baruch,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (3 vols.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:2662–80. [English translation with introduction and notes] Vassiliev, A., “Διήγησις εἰς τὴν ἄλωσιν τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ εἰς τὸν θρῆνον τοῦ προφήτου Ἱερεμίου καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐκστάσεως Ἀβιμέλεχ,” in Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina. Pars Prior (Moscow: Universitatis Caesareae, 1893), 308–316. [Edition of ms. v of the shorter Greek text] Vegas Montaner, Luis, “Paralípomenos de Jeremías,” in Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento, 5 vols., ed. Alejandro Díez Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1982–1987), 2:353–83. [Spanish translation with introduction and commentary] Wolff, Christian, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TU 118; Berlin: Akademie, 1976), 194–237. [German translation of Slavic versions] Yovse-p‘ianc’ (Josepheanz), H. Sargis, Ankanon Girk‘ Hin Ktakaranac‘ [Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament] (Venice: St. Lazarus, 1896), 349–63. [Edition of the Armenian]

Secondary Literature on 4 Baruch Abel, F.-M., “Deir Senneh ou le domaine d’Agrippa,” RB 44 (1935), 61–68. Alexander, Philip, “4 Baruch (= Paraleipomena Jeremiou),” in Manchester Database for the Analysis of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphical Jewish Texts of

74

INTRODUCTION

Antiquity, online at: http://literarydatabase.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ListAll Books.aspx. Allison, Dale C., Jr., “Two Notes on a Key Text: Matthew 11:25–30,” JTS 39 (1988), 477–85. Aranda Pérez, G., “Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento,” in G. Aranda Pérez, F. García Martínez, and M. Pérez Fernández, Literatura judía intertestamentaria (Estella: Verbo Divino, 1996), 379–82. Baars, Willem, Review of Gerhard Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae, VT 17 (1967), 487–88. Beer, G., “Paralipomena Jeremiae,” RGG2 4 (1930), 954. Bogaert, Pierre, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du syriaque et commentaire (2 vols.; SC 144–45; Paris: Cerf, 1969), 1:177–221. Bogaert, Pierre, Review of Delling, Lehre, RBén 78 (1968), 345–46. Bonwetsch, N., Review of Harris, Words of Baruch, in ThLBl 12 (1891), 422–24. Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SBLSCS 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 88–91. Coquin, René-Georges, “Quelle était la langue originelle du pseudépigraphe conservé en Copte sous le titre de Paraipomènes de Jérémie et en Arabe sous le titre de Captivité des fils d’Israël à Babylone?,” Apocrypha 6 (1995), 79–82. Crostini, Barbara, “Commenting the Psalter in Eleventh-Century Constantinople: An Image of the Paralipomena Ieremiou in the ‘Theodore Psalter,’” lecture presented at the Arts edendi Workshop, Sept. 21, 2010 at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto; available online at: https://tspace.library. utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32261/1/Crostini,%20Commenting%20the%20 Psalter%20in%20Eleventh-Century%20Constantinople.pdf. de Jonge, M., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003), 52–56. de Jonge, M., “Remarks in the Margin of the Paper ‘The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae,’ by J. Riaud,” JSP 22 (2000), 45–49. Delling, Gerhard, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae (BZNW 100; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967). Denis, Albert-Marie, et al., Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique Tome I (Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancien Testament) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000). Doering, Lutz, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography (WUNT 298; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 253–62. Doering, Lutz, “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Communciation with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 43–72. Doran, Robert, “The Rest of the Words of Jeremiah,” in Early Judaism and Its

XI. Bibliography

75

Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 294–96. Frey, J.-B., “Apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament (16. Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie),” DBSup 1 (1928), 454–55. Gry, Léon, “La ruine du Temple par Titus: Quelques traditions juives plus anciennes et primitives à la base de Pesikta Rabbathi XXVI,” RB 55 (1948), 215–26. ˙ an Baruch (Par 7,23–30). Ein Beitrag zur TextHeininger, B., “Der Brief Jeremias kritik apokrypher Schriften,” SNTSU A 34 (2009), pp. 65–95. Heininger, B., “Totenerweckung oder Weckruf (Par. Jer. 7,12–20)? Gnostische Spurensuche in den Paralipomnena Jeremiae,” SNTSU A 23 (1998), 79–112. Helyer, Larry R., Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 437–43. Hentschel, Anni, “Beobachtungen zur Textüberlieferung der Paralipomena Jeremiou (Langversion),” ZNW 99 (2008), 149–60. Herzer, Jens, “Alttestamentliche Traditionen in den Paralipomena Jeremiae als Beispiel für den Umgang frühjüdischer Schriftsteller mit ‘Heiliger Schrift,’” in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Hermut Löhr (WUNT 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 114–32. Herzer, Jens, “Baruch, Fourth Book of,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 430–32. Herzer, Jens, “Direction in Difficult Times: How God is Understood in the Paralipomena Jeremiae,” JSP 22 (2000), 9–30. Herzer, Jens, “Die Paralipomena Jeremiae—Eine christliche-gnostische Schrift? Eine Antwort an Marc Philonenko,” JSJ 30 (1999), 25–39. Herzer, Jens, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Herzer, Jens, “Retelling the Story of Exile: The Reception of the Jeremiah Tradition in 4 Baruch in the Perspective of the Jewish Diaspora,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (JSJSupp 173; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017), 372–91. Jones, Kenneth R., Jewish Reactions to the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.  D. 70: Apocalypses and Related Pseudepigrapha (JSJSupp 151; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011). Kaestli, Jean-Daniel, “L’influence du livre Jérémie dans les Paralipomènes de Jérémie,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception, ed. A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer (BETL 128; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1997), 217–31. Klein, Thorsten, Bewährung in Anfechtung: Der Jakobusbrief und der Erste Petrusbrief als christliche Diaspora-Briefe (NET 18; Tübingen/Basel: A. Francke, 2011), 149–61. Kohler, K., “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” JQR 5 (1893), 399–419. Kugel, James L., In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 173–213.

76

INTRODUCTION

Lee, Boyeon Birana, “The Development of the Jeremiah Figure in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch. A Response to Jens Herzer,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (JSJSupp 173; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017), 398–416. Mallau, Hans Harald, “Baruch, Baruchschriften: Paralipomena Jeremiae,” TRE 5 (1980), 269–76. Meyer, Philip, “Nachrichten über einige bisher unbenutzte, theils auch unbekannte griechische Handschriften zur biblisch-apokryphischen Litteratur,” Jahrbuch für protestantische Theologie 12 (1886), 374–76. Meyer, Rudolph, “Paralipomena Jeremiae,” RGG 3 5 (1961), 102–103. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike, Historische und legendarische Erzählungen (JSHRZ 6/1.1 Supplementa; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2000), 139–55. Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Narrative Traditions in the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch,” CBQ 35 (1973), 60–68. Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone (CRINT 2; Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984), 33–87. Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael Stone (Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984), 33–88. Nir, Rivka, “The Tidings of the Christian Resurrection and Its Conditions in Paralipomena Jeremiou,” in The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (SBLEJL 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 203–237. Phillips, C. A., “The Use of John i.9 in the ‘Rest of the Words of Baruch,’” ExpTim 47 (1936), 431. Philonenko, Marc, “Paralipomènes de Jérémie,” in La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires, ed. André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade 337; Paris Gallimard, 1987), pp. cxxxvii–cxl. Philonenko, Marc, “Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie et la Traduction de Symmaque,” RHPR 64 (1984): 143–45. Philonenko, Marc, “Simples Observations sur les Paralipomènes de Jérémie,” RHPR 76 (1996), 157–77. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Les adventures des apocryphes en Éthiope,” Apocrypha 4 (1993), 197–224. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Les Paralipomènes de Jérémie dépendent-ils de l’Histoire de la captivité babylonienne?,” Bulletin de l’AELAC 7 (1997), 10–14. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “In Praise of ‘The Default Position,’ or Reassessing the Christian Reception of the Jewish Pseudepigraphic Heritage,” NedTT 61 (2007), 233–50. Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Le sommeil séculaire d᾽Abimélech dans l’Histoire de la captivité babylonienne et les Paralipomènes de Jérémie. Texte—intertextes—con-

XI. Bibliography

77

textes,” in Intertextualités: La Bible en échos, ed. Daniel Marguerat and Adrian Curtis (MdB 40; Paris: Labor et Fides, 2000), 73–96. Riaud, Jean, “Abimélech, Personnage-Clé des Paralipomena Jeremiae?,” Dialoques d’histoire ancienne 7 (1981), 163–78. Riaud, Jean, “La figure de Jérémie dans les Paralipomena Jeremiae,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. André Caquot and Matthias Delcor (AOAT 212; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/ Neukirchener, 1981), 373–85. Riaud, Jean, “The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: His Originality; His ‘Christianization’ by the Christian Author of the Conclusion (9:10–32),” JSP 22 (2000), 31–44. Riaud, Jean, “Jérémie, martyr chrétien. Paralipomènes de Jérémie, IX, 7–32,” in Κεχαριτωμένη: Mélanges René Laurentin (Paris: Desclée, 1990), 231–35. Riaud, Jean, “Paraleipomena Jeremiou,” in Outside the Old Testament (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, ed. M. de Jonge; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 213–30. Riaud, Jean, “Les Paralipomena Jeremiae dépendent-ils de II Baruch?” Sileno 9 (1983), 105–128. Riaud, Jean, “‘Le Puissant t’emportera dans ta Tente’: La Destinée ultime du Juste selon les Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud (Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1986), 257–65. Riaud, Jean, “Les Samaritains dans les ‘Paralipomena Jeremiae,’” in La littérature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 Octobre 1983) (Bibliothèque des Centres d’études supérieures spécialisés. Travaux du Centre d’Études Supérieures spécialisé d’Histoire des Religions de Strasbourg; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985), 133–52. Robinson, Stephen E., “Baruch, Book of 4,” in ABD 1:622. Rosenstiehl, Jean-Marc, “Histoire de la Captivité de Babylone I-V” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Strasbourg, n.  d.). Sachsse, Hugo, “Zu dem äthiopischen Baruchbuche,” ZWT 17 (1874), 268–69. Schaller, Berndt, “Is the Greek Version of the Paralipomena Jeremiou Original or a Translation?” JSP 22 (2000), 51–89. Schaller, Berndt, “Jeremiaschriften,” RGG4 4 (2001), 425–26. Schürer, E., Review of J. Rendel Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch: A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 A.  D., in TLZ 15 (1890), 81–83. Siegert, Volker, Einleitung in die hellenistisch-jüdische Literatur: Apokrypha, Pseudepigrapha und Fragmente verlorener Autorenwerke (Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2016), 612–19. Simon, Jean, “Notes bibliographiques sur les textes de la ‘Chrestomathia Aethiopica’ de A. Dillmann,” Or 19 (1941), 285–311. Stone, Michael, “Baruch, Rest of the Words of,” in Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4 (Jerusalem/New York: Keter/Macmillan, 1971), 276–77.

78

INTRODUCTION

Stone, Michael, “Some Observations on the Armenian Version of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah,” CBQ 35 (1973), 47–59; reprinted in idem, Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition (SVTP 9; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 77–89. Turdeanu, Émile, Apocryphes slaves et roumains de l’Ancien Testament (SVTP 5; Leiden: Brill, 1981). Van der Horst, Pieter W., “Pious Long-Sleepers in Pagan, Jewish and Christian Antiquity,” in Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (AJEC 87; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014), 248–66. Van der Horst, Pieter W., “Samaritan Origins according to the Paralipomena Jeremiae,” in Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (AJEC 87; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2014), 161–72. Wintermute, Orval S., Review of Gerhard Delling, Jüdische Lehre und Frömmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae, in CBQ 30 (1968), 442–45. Witakowski, Witold, “Baruch, Book of,” in Encyclopedia Aethiopica Volume 1 A-C, ed. Siegbert Uhlig (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003), 488–89. Wolff, Christian, “Irdisches und himmlisches Jerusalem—Die Heilshoffnung in den Paralipomena Jeremiae,” ZNW 82 (1991), 147–58. Wolff, Christian, “Die ParalipomenaJeremiae und das Neue Testament,” NTS 51 (2005), 126–36. Young, Robin D., “The Eagle and the Basket of Figs in 4 Baruch. A Response to Jens Herzer,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction, and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid (JSJSupp 173; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2017), 392–97.

Other Literatue (cited more than once) Allison, Dale C., Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993). Allison, Dale C., Jr., “The Scriptural Background of a Matthean Legend: Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14, and Matthew 27,” in Life beyond Death in Matthew’s Gospel: Religious Metaphor or Bodily Reality?, ed. Wim Weren, Huub van de Sandt, and Joseph Verheyden (Biblical Tools and Studies 13; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 153–88. Allison, Dale C., Jr, The Testament of Abraham (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003). Ameling, Walter, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II. Kleinasien (TSAJ 99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) [IJO]. Aune, David E., Revelation, 3 vols. (WBC 52a–c; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997–98). Barton, John, “Jeremiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O.’Connor, and Louis Stulman (JSOTSup 260; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 306–317.

XI. Bibliography

79

Basser, Herbert W., “A Love for All Seasons: Weeping in Jewish Sources,” in Holy Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination, ed. Kimberley Christine Patton and John Stratton Hawley (Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2005), 178–200. Bauckham, Richard J., “The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamentii Societas, ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth (New York/London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 9–29. Caquot, André, and Marc Philonenko, “Introducion générale,” in André Dupont-Sommer and Marc Philonenko et al., La Bible. Écrits intertestamentaires (Paris: Gallimard, 1987), xv–cxlvi. Chapman, David W., Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (WUNT 2/244; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Charles, R. H., The Apocalypse of Baruch translated from the Syriac (London: A. & C. Black, 1896). Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985). Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (SBLSCS (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Study) 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten: Das Verständnis der δόξα im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Chyutin, Michael, Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE (LSTS 77; London/New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011). Davila, James R., “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?,” JSP 15 (2005), 3–61. Davila, James R., The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJSupp 105; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005). Davila, James R., “Scriptural Exegesis in the Treatise of the Vessels, A Legendary Account of the Hiding of the Temple Treaures,” in With Letters of Light ‫באותיות של אור‬: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior ‫רחל אליאור‬, ed. Daphna V. Arbel and Andrei A. Orlov (Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 45–61. Deissmann, Adolf, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recenty Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (rev. ed.; New York: George H. Doran Co., 1927). Dimant, Deborah, Qumran Cave 4 XXI. Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD 30; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001). DiTommaso, Lorenzo, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text: Contents and Contexts (TSAJ 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Doran, Robert, “Narrative Literature,” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 287–310.

80

INTRODUCTION

Doudna, John Charles, The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (SBLMS 12; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1961). Elgvin, Torleif, “Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 278–304. Evans, Craig A., Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992). Gaster, Moses, “Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sagen- und Märchenkunde,” in Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Mediaeval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, vol. 2 (New York: KTAV, 1971), 1187–1293. Gieschen, Charles A., Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998). Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003 [original 1909–1938]). Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon, 1953–68). Gowan, Donald E., “The Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt (Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick Press, 1977), 205–223. Hachlili, Rachel, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1988). Hannah, Darrell D., Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity (WUNT 2/109; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Harlow, Daniel C., The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity (SVTP 12; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1996). Harris, Rendel, “Introductions I. A Jeremiah Apocryphon,” in A. Mingana and Rendel Harris, Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic, and Garshūni, vol. 1 (Woodbroke Studies; Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., 1927), 125–38. Heller, Bernard, “Éléments, parallèles et origine de la légende des sept dormants,” REJ 49 (1904), 190–218. Huber, P. Michael, Die Wanderlegende von den Siebenschläfern: Eine literar­ geschichtliche Untersuchung (Leipzig: Otto Harrassovitz, 1910). Isbell, Charles D., Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars Press, 1975). Johnson, Norman B., Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study of the Jewish Concept of God (JBLMS 2; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1948). Kautzsch, E., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900). Kilpatrick, G. D., “Acts VII. 52 ΕΛΕΥΣΙΣ,” JTS 46 (1945), 136–45. Klauck, Hans-Josef, Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006). Knight, Jonathan, “The Ascension of Isaiah. A New Theory of Composition,” CS 35 (2014), 33–75.

XI. Bibliography

81

Kokkinos, Nikos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (JSPSup 30; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). Kuhn, K. H., “A Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon,” Le Muséon 83, 1–2 (1970), 95–135, 291–350. Kulik, Alexander, 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010). Laansma, Jon, “I Will Give You Rest”: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference to Mt 11 and Heb 3–4 (WUNT 2/98; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). Lee, J. A. L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBLSCS 14; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Lee, Sang-Il, Jesus and the Gospel Traditions in Bilingual Context: A Study in the Interdirectionality of Language (BZNW 186; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). Lundbom, Jack R., Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 21A; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1999). Mader, Evaristus, Mambre: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Râmet el Halîl in Südpalästina 1926–1928, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau: E. Wewel, 1957). Maloney, Elliott C., Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS 51; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Marmorstein, A., “Die Quellen des neuen Jeremia-Apocryphons,” ZNW 27 (1928), 327–37. Martin, Raymond A., Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (SBLSCS 3; Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974). Naveh, Joseph and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem/Leiden: Magnes/Brill, 1985). Naveh, Joseph and Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993). Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981). Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT 2/3; Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1984), 33–87. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012). Noy, David, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993–1995) [JIWE]. Pérez, G. Aranda, “Apocrifo de Jeremias sobre la Cautividad de Babilonia,” in Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento, 4 vols., ed. Alejandro Díez Macho (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1982–1987), 2:385–442. Perdue, Leo G., “Baruch among the Sages,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay (LHB/OTS 459; New York/ London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 260–90.

82

INTRODUCTION

Reno, Stephen Jerome, The Sacred Tree as an Early Christian Literary Symbol: A Phenomenological Study (FARG 4; Saarbrücken: Homo et Religio, 1978). Saylor, Gwendolyn B., Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS 72; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984). Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.  C.-A.  D. 135), 3 vols., rev. and ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–1987). Schwarzbaum, Haim, Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature (BSKO 30; Walldorf-Hessen: Verlag für Orientkunde, 1982). Stuhlmacher, Peter, Das paulinische Evangelium I. Vorgeschichte (FRLANT 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968). Taatz, Irene, Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums (NTOA 16; Freiburg, CH/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Theissen, Gerd, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 69–71. Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979). Whitters, Mark F., The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form and Message (JSPSup 42; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003). Wilker, Julia, Für Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Studien zur alten Geschichte 5; Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Antike, 2007). Wilson, Stephen G., Related Strangers: Jews and Christians 70–170 C.  E. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995). Wright, J. Edward, “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer,” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Intl., 1998), 264–89. Wright, J. Edward, Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia, S.  C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2003).

COMMENTARY

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem 1:1. It happened, when the sons of Israel were taken away into captivity by the king of the Chaldeans, that God spoke to Jeremiah: “Jeremiah, my elect, rise, go out of this city, you and Baruch, because I am about to destroy it on account of the many sins of those who dwell in it. 1:2. For your prayers are like a solid pillar within it, and like an adamantine wall surrounding her. 1:3. Now rise and go out, before the host of the Chaldeans surrounds it.” 1:4. And Jeremiah answered, saying: “I implore you, Lord, permit me, your servant, to speak before you.” And the Lord said: “Speak, my elect Jeremiah.” 1:5. And Jeremiah spoke, saying, “Lord Almighty, are you handing over the elect city into the hands of the Chaldeans, so that the king, along with the multitudes of his people, might boast and say, ‘I prevailed over the holy city of God’? 1:6. May it not be, Lord! But if it is your will, let it be destroyed by your own hands.” 1:7. And the Lord said to Jeremiah: “Because you are my elect, rise and go out of this city, you and Baruch, because I am about to destroy it on account of the many sins of those who dwell in it. 1:8. For neither the king nor his host will be able to enter into it unless I first open its gates. 1:9. Rise then and go to Baruch and speak to him these words. 1:10. And you two, arising at the sixth hour of the night, go up onto the walls of the city, and I will show you that, unless I first destroy the city, it is not possible (for them) to enter it.” 1:11. Having said these things, the Lord departed from Jeremiah. 1:1. Ἐγένετο, ἡνίκα ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων, ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν· Ἰερεμία, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, ἀνάστα, ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, σὺ καὶ ὁ Βαρούχ, ἐπειδὴ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ. 1:2. Αἱ γὰρ προσευχαὶ ὑμῶν ὡς στῦλος ἑδραῖός ἐστιν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς καὶ ὡς τεῖχος ἀδαμάντινον περικυκλοῦν αὐτήν. 1:3. Νῦν ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε πρὸ τοῦ ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων κυκλώσει αὐτήν. 1:4. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰερεμίας λέγων· Παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι τῷ δούλῳ σου λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου. Εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος· Λάλει, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου Ἰερεμιάς. 1:5. Καὶ ἐλάλησεν Ἰερεμίας λέγων· Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, παραδίδως τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐκλεκτὴν εἰς χεῖρας τῶν Χαλδαίων, ἵνα καυχήσηται ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἴπῃ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-012

86

Commentary

ὅτι, Ἴσχυσα ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ; 1:6. Μὴ Κύριε μου· ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλημά σού ἐστιν, ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἀφανισθήτω. 1:7. Καὶ εἶπε Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ· Ἐπειδὴ σὺ ἐκλεκτός μου εἶ, ἀνάστα καὶ ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, σὺ καὶ Βαρούχ· ἐπειδὴ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ. 1:8. Οὔτε γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς, οὔτε ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ, δυνήσεται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν, εἰ μὴ ἐγὼ πρῶτος ἀνοίξω τὰς πύλας αὐτῆς. 1:9. Ἀνάστηθι οὖν καὶ ἄπελθε πρὸς Βαροὺχ καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτῷ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα. 1:10. Καὶ ἀναστάντες ἕκτην ὥραν τῆς νυκτός, ἔλθετε ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως, καὶ δείξω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ πρῶτος ἀφανίσω τὴν πόλιν, οὐ δύνανται εἰσελεῖν εἰς αὐτήν. 1:11. Ταῦτα εἰπῶν ὁ Κύριος, ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰερεμίου. Textual Notes 1:1. R expands the opening sentence by enhancing the guilt of Jerusalem and naming Nebuchadnezzar: “And it came to pass in those days (ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμεραῖς—a Septuagintism; cf. Judg 19:1; Isa 7:1; Jer 1:3; also Luke 1:5; 17:26; Liv. Proph. Mal 3) when the sons of Israel had provoked to anger (παρωργίζων; cf. Judg 2:12; 3 Βασ 14:15; 16:13; T. Levi 3:10; T. Ash. 2:6) the Lord God and were about to be exiled and their city destroyed (πορθήσθαι) by the king of the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, God spoke to Jeremiah saying.” The secondary nature of this phrase is consistent with it containing two hapax legomena for our book, παροργίζω and πορθέω. It nonetheless is very Jeremian, for canonical Jeremiah names Nebuchad­ nezzar more than any other HB/OT book, including Daniel, while ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμεραῖς occurs in LXX Jeremiah’s opening paragraph, on top of which παροργίζω appears in several oracles of rebuke: 7:18, 19; 8:19; 11:17; 25:6. // A B: πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν τὴν προφήτην λέγων. Kraft prints the participle (cf. vv. 4–5) but not “the prophet,” a title 4 Baruch otherwise never uses of Jeremiah. Piovanelli, following C eth, also omits the latter. 1:3. C R have οὖν after νῦν, followed by Kraft-Purintun and Piovanelli. This might be original given that νῦν οὖν occurs in 7:28. 1:4. Herzer omits αὐτῷ after εἶπε δέ, which C R eth support. Harris and Kraft-Purintun print it and Piovanelli translates it. Commentary As befits a book full of direct speech,1 the opening episode is a conversation between God and Jeremiah:

  1

For the data see Alexander, “4 Baruch” (Inventory category 8.1.6).

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

87

Narrative setting: God’s appearance 1:1a 1:1b–3    God’s command and revelation (ἐλάλησεν) 1:4a      Jeremiah’s request to speak (ἀπεκρίθη … λέγων) 1:4b    God grants Jeremiah permission to speak (εἶπεν) 1:5–6      Jeremiah’s request that God himself destroy the city (ἐλάλησεν) 1:7–10    God’s reiteration of initial command and revelation (εἶπε) 1:11 Narrative conclusion: God’s departure

The conversation is framed by God coming to Jeremiah and by God leaving him.2 The sentences in between vv. 1a and 11 are marked by much repetition. Especially striking is the near perfect parallelism between vv. 1 and 7: 1:1

ἐκλεκτός μου ἀνάστα, ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης σὺ καὶ ὁ Βαρούχ ἐπειδὴ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ

1:7

ἐκλεκτός μου … ἀνάστα καὶ ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης σὺ καὶ Βαρούχ ἐπειδὴ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ

Both of these sentences are followed by an explanatory γάρ clause (v. 2: “for your prayers are like a solid pillar within her, and like an adamantine wall surrounding it”; vv. 7–8: “because I am about to destroy it on account of the many sins of those who dwell in it. For neither the king nor his host will be able to enter into it unless I first open its gates”) and by a second command to arise: v. 3 (νῦν ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε), v. 9 (ἀνάστηθι οὖν καὶ ἄπελθε). Note also the further repetition of ἐκλεκτός μου in v. 4 and of ἀνίστημι in v. 10 (with ἔλθετε). This sort of striking repetition, which occurs throughout 4 Baruch and which here helps unify the chapter, is perhaps a sign of an oral original. The book opens with a robust statement of divine sovereignty.3 Although the king of the Chaldeans will take Jerusalem, it is in truth God who will destroy the city (1:1, 10). Nothing will happen unless the divinity permits it. As God says in v. 8, “neither the king nor his host will be able to enter into it unless I first open its gates.” The theologoumenon is well-attested in Jewish traditions about the second destruction of Jerusalem’s temple, for which, in our book, the destruction of the first temple is a cipher; see e.  g. Josephus, Bell. 6.288–309 (the immense bronze door of the temple

  2   3

The structure of ch. 2 is very similar; see below, pp. 113–14. On this theme see the Introduction, pp. 16–17.

88

Commentary

opened “of its own accord,” which the learned took to mean that “the security of the temple was dissolving of its own accord and that the opening of the gate meant a present to the enemy”);4 7.360 (“it was not” the Romans’ “might that brought these things to pass, but the intervention of some more powerful cause”); 3 Bar. 1:1–2 (“Lord, why did you set on fire your vineyard and lay it waste? Why did you do this? And why, Lord, did you not punish us in some other way?”); y. Yoma 6:3 (43c) (“They were locking the doors of the temple hall in the evening and in the morning they found them open. Rabban Joanan ben Zakkai addressed it: ‘Temple hall, why do you frighten us? We know that in the end you will be destroyed, as it was said, “Open your doors, O Lebanon, so that fire may consume your cedars”’” (Zech 11:1); cf. b. Yoma 39b); Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2 (when the enemies came to the temple, “it shut itself and did not want to open. Then came the Chaldean armies, who brought with them 360 camels loaded with iron axes, but the outer gates of the temple swallowed them up. Nevertheless they did not want to open until Parnatos came and slaughtered a swine, sprinkling its blood upon the temple, thus defiling it. After being defiled, it opened itself, and the wicked Nebuchadnezzar entered … When Nebuchadnezzar sought to enter the area of the holy of holies, the gates of the temple closed and would not open themselves until a voice from the upper heaven emanated, saying, ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon!’” (Zech 11:1)).5 The theology introduced in ch. 1 runs throughout 4 Baruch, which is theocentric from beginning to end.6 Jeremiah does all at the bidding of God, who initiates everything (1:1–10; 3:6–15; 8:2–3). Baruch does all at the bidding of Jeremiah and an angel (2:9–3:3, 12; 6:9–14). Abimelech follows the instruction of Jeremiah, who only passes on what God has told him (3:10, 16). The eagle of chs. 6–7 is sent by heaven. Jerusalem is destroyed not by Nebuchadnezzar but by angels (3:1–3). And so it goes. The themes of divine providence and divine intervention give 4 Baruch a strong theological unity. Within a post-70 Jewish context, they would presumably encourage: despite the destruction of the temple and all the attendant horrors, God remains in control, so hope is not misplaced.7   4

Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.13: “the doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure.”   5 See further below, on 1:1.   6 See further Herzer, “Direction in Difficult Times.”   7 Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 43: “Just as history is not to be shaped politically but to be theologically interpreted and described, so the present situation is not to be shaped politically but to be understood and overcome theologically.”

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

89

Although nothing in ch. 1 requires a Christian hand, v. 6’s ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλημά σού ἐστιν has precise parallels only in monastic literature and is likely secondary.8 1:1. Like many biblical books, 4 Baruch opens without making any claim to authorship. It is not a pseudepigraphon. Nor does it hint at the identity of the audience. The sole concern at the beginning is to supply the story with its setting and to introduce most of the main characters—God, Jeremiah, Baruch, the collectivity known as “the sons of Israel,” and the king of the Chaldeans. Although Joseph and Aseneth and a number of LXX books begin with καὶ ἐγένετο,9 the simple, unprefaced ἐγένετο is much less common as a text’s first word.10 But the Martyrdom of Isaiah and the short recension of the Testament of Abraham supply examples. The latter is particularly close: 4 Bar. 1:1: T. Abr. RecShrt. 1:1:

ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ᾑχμαλωτεύθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤγγισαν αἱ ἡμέρα Ἀβραάμ

Also close to 4 Bar. 1:1, although it does not introduce its book, is T. Sol. 25:7: καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα διεπέρασαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ. The construction, ἐγένετο + ἡνίκα + verb + subject is a Semitism; cf. ‫ ויהי‬+ ‫ כ‬+ verb + subject.11 The verb, αἰχμαλωτεύω, together with the extremely common οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ,12 may echo LXX Jer 27:33: “The sons of Israel (οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ) have been oppressed, together with the sons of Judah; all those who have carried them away into captivity (αἰχμαλωτεύσαντες) have oppressed them.”13 In any case, LXX Jeremiah, which often speaks of exile (15:2; 20:6; 37:18; etc.), uses the related αἰχμαλωσίας in its superscription (1:3).

παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε is also Christian; see on v. 4. Joshua, Judges, 2 Kingdoms, Ruth, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Micah, 1 Maccabees.  10 Γίγνομαι: 25x; ἐγένετο: 1:1; 3:1, 2; 8:1; 9:7.  11 As in LXX Gen 6:1; 12:11, 14; 31:10; Judg 3:18; 2 Βασ 17:27; 4 Βασ 4:18; 2 Esdr 13:33; 14:9; etc.  12 Cf. Exod 2:23; Lev 25:55; Num 2:2; Deut 4:46; Josh 3:17; Judg 3:9; 2 Chr 28:8; 1 Esdr 9:37; Tob 13:3; Ecclus 46:10; 1 Macc 3:15; Ps. Sol. 18:3; Luke 1:16; Acts 7:23; Rev 7:4; Prot. Jas. 1:1; 20:2; 23:3; etc.  13 Αἰχμαλωτεύω: 8x: 1:1; 2:7; 4:2; 5:21, 23, 26, 30; 7:26; Ἰσραήλ: 4x: 1:1; 6:13, 20; 9:30; “sons of Israel” recurs in 6:13; 9:30.   8 Perhaps   9

90

Commentary

The following ἀπό (cf. LXX Mic 1:16: ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν ἀπὸ σοῦ, for ‫ )גלו ממך‬has the meaning of ὑπό (which C has here) = “by.”14 Οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ appears frequently in the LXX, including notably Exodus and Jeremiah, for ‫בני ישראל‬.15 Later Jewish texts and early Christian sources also employ it.16 Most often in our book, αἰχμαλωτεύω (8x) is associated with ὁ λαός.17 Here the text offers no details about the exile. It takes for granted that hearers or readers already know something of it, presumably on the basis of biblical passages such as 2 Kings 24–25 and Jeremiah 52. “The king of the Chaldeans”18—a traditional locution19—is elsewhere “King Nebuchadnezzar” or just “the king.”20 Ancient readers of 4 Baruch would have known of Nebuchadnezzar through the Bible and related legends. He was remembered as the Babylonian king who captured Jerusalem and sent its people into exile21 and yet was bested by Daniel. He eventually came to praise God.22 In canonical Jeremiah, he orders that no harm be done to the prophet and allows the prophet the freedom to go where he wills (39:11–14; cf. 40:1–6). Although Nebuchadnezzar—not named until 5:21—captures Jerusalem in 4:2, he remains in the background as a mostly colorless figure,23 although in 7:14 he gives Jeremiah’s people a burial ground and in 7:24–25 As in LXX Nah 1:6; 1 Macc 9:15; Ecclus 16:4; Acts 2:22; cf. BGAD, s.  v. 5eβ. Cf. the use of ὑπό in 5:21: ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονόσορ; also Josephus, Ant. 10.174; 12.45.  15 Gen 42:5; Exod 1:1; Deut 23:17; Ezek 47:22; Jer 2:26; 3:21; 16:14; 27:4; etc.  16 E.  g. T. Jud. 21:5; T. Benj. 12:3; Jos. Asen. 23:14; Luke 1:16; Rom 9:27; Rev 2:14; Prot. Jas. 1:12; 35:13; 46:5; Justin, Dial 59.2. According to Riaud, Paralipomènes, 162, and Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2664, “sons of Israel” here includes the Samaritans. In our text, however, there are no Samaritans until the return from exile.  17 2:7; 4:2; 5:21, 23, 26, 30.  18 Τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων; cf. 2:7: βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαόν; βασιλεύς: 11x; Χαλδαῖος: 6x: 1:1, 3, 5; 2:7; 4:1 bis—always in the genitive plural; LXX: 104x, 41 in Jeremiah; it is mostly pejorative in the HB/OT.   19 See 2 Chr 36:17 (for ‫ ;)מלך כשדיים‬1 Esdr 6:14 (cf. 1:40: “the kings of the Chaldeans”); Isa 13:19; LXX Dan 9:1; Theod. 5:30; 7:1; 9:1; Josephus, Ant. 10.40; 11:91; Jer. Apocr. 7:8; 10:8; 11:18; 15:7; 20:12; 32:1; cf. ‫ מלך כשדים‬in Tanh. Wayyetse 5.  20 “King Nebuchadnezzar”: 5:21 (ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν γὰρ ὑπὸ ˙Ναβουχοδονόσορ τοῦ βασιλέως); 7:14, 25; “the king”: 1:5, 8; 4:2; 7:23. In the HB/OT he is called “king (Nebuchadnezzar) of Babylon”: 2 Kgs 24:1, 10–12, 16; 2 Chr 36:6; Ezra 2:1; Jer 20:4; 21:2; 22:25; etc.  21 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.180–85; 2 Bar. 79:1; 3 Bar. 1:1.  22 Daniel 1–4; cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.186–218; Liv. Proph. Dan. 4–18.  23 Cf. 2 Baruch, which tells the story of Jerusalem’s capture without referring to him at all.  14

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

91

he is a “lawless” king who crucifies Jews. Our book, despite the historical facts and the biblical testimony, leaves the impression that he is still alive and in power when the exiles return. That little is said of him comports with the theological outlook of 4 Baruch: the fate of the people of Israel depends upon them and their God. The king of the Chaldeans, despite appearances, is not in charge.24 He is instead a passive instrument of the deity (although our text does not go so far as the MT of Jeremiah, which calls him “my servant”).25 The lesson for a post-70 audience of 4 Baruch might be that, notwithstanding the present desolation of Israel, God, not the Roman emperor, is lord of the world. In any event, our book belongs to a well-attested tradition: “whether one lived in the time of Antiochus IV or Pompey or Titus he spoke of his plight in the forms and terms resulting from the activities of Nebuchadnezzar.”26 The notice that God, who is depicted in 4 Baruch in very anthropomorphic terms, spoke to Jeremiah—ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν27—not only says nothing about the place or time but holds no clue as to how readers should imagine the interaction. The same is true of canonical Jeremiah, which fails to clarify how “the word of the Lord” came to the prophet (1:4; cf. 2 Bar. 1:1–2). One could envisage God speaking to the prophet through a dream,28 but v. 11 (“when the Lord had said these things, he departed from Jeremiah”) ill suits that possibility, just as it does not fit with 3:12: after speaking with the prophet, “the Lord departed from Jeremiah, (going) up into heaven.” It seems more likely that, since Jeremiah is, in 4 Baruch, a (the?) prophet like Moses (cf. Deut 18:15, 18),29 God speaks with him face to face or mouth to mouth, without intermediary.30 By contrast, when God

 24

Cf. 1:8, 10; 2:7; 4:1–2. 27:6; 43:10. Nor does it, by contrast, bother to disparage or mock him; contrast Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 13:8: “the Holy One complains about the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. Like a man who says to his fellow, ‘See what So-and-So, may his bones be ground up, has done to me!’ so too, the Holy One says: ‘See what the dwarf of Babylon has done to me!’”  26 Gowan, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic,” 209.  27 Cf. Exod 4:30: ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν; λαλέω: 14x, with πρός in 1:1; 3:4 bis; 8:4; Θεός: 37x; the unqualified, nominative ὁ Θεός recurs in 2:7; 5:30, 34; 6:17; 7:18, 24.  28 As in Gen 29:10–17; Num 12:6; 1 Kgs 33:15–16; Job 33:15–16; Matt 1:20; 2:12, 13, 22.  29 So also Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 35–36; Perdue, “Baruch,” 288–89.  30 Cf. Exod 33:11; Num 12:8; Deut 34:10.  25 Jer 25:9;

92

Commentary

speaks to Baruch, it is through an angel (6:11–15). Λαλέω + πρός (= ‫ דבר‬+ ‫ )ל‬is yet another locution that sounds biblical.31 Jeremiah, who will function later as a new Moses, appears without an introduction.32 The author assumes that readers know something, or perhaps a great deal, about him. Apart from the book’s title, he is nowhere called “prophet.” That he is God’s “elect” or “chosen” (ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου) marks him as God’s special instrument and implies affection.33 Whether or not there was a tradition of calling Jeremiah God’s “elect” or “chosen one”—God calls Jeremiah “my chosen one” (paswtP) in Jer. Apocr. 14:1; 15:15; 27:8 (cf. 35:11)—our author likes epithets,34 and this one is appropriate given Jer 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed (MT: ‫ ;נתתיך‬LXX: τέθεικα) you to be a prophet to the nations.” Jones has recently proposed that our “author dishes out a fair amount of criticism of the great prophet.”35 In 4:4, Jeremiah includes himself in a confession of failure—“we have not been found worthy to guard them, for we LXX Gen 18:19; Exod 7:7; Josh 24:27; 2 Βασ 20:22; Jer 25:2; 33:16; 45:25; Ezek 3:24; etc. Λαλέω: 14x; λαλέω + πρός: 3x: 1:1; 3:4 bis.  32 Ἰερεμία: 78x in 178 verses. God uses Jeremiah’s name also in 1:4; 3:4, 5; 6:14; cf. Jer 1:11; 24:3.  33 Cf. 1:4, 7; 3:4, 5; ἐκλεκτός: 10x, 6x of Jeremiah (1:1, 4, 7; 3:4, 5; 7:15), 1x of Jerusalem (1:5), 1x of God (or Christ: 6:9), 1x of the people Israel (7:11), 1x of an eagle (7:3). Cf. LXX Num 11:28 (Moses); 2 Βασ 21:6 (Saul); Ps 88:20 (David); 105:23 (ὁ ἐκλεκτός αὐτοῦ, of Moses); Isa 42:1 (Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου); 43:20 (τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν); 45:4 (Ἰακὼβ τοῦ παιδός μου καὶ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ ἐκλεκτοῦ μου); 2 Macc 1:25 (“the fathers”); Ecclus 47:22 (ἐκλεκτοῦ αὐτοῦ sc. τοῦ Θεοῦ, of David); Philo, Abr. 83 (Abraham is ἐκλεκτός, which signifies “a person of worth … chosen out of all for his merits”); T. Benj. 11:2–4 (“the beloved of the Lord from the line of Judah and Levi” will be “God’s ἐκλεκτός forever”); 1 En. 39:6; 40:5; 45:3; etc. (of the eschatological Son of man); Luke 9:35 (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος, of Jesus; also 23:35); Rom 16:13 (Rufus); T. Job 4:11 (God’s “elect ones”); Liv. Proph. Jer. 11 (ὁ ἐκλεκτός τοῦ Θεοῦ, of Moses); Apoc. Abr. 20:6 (“your chosen one,” of Abraham; cf. 14:2); T. Sol. 1:2 D (Solomon); Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:8; 3:3 (Ezra); T. Isaac 2:2 (Isaac).  34 Jeremiah is “elect” (1:1, 4, 7; 3:4; 7:15), God’s “servant” (1:4; 3:9; 6:22), “father” (2:2, 4, 6; 5:25; 9:8), and “the priest” (5:18; 9:8). Baruch is “the reader” (5:18), “counselor of the light” (6:12), “servant of God” (6:17), “steward of the faith” (7:2), and Jeremiah’s “beloved son” (7:23). Abimelech is “the Ethiopian” (3:9). The eagle is “king of birds” (7:9). Nebuchadnezzar is the “lawless king” (7:23). Michael is “the archangel of righteousness” (9:5). Jerusalem is “God’s holy city” (1:5). Israel is “the beloved people” (4:6; cf. 3:8) and “the chosen people of God” (7:11). The Babylonians are the “lawless” people (4:7).  35 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 158.  31 Cf.

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

93

have become false stewards.”36 Beyond this, and later on, the narrative has some of the exiles in Babylon, who are under the prophet’s authority, worshipping a foreign god (7:25–26). “It is difficult,” according to Jones, “for the reader to come to any conclusion other than that Jeremiah has not been a resounding success as exilarch.”37 The point of the criticism is, for Jones, that the biblical Jeremiah was associated with a policy of accommodation to Babylon, and 4 Baruch is adamantly opposed to any analogous accommodation to Rome (as undertaken by, for instance, Josephus and Agrippa). While Jones is certainly right that 4 Baruch evinces a concern for “the weakening or even loss of Jewish identity,”38 one fails to see how Jeremiah, who repeatedly exhorts the people to remove themselves from the defilement of Babylon (7:32), and who successfully prevents Jerusalem from being defiled by foreigners (ch. 8), can be blamed for the sins of the people.39 The Pentateuch does not blame Moses for the idolatry of those who followed him into the desert. 4 Baruch, moreover, applauds Jeremiah in numerous ways: he speaks to God face to face (1:1); he is God’s elect and God’s servant (1:1, 4, 7; 3:4; 6:22; 7:15); his prayers prevent Jerusalem’s destruction until he leaves it (1:1–2); and he obeys God’s commands (3:14; 8:2–4). As for 4:4, the confession is “we have not been found worthy,” not “I have not been found worthy.” One hesitates to infer much about Jeremiah the individual from his humble confession on behalf of a group.40 The command, ἀνάστα, ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, will be fulfilled in 4:3: Ἰερεμίας … ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.41 On the tension with v. 10 (“go up onto the wall of the city”) see the commentary on the latter. The phrase has a biblical ring; cf. LXX Gen 19:14 (ἀνάστητε καὶ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ τοῦ τόπου τούτου); 31:13 (ἀνάστηθι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς ταύτης);  36 Cf.

his self-deprecating (hyperbolic?) confession in Jer. Apocr. 30:7: “I have sinned more than this whole people.” How this comports with the rest of the Jeremiah Apocryphon, where Jeremiah is God’s chosen one whose prayers protect Jerusalem, is not at all apparent.  37 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 161.  38 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 162.  39 Cf. Doering, Letters, 261 n. 231.  40 Cf. the problem of what exegetes should infer from the circumstance that Jesus, in Mark and Luke, participates in a baptism “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).  41 Ἀνίστημι: 12x; ἐξέρχομαι: 22x; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ: 9x: 1:1, 7; 3:2; 4:3, 9; 6:9, 17; 7:1, 23; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ + τῆς πόλεως: 5x: 1:1, 3; 4:3, 10; 5:15; πόλις: 45x; τῆς πόλεως ταύτης: 5x: 1:1, 7; 4:9; 5:18, 19. Cf. 1:3 (ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε), 7 (ἀνάστα καὶ ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης), 9 (ἀνάστηθι οὖν καὶ ἄπελθε), 10 (ἀναστάντες … ἔλθετε); 7:1 (ἀνέστη … καὶ ἐξῆλθεν).

94

Commentary

Exod 12:31 (ἀνάστητε καὶ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ); Liv. Proph. Jer 12 (ἀναστήσεται καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ).42 The Hebrew equivalent would be ‫קום‬ ‫ ;צא מן־העיר הזאת‬cf. MT Gen 31:13: ‫קום צא מן־הארץ הזאת‬.43 Is there an echo of God’s command to Lot to leave Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:14)? Beyond the verbal parallel (see above), a city is about to be destroyed in both Genesis 19 and 4 Baruch 1, and Barton finds in Jeremiah’s praying for Jerusalem after God has announced its destruction “overtones of Abraham praying for Sodom.”44 Cf. the version of our story in Jer. Apocr. 14:4–6: “And if your [Jeremiah’s] prayer were not like a pillar of light in the midst of Jerusalem, surely I would destroy it to its foundations even as Sodom and Gomorrah.” Despite “this city” being the geographical focus of the first half of our book, it is not named until 4:6. Like Jeremiah, Baruch receives no introduction.45 The text takes for granted that the audience knows something about him, and perhaps even that it has heard one or more books in which he plays a role. In MT Jeremiah, he is Jeremiah’s scribe who, when necessary, serves as his public reader (36:4–32; 45:1); cf. 4 Bar. 5:18: “Baruch the public reader.” He also preserves, in an earthenware jar, the prophet’s deed of purchase for a field at Anathoth (32:12–15), and he is blamed for inciting Jeremiah against the people, for which cause he is forced into exile in Egypt (43:1–7). In LXX Jeremiah, which moves God’s words of comfort to Baruch to the end of ch. 51, he appears to be Jeremiah’s successor.46 The apocryphal Greek Baruch—an artificial compilation of three or more sources—opens with this: “These are the words of the book that Baruch, son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah, son of Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son of Hilkiah wrote in Babylon, in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when Cf. also ἀνίστημι + ἔρχομαι (LXX Cant. 2:10, 13; Mark 10:1; Luke 15:20; Gk. LAE 16:1; 21:1) and ἀνίστημι + πορεύω (LXX Gen 22:3; 44:8; Luke 17:19; Acts 9:11; Gk. LAE 2:4; 9:3; T. Abr. RecShrt. 1:2; 4 Bar. 5:6; etc.).   43 Cf. also the Aramaic in 1QapGen. 21:13: ‫קום הלך‬.  44 Barton, “Jeremiah,” 310. Yet Jeremiah, unlike Abraham, nowhere asks God to refrain from executing judgment.   45 Βαρούχ: 39x in 178 verses. Etymologically the name is from ‫ברוך‬, “blessed.” On Baruch in Jewish and Christian sources see Herbert Schmid, “Baruch und die ihm zugeschriebene Apokryphe und Pseudepigraphische Literatur,” Judaica 30 (1974), 54–70; Harlow, Baruch, 165–74; Wright, Baruch; idem, “Baruch.” That he was an historical figure is established by the discovery of a seal with his name on it: “Baruch son of Neriah the scribe.” See Nahum Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants from a Burnt Archive (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986), 28–29.  46 See Wright, Baruch, 36–37. Does 4 Bar. 9:28 imply the same idea?  42

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

95

the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire” (1:1–2). Baruch then reads the words of the book to the exiled king and people, after which they repent. In 2 Baruch, the scribe rather than Jeremiah becomes the locus of attention.47 He is the perplexed but pious saint through whom God reveals the apocalyptic future. In 3 Baruch, he is primarily a reporter of revelations of heavenly realities. Despite Jer 43:1–7, which tells of Baruch’s departure to Egypt (cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.179), some sources (unlike 4 Baruch) have him—like his brother Seraiah in Jer 51:59—going to Babylon.48 In addition to being the constant companion of Jeremiah and a prophet in his own right, tradition depicts Baruch as a witness to and mourner of the fall of Jerusalem.49 Perhaps the increased interest in him in the post-70 period reflects the “emerging influence of scribalism.”50 In 4 Baruch, Baruch, who is righteous and indeed sinless (6:3; 7:23), appears, at the beginning, in chs. 1–4, as Jeremiah’s companion and perhaps fellow priest (see on 3:4). He is clearly his subordinate. After ch. 5 and the episode featuring Abimelech, Baruch takes center stage until ch. 8. He interprets the miracle of the figs (6:1–7) and then writes, with the help of an angel and an eagle, a letter to Jeremiah in Babylon (6:8–7:13)—a letter which, if obeyed, will bring the people to Jerusalem (7:22). Jeremiah then writes a letter to Baruch that highlights the contrast between the latter’s experience—“God had mercy upon you and did not allow you to go to Babylon“—and that of the miserable exiles (7:23–29). After this, Baruch relinquishes the stage to Jeremiah. He does not, however, disappear. He, along with Jeremiah and Abimelech,51 prevents Jews married to foreigners from entering Jerusalem (8:5); he mourns Jeremiah’s apparent death (9:8–9); he requests and receives revelation (9:22–28); and he buries Jeremiah and sets up a monument (9:32). Throughout the last two chapters, Baruch always appears with Abimelech, and everything that they do, they do jointly.

 47 Riaud,

Paralipomènes, 163, takes 4 Baruch, over against 2 Baruch, to reestablish the primacy of Jeremiah. On whether 2 Baruch is secondary here see n. 154 on p. 46. According to Wright, Baruch, 63–65, 2 Baruch stands in the tradition of LXX Jeremiah, where Baruch is Jeremiah’s successor, while 4 Baruch, where Baruch is subordinate to the prophet, is more in line with MT Jeremiah. For Kaestli, “Influence,” 222, 4 Baruch wanted to correct the image of Baruch in 2 Baruch by re-establishing the prominence of Jeremiah.  48 Bar 1:1; Eusebius, Proph. frag. PG 22.1269; b. Meg. 16b; Cant. Rab. 5:5; S. ‘Olam Rab. 26.  49 On his sometime identification with Abimelech/Abdemelech see on 3:9.  50 So Wright, Baruch, 171.  51 On the parallels between Baruch and Abimelech see on 3:9.

96

Commentary

2 Baruch, it is worth nothing, opens differently than 4 Baruch. In the former, the divine order to exit “this city” comes to Baruch, who has a conversation with God before conveying the order to Jeremiah and others (2:1). In the latter, it is the other way around: Jeremiah first converses with God and then shares what he has learned with Baruch.52 Jeremiah and Baruch are to exit because God is about to destroy the city: ἐπειδὴ ἀπολῶ αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ.53 The same words recur in 1:7 and so are emphasized. Ἀπολῶ αὐτήν = ‫והכרתי אתה‬, as in Lev 17:10. Διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν is Semitic; cf. Ezek 28:18 (διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν σου = ‫;)מרב עוניך‬ Ecclus 5:6 (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου).54 Although κατοικοῦντες + ἐν αὐτῇ is not unknown to secular Greek,55 it is much more common in biblical Greek.56 The entire phrase, then, has a Semitic feel. The sins themselves are, as also in 1:7 and 4:6–7, not enumerated.57 The author assumes his audience will fill in the blank, perhaps from Jeremiah.58 Later, 6:21 will add only: “you did not keep my statutes, but your heart was arrogantly exalted, and you were stiff-necked before me.”59 Explanation of a disaster in terms of sin is wholly natural in a tradition with the story of the flood and the Deuteronomistic history; cf. Jdt 5:17– 18: “As long as they did not sin against their God they prospered, for the God who hates iniquity is with them. But when they departed from the way which he had appointed for them, they were utterly defeated in many battles and were led away captive to a foreign country; the temple of their God was razed to the ground, and their cities were captured by their enemies.”  52 For

the argument that 4 Baruch is here more faithful than 2 Baruch to their shared tradition see Nickelsburg, “Traditions,” 65–66.  53 Ἐπειδή: 5x: 1:1, 7 bis; 2:3; 8:7; ἀπόλλυμι: 4x: 1:1, 7; 3:4 bis; πλῆθος: 4x: 1:1, 5, 7; 4:2; ἁμαρτιά: 7x: 1:1, 7; 2:3; 4:6 bis, 7; 6:3; cf. Ep Jer 1: διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας.  54 Note also LXX Ps 5:11 (τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἀσεβειῶν); Jer 37:15 (ἐπλήθυναν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου); Hos 9:7 (πλήθους τῶν ἀδικιῶν); Jas 5:20 (πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν); 1 Pet 4:8 (πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν); 1 Clem. 49:5 (πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν); 2 Clem. 16:4 (πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν).  55 E.  g. Diodorus Siculus 3.55.9; 12.60.3.   56 Cf. LXX Ps 23:1; 74:4; 97:7; 106:34; Jer 12:4; Ezek 12:19; Nah 1:5 (mostly for ‫ישבי‬ ‫)בה‬.  57 Cf. 4Q179; Ps. Sol. 17:20; 4 Ezra 14:31–32; 2 Bar. 1:2–4; and see further below, p. 114.  58 Note e.  g. 2:5 (idolatry; cf. 2:23; 3:9, 13; 5:19; 7:9; 10:1–5); 2:29–37 (social injustice; cf. 5:1–2; 7:9); 5:4–5 (disregard for the law), 7–8 (adultery; cf. 7:9); 6:7 (violence; cf. 7:9).  59 One fails to understand why Young, “Eagle,” 397, asserts that “exile is treated not as the result of a fault, but as a fact.”

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

97

For a Jewish audience, the explanation of the disaster in 1:1 would likely be heard as a cause for regret and perhaps repentance. For a Christian reader or hearer, to the contrary, the line could easily be taken in the anti-Jewish, supercessionistic way that the Epistle of Barnabas and Melito of Sardis’s Homily on the Passover construe the sins of Israel—as proof that their covenant with God has been annulled; cf. the polemical dismissal in 4 Bar. 9:14–18. The theology of the verse matches the traditions associated with Jeremiah and Baruch. The canonical prophet is clear that national disaster at the hands of the Babylonians is not only the consequence, willed by God, of guilt and disobedience (see esp. chs. 2–11), but also that God is the chief actor in Jerusalem’s destruction; cf. Jer 15:3 (“I will appoint over them four sorts [of destroyers]”), 7 (“I have destroyed my people”), 8 (“I have brought against the mothers of youths a destroyer at noonday”); 21:7 (“I will give Zedeki’ah king of Judah, and his servants, and the people in this city who survive the pestilence, sword, and famine, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of their enemies”).60 The theology is that of Amos 3:6—“When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?“—and it recurs in 2 Baruch, which opens with God declaring that he will bring evil upon Jerusalem and its inhabitants because of their (unspecified) sins (1:2–5), as well as in 3 Baruch, where God, as a punishment, sets fire and lays waste to the capital (1:1–2). The story is the same in the Jeremiah Apocryphon.61 Given that, in our book, the first destruction of the temple represents the second temple, it is also pertinent that both Jews and Christians often explained the events of CE 70 as a consequence of Israel’s failings.62 Jewish auditors of 4 Baruch, in drawing parallels between Jeremiah’s day and their own, might have thought of the exit of Baruch and Jere-

 60

This is a well-attested theologoumenon; cf. 2 Kgs 22:16 (“I will bring evil upon this place and upon its inhabitants”); 23:27 (“I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, Jerusalem”); Jer 26:3 (“the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings”); 30:15 (“I have done these things to you”); Ezek 28:18 (“I turned you to ashes”); 4 Ezra 14:31 (“he took from you what he had given”); etc. Note also Josephus, Bell. 7.331–32, of the second destruction: “we have been deprived, manifestly by God himself … For it was not of their own accord that those flames which were driving against the enemy turned back upon the wall we constructed. No, all this betokens wrath at the many wrongs which we madly dared to inflict upon our countrymen.”  61 Here the chief sin is idolatry; see chs. 1–2; 4; 7; 9–10; 13; 19; 20; 25; 27; 30.  62 See further below, pp. 114–15.

98

Commentary

miah—the great High Priest in our book (see p. 183)—as foreshadowing or being analogous to the escapes of certain High Priests and their sons; or they might have recalled the story (whether historical or not) of Johanan ben Zakkai leaving the capital before the Romans destroyed it.63 Christian hearers might, if they knew the tradition, have thought of the flight to Pella shortly before the temple’s destruction in 70 CE.64 1:2. God wishes Jeremiah and Baruch to leave Jerusalem not because they need protection but because their prayers (προσευχαί)—obviously powerful and effective (cf. Jas 5:16)—are preventing its destruction.65 It was natural to assume that the city could not be destroyed as long as God was in it,66 but here the idea is transferred to God’s servants.67 Their intercessions ὡς στῦλος ἑδραῖός ἐστιν ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς καὶ ὡς τεῖχος ἀδαμάντινον περικυκλοῦν αὐτήν.68 That prayer is efficacious appears also in 7:23, where Jeremiah exhorts Baruch to pray for deliverance from the Babylonians. Here, however, the idea is, more precisely, that prayer can fend off disaster; cf. Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2: “As long as Jeremiah was in Jerusalem, he would offer prayers from before his heavenly Father that the city of Jerusalem not be delivered into the hands of the Chaldeans and they not destroy it. But when Jeremiah was in the land of the tribe of Benjamin, the king of Babylon prevailed over them, destroyed the land of Israel, plundered the city of Jerusalem, and burned down the temple with fire.” This assumes what 4 Baruch clearly says; cf. also 2 Bar. 2:1 (“you may say to Jeremiah and all those who are like you that you may retire from this city. For your works are for this city like a firm pillar and your prayers like a strong wall”) and Jer. Apocr. 14:4–5 (“If your [Jeremiah’s] petition were

See Josephus, Bell. 5.420–22; 6.113–19; ARN A 6:31–34; ARN B 6:1–4; b. Git. 56b; ˙ Lam. Rab. 1:5:31; and cf. Bogaert, Baruch, 2:11.  64 See Eusebius, H.  E. 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.7–8; 30.2.7; Mens. 14–15. Note also Luke 21:21: “Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst (of Jerusalem) depart.”  65 Προσευχή: 2x: 1:2; 7:23. On prayer in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, p. 21.  66 Cf. Ezek 10:1–19; Lam. Rab. proem 24 (“As long as I am in it, the nations of the world cannot touch it”).  67 Cf. b. Ketub. 66b: when Israel does God’s will, “no nation … has any power over them.” 4 Baruch in effect individualizes this theological generalization.  68 Στῦλος: 1x; ἑδραῖος: 1x; ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς: see on 9:13; τεῖχος: 4x; it is in the plural and refers to the walls of Jerusalem in 1:10; 3:1, 2; ἀδαμάντινος: 1x; LXX: 2x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 3x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; περικυκλόω: 1x; but cf. περίκυκλος in 9:12. Note the singular ἐστίν following the plural προσευχαί.  63

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

99

not like an adamantine wall surrounding them, surely I would now wipe them out. And if your prayer were not like a pillar of light in the midst of Jerusalem, surely I would destroy it to its foundations”). Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 expresses the same idea,69 which was clearly popular: Jerusalem was invincible as long as Jeremiah was in it. Presumably, the prophet—who was remembered as a man of effective prayer70—would pray for Jerusalem even if he were not residing within it. Evidently, however, the effect would not be the same. Στῦλος + ἑδραῖος was not a common expression and is unattested before 4 Baruch. In Eusebius, H.  E. 5.1.6 (quoting the second-century Epistula Ecclesiarum Lugdunensium et Viennensium), it is used of Christian martyrs in Gaul. Chrysostom, A. exil. I,2 PG 52.492, applies it to faithful Christians in general.71 By contrast, τεῖχος + ἀδαμάντινος was conventional.72 The combination—“like a solid pillar” + “an iron wall“—takes up Jer 1:18.73 The MT reads: “I (God) for my part have made you (Jeremiah) today a

 69 According

to this, God commanded Jeremiah to go to Anathoth, and as soon as he left the capital, the angel of the Lord set fire to the walls of Jerusalem. Cf. Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 13:14 (“During all the days that Jeremiah was in Jerusalem, it was not destroyed, but when he departed from it, it was destroyed”); Lam. Rab. 1:5:31 (if there had been one more person in Jerusalem like the pious ascetic, Rabbi Zadok, the Romans could not have conquered Jerusalem).  70 Cf. Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11; 15:4; 18:20; 37:3; 42:2, 4, 20; also 2 Macc 15:14; 2 Bar. 2:2; Liv. Proph. Jer. 3; Chrysostom, Exp. Ps. PG 55:456; Jer. Apocr. 14:4–6; 15:1–15; 35:1–16; 37:5. See further Samuel E. Balentine, “Jeremiah, Prophet of Prayer,” RevExp 78 (1981), 331–44.   71 Additional texts characterize an important figure or holy individual as a pillar; note e.  g. Gal 2:9 (Peter, James, and John are reputed to be στῦλοι); Rev 3:12 (the one who conquers will be a “pillar” in God’s temple); 1 Clem. 5:2 (Peter and Paul were “righteous pillars”); ARN A 25:5 (R. Johanan ben Zakkai is a “tall pillar,” ‫ ;)עמוד הגבוה‬b. Ber. 28b (Johanan ben Zakkai is the “pillar of the right hand”); Tg. Ps.-Jn. Num. 20:29 (Aaron is “the pillar of Israel’s prayers”); Exod. Rab. 2:6 (Abraham is “the pillar of the world”); Chrysostom, Proph. obscur. 2.5 (Peter and Paul are pillars); Basil, Ep. 243 (οἱ στῦλοι καὶ τὸ ἑδραίωμα—of bishops); Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 21 PG 35.1112 (Athanasius was a pillar). Note also Naveh Shaked, Amulets, 124–25 (bowl 1:11–12): “a wall of pure steel shall surround Huna son of ˙ Kupitay.”  72 Cf. LXX Amos 7:7 (τείχους ἀδαμαντίνου); Jos. Asen. 19:8 (Aseneth’s walls are “adamantine walls of life”); 22:13 (her walls are “like adamantine eternal walls”); Horace, Ep. 1.1.60–61 (“be this our wall of bronze [murus aeneus], to have no guilt at heart”); Lucian, Cal. 20.7 (“protected by ἀδαμάντινον τεῖχος”).  73 Cf. the allusion to Jer 1:18–19 (via Acts 9:15) in Ep. Apost. 31: here Paul is “a wall that does not fall.”

100

Commentary

fortified city, an iron pillar, and into walls of bronze (cf. 15:12, 20) against the whole land.” The LXX has: “Behold, I have made you this very day like (ὡς) a strong city and like (ὡς) a strong bronze wall” (τεῖχος χαλκοῦν ὀχυρόν). In speaking of a “pillar” and using “adamantine,” 4 Baruch is closer to the MT, which has “iron pillar” (‫ )לעמוד ברזל‬and the single word, ‫נחשת‬, modifying “wall” (LXX: χαλκοῦν ὀχυρόν); yet it resembles the LXX in twice having ὡς (MT: ‫ )ל‬as well as the singular, “wall” (MT: ‫)חומות‬.74 According to Schaller, 4 Bar. 1:2 likely reflects “a form of the text which has improved upon the older version of LXX Jer. and is closer to the MT, a forerunner of the Hexaplar and Lucianic recension of the text.”75 Although this is possible, it is also plausible that 4 Baruch depends not directly upon canonical Jeremiah but upon an extra-canonical source.76 Whatever the immediate source of 1:2, the legend that Jerusalem was impregnable until Jeremiah left it clearly grew out of an interpretation of Jer 1:18, read perhaps in the light of some verse in which the prophet leaves the capital;77 cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:6: as soon as Jeremiah went to Anathoth (Jer 32:6–8), the angel breached the walls. Maybe Jer 7:16 (“do not pray for this people, or lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I do not hear you”) and 11:14 (“do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer on their behalf, for I will not listen when they call to me in the time of their trouble”) also played a role here, for they have God forbidding the prophet to intercede to make things right.78 Within the context of our book, the reference to the prayers of Jeremiah and Baruch serving as a protective wall is implicitly and ironically

Although the singular may here correctly interpret the Hebrew ‫ תומח‬if the latter is an intensive plural.  75 Schaller, “Greek Version,” 76–77. He calls attention to the reading in Aquila, Theodotion, and 0–233 L᾽-130᾽ for Jer 1:18: καὶ ὡς/εἰς στῦλον σιδηροῦν.  76 See the texts cited above. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 48, speaks of a “direct reference” to 2 Baruch. Cf. Bogaert, Baruch, 1:359–60: 4 Baruch here depends upon 2 Baruch or the latter’s Greek source. This is far from obvious; see the Introduction, pp. 42–46. Against Kästli, “Influence,” 221, there is no need to posit that a revised version of Jer 1:18 circulated as an isolated logion.  77 Perhaps Jer 37:12: “Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin.” In canonical Jeremiah itself, however, the prophet appears to be in Jerusalem when it is captured.  78 Cf. Jer 14:11; 15:1. The motif of Jeremiah as an intercessor appears in 2 Macc 15:14 (“This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God”); Liv. Proph. Jer. 3 (“He prayed, and the asps left” the Egyptians); Jer. Apocr. 14:2–4; 17:8.  74

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

101

contrasted with the city’s literal walls, which should protect Jerusalem and cannot do so (1:10; 3:1–2). 1.3. God repeats the imperative of v. 1 but uses the plural because Baruch is now included: νῦν ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε πρὸ τοῦ ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων κυκλώσει αὐτήν.79 Although πρὸ τοῦ with the sense “before” also appears in 7:26 and 9:6, in those places the construction is πρὸ τοῦ + accusative + infinitive. Here by contrast the subject is in the nominative and the verb finite. “The host of the Chaldeans”—the phrase is from canonical Jeremiah80—recurs in 4:1 (bis). The expression is ironic because, in truth, over against God, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Chaldeans have no real power. They do only what God permits them to do, and only after Jeremiah and Baruch have left. Our author prefers “Chaldeans” as the ethnic term for Israel’s captors, “Babylon” as the geographical term; see on 2:7. That they will surround the city is a prophecy that is fulfilled in 4:1 (q.  v.). Again there is irony and an implicit contrast with Jeremiah and Baruch: their prayers are the more effective force that surrounds (περικυκλοῦν, v. 2) the city. 1:4. Jeremiah responds to God’s words with a reverent and formal request: καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰερεμίας λέγων· παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι τῷ δούλῳ σου λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου.81 The conversation that follows seems closely related to the introductory conversation between God and Baruch in 2 Baruch 1–5. The precise expression, παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε, which  79

Ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε: see on 5:6; cf. T. Abr. RecLng. 3:5 (ἀναστάντες ἐξέλθατε); νῦν: 5x: 1:3; 3:3, 6; 7:18, 28; it is also introductory in 3:3 and 7:28 (the latter with an imperative); δύναμις: 9x; of the Chaldean host or its military power in 1:3, 8; 4:1

bis, 7; of their king in 1:5; of God’s power in 6:7, 9; 7:12 bis; for the military sense see Herodotus 5.100; LXX Gen 21:22; 4 Βασ 17:16; Jer 52:14; Theod. Dan 8:10; 1 En. 18:14; Matt 24:29; Josephus, Bell. 4.632, 659; etc.; Χαλδαῖος: see on 1:1; κυκλόω: 3x: 1:3; 4:1; 7:12.   80 LXX Jer 42:11; 44:10–11; 52:8, 14 (for ‫)חיל הכשדים‬ = MT 35:11; 37:10–11; 52:8, 14; also 4 Βασ 25:5; 2 Bar. 6:1; 8:4; Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2.   81 Ἀποκρίνω: 3x: 1:4; 7:2, 22; cf. LXX Ezek 9:11 (καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων); 1 En. 25:3 (καὶ ἀπεκρίθη λέγων); 106:9 (καὶ ἀπεκρίθη λέγων); also 1 En. 22:7, 9; T. Job 23:6; Matt 25:45; Mark 15:9; John 12:23; see further on 7:22; παρακαλέω: 8x: 1:4; 3:4 bis, 9; 6:9; 9:3, 4, 6; vocative Κύριε, which is ubiquitous in Jewish and Christian prayers, occurs in our book always on the lips of either Jeremiah (1:4, 5, 6; 3:4, 6, 9; 9:6) or Baruch (6:9); ἐπιτρέπω: 1x; δοῦλος: 4x, with σου in 1:4; 3:9; 6:10; λαλέω: see on 1:1; ἐνώπιον: 4x: 1:4; 3:4; 4:3; 6:21; cf. ‫ דבר‬+ ‫לפני‬, as in Num 36:1; Judg 11:11; for the preposition with the sense, “in the sight of,” see LXX Gen 11:28; 31:35; Hos 2:10; Luke 1:15.

102

Commentary

recurs in 3:9 and 9:6 (both of Jeremiah beseeching God), is rare.82 It occurs four times in the short recension of the Testament of Abraham (4:11; 7:8, 12, 19) and seemingly otherwise only in Ps.-Ephraem, Συμβουλία περὶ πνευματικοῦ βίου πρὸς νεόφυτον μοναχόν 41 ed. Phrantzoles, 2:232, and a few exceedingly late Christian sources.83 Perhaps we have here the wording of a later scribe. Jeremiah shows great deference to the one who has spoken; cf. 3:4 (q.  v.); also LXX Gen 44:18 (δέομαι, Κύριε, λαλησάτω ὁ παῖς σου ῥῆμα ἐναντίον σου); 3 Βασ 3:22 (ἐλάλησαν ἐνώπιον); Job 42:7 (ἐλαλήσατε ἐνώπιόν μου); Jdt 11:5 (λαλησάτω ἡ παιδίσκη σου κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου); 12:6 (ἐπιταξάτω δὴ ὁ Κύριος μου ἐᾶσαι τὴν δούλην σου ἐπὶ προσευχὴν ἐξελθεῖν); Jos. Asen. 17:10 (λελάληκα … ἐνώπιόν σου); T. Abr. RecShrt. 8:1 (ἐλάλησεν ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ); 4 Ezra 5:50 (loquar coram te)—although none of these uses ἐπιτρέπω. That Jeremiah is God’s “servant” or “slave” (as also in 6:22, there with παῖς) is not a way of saying that, like all good Israelites, he obeys God. Nor is it self-abnegation. The appellation—which otherwise occurs in petitions to the deity84—probably designates the prophet as a leader of high status and also as an especially righteous individual, as in many Jewish and Christian texts.85 More

παρακαλῶ σε by itself is not; cf. BGU 2 531:2; P. Oxy. 2 292; Phlm 10; Josephus, Ant. 8.52; T. Abr. RecLng. 9:3; Arrian, Epict. diss. 1.10.10; 2.24.2; Acts John 81; etc.  83 E.  g. Damaskinos Stouditis, Thes. orat. 19. 84 LXX Ps 79:5; 85:2, 4; 115:7; 118:65; Theod. Dan 9:17; 1QH 6:8; 13:15, 28; 4Q381 19; Acts 4:29; Acts John 108; (Apocr.) Apoc. John 1; etc.  85 Jewish texts include Exod 24:13 (Joshua); Judg 2:8 (Joshua); 2 Kgs 17:13 (the prophets); Ezra 9:11 (the prophets); Ps 36 title (David); Ps 105:42 (Abraham); Isa 20:3 (Isaiah); Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19 (the prophets); Ezek 34:23–24 (David); Dan 9:6 (the prophets); Amos 3:7 (the prophets); Zech 1:6 (the prophets); Bar 2:20, 24 (the prophets); 3:37 (Israel); 1QS 1:3 (the prophets); 4Q292 2 (the prophets); Hazon Gabriel A 16; B 72 (David); LAB 20:2 (Moses); 4 Bar. 6:17 (Baruch); m. ’Abot 1:3 (a generality about those who serve God). Sifre Deut. 27 offers a rabbinic discussion of those honored with the title, “servant of God.” Christian texts include: Luke 1:38 (Mary the mother of Jesus); Acts 4:29 (the apostles); 16:17 (Paul and his fellow missionaries); Jas 1:1 (James the brother of Jesus); 2:23 v.  l. (Abraham); Rev 10:7 (the prophets); Did. 9:1 (David); 4 Ezra 2:18 (Isaiah and Jeremiah). Paul’s uses of δοῦλος in the epistolary introductions to Romans and Philippians seem to be implicit claims to authority and leadership. On the rhetorical topos of the enslaved leader in the Graeco-Roman world in general see Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).  82 Although

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

103

particularly, given the parallels between Jeremiah and Moses elsewhere, it may make him like the lawgiver.86 Λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου (= ‫ )לדבר לפניך‬recurs in 3:4, again in a prayer of Jeremiah. It is a locution of respect; cf. LXX 3 Βασ 3:22 (ἐλάλησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ βασιλέως); Job 42:7 (ἐλαλήσατε ἐνώπιον μου [= God]); T. Abr. RecShrt. 8 (ἐλάλησεν ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ). “The Lord“—the chief title for God in our book, occurring in every chapter and over 40x altogether; it is usually unqualified—responds (εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Κύριος) by inviting Jeremiah to speak: λάλει, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου Ἰερεμιάς.87 As in 1:1, God uses Jeremiah’s name and addresses him as “my elect”; cf. also 3:5, which agrees verbatim with the end of 1:4. 1:5. Jeremiah initially responds by recognizing the exalted status of the one with whom he is speaking: καὶ ἐλάλησεν Ἰερεμίας λέγων· Κύριε παντοκράτωρ.88 Καὶ ἐλάλησεν Ἰερεμίας λέγων is another Semitism.89 Παντοκράτωρ appears with the vocative Κύριε in the LXX (for ‫)יהוה צבאות‬.90 Their com-

 86 For

this title applied to Moses see Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8; Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1, 2, 7; 1 Kgs 8:56; 2 Kgs 18:12; 1 Chron 6:49; 2 Chron 1:3; Ps 105:26; Dan 9:11; Mal 4:4; Bar 1:20; 2:28; 4Q504 6:12; Heb 3:5; Rev 15:3; Josephus, Ant. 5.39; LAB 20:2; 1 Clem 4:12; 51:3, 5; Barn 14:4; T. Moses preface; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.7.59; Apos. Con. 7:33:6; Acts Pilate 16:8; m. Yoma 3:8; 4:2; 6:2; Sifre Deut. 357; Tg. Ps-Jn. on Num. 16:34; b. Šabb. 89a; etc. “Servant” is the most common title for Moses in the HB/OT, occurring there 40x.  87 With εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Κύριος cf. LXX Job 2:3, 6; Luke 11:39; 17:6; 18:6; 20:13; Acts 18:9; Apoc. Sed. 3:10; λαλέω: 14x; ἐκλεκτός: see on 1:1.  88 Λαλέω: 14x; vocative Κύριε: see on 1:4; παντοκράτωρ: 2x: 1:5; 9:6; LXX: 126x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 7x (including 3 Bar. 1:3); Philo: 3x; NT: 10x; Josephus: 0x; Κύριε παντοκράτωρ recurs in 9:6, and Riaud, Paralipomènes, 166, observes that the address occurs at the beginning and end of 4 Baruch. If our text originally had Κύριε σαβαώθ, the Christian redactor responsible for 7:25 would have changed it; see the discussion there.   89 Cf. ‫ וידבר לאמר‬and 3 Βασ 20:23 (καὶ … ἐλάλησεν Κύριος λέγων); Sym. Theod. Isa 16:14 (καὶ νῦν ἐλάλησεν Κύριος λέγων).  90 2 Βασ 7:25–27; 1 Chr 17:24; Pr Man 1; Jer 15:16; Bar 3:1, 4; Zech 1:12. Cf. also T. Abr. RecLng. 15:12, 14 v.  l.; Apos. Con. 7:35, 36; 8:11, 16, 37, 40; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 8.2; Chron. Pasch. ed. Dindorff, p. 271; Lit. Bas. rec. brev. vet. PG 31:1644, 1653; etc. The combination is also of course common without the vocative: Jdt 4:13; 8:13; 15:10; 16:6, 17; 2 Macc 3:30; Ecclus 42:17; 50:17; 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22; Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Zech. 1.60, 67; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. xii. proph. ed. Pusey, 2:591, 614; etc.

104

Commentary

bination was part of both Jewish and Christian liturgy (see n. 90). Cf. the use of δύναμις in 6:9: “Our power, O God our Lord.”91 Jeremiah is not concerned for himself or his friends but for the honor of God, which is bound up with the elect city that God is about to hand over: παραδίδως τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐκλεκτὴν εἰς χεῖρας τῶν Χαλδαίων.92 Despite its inhabitants’ sins, it has not been rejected utterly; its desolation will last only for a time.93 The expression, τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐκλεκτήν, appears to come from Ecclus 49:5–6 (perhaps combined with LXX Jer 39:3–4; see below). According to Sirach, the unfaithful kings of Judah “gave their powers to a foreign nation, who set fire to the chosen city (ἐκλεκτὴν πόλιν) of the sanctuary.” Not only is “the elect city” in the singular rare,94 but Sirach refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. The text adds that this happened as Jeremiah had foretold it95 and then goes on to say a few words about his ministry. The idiom, (παρα)δίδωμι + εἰς χεῖρας, is common in the HB/OT; cf. ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ליד‬/‫ב‬. It often, as here, means “hand over to the power or authority of.” See BDF § 217.2, and note Aristobulus apud Eusebius, H.  E. 8.10.8: “it is possible for people speaking metaphorically to consider that the entire strength of human beings and their active powers are in their hand.”96 The expression is particularly appropriate here given that the idiom appears multiple times in LXX Jeremiah.97 Note esp. 39:3–4 (οὕτως εἶπεν Κύριος,

 91

If one were to judge 4 Baruch dependent upon 2 Baruch, it may be relevant that the latter emphasizes God as “the Mighty One”; see Bogaert, Baruch, 1:393–95.  92 Παραδίδωμι: 11x; ἐκλεκτός: see on 1:1; πόλις: see on 1:1; χείρ: 7x: 1:5, 6; 2:7; 3:2, 6; 4:6; 6:1; παραδίδωμι + εἰς χεῖρας recurs in 2:7 (παραδίδωσει τὴν πόλιν εἰς χεῖρας); 3:6 (παραδίδως τὴν πόλιν σου εἰς χεῖρας τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῆς); 4:6; Χαλδαῖος: see on 1:1.  93 Cf. Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 13:14: Jeremiah not only says “You have utterly rejected us” (Lam 5:22) but also “Restore us to yourself” (Lam 5:21). Contrast the Christian supercessionism in 4 Bar. 9, where Israel loses its elect status.  94 Although note Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Zech. 1.202. In Tob 13:13 ‫א‬, the name τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς refers to Jerusalem. Cf. also 3 Macc 2:9; T. Levi 10:5; T. Zeb. 9:8.  95 It literally says: “by the hand of Jeremiah.” This is usually taken to mean: “as Jeremiah had foretold.” Cf. Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 541.  96 Cf. LXX Exod 21:13; Josh 10:30; Ps 105:41; Ezek 23:9; Ecclus 11:6; 1 En. 91:12; Matt 26:45; Mark 9:31; Acts 21:11; Did. 16:4; Gk. LAE 35:6; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 2:14; etc. Note also Let. Aris. 306: “every form of activity is wrought by means of the hands.”  97 LXX 21:10; 22:25; 39:4, 36, 43; 41:2; 44:17; 45:3.

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

105

Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δίδωμι τὴν πόλιν ταύτην ἐν χερσὶν βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος … παραδόσει παραδοθήσεται εἰς χεῖρας βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος);98 39:43 (παρεδόθησαν εἰς χεῖρας τῶν Χαλδαίων); 45:18 (δοθήσεται ἡ πόλις αὕτη εἰς χεῖρας τῶν Χαλδαίων).99 The same idiom appears in Jer. Apocr. 14:8; 15:7, 14: “I send Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, and … I [will] give them into his hands … that you should give them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of the Chaldeans, and he take them to his land … I have given them into your hand.” Because Jeremiah is concerned above all for God’s honor, he is anxious that, when Jerusalem is overthrown, the king of the Chaldeans, along with the multitudes of his people—λαός is particularly apt in that it occurs more often in Jeremiah than any other LXX book—will boast that he has prevailed over the holy city of God: ἵνα καυχήσηται ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἴπῃ ὅτι, Ἴσχυσα ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ.100 The same theological or apologetical concern appears in 3 Macc 2:17–18 (“Do not punish us for the defilement committed by these men, or call us to account for this profanation, lest the transgressors boast in their wrath or exult in the arrogance of their tongue, saying, ‘We have trampled down the house of the sanctuary as offensive houses are trampled down’”); Josephus, Bell. 6.411 (Titus admitted that God “brought down the Jews from these strongholds, for what power have human hands or engines against these towers?”); 2 Bar. 5:1 (given that those who capture Jerusalem will “boast” before their idols, Baruch asks, “What will you do for you great name?”); 7:1 (the angels tear down the walls so that “the enemy may not boast and say, ‘We have torn down the walls of Zion, and we have burned down the palace of God’”); 80:3 (“they were delivered up lest the enemies should boast and say, ‘We have overcome to such an extent that we have even destroyed the house of the Most High’”); 3 Bar. 1:2 (“Why, Lord, did you … deliver us to such nations, so that they upbraid us

 98

For Schaller, “Greek Version,” 77–78, 4 Baruch here “relies on” LXX Jer 39:3–4. also 2 Chr 36:17 (LXX: τὰ πάντα παρέδωκεν ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν); 1 Esdr 6:14 (on this parallel see below, on 2:7). 100 Καυχάομαι: 2x; cf. the very similar 4:7: μὴ καυχάσθωσαν … ἰσχύσαμεν λαβεῖν τὴν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ; the verb, with the exception of Ps. Sol. 17:1, carries negative sense in the Gk. Pseudepigrapha: T. Reub. 3:5; T. Jud. 13:2, 3; T. Iss. 1:9; T. Job 15:6; 41:3; T. Abr. RecLng. 19:4; βασιλεύς: see on 1:1; πλῆθος: 1:1, 5, 7; 4:2; λαός: 44x, almost always of Israel; πλῆθος + λαοῦ appears almost exclusively in Christian sources: Luke 23:27; Acts 21:36; Acts John 42; Origen, Lam. frag. 7; Eusebius, H.  E. 10.5.18; etc.; ὅτι recitativum: 1:5; 2:7; 4:7, 10; 5:2, 26; 6:13; 7:3, 18, 29 bis; 8:5; ἰσχύω: 3x; 1:5; 4:7 bis; ἱερός: 1x; πόλις: see on 1:1.  99 Cf.

106

Commentary

saying, ‘Where is their God?’”); Sib. Or. 4:408–413 (Titus was an insignificant ruler who “perished at immortal hands” so that none should think he could sack “a great city”).101 “The city of God” with reference to Jerusalem appears in Ps 46:4; 87:3 and thereafter in both Jewish and Christian sources.102 The characterization of that city as “holy” (cf. ‫עיר הקדש‬, as in Isa 48:2; CD 20:22; b. Sanh. 107b) is well attested, although in Greek literature the adjective is usually ἁγία;103 ἱερός, however, is also sometimes used in this connection.104 1:6. Jeremiah introduces his respectful dissent with μὴ Κύριε μου.105 This exact phrase occurs once in the LXX (4 Βασ 4:16, for ‫)אל־אדני‬, elsewhere seemingly only here and T. Abr. RecLng. 2:10; 7:6. But the Syriac of 2 Bar. 3:1 offers a parallel—‫—לא מרי‬and the context is similar: Baruch is responding to God’s declaration that Jerusalem will be destroyed and its people scattered. The conditional phrase that follows—ἀλλ’ εἰ θέλημά σού ἐστιν—with its hapax legomenon for 4 Baruch (θέλημα), is probably Christian as it appears otherwise only in texts of Egyptian monasticism.106 In any event, for Jeremiah, God’s will is the decisive factor in what is going 101 Cf.

further b. Sanh. 96b (the conqueror of Jerusalem should not be elated because, as a voice from heaven declares, he has only slain a dead people, and already burned a temple already burned); Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 (the angel who breaches the city wall calls out to the Babylonians: “Do not boast that you have vanquished the city. No, a conquered city you have conquered, a dead people you have killed”); Lam. Rab. 1:41 (“At the time [when the enemy conquered Jerusalem] the accuser sprang before the Throne of Glory and exclaimed, ‘Lord of the universe, shall this wicked person boast, saying, “I destroyed the house of God, I burnt his temple”’?”). Note also the notion that temple could “not be surrendered to a commoner but only to a king” (ARN A 4) and other texts that fret over the boasts and pride of Israel’s enemies: Ps 38:16; 52:1; 94:2–7; Isa 10:12; 16:6; Jer 48:29–30; Zeph 2:8–10; 3 Macc 6:4–5. See further Johnson, Prayer, 38–41, on appeals to God’s dignity and pride. 102 E.  g. Philo, Cher. 121; Somn. 2.250; Sib. Or. 5:250; Heb 12:22. 103 LXX 2 Esdr 21:1; Isa 48:2; 66:20; Dan 3:28; Theod. 9:24; Joel 4:17; 1 Macc 2:7; 2 Macc 1:12; 3 Macc 6:5; Matt 4:5; 27:53; Rev 11:2; 21:2, 10; 22:19; etc. 104 Josephus, Ant. 4.70, 200, 205, 209, 218; 13.51; Philo, Somn. 2.246. 105 For vocative Κύριε see on 1:4. 106 Apophth. Patr. (alphabetical collection) PG 65.193; Apophth. Patr. (systematic collection ed. Guy SC 474) 15.33; Paphnutius, Onuphrio 1; V. Pach. Φ 146; V. Pach. 3 ed. Halkin, p. 402. More distant parallels include Ecclus 39.6 (ἐὰν Κύριος ὁ μέγας θελήσῃ); 1 Cor 4.19 (ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος θελήσῃ); Jas 4:15 (ἐὰν ὁ Κύριος θελήσῃ); Plato, Alcib. 135D (ἐὰν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ); Demosthenes, Or. 25.2 (ἐὰν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ θέλῃ); Arrian, Epict. diss. 4.6.21 (ἂν ὁ θεὸς θέλῃ); Corp. Herm. frag. 2A 2 (ἐὰν ὁ θεὸς θέλῃ); Plau-

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

107

to happen. This marks “a subtle shift in the direction of making Jeremiah more submissive to the divine will than” the canonical book of Jeremiah “sees him as being.”107 The alternative future Jeremiah contemplates is that God himself will destroy the city by his own hands: ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἀφανισθήτω.108 The reference to God’s “hands” (ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν) makes for a contrast with the “hands” (εἰς χεῖρας) of the Chaldeans (v. 5). Jeremiah’s request is a bit odd, because God has clearly announced, in 1:1, “I will destroy.” Has Jeremiah misunderstood God’s declaration, or is there an inconcinnity in the text? However that may be, the prophet does not ask God to spare the city. He evidently understands the gravity of its sins and accepts the horrific consequences. His concern is rather how the destruction will be interpreted. 1:7. In this verse, God patiently reiterates himself. Everything said here— Jeremiah is elect; he should rise and go out of the city along with Baruch; God will destroy the city; the sins of its inhabitants are the cause—has been said before, and with the same vocabulary.109 While there is, then, nothing new here at all, the verbatim repetition underlines that Jeremiah need not worry: God himself will annihilate the city. 1:8. God offers clarification: οὔτε γὰρ ὁ βασιλεὺς, οὔτε ἡ δύναμις αὐτοῦ, δυνήσεται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν.110 Note the wordplay: δύναμις … δυνήσεται. The king of the Chaldeans has no real power, nor does his military force. Jerusalem can only be taken if God first opens her gates and tus, Cap. 455 (si dis placet); Sallust, Jug. 14.19 (dis volentibus); Minucius Felix, Oct. 18.11 CSEL 2 ed. Halm, 25 (si deus dederit). 107 So Barton, “Jeremiah,” 310. 108 Bogaert, Baruch, 2:14, suggests that 4 Baruch here misinterprets the use of Isa 49:16 in 2 Bar. 4:2: “Or do you think that this is the city concerning which I said, ‘I have engraved you on the palms of my hands’?” Against this see Riaud, Paralipomènes, 41–42. Χείρ: see on v. 5; ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου = ‫מידיך‬ = “by your power” is a Hebraism; cf. Gen 32:12; 39:1; 34:9; Exod 3:8; 1 En. 106:3; Rev 19:2; and see Doudna, Greek, 79–81; Aune, Revelation, 1:clxxix; ἀφανίζω: 2x; 1:6, 10; for the verb of the destruction of cities see Xenophon, Hell. 4.4.6; LXX Mic 5:14; Philo, Virt. 201; Josephus, Bell. 6.413; Liv. Proph. Jon 11; cf. the use of ἀγανισμός in 3:9 and 4:9. 109 See above, p. 87. 110 Βασιλεύς: see on v. 1; δύναμις: see on v. 3; δύναμαι: 5x: 1:8, 10 (οὐ δύνανται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν); 6:8, 9; 7:6; οὔτε … οὔτε recurs in 5:7; πρῶτος: 2x: 1:8, 10; ἀνοίγω: 3x: 1:8; 4:1; 9:5—always with πύλη; πύλη: 3x: 1:8; 4:1; 9:5; εἰσέρχομαι: 16x; with εἰς: 10x.

108

Commentary

allows him to enter. This is the same legend as that found in 2 Baruch and elsewhere as discussed above, and it is of a piece with the tale that God, not the Babylonians, burned the temple and the city. On the origins of this latter legend in Lam 1:13 and the genesis of the companion conviction that God broke the walls or opened the gates (cf. 4:1) see below, pp. 136–37. 1:9. For the fourth time (cf. vv. 1, 3, 7), God tells Jeremiah to arise.111 He is to go to Baruch and report on what God has said: ἄπελθε πρὸς Βαροὺχ καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτῷ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα.112 Given that τὰ ῥήματα is the object of ἀπαγγέλω in LXX Gen 24:44; Jdt 6:17; 10:13 (cf. Acts Phil. 5:18), the construction may here be a Septuagintism. For God opening gates see Isa 45:1 (“Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus … whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed”); 3 Macc 6:18 (“Then the most glorious, almighty, and true God revealed his holy face and opened the heavenly gates, from which two glorious angels of fearful aspect descended, visible to all but the Jews”). Robinson has urged that v. 9, which could be omitted without consequence, is secondary, and that Baruch’s name has been added in vv. 1 and 7.113 He associates v. 9 with 2:1a (“And Jeremiah ran and told these things to Baruch), which he also deems an insertion on the grounds that, in vv. 2–6, Baruch does not yet know what has happened: “When Baruch saw him with dust sprinkled on his head and with his garments rent, he cried out in a great voice, saying, ‘Father Jeremiah, what is (going on) with you, or what sort of sin have the people committed?’” Robinson could be correct that, at some stage in the evolution of our story or text, Baruch was absent. It is notable that, in the Jeremiah Apocryphon, Baruch plays a much diminished role.114 Nonetheless, the text that Robinson translates in 2:1a may be secondary, and if one adopts the shorter reading, as in the present commentary, there is no problem: God commands Jeremiah to tell Baruch what has happened (1:9), and the prophet does so as soon as Baruch meets him and asks what is wrong (2:2).115 111

Ἀνάστηθι; for the verb see on 1:1; the 2nd person singular aorist imperative recurs

112

Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; only here with πρός; ἀπαγγέλω: 2x; 1:9; 7:21; ῥῆμα: 7x: 1:9; 2:9; 3:3, 4; 8:4 (τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα) bis; 9:20.

in 6:8 and 8:2.

113 Robinson,

“4 Baruch,” 417. Caquot and Philonenko, “Introduction,” cxxxix, also think that Baruch’s name is secondary in both vv. 1 and 7. 114 He appears only in ch. 8. 115 Robinson also finds evidence of Baruch’s secondary presence in ch. 2; see below, p. 160.

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

109

1:10. Jeremiah is to get up at the sixth hour of the night: ἀναστάντες ἕκτην ὥραν τῆς νυκτός.116 This would be in the middle of the night (cf. μεσονύκτιον), at the darkest hour; cf. Judg 16:3 (“Samson lay till midnight, and at midnight he arose”); 1 Kgs 3:20 (“she arose at midnight”); Ps 119:62 (“at midnight I rise”); Matt 25:6–7 (“But at midnight there was a cry … then all those maidens rose”). Jewish and Christian lore held that several salvific events took place and will take place in the middle of the night, as well as certain destructive acts of God.117 When, in 4:1, the Chaldeans finally enter the city, the angels have, clearly, already burned it (3:1–4; 4:1). Our text may assume an ancient culture with segmented sleep. It evidently was the custom, in many pre-industrial cultures, to divide sleep into two cycles, interrupted by a period of two or three hours in between.118 If so, then Jeremiah is being asked to go to the city walls after he wakes from his first sleep. However that may be, the notion that the city walls were breached at night derives from the Bible (see 2 Kgs 25:4; Jer 6:5; 52:7); cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.136 (“the city was taken [by Nebuchadnezzar’s army] about midnight” [περὶ μέσην νύκτα]); 2 Bar. 6:1–7:1. After rising, Jeremiah is to go up onto city walls: ἔλθετε ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως.119 This is in effect a prophecy that will be fulfilled in 3:1–2: “And when the hour of the night came to pass, as the Lord said to Jeremiah, Jeremiah and Baruch came together on the walls of the city.” The reference to Jerusalem’s walls may echo canonical Jeremiah; cf. 1:15 (“they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about”); 21:4 (“the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside the walls”); 39:8 (“The Chaldeans …

116

Ἀνίστημι: see on 1:1; ἕκτος: 2x: 1:10; 2:9; ὥρα: 6x: 1:10; 2:9; 3:1; 5:25; 6:12; 9:12; νύξ: 3x: 1:10; 2:9; 3:1; cf. 2:9 (ὥρας ἕκτης τῆς νυκτός); Ps.-Apollonius, Apotel. ed. Nau, p. 1380 (ἕκτη ὥρα τῆς νυκτός).

117 Salvific

events: Exod 12:42; Acts 16:25; Mek. Pisha 14:113–14; Tg. Neof. 1 Exod ˙ 2:42. Destructive acts: Exod 11:4; 12:29; Judg 7:9–23; Job 34:20. Cf. the coming of the bridegroom at midnight in Matt 25:6, which means salvation for some, judgment for others. See further Wolfgang Speyer, “Mittag und Mitternacht als heilige Zeiten in Antike und Christentum,” in Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld: Ausgewählte Aufsätze 1, ed. Wolfgang Speyer (WUNT 50; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 340–52. 118 See William L. Holladay, “Indications of Segmented Sleep in the Bible,” CBQ 69 (2007) 215–21; cf. Thucydides 2.2; 7.43; Plutarch, Them. 28. 119 Cf. also LXX Isa 62:6; Ezek 27:11; Dan 4:29 (ἐπὶ τῶν τειχῶν τῆς πόλεως); Joel 2:9. With ἔλθετε ἐπί cf. 5:26; 8:5. Τεῖχος: see on 1:2; πόλις: see on 1:2.

110

Commentary

broke down the walls of Jerusalem”); 52:14 (“the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down all the walls round about Jerusalem”).120 Once he is on the wall, God will reveal to Jeremiah the truth, that it is impossible for the city to be taken unless God first destroys it: δείξω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ πρῶτος ἀφανίσω τὴν πόλιν.121 The content is close to v. 8, except that there God speaks of the opening of the city gates. Reading 1:8 and 10 together, it appears that God will both open the gates and destroy the city. The latter event, however, is never recorded, for when the angels appear with torches in hand, Jeremiah stops them (4:1–5). Our text assumes, without narration, that subsequently they burned the city (see 3:1–4), before the Chaldeans entered it (4:1). This adds to the sense that, in certain respects, 4 Baruch is an abbreviated account. Contrast 2 Bar. 7:1–8:2, which recounts what the angels did. Whether or not 4 Baruch presumes readers have knowledge of 2 Baruch or a related tradition, it remains unclear how God’s activity will prevent the foreign king from boasting. He certainly is not privy to everything that will be revealed to Jeremiah. In vv. 1 and 7, God tells Jeremiah to exit the city and take Baruch with him. Here he is told to ascend the city walls with his companion. Later, Jeremiah does both; see 3:1 and 4:3. Yet whereas the implication of vv. 1–9 is that Jerusalem cannot be destroyed as long as Jeremiah and Baruch remain in it, the destruction in fact commences before Jeremiah and Baruch depart, while they are on the walls of the city. The tension is best explained by the author’s imperfect handling of two traditions—the one that Jerusalem could not fall while Jeremiah and/or other righteous individuals were within it,122 the other that he or Baruch witnessed the devastation while on or above the walls of the city.123 The inconcinnity does not appear in 2 Baruch, where Jeremiah and others first exit the city (5:5), after which a spirit lifts Baruch up “above the wall of Jerusalem” so that he sees the angels go about their destructive business.

120 Note

also 2 Bar. 6:3 (“a mighty spirit lifted me and carried me over the wall of Jerusalem”); 7:1 (“tear down its walls to their foundations,” “we have torn down the wall of Zion”); 8:1 (“broken up the corners of the wall,” “after the wall had fallen”). 121 Δεικνύμι: 4x: 1:10; 3:9, 30; 7:4; with οὐ δύνανται εἰσελεῖν εἰς αὐτήν cf. v. 8: οὔτε … δυνήσεται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν; πρῶτος: 2x: 1:8, 10; ἀφανίζω: 2x: 1:6, 10. 122 Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2; Pesiq. Rab. 26:6; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 13:14. 123 2 Bar. 6:4; Pesiq. Rab. 26:6.

Chapter 1:  Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem

111

1:11. Ταῦτα εἰπῶν ὁ Κύριος recurs in 3:13.124 Ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰερεμίου leaves unclear the precise nature of the encounter.125 At this point, however, the text does nothing to exclude a very anthropomorphic idea of the divinity, who appears to ascend to heaven above, as also in 3:13 (ὁ Κύριος ἀνέβη ἀπὸ Ἰερεμίου εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν); cf. LXX Gen 18:33 (ἀπῆλθεν  δὲ  Κύριος,  ὡς  ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν  τῷ  Ἀβραάμ); Num 12:9 (Κυρίου … ἀπῆλθεν); Judg 16:20 A (Κύριος ἀπέστη ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ). Ms. C adds what is implicit: the Lord went away εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.126

Cf. also Gk LAE 29:1; ταῦτα εἰπῶν + subject: 1:11; 3:13; 4:10; 6:8, 15; see further on 4:10 and 6:15. 125 See on v. 1. Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; ἀπέρχομαι + ἀπό occurs also in 6:15, again following ταῦτα εἰπῶν ὁ, there of an angel leaving Baruch. 126 For ταῦτα εἰπών + subject + verb signifying departure see on 4:10. 124

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch 2:1. Jeremiah tore his garments and put dust on his head, and he went into the sanctuary of God. 2:2. And when Baruch saw him with dust sprinkled on his head and with his garments rent, he cried out in a great voice, saying, “Father Jeremiah, what is (going on) with you, or what sort of sin have the people committed?” 2:3. (For whenever the people sinned, Jeremiah would sprinkle dust on his head, and he would pray for the people until the sin was forgiven them.) 2:4. And Baruch asked him, saying, “Father, what is this (about)?” 2:5. Jeremiah said to him: “Guard against rending your garments; rather let us rend our hearts. Likewise let us not draw from the places of water; rather let us cry and fill them with tears. For the Lord will not have mercy upon this people.” 2:6. And Baruch said, “Father Jeremiah, what has happened?” 2:7. And Jeremiah said, “God is delivering the city into the hands of the King of the Chaldeans, to carry the people captive to Babylon.” 2:8. When he heard these things, Baruch also tore his garments, and he said, “Father Jeremiah, who revealed this to you?” 2:9. And Jeremiah said to him, “Wait with me a little while, until the sixth hour of the night, so that you may know that this word is true.” 2:10. So both of them remained at the altar, weeping. 2:1. Ἰερεμίας δὲ διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. 2:2. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτόν ὁ Βαροὺχ χοῦν πεπασμένον ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ διερρωγότα, ἔκραξε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων· Πάτερ Ἰερεμία, τί ἔστι σοι, ἢ ποῖον ἁμάρτια ἐποίησεν ὁ λαός; 2:3. Ἐπειδὴ ὅταν ἡμαρτάνεν ὁ λαός, χοῦν ἔπασσεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰερεμίας, καὶ ηὔχετο ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, ἕως ἂν ἀφεθῇ αὐτῷ ἡ ἁμαρτία. 2:4. Ἠρώτησε δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Βαροὺχ λέγων· Πάτερ, τί ἔστι τοῦτο; 2:5. Εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ Ἰερεμίας· Φύλαξαι τοῦ σχίσαι τὰ ἱμάτιά σου, ἀλλὰ σχίσωμεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν· καὶ μὴ ἀντλήσωμεν ὕδωρ ἐπὶ τὰς ποτίστρας, ἀλλὰ κλαύσωμεν καὶ γεμίσωμεν αὐτὰς δακρύων· ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἐλεήσῃ τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον ὁ Κύριος. 2:6. Καὶ εἶπε Βαρούχ· Πάτερ Ἰερεμία, τί γέγονε; 2:7. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἰερεμίας ὅτι, Ὁ Θεὸς παραδίδωσι τὴν πόλιν εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων, τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 2:8. Ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα Βαρούχ, διέρρηξε καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-013

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

113

καὶ εἶπε· Πάτερ Ἰερεμία, τίς σοι ἐδήλωσε τοῦτο; 2:9. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰερεμίας· Ἔκδεξαι μικρὸν μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἕως ὥρας ἕκτης τῆς νυκτός, ἵνα γνῷς ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. 2:10. Ἔμειναν οὖν ἀμφότεροι ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ κλαίοντες. Textual Notes 2:1. B, with support or partial support from A R arm slav, has: δραμὼν δὲ Ἰερεμίας ἀνήγγειλε ταῦτα τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ Ἰερεμίας καὶ ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀμφότεροι κλεειν [sic; R: κλαίειν] ἐν τῷ ἁγιασθηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. C eth omit, followed by Harris, Herzer, and Piovanelli. Perhaps the longer reading—which the short recension presupposes1—is an expansion designed in part to bring Baruch immediately into the picture; cf. 1:9. Yet it is possible that B’s words, which are stylistically consistent with the rest of our book, are closer to the original and that they were either accidentally omitted or deliberately dropped in order to obviate a perceived tension between vv. 1–2: Baruch asks what is going on immediately after Jeremiah has spoken to him about “these things.” Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print the longer reading, which Schaller accepts. 2:4. At the end, Harris prints τί ἔστι σοι, following C. Is it assimilation to v. 2? 2:9. B C eth followed by Herzer omit τοῦτο at the end. It appears in A B R and is printed in Ceriani, Harris, and Kraft-Purintun. Cf. 1:9; 8:4. 2:10. Harris and Herzer lack ἀμφότεροι; cf. Piovanelli. It appears in A B arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2, and Ceriani, Kraft-Purintun and Herzer print it; cf. 2:1 B R (see above); 6:2 (ἔκλαυσαν ἀμφότεροι). // At the very end, A B P slav, with partial support from R arm, add: καὶ ἦσαν διερρωγότα τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν καὶ ἡ γῆ ἐπὶ τὰς κέφαλας αὐτῶν. Given our author’s love of repetition, this (or perhaps the first half; so Kraft-Purintun) could be original. Commentary If ch. 1 recounts a conversation between God and Jeremiah that is sandwiched between a narrative introduction and conclusion, ch. 2 relates a conversation between Jeremiah and Baruch that is similarly framed: 2:1 Narrative introduction: Jeremiah mourns in the sanctuary 2:2–4    Baruch’s first question (λέγων) plus an editorial remark in v. 3 2:5     Jeremiah’s response (εἶπε) 2:6    Baruch’s second question (καὶ εἶπε)

Vassiliev, p. 311: καὶ ἀπελθὼν Ἰερεμίας ἀπήγγειλε τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὸν ναὸν διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν.

  1 Ed.

114

Commentary

2:7     Jeremiah’s response (καὶ εἶπεν) 2:8    Baruch’s third question (καὶ εἶπε) 2:9     Jeremiah’s response (καὶ εἶπεν) 2:10 Narrative conclusion: Jeremiah and Baruch weep at the altar

The thematic heart is Jeremiah’s poetic response in v. 5: “Beware of rending your garments; rather let us rend our hearts. Likewise let us not draw from the places of water; rather let us cry and fill them with tears.” This unites the chapter as it (i) links up with what Jeremiah does in v. 1, (ii) anticipates what Baruch does in v. 8, and (iii) points ahead to v. 10, where both Jeremiah and Baruch weep. It further signals the leading theme of the section, which is mourning. Note also that the conclusion mirrors the opening and makes for an inclusio. In v. 1, Jeremiah grieves in the sanctuary. In v. 10, he and Baruch cry near the altar. The theological epicenter of the chapter likewise appears in v. 5: “the Lord will not have mercy upon this people.” The cause of God’s withdrawal of mercy is the sin of the people, mentioned in vv. 2–3, and the result will be Jerusalem’s capture and the people’s exile to Babylon, foretold in v. 7. In Herzer’s words, “the point of no return has already been reached.”2 Jewish readers in a post-70 context would likely identify with Jeremiah and Baruch in their abjection and misery. Beyond that, they might be moved to wonder what sins in their immediate past led to the devastation of Jerusalem and the misery of its people.3 Chapter 2, like ch. 1, fails to explicate the precise nature of the sin and so leaves the question open. 6:21 will add only: “Because you did not keep my statutes, but your heart was arrogantly exalted, and you were stiff-necked before me, I became angry.” Other sources—including canonical Jeremiah4—list multiple, if closely related, explanations for the first or second destruction of the temple or both: neglect of Torah (Bar 4:12; 4Q389 frag. 8 2:3–4; 2 Bar. 79:2), hatred, violence, and bloodshed (Josephus, Bell. 7.259–74; t. Menah. 13:22; m. ’Abot 5:9; b. Šabb. 33a), neglect of sabbatical and Jubi˙ lee years (m. ’Abot 5:9; Tanh. Behar 2; b. Sanh. 94a; b. Šabb. 119b), sacri˙ ficing children to demons (4Q244 frag. 12), idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant (Eupolemus apud. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.2–3; Apocalypse of Abraham; b. Šabb. 33a; Lev. Rab. proem 34), oppression of the weak   2 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 55. Christians presumably would have thought of the rejection of Jesus and, like the Christian ending in ch. 9, have understood this along supercessionistic lines; cf. Matt 22:7; 27:24–25; Luke 23:48 v.  l.; T. Levi 16:3–4; Gos. Pet. 25; Justin, Dial. 16.4; Origen, C. Cels. 1.47; 4.73; Eusebius, H.  E. 1.1.2; 2.6.8; etc.   4 Various sins appear throughout; note 2:5–37; 3:1–5; 5:1–31; 7:16–26; 10:1–16; etc.   3 Most

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

115

(Tg. Lam. 1:3), sexual misconduct (t. Menah. 13:22; ARN A 38:18, 21), or a mystery beyond comprehension (4 Ezra˙ 4:1–21).5 Whatever specific sins a Jewish audience might have found in 4 Baruch’s generalization, the important point is that our book nowhere rails against or blames God. Its attitude is not that of the bewildered Job or the questioning Ezra of 4 Ezra. It rather accepts Israel’s responsibility for disaster and puts all hope in the faithful God who will later turn and show mercy again.6 2:1. Although God, following Jeremiah’s plea that God himself destroy the city (1:7), has assured him that such will indeed be the case (1:8, 10), this does not lessen Jeremiah’s grief.7 As in canonical Jeremiah, he is a man of lamentation (e.  g. 19:17–25; 13:15–27); cf. Lamentations passim and Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2: Jeremiah “cried out intensely and wept bitterly.” Here his lament takes physical form: διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.8 Our author’s penchant for constantly repeating the same words and phrases is on full display here: 2:1 διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ 2:2  χοῦν πεπασμένον ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν



τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ διερρωγότα

αὐτοῦ

2:3  χοῦν ἔπασσεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ 2:8 διέρρηξε … τὰ ἱματία αὐτοῦ 4:6 ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ 7:20 ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν 9:9 διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν

  5

See further b. Šabb. 119b and Robert Goldenberg, “Early Rabbinic Explanations of the Destruction of Jerusalem,” JJS 23 (1982), 517–25.   6 Cf. 6:18. This part of 4 Baruch’s theology harmonizes with a sin—exile—return pattern that is well attested elsewhere. On this pattern in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs see Marinus de Jonge,“The Future of Israel in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (NovTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 164–79.   7 On weeping and mourning in 4 Baruch see, in addition to what follows, the Introduction, pp. 19–20.   8 Διαρρήγνυμι: 4x, always with ἱματία: 2:1, 2, 8; 9:9; cf. the variation in 2:5: σχίσαι τὰ ἱμάτια; ἱμάτιον: 6x; ἐπιτιθημι: 5x: 2:1; 4:6; 5:7; 7:20; 9:9; χοῦς: 6x: 2:1, 2, 3; 4:6; 7:20; 9:9; κεφαλή: 12x—7x with personal pronoun following ἐπί: 2:1, 2, 3; 3:15; 4:6; 7:20; 9:9.

116

Commentary

To tear one’s garments is, in the biblical tradition, a dramatic way of signaling profound upset, anger, or mourning.9 It is an external sign of an internal state. Canonical Jeremiah refers to the action, but in neither case is the prophet the subject (LXX 43:24; 48:5). It is otherwise in extra-canonical sources; cf. 2 Bar. 9:1 (Baruch and Jeremiah rend their clothes and weep when Jerusalem is captured); Hist. Rech. 8:2 (“when Jeremiah … prophesied the ravaging and devastation of Jerusalem because of the sins of the sons of Israel,” and when it came to pass, he διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ … καὶ κατεπάσατο σποδὸν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ χοῦν ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ”). Note also ARN A 4:38 (“When Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai heard that Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple had gone up in flames, he tore his clothing, and his disciples tore their clothing, and they wept, crying aloud and mourning”); Lam. Rab. proem 24 (the patriarchs rent their garments when they learned of the destruction of the temple and of Israel’s exile). Putting dust or ashes on one’s head is typically an act of sorrow, supplication, upset, and/or repentance.10 Sometimes, as here, it is coupled with rending garments and emphasizes the depth of feeling: 1 Macc 3:47 (σποδὸν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῶν καὶ διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν); 11:71 (διέρρηξεν … τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπέθετο γῆν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ); Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:10 (ἔσχισεν τὰ ἱματία αὐτοῦ … ἔβαλεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ).11 Jeremiah mourns in the religious center of the capital: εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ.12 The formulation stands under LXX influence:   9

Cf. e.  g. Gen 37:29, 34; 44:13; Josh 7:6; Judg 11:35; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2, 11; 3:31; 13:19, 31; 2 Kgs 18:37–19:1; 2 Chr 23:13; 34:19, 27; Ezra 9:3; Job 1:20; Jdt 14:16, 19; 1 Macc 2:14; Philo, Jos. 217; T. Jos. 5:2; T. Mos. 11:1; T. Job 19:2; 28:3; Matt 26:63; Mark 14:63; Acts 14:14; Josephus, Bell. 2.316; Jer. Apocr. 29:6; ARN A 25:29; y. Sanh. 25a (7:5); b. Mo̔ed Qat. 26a; Pesiq. Rab. 26:5; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 46.12. ˙  10 Cf. e.  g. Josh 7:6; Neh 9:1; Job 42:6; Jdt 4:11, 15; 9:1; 1 Macc 3:47; 2 Macc 10:25; 14:15; 3 Macc 1:18; Lam 2:10; Ezek 27:30; T. Job 29:4; 42:6; Lat. LAE 31:3; Rev 18:19; m. Sanh. 7:5; Homer, Il. 18.23–24; Ovid, Metam. 5.530. According to Jer. Apocr. 29:12–13, Jeremiah mourned with dust on his head when God did not forgive the sins of the people.  11 Cf. also LXX 2 Βασ 13:19; Est 4:1–3; Job 2:12; T. Job 28:3; 4 Ezra 9:38; Josephus, Ant. 3.322; Jer. Apocr. 29:6–7.  12 Cf. Lam 2:7 (“The Lord has scorned his altar, disowned his sanctuary; he has delivered into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; a clamor was raised in the house of the Lord as on the day of an appointed feast”) and Jdt 4:13–14 (“the people fasted many days throughout Judea and in Jerusalem before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty. And Joakim the High Priest and all the priests who stood

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

117

4 Bar. 2:1 εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ Lev 12:4 εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον … εἰσελεύσεται Ps 72:17 εἰσέλθω εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ Ps 82:13 τὸ ἁγιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ

In LXX Lev 12:4; Ps 72:17; and 73:7 (“they burned your sanctuary with fire”), ἁγιαστήριον translates ‫מקדש‬. The latter refers to the temple and its precincts in 1 Chr 22:19; Isa 63:18; Dan 8:11, as does ἁγιαστήριον in 4 Baruch. In canonical Jeremiah, the prophet, of priestly descent (1:1), repeatedly goes to the temple.13 4 Baruch 5:18 will call him “Jeremiah the priest,” and our book assumes that he was the High Priest.14 The reading of mss. C P R in 5:18—ἀρχιερεύς (τοῦ Θεοῦ) instead of ἱερεύς—makes explicit what is implicit. 2:2. When Baruch sees the situation depicted in v. 1—καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτόν ὁ Βαροὺχ χοῦν πεπασμένον ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ διερρωγότα—he loudly cries out: ἔκραξε φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων.15 The idiom, κράζω + φωνῇ μεγάλῃ + verb of speech, recurs in 5:32; 7:15; 9:8; cf. LXX 2 Βασ 19:5 (ἔκραξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς φωνῃ μεγάλῃ λέγων = ‫ויזעק‬ ‫)המלך קול גדול‬.16 With καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτόν ὁ + proper noun + finite verb + λέγων cf. T. Abr. RecLng. 16:9 (καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν ὁ θάνατος προσεκύνησεν αὐτὸν λέγων); Apophth. Patr. (alphabetical collection) PG 65.205 (καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν ὁ ἀββᾶς Ἰωάννης, ἔκλαυσε λέγων). Baruch addresses the prophet as Πάτερ Ἰερεμία, as others do in Jer. Apocr. 28:2 (“the elders cried out, ‘Our father Jeremiah’”; cf. 36:2) and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 (the exiles to Babylon addresses Jeremiah as “Our father before the Lord and ministered to the Lord, with their loins girded with sackcloth, offered the continual burnt offerings”) and see further Herzer, 4 Baruch, 54–55. Ἁγιαστήριον: 2x: 2:1; 3:14 (εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον); LXX: 4x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 2x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; against Riaud, Paralipomènes, 168, the word is not rare in patristic sources; cf. Didymus of Alexandria, Fr. Ps. 894; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.54; Comm. Ps. PG 23.857; Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. pent. PG 69:537; etc.  13 Jer 7:2; 19:14; 26:2; 28:1; 38:14.   14 See further p. 183. Cf. the legend (which equates the ‫ דבר‬of Exod 16:16 with the ‫דבר‬ of Jer 2:31) in Mek. Vayassa̔ 6:75–85, where Jeremiah brings forth from the inner shrine the bottle of manna for the people.  15 Εἶδον: 24x; καὶ ἰδών: only here; χοῦν … αὐτοῦ: see on v. 1; πάσσω: 2x: 2:2, 3; τὰ ἱμάτια … διερρωγότα: see on v. 1; κράζω: 4x: 2:2; 5:32; 7:15; 9:8; μέγας: 12x; φωνή: 14x, with μέγας in 2:2; 5:32; 9:8.  16 Also Gk. LAE 29:11; Mark 5:7; Rev 6:10; 7:2–3, 10; 19:17; (Apocr.) Apoc. John 17; Inf. Gos. Thom. 1:9; 2:9; Gos. Nic. 11:1.

118

Commentary

Jeremiah”). In 4 Baruch, πατήρ (13x) refers to Jeremiah (2:2, 4, 6, 8; 5:5, 25; 9:8)—who in 7:23 addresses Baruch as “my beloved son“—the patriarchs (4:9; 6:18), the generation in the wilderness (7:18), and the divine Father of Jesus Christ (9:18). The word also appears in a parable about a father and son (7:24, bis). For “father” as an address of affection and/or an honorific of respect or authority see 2 Kgs 2:12 (“Father, father”—Elisha to Elijah); 6:21 (“Father”—the king of Israel to Elisha); 13:14 (“My father, my father”—King Joash to Elisha); 4 Macc 7:9 (Eleazar addressed as “You, father” in a panegyric); LAB 53:3 (“Father”—Samuel to Eli); Acts 22:1 (“Brethren and fathers”—Paul’s words to a Jewish audience in Jerusalem); Acts of John 81 (“Father”—Drusiana to John); b. Mak. 24a (whenever king Jehoshaphat saw a scholar, he cried out, “Father, Father”); CMC 71:17 (“our father” of Mani); the Apophthegmata Patrum passim (a honorific term of endearment for multiple monastics).17 Baruch first asks, “What is (going on) with you?” The Greek is τί ἔστι σοι, a biblicism the LXX uses to render ‫מה־לך‬.18 Despite the interrogatory form, Baruch has already jumped to a conclusion and asks what sort of sin the people have committed: ἢ ποῖον ἁμάρτια ἐποίησεν ὁ λαός;19 The following verse will explain his inference, although the text will never specify exactly what sins the people have committed. 2:3. An aside offers explanation: ἐπειδὴ ὅταν ἡμαρτάνεν ὁ λαός, χοῦν ἔπασσεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰερεμίας, καὶ ηὔχετο—note the imperfect, connoting unselfish persistence—ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ.20 The narra 17 Matthew’s

prohibition against calling anyone “father” (Matt 23:9) never had wide effect, so one can hardly appeal to its use here as evidence of a Jewish original. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2666, infers from the use of “father Jeremiah” that “the author of 4 Baruch conceived of the prophet Jeremiah as the head of a school, in a similar way to the Rabbinic schools and their masters.” Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 95–96; Schaller, Paralipomena, 715.  18 Josh 15:18; Judg 1:14; 18:23; 2 Βασ 14:5; 3 Βασ 1:16; 4 Βασ 6:28; cf. Prot. Jas. 36; m. Mid. 2:2.  19 Ποῖος: 4x: 2:2; 5:17, 33; 9:12; ἁμάρτημα: 1x; LXX: 36x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 11x; Philo: 114x; NT: 4x; Josephus: 43x; λαός: see on 1:5. For ποῖος with ἁμάρτημα see Lysias, Andoc. 49.7; Athanasius, H. Ar. 46.3; Ps.-Ephraem, Λόγος ψυχωφελής ed. Phrantzoles, 5:112; Barsanuphius and John, Εp. 333. For ποιέω (18x) + the singular ἁμάρτημα see Jdt 13:16; Plutarch, Mor. 439E; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.6.54. Cf. ποιέω + the singular ἁμαρτίαν in Tob 12:10; 2 Cor 11:7; T. Jud. 14:5.  20 Ἐπειδή: see on 1:1; ὅταν: 1x; λαός: see on 1:5; ἁμαρτάνω: 1x; χοῦν … κεφαλήν: see on vv. 1–2; εὔχομαι: 4x: 2:3; 6:8, 9; 9:2. While εὔχομαι + ὑπέρ + genitive does not occur in the LXX (cf. however προσεύχομαι + ὑπέρ + genitive in 1 Βασ 2:25;

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

119

tor, who seems to be omniscient,21 further adds that Jeremiah would pray ἕως ἂν ἀφεθῇ αὐτῷ ἡ ἁμαρτία.22 The singular, “sin,” imagines the people as a united collective; cf. Exod 32:32. Jeremiah is here an intercessor for the people’s sins. This makes him like Moses, who successfully interceded for Israel and forestalled divine wrath.23 Our text could echo LXX Exod 32:31–32 (ἡμάρτηκεν ὁ λαὸς οὕτος ἁμαρτίαν μεγάλην … καὶ νῦν εἰ μὲν ἀφεῖς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἄφες) and/or Num 14:19 (ἄφες τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ); although cf. also Ps 84:3 (ἀφῆκας τὰς ἀνομίας τῷ λαῷ σου, ἐκάλυψας πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν); Isa 33:24 (ὁ  λαὸς … ἀφέθη  γὰρ  αὐτοῖς  ἡ  ἁμαρτία). Canonical Jeremiah, however, has also played a role here; cf. 18:20 (“Remember how I stood before you to speak good for [LXX: ὑπέρ] them, to turn away your wrath from them”); 21:2 (“please inquire of the Lord on our behalf”); 37:3 (“Please pray for us to the Lord our God”).24 Furthermore, priests made atonement for sins,25 and 4 Baruch remembers Jeremiah not only as a priest (5:18) but as the great High Priest (see p. 183). Comparable is the Christian tradition that turned James the Just into the High Priest and remembered him as praying for the sins of the people to be forgiven.26 For additional instances of prayerful intercession for the sins of others see LXX Job 42:7–9 (Job’s friends take calves and rams to Job and ask him to pray for them, so that God may forgive them; then ἔλυσεν τὴν ἁμαρτία αὐτοῖς διὰ Ἰώβ); 11Q10 38:2–3 (“God heard Job’s voice and forgave them their sins on his account”); Luke 23:34 (“Father forgive

12:19), Philo, or Josephus, it is attested in Jewish sources; cf. Gk. LAE 35:2; 36:1; T. Gad 7:1; T. Jos. 18:2; Liv. Proph. Dan. 4; also Jas 5:16.  21 On the omniscient narrator in 4 Baruch see Alexander, “4 Baruch” (Inventory category 2: Perspective and Knowledge Horizon of the Governing Voice). He observes that “the governing voice remains on the surface a detached, neutral narrator,” and he compares the narrators of Genesis-Joshua, Kings, and Chronicles.   22 Ἕως ἄν: 4x: 2:3; 3:4 bis; 9:5; ἀφίημι: 2x: 2:3; 6:17; this verb with ἁμαρτία (cf. ‫ סלח‬+ ‫ )חטא‬was common Jewish and Christian coin; cf. LXX Lev 4:20, 26; 19:22; Job 42:10; Isa 33:24; T. Job 42:8; T. Abr. RecLng. 14:12; Matt 9:2; Mark 2:10; Jas 5:15; Josephus, Ant. 7.362; Did. 11:7; etc.; ἁμαρτία: see on 1:1. For purposive “until” in prayer, Schaller, Paralipomena, 715, cites Isa 62:1, 17; Lam 3:49–50; b. Ber. 32a; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 16:9. Note also Ecclus 35:17.  23 Exod 32:11–14; Num 11:2; 14:13–25; 21:7; Deut 9:25–29.  24 Our book overlooks the tradition that God asked Jeremiah at some point to quit praying for the people; note Jer 7:16; 11:14; 15:1; 4Q385a frag. 18.  25 Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; Num 15:25; Heb 5:1; 7:27; etc.  26 See Hegesippus apud Eusebius, H.  E. 2.23.6.

120

Commentary

them, for they know not what they do”); John 20:23 (ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς). Jeremiah is also an intercessor for the people in Jer. Apocr. 29:6–13, where the context is his hiding of holy objects and the keys of the temple; cf. 14:2–4; 17:8. Here the people know that they have been forgiven when Jeremiah appears in white with ointment on his head, and that they have not been forgiven when he appears in sackcloth with dust on his head. 2:4. The narrator returns to Baruch’s speech: ἐρώτησε … Πάτερ, τί ἔστι τοῦτο;27 Baruch’s query is redundant given v. 2, but redundancy is a feature of 4 Baruch, including this chapter, and the question helps return hearers or readers to the narrative flow after the editorial aside in v. 3. 2:5. Jeremiah, who knows what God has planned for Jerusalem, now exhorts Baruch with a rhetorical flourish that rewrites a memorable phrase from Joel 2:13, a phrase that was likely well-known:28 “rend your heart and not your garments” (MT: ‫ ;וקרעו לבבכם ואל־בגדיכם‬LXX: καὶ διαρρήξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ μὴ τὰ ἱμάτια). His companion, instead of rending his garments, should, along with Jeremiah, rend his heart: φύλαξαι τοῦ σχίσαι τὰ ἱμάτιά σου, ἀλλὰ σχίσωμεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.29 The imperative is especially appropriate given the prominence of καρδία in the LXX

 27

Ἐρωτάω: 1x; πάτερ: see on v. 2. Τί ἔστι τοῦτο occurs only once in the LXX, in

the story of the manna in Exod 16:15; but the expression is otherwise common; cf. Cassius Dio 55.14.2; Arrian, Epict. diss. 3.17.7; Philo, Leg. 3.169; Fug. 138; Mark 1:27; Jos. Asen. 18:11; etc.  28 Quotations and allusions include 4Q266 11 = 4Q270 7 1:18–19 (“in another place it is written, ‘Rend your heart and not your garments’”); Pr. Man. 7 (an allusion); Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:10 (possible allusion); Apos. Con. 7:33:3 (allusion in a Jewish prayer); m. Ta̔an. 2:1 (“in his protest he says, ‘Rend your heart and not your garments’”); m. ’Abot 2:13 (a quotation); ARN A 17:15 (a partial, imperfect quotation). For the proposal that Jon 3:1–4:11 may already critically interpret Joel 2:1–17 see Thomas B. Dozeman, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character,” JBL 108 (1989), 207–223.   29 Σχίσαι τὰ ἱμάτιά σου: see on v. 1; φυλάσσω: 8x, with multiple senses: 2:5; 3:8; 4:3, 4: 6:7 bis, 21; 7:22; σχίζω: 2x: 2:5 bis; καρδία: see on 6:3; σχίζω + καρδία as a metaphor for grief seems otherwise unattested before later Christian sources; cf. Ps.-Chrysostom, Ador. cruc. PG 52.839; Achilleis Byzantina ed. Hesseling line 608. Sparks and Thornhill take the sense of the first words to be: “See that you too rend your clothes.” The imperative, however, seems to mean “guard against,” that is, ‫( הישמר‬Licht), “refrain from” (Kraft-Purintun), “avoid” (Robinson), “guardati” (Piovanelli), “beware of” (Herzer), “hüte dich” (Schaller). For this use of φυλάσσω

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

121

Jeremiah literature,30 and it is congruent with Jer 8:18 (“My joy is gone … my heart is sick”); 23:9 (“my heart is crushed within me”). 4 Baruch’s plural τὰς καρδίας agrees with the LXX over against the MT; but one could regard σχίζω (instead of διαρρήγνυμι) as an independent translation of the Hebrew ‫קרע‬. Baruch should also cease to draw water: καὶ μὴ ἀντλήσωμεν ὕδωρ ἐπὶ τὰς ποτίστρας.31 Rather, he should fill the water trough with his tears: ἀλλὰ κλαύσωμεν καὶ γεμίσωμεν αὐτὰς δακρύων.32 As with καρδία in the previous clause, the line is fitting in view of the prominence of κλαίω and κλαυθμός in the LXX Jeremiah literature;33 cf. also Jer 9:1 (“O that my head were a spring of water, and my eyes a fountain of tears [πηγὴν δακρύων], that I might weep day and night”),34 18 (“that our eyes may run down with tears, and our eyelids flow with water”); 13:17 (“my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears”); 14:17 (“let my eyes run down with tears night and day”); Lam 2:18 (“Let tears stream down like a torrent day and night”). See further below on 3:14 and cf. the references to Baruch’s tears in 2 Bar. 35:2 (“O that my eyes were springs and my eyelids a fountain of tears”); also 2 Bar. 5:6; 3 Bar. 1:1–5; and the legend—derived from Jer 9:1—in Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2: at a place where Jeremiah “wept and cried, two tears flowed from between his eyes, which became there two fountains of water to this day.” In this last text, Jeremiah still weeps. Verse 5 illustrates the common Semitic idiom of relative or dialectical negation, in which all or almost all of the emphasis lies on the second limb

see GELS, s.  v., 2; BDAG, s.  v., 3. For σχίζω + ἱμάτιον as an act of mourning see LXX Isa 37:1; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:10.  30 Jeremiah: 52x; Lamentations: 11x; Baruch: 5x; Ep. Jeremiah: 1x.  31 Ἀντλέω: 1x; ὕδωρ: 4x: 2:5; 3:8; 6:23; 9:16; ἀντλέω + ὕδωρ is well-attested; cf. LXX Gen 24:13; Isa 12:3; John 2:9; 4:7; T. Abr. RecLng. 3:7; Acts Thom. 8; ποτίστρα: 1x; LXX: 0x (it does, however, occur as a variant reading in Exod 2:16); NT: 0x; the word does not otherwise appear in Jewish texts or in early Christian texts; cf. Callimachus, In Dianam 3.50; Agatharchides, Mari Erythraeo (excerpta) 38; Diodorus Siculus 3.17.4; Strabo 8.3.31. Hesychius, s.  v., πισμός, lists it as a synonym for ληνός. Cf. ποτιστήτιον, a drinking-trough for animals (LXX Gen 24:20; 30:38).  32 Κλαίω: 17x; γεμίζω: 1x; δάκρυον: 2x: 2:5; 6:18.  33 Κλαίω: Jeremiah: 9x; Lamentatians: 3x; Baruch: 1x. Κλαυθμός: Jeremiah: 7x; Lamentatians: 1x; Baruch: 2x.  34 This line has influenced 4 Bar. 4:5; see the commentary there. Note also Ep. Ps.-Dionysius ad Tim. 3:6: “Who will give water to our eyes and fountains of tears to us?”

122

Commentary

of a saying.35 Although the form of a sentence may be “not a, but b,” nothing is really being said about a: it is negated solely in order to stress b; cf. Exod 16:8 (“Your complaining is not against us but against the Lord”); 1 Sam 8:7 (“And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them’”); Jer 7:22–23 (“For on the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you, so that it may be well with you’”); Mark 9:37 (“Whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me”); Acts 5:4 (“You [Ananias] did not lie to us but to God!’”). In each of these cases, the first part of the statement is literally false: the generation in the wilderness did complain against Moses, the Israelites did reject Samuel, and so on. The denials are not to be understood literally but are instead transparent exaggerations for emphasis, rhetorical ways of setting the stage for and underlining the importance of what follows. Even closer to 4 Bar. 2:5 is the imperative in 1 John 3:18: “Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.” This is not an exhortation to refrain from loving speech. In like manner, “let us not draw from the places of water” is not a call to go thirsty but simply the rhetorical foil for “let us cry and fill them with tears,” which is a colorful, emphatic way of enjoining mourning; and “beware of rending your garments” is no more intended literally than is “rather let us rend our hearts.” If it were otherwise, Baruch would be disobeying Jeremiah when, in v. 8, he tears his garments. Jeremiah himself, moreover, would be a hypocrite, because he has just rent his own garments (v. 1). The explanation for the call to mourn in v. 5 is ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἐλεήσῃ τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον ὁ Κύριος.36 The subtext, Joel 2:13—“Rend your hearts and not your clothing. Return to the Lord, for he is gracious and merciful …

 35 See

H. Kruse, “Dialektische Negationen als semitisches Idiom,” VT 4 (1954), 385– 400; Jacques Schlosser, Le Règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus (EB; 2 vols.; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1980), 1:212–13; and cf. BDF § 448.1: οὐ … ἀλλά can mean “not so much … as,” so that “the first element is not entirely negated, but only toned down.” Comparable are statements that, even though they do not use μή/οὐ … ἀλλά, nonetheless exaggerate or mislead in the first clause in order to stress a point in the second clause, an example being Rom 6:17 (“I thank God that you were servants of sin, but you have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted”); cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Matt 38.1 PG 57.429.  36 Ἐλεέω: see on 7:24; λαός: see on 1:5; Κύριος: see on 1:4.

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

123

and relents from punishing”—is turned upside down.37 Cf. the tragic pessimism of MT Jer 16:5: “I have taken away my peace from this people, says the Lord, my steadfast love and mercy.”38 Also conceptually comparable are Isa 27:11 (“he who made them will not have compassion on them, he that formed them will show them no favor”); Zech 1:12 (“Lord of hosts, how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have had indignation these seventy years?”); Ecclus 5:6 (“Do not say, ‘His mercy is great, he will forgive the multitude of my sins, for both mercy and wrath are with him, and his anger rests on sinners’”); 4 Ezra 4:24 (“we are not worthy to obtain mercy”); 5 Ezra 1:25 (“when you beg mercy of me, I will show you no mercy”). “This people,” which has a biblical ring (cf. ‫)העם הזה‬, seems to be pejorative, as in Jer 7:16; 11:14; 2 Bar. 1:2; and perhaps 4 Bar. 7:28.39 The expression occurs most often in the LXX in Jeremiah, which makes it especially appropriate here.40 2:6. For the third time (cf. vv. 2, 4), but with slightly different words—τί γέγονε;41—Baruch asks Jeremiah what has happened. For “father Jeremiah” see on v. 2. 2:7. Jeremiah, in obedience to God’s command in 1:9—“go to Baruch and speak to him these words”—informs the scribe of what is about to occur: καὶ εἶπεν Ἰερεμίας ὅτι, Ὁ Θεὸς παραδίδωσι τὴν πόλιν εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων, τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.42 The sentence repackages previous phrases: 2:7 ὁ Θεὸς παραδίδωσι τὴν πόλιν εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων,43                  αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαόν 1:1 ὁ Θεὸς … ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων

 37 The

LXX omits “my steadfast love and mercy.” There was a tradition of reversing the meaning of subtexts; see Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Intl., 2000), 192–97.  38 The LXX omits “my steadfast love and mercy.”  39 There seems to have been a tradition of using “this people” with pejorative sense; cf. Exod 17:4; 32:31; Num 14:11, 19; Deut 9:13, 27; Isa 6:9, 10; 9:16; 29:13; etc.  40 See Jer 4:10; 5:14; 6:19, 21; 13:12; 15:1; 19:11; 21:8; 23:32; 35:15; 39:42; 43:7; 44:18.   41 The expression translates ‫ מה היה‬in LXX Exod 32:1, 23.  42 For ὅτι recitativum see on 1:5; Βαβυλών: 24x;   43 Cf. CD 1:6 (‫ ;)לתיתו אותם ביד נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל‬4Q244 frag. 12 2–3 (‫למנתן אנון ביד‬ ‫)נבכדנצר מלך בבל‬.

124

Commentary

1:5           παραδίδως         τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐκλεκτὴν εἰς χεῖρας   2:5                 τὸν λαὸν

τῶν Χαλδαίων

For the unqualified, nominative ὁ Θεός see on 1:1.The only new construction is εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, which will recur often,44 several times in one of our author’s preferred constructions, αἰχμαλωτεύω + λαός + εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.45 The whole line has its closest parallel (apart from other lines in 4 Baruch) in 1 Esdr 6:15 (τὸν  λαὸν  ᾐχμαλώτευσαν  εἰς  Βαβυλῶνα), and 1 Esdr 6:14– 15 is seemingly the inspiration for our verse: 4 Bar. 2:7 παραδίδωσι τὴν πόλιν εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων      αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 1 Esdr 6:14–15 παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς   εἰς χεῖρας … βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων     τὸν λαὸν ᾐχμαλώτευσαν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα

In addition to being an ordinary geographical term, “Babylon,” throughout 4 Baruch, carries additional connotations. The book appeared after 70 CE, in a period when it appears to have been common to view Babylon, the world empire that destroyed the first temple, as akin to Rome, the world empire that destroyed the second temple. Thus, in multiple Jewish and Christian texts, “Babylon” is a transparent code word for “Rome,” or Babylon is depicted in such a way as to remind people of Rome.46 This is the case in 4 Baruch, which is designed to encourage post-70 Jews to see themselves in a narrative about events from centuries past.47 What Jeremiah and Baruch experienced long ago, when Jerusalem fell for the first time—the “archetypical calamity”48—the audience has again experienced, when Jerusalem fell for the second time; and “the lessons learned from Isra-

 44

3:6, 11; 4:5; 5:23, 24, 26, 30; 6:8, 10; 7:6, 13, 24; 8:6, 7. See 2:7; 5:23, 26, 30. LXX Jeremiah: 19x.  46 See 4 Ezra 3:1–2, 28–31; 2 Bar. 11:1; 67:7; Sib. Or. 5:143, 159–60; 1 Pet 5:13; Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.26.1; Eusebius, H.  E. 2.15.2; Oecumenius, Comm. Rev. 16:19; Tanh. Buber Tazria̔ 16; Cant. Rab. 1:6:4; cf. the use of ˙ “Kittim” in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Tg. Onq. Num 24:24 as a code-word for the Romans. For discussion see Bogaert, Baruch, 1:336–39; Claus-Hunno Hunzinger, “Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes,” in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 67–77.  47 See further Herzer, 4 Baruch, 44–45.  48 The phrase is from Gowan, “Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic,” 210.  45

Chapter 2:  Lamentation of Jeremiah and Baruch

125

el’s sacred history can be applied to more recent events, so that the latter might be interpreted through the former.”49 2:8. After hearing Jeremiah—ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα Βαρούχ50—and despite the earlier warning to rend his heart rather than his garments (2:5, q.  v.), Baruch tears his clothes, just as Jeremiah has done: 2:1, of Jeremiah διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ 2:8, of Baruch διέρρηξε καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ

They are partners in grief; cf. ARN A 4:38: “When Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai heard that Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple had gone up in flames, he tore his clothing, and his disciples tore their clothing.” Baruch asks the obvious question: How has “father Jeremiah” (see on v.2) come by his knowledge that the city will be handed over and the people taken captive into Babylon: τίς σοι ἐδήλωσε τοῦτο; Although δηλόω (1x) can have a purely secular sense,51 there is a strong tendency in the LXX to use the verb with reference to supernatural revelation,52 so Baruch’s question may hint that he already knows the answer: Jeremiah has heard from God. 2:9. Given how indebted our author is to the LXX, one wonders whether it is coincidence that the first four words—καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἰερεμίας—occur also in LXX Jer 20:3; 45:17. In any case, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ is a Semitism or Septuagintism.53 It occurs ca. 240x in the LXX, where it is the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫ויאמר לו‬.54 Jeremiah’s request is that Baruch wait with him until midnight: ἔκδεξαι μικρὸν μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἕως ὥρας ἕκτης τῆς νυκτός.55 This harks back to 1:10,

 49  50  51

So Jones, Jewish Reactions, 34, who compares “figured speech” in Greek rhetoric.

Ἀκούω: 20x; cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:10: ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα Ἐζεκίας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐλυπήθη σφόδρα, καὶ ἔσχισεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ.

E.  g. 1 Cor 1:11: “it has been reported to me.” E.  g. Exod 6:3; 33:12; Deut 33:10; 1 Βασ 3:21; Dan 2:19; 7:16; cf. 1 En. 9:6; 10:2; 1 Cor 3:13; 1 Clem. 18:6.  53 Baruch: 9x: 2:9; 3:8; 5:17, 19; 7:3, 5, 6, 7, 8; followed directly by subject in all but 5:17 and 7:8.  54 As in Gen 3:9; 4:15; Exod 4:18; Josh 5:13; cf. 4Q185 1–2.5, 7; 1 En. 106:4; Gk. LAE 41:2; Jos. Asen. 1:8; 3:4; 3 Bar. 4:15; Mark 5:33; Luke 4:6, 9; John 1:46; etc.  55 Cf. Arrian, Epict. diss. 1.25.27: μικρὸν  ἔκδεξαι; 2.18.24: ἔκδεξαί … μικρόν. Ἐκδέχομαι: 1x; μικρός: 1x. For ἕως following ἐκδέχομαι—not in the LXX—see Dionysius of Halicarnassus 6.67.2; 3 Bar. 13:5; Heb 10:13; Herm. Sim. 9:10:5; 9:11:2.  52

126

Commentary

where God tells Jeremiah to arise at the sixth hour (ἕκτην ὥραν τῆς νυκτός); see the commentary there. Jeremiah is here following the divine command. If Baruch will do as Jeremiah bids him, he will know that what the prophet has said is true: ἵνα γνῷς ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο.56 Although ἵνα γνῷς ὅτι occurs in Isocrates, Phil. 113, it is characteristic of Jewish and Christian texts.57 In 3:3, the future here envisaged will become realized: ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα. 2:10. The chapter ends with the narrator’s observation that both Jeremiah and Baruch remained at the altar and continued to weep: ἔμειναν οὖν ἀμφότεροι ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ κλαίοντες.58 The sentence emphasizes that the mourning was prolonged, which foreshadows the situation of post-70 Judaism. In the LXX, the noun, θυσιαστήριον, means an “altar to which cultic offerings are brought”59 and can refer in particular to the main altar, the altar of burnt offerings, in the Jerusalem temple.60 One might suppose that the word here rather means “(the vicinity near) the altar.” Since, however, our text is wedded to the dramatic rather than to the historically plausible, and because Jeremiah is, in 4 Baruch, the High Priest, it is natural to envision him at the main altar. Note that, in 2 Bar. 34:1–35:1, Baruch prays at the ruined holy of holies.

Γινώσκω: 6x: 2:9; 3:3, 6; 5:27 (ἵνα δὲ γνῷς), 31; 6:8 (ἵνα γνωρίσῃ); ἀληθής: 3x: 2:9; 3:3; 5:31; ῥῆμα: see on 1:9. For ἀληθής with ῥῆμα see Herm. Mand. 3:3; 11:3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.17.85.4; Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 4.21.1 (τὰ τοῦ  Κυρίου ῥήματά ἐστιν ἀληθῆ). On the aorist subjunctive with future sense see BDF § 363.   57 LXX Exod 9:29 (for ‫ ;)למען תדע כי‬Prov 22:17; Isa 45:3 (again for ‫ ;)למען תדע כי‬Philo, Her. 312; Josephus, Ant. 8.20; T. Job 4:8; Eusebius, Marc. 1.4.9; Athanasius, Inc. 19.4; etc.   58 Ἀμφότερος: 3x: 2:10; 6:2; 7:30; μένω: 8x: 2:10; 3:11; 4:11; 5:15; 7:32; 9:1, 8, 12; the verb also belongs to a narrative seam in 4:11 and 7:32; κλαίω: see on 2:5; cf. 9:8: ἔμειναν … κλαίοντες; θυσιαστήριον: 2x: 2:10; 9:7; for ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ (= ‫ )למזבח‬see 9:7; Matt 23:18, 20; Prot. Jas. 23:1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 6:14. The phrase does not occur in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus.  59 So GELS, s.  v.; cf. LXX Gen 8:20; 12:7; Acts 17:23.  60 Lev 4:25; Mal 2:13; cf. Josephus, Bell. 5.229; Matt 23:35; Lk 1:11; 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; Heb 7:13; 1 Clem. 41:2. For descriptions see Ezek 43:13–17; Josephus, Bell. 5.225–26; m. Mid. 3:1–5.  56

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels and Abimelech 3:1: When the hour of the night arrived, Jeremiah and Baruch went together, as the Lord had said to Jeremiah, onto the walls of the city. 3:2. And behold, there was the sound of a trumpet, and angels went forth from heaven, holding torches in their hands, and they stood on the walls of the city. 3:3. Seeing them, Jeremiah and Baruch wept, saying, “Now we know that the word is true.” 3:4. Jeremiah implored the angels, saying: “I implore you not to destroy the city just yet, (but wait) until I (first) speak a word to the Lord.” And the Lord spoke to the angels, saying: “Do not destroy the city before I speak with my elect Jeremiah.” And he (Jeremiah) said, “I beg you, Lord, please allow me to speak before you.” 3:5. And the Lord said, “Speak, my elect Jeremiah.” 3:6. And Jeremiah said, “Behold now, Lord, we know that you are handing over your city into the hands of its enemies, and that they will take the people away to Babylon. 3:7. What should we do with your sacred things, or with the equipment for your (temple) service? What do you want us to do with them?” 3:8. And the Lord said to him, “Take these, and hand them over to the earth and the altar, saying, ‘Hear, O earth, the voice of the one creating you in the superabundance of the waters, the one sealing you with seven seals in seven ages; and after these things you will receive your beauty. Guard then the vessels of the service until the gathering of the beloved.’” 3:9. And Jeremiah said, “I implore you, Lord, show me what I should do with Abimelech the Ethiopian, for he did many good deeds for the people and for your servant Jeremiah. For he pulled me up out of the pit of mire, and I do not want him to see the destruction and desolation of the city, but rather (want him) not to be grieved.” 3:10. And the Lord said to Jeremiah: “Send him to the vineyard of Agrippa by way of the mountain, and I will protect him until I return the people to the city. 3:11. But you, Jeremiah, go with your people to Babylon and remain with them, bringing good news to them until I return them to the city. 3:12. But leave Baruch here, until I speak to him.” 3:13. Having said these things, the Lord departed from Jeremiah, (going) up into heaven. 3:14. Jeremiah and Baruch, however, went into the sanctuary, and they committed to the earth the equipment for the (temple) service, as the Lord had spoken to them. And instantly the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-014

128

Commentary

earth swallowed them. And the two sat, and they cried. 3:15. And when it was morning, Jeremiah sent Abimelech, saying, “Take the basket, and go to the estate of Agrippa by way of the mountain road; and carry a few figs and give them to the sick among the people, for the Lord is delighted with you, and (his) glory is on your head.” 3:16. And he went away as he had told him. 3:1. Ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα τῆς νυκτός, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ, ἦλθον ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ. 3:2. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγένετο φωνὴ σαλπίγγος, καὶ ἐξῆλθον ἄγγελοι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, κατέχοντες λαμπάδας ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως. 3:3. Ἰδόντες δὲ αὐτοὺς Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, ἔκλαυσαν, λέγοντες· Νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα. 3:4. Παρεκάλεσε δὲ Ἰερεμίας τοὺς ἀγγέλους, λέγων· Παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς μὴ ἀπολέσθαι τὴν πόλιν ἄρτι, ἕως ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς Κύριον ῥῆμα. Καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος τοῖς ἀγγέλοις λέγων· Μὴ ἀπολέσητε τὴν πόλιν ἕως ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς τὸν ἐκλεκτόν μου Ἰερεμίαν. Καὶ εἶπε· Δέομαι, Κύριε, κέλευσόν με λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου. 3:5. Καὶ εἶπε Κύριος· Λάλει, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου Ἰερεμίας. 3:6. Καὶ εἶπεν Ἰερεμίας· Ἰδοὺ νῦν, Κύριε, ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι παραδίδως τὴν πόλιν σου εἰς χεῖρας τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀπαροῦσι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 3:7. Τί ποιήσωμεν τὰ ἅγιά σου ἢ τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας σου; τί θέλεις αὐτὰ ποιήσωμεν; 3:8. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος· Ἆρον αὐτὰ, καὶ παράδος αὐτὰ τῇ γῇ καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ λέγων· Ἄκουε, γῆ, τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ κτίσαντός σε ἐν τῇ περιουσίᾳ τῶν ὑδάτων, ὁ σφραγίσας σε ἐν ἑπτὰ σφραγῖσιν ἐν ἑπτὰ καιροῖς,  καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λήψῃ τὴν ὡραιότητά σου. Φύλαξον τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας ἕως τῆς συνελεύσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου. 3:9. Καὶ ἐλάλησε Ἰερεμίας· Παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε, δεῖξόν μοι, τὶ ποιήσω Ἀβιμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοπι, ὅτι πολλὰς εὐεργεσίας ἐποίησε τῷ λαῷ καὶ τᾧ δούλῳ σου Ἰερεμίᾳ. Ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀνέσπασέ με ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου τοῦ βορβόρου· καὶ οὐ θέλω αὐτὸν ἵνα ἴδῃ τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ λυπηθῇ. 3:10. Καὶ εἶπε Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ· Ἀπόστειλον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ τοῦ ὄρους, καὶ ἐγὼ σκεπάσω αὐτὸν, ἕως οὗ ἐπιστρέψω τὸν λαὸν εἰς τὴν πόλιν. 3:11. Σὺ δὲ Ἰερεμίας, ἄπελθε μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ σου εἰς Βαβυλῶνα καὶ μεῖνον μετ’ αὐτῶν εὐαγγελιζόμενος αὐτοῖς ἕως οὗ ἐπιστρέψω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν πόλιν. 3:12. Κατάλειψον δὲ τὸν Βαροὺχ ὧδε, ἕως οὗ λαλήσω αὐτῷ. 3:13. Ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Κύριος, ἀνέβη ἀπὸ Ἰερεμίου εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. 3:14. Ἰερεμίας δὲ καὶ Βαροὺχ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον, καὶ τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας παρέδωκαν τῇ γῇ, καθὼς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Κύριος. Καὶ αὔθωρον κατέπιεν αὐτὰ ἡ γῆ. Ἐκάθισαν δὲ οἱ δύο, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν. 3:15. Πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης, ἀπέστειλεν Ἰερεμίας

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

129

τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ, λέγων· Ἆρον τὸν κόφινον, καὶ ἄπελθε εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὄρους, καὶ ἐνεγκὼν ὀλίγα σῦκα, δίδου τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ· ὅτι ἐπὶ σὲ ἡ εὐφρασία τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου ἡ δόξα. 3:16. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἀπελήλυθεν καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ. Textual Notes 3:2. Harris and Herzer print, and Piovanelli translates, καὶ ἐγένετο; so B eth slav N. This biblicism, however, occurs nowhere else in 4 Baruch. By contrast, καὶ ἰδού, the reading of A arm 993 (= 920) slav T2, which Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun reproduce, recurs in 6:1 and 9:11. 3:4. Kraft-Purintun: ἐλάλησεν δὲ Κύριος. Harris and Herzer: καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος. None documents a variant here. // The variant in R—ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκδάξασται μικρὸν ἕως ἂν ἐρωτήσω τὸν Κύριον μου ῥῆμα τότε Ἰερεμίας ἐλάλησε λέγων—is interesting because it employs the same uncommon idiom as 2:9: ἐκδέχομαι + μικρόν + ἕως. Given our author’s penchant for repeating phrases at close quarters, R might here be closer to the original. The alternative is that a scribe was influenced by the earlier line. 3:7. Instead of τί ποιήσωμεν (so C eth; Harris and Herzer), Kraft-Purintun have τί θέλεις ποιήσω, the reading of A B R. Ceriani prints τί θέλεις ποιῆσαι; cf. Piovanelli. // Kraft-Purintun: τὰ ἅγιά σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας, which Piovanelli translates; so A B; cf. v. 8. Ceriani: τὰ ἅγιά σου [cf. LXX Deut 12:26; Jdt 9:8; 1 Macc 3:51; 7:42] σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας. Herzer: τὰ ἅγιά σου ἢ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας σου. So C. // Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun omit the second question, following A B Men arm slav. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer, following C eth, include it. 3:8. Harris and Herzer: τῇ γῇ καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ; so C eth; cf. Piovanelli. A B P arm slav omit καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ. C again has καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ in the comparable line in v. 14. // Delling, Lehre, 41, regards ἐν ἑπτὰ καιροῖς as a gloss. // Instead of ἕως … ἠγαπημένου, C has: ἕως ἐρώτησιν ποιήσῃ Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐκ εὑρεθήμεν ἄξιοι φυλάξαι αὐτὰς ὅτι ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψευδοῦς εὑρέθημεν. This is close to 4:4: διότι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι τοῦ φυλάξαι αὐτὰς, ὅτι ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους ἐγενήθημεν. Is this partial assimilation to 4:4 (where C has: ἕως ἐρώτησιν ποιήσει Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν ἕως τῆς συνελεύσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου), or does C have an earlier text? // Kilpatrick, “Acts VII. 52,” suggests an original ἐλεύσεως (cf. eth arm slav N T2 and Acts 7:52; 1 Clem. 17:1; Polycarp, Phil. 6:3; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.2.1; Acts Phil. 78) which then became συνελεύσεως (d e slav T1 Men) which then became συντελείας (A B P). But συνελεύσεως could just as easily have become ἐλεύσεως and συντελείας. // Some have conjectured an original ἕως τῆς συνελεύσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ, and this is indeed what some versions of the Menaion have here. 3:9. A B P arm slav lack τῷ

130

Commentary

λαῷ, which Harris and Herzer print; cf. Piovanelli. It appears in C eth. // Instead of the concluding ἀλλ’ ἵνα κτλ. (so C eth), A B arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2 have the longer ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἐλεήσῃς αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ λυπηθῇ; so too R with minor variations. Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print the latter. 3:10. Ceriani and Kraft-Purinun: διὰ τοῦ ὄρους καὶ ἐν σκιᾷ τοῦ ὄρους ἐγώ κτλ. (cf. Judg 9:36). So A B. Cf. arm 993 (= 920) slav. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer, following C eth, omit.1 R: κἀγὼ αὐτὸν σκεπάσω ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τοῦ ὄρους. 3:11. Kraft-Purintun: σὺ δὲ Ἰερεμίας; cf. Piovanelli; so P eth. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer: εἶπε δὲ Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ. So A B slav N T2. The latter reading creates redundancy (cf. v. 10), although that would hardly be unparalleled in 4 Baruch. 3:14. Instead of αὔθωρον, which Harris and Herzer print following C, Kraft-Purintun have the more common εὐθέως; so A B R. 3:16. Instead of αὐτὸς δέ ἀπελήλυθεν καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Kraft-Purintun print the longer ending of A B: καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν Ἰερεμίας ἀπέλυσεν αὐτόν. Ἀβιμέλεχ δὲ ἐπορεύθη καθὰ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. So too Ceriani, with Ἰερεμίας at the very end; cf. 6:15, which also has καὶ ταῦτα εἰπών + subject + 3rd person singular aorist verb. Commentary Chapter 3 recounts a series of responses to things said and done. The narrative moves forward by alternating the words and actions of the earthly witnesses, Jeremiah and Baruch, with the words and actions of the heavenly characters, God and the angels. The opening segment (vv. 1–3a) depicts actions: 1 Arrival of Jeremiah and Baruch 2    Action of angels 3 Response of Jeremiah and Baruch

By contrast, the central section (vv. 4–12) features a conversation between Jeremiah and God that is reminiscent of the dialogue in ch. 1: 4a 4b 4c 5 6–7 8 9 10–12

  1

Words of Jeremiah   Words of God (καὶ εἶπεν) Words of Jeremiah (καὶ εἶπε)   Words of God (καὶ εἶπε) Words of Jeremiah (καὶ εἶπεν)   Words of God (καὶ εἶπεν) Words of Jeremiah (καὶ ἐλάλησε)   Words of God (καὶ εἶπε)

See further Herzer, Paralipomena, 11.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

131

Although Jeremiah and Baruch act together in vv. 1–3, Baruch recedes into the background in vv. 4–11. Jeremiah alone speaks. The last segment (vv. 13–16), which is framed by two departures from Jerusalem (God in v. 13, Abimelech in v. 16), relates in rapid succession what transpires immediately after the conversation in vv. 4–11: 13 14a 14b 14c 15 16

God departs to heaven

  Jeremiah and Baruch hide vessels     The earth swallows those vessels       Jeremiah and Baruch weep         Jeremiah instructs Abimelech           Abimelech departs to Agrippa’s estate

This final section—which is set up for the story of Abimelech that begins in ch. 5—along with v. 13 return Baruch to the narrative. This allows for an inclusio: Jeremiah and Baruch weep as the chapter opens (v. 3: ἔκλαυσαν), and they weep as it closes (v. 14: ἔκλαυσαν). The main theme of the chapter is divine protection. When the temple is destroyed—as will happen in ch. 4—some of its contents, because of their extraordinarily sacred character, will be spared desecration: the earth will keep them safe until their restoration in the end times. And when the Israelites are carried away into exile, Abimelech, because of his good deeds, will be spared the misery of seeing Jerusalem sacked and the wretched experience of going into exile. There is a shift of emphasis here. In Herzer’s words, “the sin and fate of the people no longer play a major role. By shifting the focus to the fares of the temple vessels and of Abimelech, the writer already looks forward to the promised return of the people from exile, even though judgment has not yet been executed.”2 4 Baruch contains one version of a well-attested legend, the legend that Jeremiah or others persons or angels or God hid some of the sacred vessels of the temple before its destruction.3 Differing accounts of this tale—

  2   3

So Herzer, 4 Baruch, 59. For discussion see Marilyn F. Collins, “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions,” JSJ 3 (1972), 97–116; Felix Böhl, “Die Legende vom Verbergen der Lade,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 4 (1976), 63–80; Wolff, Jeremie, 61–71; Madeleine Petit, “La cachette de l’Arche d’Alliance: à partir de la ‘Vie de Jérémie’ 9–15 dans les ‘Vitae Prophetarum,’” in La Littérature Intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17–19 octobre 1983) (Bibliothèque des centres d’études supérieures spécialisés. Travaux du Centre d’Études Supérieures spécialisé d’Histoire des Religions de Strasbourg; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985), 119–32; Isaac Kalimi and James D. Purvis, “The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature,” CBQ 56

132

Commentary

which contradicts 2 Kgs 20:17 = Isa 39:64—appear in Eupolemus frag. 4 apud Alexander Polyhistor apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.5;5 2 Macc 2:4–8 (quoting from a lost document);6 LAB 26:12–15;7 2 Bar. 6:7–9;8 Liv.

(1994), 679–85. Josephus, Ant. 18.85, records a related tradition: a Samaritan prophet assured his followers that “he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried” on Mount Gerizim, “where Moses had deposited them.” There are also the tale in Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2, according to which the sacred vessels inexplicably disappeared before the eyes of Nebuchadnezzar, and the legend in Syr. Apoc. Dan. 6–8, according to which Cyrus took implements of the sanctuary from Babylon and, at God’s command, deposited them in the mountain of Elam, where they remain “until the latter time.”   4 “Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord.” Cf. 4 Ezra 10:22: “the ark of our covenant has been plundered, our holy things have been polluted.”   5 After Nebuchadnezzar “had taken as tribute the gold in the temple, as well as the silver and the bronze, he transported it to Babylon without the ark and the tablets which it contained. These Jeremiah withheld (κατασχεῖν).”   6 “It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: ‘The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.’”   7 “When the sins of my people have reached full measure and enemies begin to have power over my house, I will take those stones [that are in the ark] along with the tablets, and I will store them in the place from which they were taken in the beginning. And they will be there until I remember the world and visit those inhabiting the earth.”   8 Baruch saw an angel “descend into the Holy of Holies and take the veil from it, and the holy ephod and the mercy seat and the two tablets and the holy garments of the priests and the altar of incense and the forty-eight precious stones with which the priests were adorned, and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle. And he said to the earth in a loud voice, ‘Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, and receive what I commit to you and guard them until the end times, so that, when you are ordered you may restore them, so that strangers may not get possession of them, for the time has come when Jerusalem also will be delivered up for a time, until it is said that it will again be restored forever.’ And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up.” According to Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2667, part of ch. 4 of 4 Baruch “is plotted against the background of 2 Bar. 6:7–8.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

133

Proph. Jer. 11–19 (which is Christian in its current forms);9 Jer. Apocr. 28–29;10 the Ethiopic version of the Narrative of Zozimus;11 the Chronicle of John of Nikiou;12 Massekhet Kelim;13 and the Chronicle of Jerah  9 “This

prophet, before the capture of the temple, seized the ark of the law and the things in it, and made them to be swallowed up in a rock. And to those standing by he said, ‘The Lord has gone away from Zion into heaven and will come again in power. And this will be for you a sign of his coming, when all the Gentiles worship a piece of wood.’ And he said, ‘This ark no one is going to bring out except Aaron, and none of the priests or prophets will any longer open the tablets in it except Moses, God’s chosen one. And in the resurrection the ark will be the first to be resurrected and will come out of the rock and be placed on Mount Sinai, and all the saints will be gathered to it there as they await the Lord and flee from the enemy who wishes to destroy them.’ In the rock with his finger he set as a seal the name of God, and the impression was like a carving made with iron, and a cloud covered the name, and no one knows the place nor is able to read the name to this day and to the consummation. And the rock is in the wilderness, where the ark was at first, between the two mountains on which Moses and Aaron lie. And at night there was a cloud like fire, just like the ancient one, for the glory of God will never cease from his law. And God bestowed this favor upon Jeremiah, that he might himself perform the completion of his mystery, so that he might become a partner of Moses, and they are together to this day.”  10 In this Jeremiah delivers the garment of the High Priest to the corner stone of the temple, which swallows it; he casts “the golden plate on which the name of the Lord is written” to the sun, which receives it; and he lays the keys to the temple on a stone in its tower, which opens its mouth and takes them. Everything else, Nebuchadnezzar takes to his country.  11 Here Jeremiah hides the contents of the ark on the Mount of Olives; see E. A. Wallis Budge, The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great (London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1896), 557.  12 Chapter 50:1–5: “Jeremiah … went into the second chamber which is called the Holy of Holies, and took the ark of God … and the glorious objects which were in it … and took those objects … and went hastily to the rock and hid them there until this day.”  13 Shimmur the Levite, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Haggai, and Zechariah hid “the vessels of the sanctuary and the treasures which were in Jerusalem” on a mountain overlooking the Valley Ein Kohel. “The earth took them,” and they will stay there “until the day of the coming of the Messiah Son of David.” This text also reports that Zedekiah and Baruch hid thousands of musical instruments made by David at the Spring of Zedekiah, so that the Chaldeans would not use them. They will be kept there “until the day that Israel returns to their former state … when all Israel shall be gathered together and they shall make a complete pilgrimage to Jerusalem.” Baruch and Zedekiah also hid myriads of silver, and an angel concealed other treasures and vessels which will not be revealed until David the Son of David arises and “the exiled of Israel are gathered from the four winds of the world.” Then “at once all

134

Commentary

meel.14 These sources and their rabbinic relatives15 disagree as to whether the sacred objects were hidden in or near the temple (implicit in 2 Bar. 6:7–9, explicit in 4 Bar. 3:8) or in the wilderness where the ark was at one time (so 2 Macc 2:4–8; Liv. Proph. Jer 11–19). Perhaps an early form of the tradition spoke, without clarification, of Jeremiah hiding the vessels in the vicinity of the ark, whereupon one stream took that to be the temple in Jerusalem, another the wilderness where Moses had been. Beyond that possibility, it seems plausible that the legend, found in 2 Baruch and 4 Baruch, of angels destroying Jerusalem was originally a separate piece, being combined with the tale of the temple vessels only at a secondary stage. There is no trace of the four angels in Eupolemus, 2 Maccabees, or the Life of the Prophet Jeremiah; and although Pesiq. Rab. 26 knows the legend of the four angels,16 and although it is all about Jeremiah, it says nothing about him hiding sacred utensils.

the vessels shall ascend and reveal themselves.” For discussion of Massekhet Kelim see Davila, “Treatise of the Vessels.” There is an English translation in OTPMNS, 393–409.  14 In 77:9, Jeremiah hides the ark and other items in a cave on Mount Nebo, declaring that they will remain there until he and Elijah return and restore the tabernacle.  15 According to ARN A 41:36, multiple things were hidden away: “the tent of meeting and the furnishings therein; the ark, and the broken tables of the commandments in it; the jar of manna; the cruse of the anointing oil; the rod (of Moses); Aaron’s staff, its almond blossoms and flowers; the priestly vestments; and the vestments of the anointed priest.” How and where they were hidden goes unsaid. In m. Šeqal. 6:1–2, the ark is hidden opposite the wood-store in the temple; cf. y. Šeqal. 49c (6:1). In t. Sotah 13:1, it is said that King Josiah commanded that the ark and its contents—the ˙ bottle of manna, the jar of anointing, Aaron’s staff, its buds and flowers, and “the chest in which the Philistines had placed wood for the God of Israel”—be hidden away so that it would not be taken into exile like the rest of the temple utensils; cf. t. Yoma 2:15; t. Šeqal. 2:18; b. Yoma 52b; b. Hor. 12a; b. Sotah 9a; b. Ker. 5b. Some ˙ rabbinic texts record the contrary opinion, that the vessels were carried off; so e.  g. Num. Rab. 15:13, which has it that, while the vessels of the sanctuary were taken into exile, the gates were “hidden away in the place where they had stood”; cf. Lam 2:9.  16 See further below, p. 145. The same tradition might lie behind Apoc. Abr. 27:3 and Lad. Jac. 5:7; see Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, L’Apocalypse d’Abraham en vieux slave: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire (Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego 129; Lublin: Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l’Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987), 187; Alexander Kulik, “Church Slavonic Apocrypha and Slavic Linguistics,” in The Old Testament Apocrypha in the Slavonic Tradition: Continuity and Diversity, ed. Lorenzo DiTommaso and Christfried Böttrich (TSAJ 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 253–54, 259–60.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

135

Rev 7:1–3, which displays remarkable parallels to the account of the destruction of the temple in 2 Baruch, makes matters more complex: 2 Bar. 6:4–8

Rev 7:1–3

And I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the city, each of them holding a fiery torch in his hands. (5) And another angel began to descend from heaven; and he said to them, “Keep hold of your lamps, and do not light them till I tell you. (6) For I am sent first to speak a word to the earth and to put in it what the Lord, the Most High, has commanded me.” (7) And I saw him descend into the Holy of Holies, and take from it the veil, and the holy ark, and its cover, and the two tablets, and the holy vestments of the priests, and the altar of incense, and the forty-eight precious stones with which the priest was adorned, and all the vessels of the tabernacle. (8) And he said to the earth in a loud voice, “Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, And receive what I commit to you. And guard them until the last times, So that, when you are ordered, you may restore them, And strangers may not get possession of them.”

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree. (2) Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, (3) saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads.”

Both passages recount (i) a vision (“I saw”) in which (ii) four angels, standing at four corners and holding back destructive forces or holding destructive implements, are ready to act; but then (iii) another angel appears and (iv) commands the others to refrain from doing harm until (v) certain saints or sacred things can be protected—buried or sealed—from the divine judgment that is about to fall; and (vi) after that is done, the four angels unleash destruction.17 In addition, if one takes into account the closely-related 4  17 4

Bar. 7:1–8:1; Rev 9:14–15. Not all commentators on Revelation identify the four angels of ch. 7 with the four angels of ch. 9. But (i) the definite article in 9:14 (τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους) is readily understood as anaphoric; (ii) the two groups of angels are functionally similar: both let loose destruction; and (iii) without the identification, the angels in 7:1–3 never discharge their task. See further Aune, Revelation, 2:536–37.

136

Commentary

Bar. 3:2–8, yet additional parallels emerge. 4 Bar. 3:8 not only uses the verb, σφραγίζω, which occurs repeatedly in Revelation 7 (vv. 3, 4, bis, 5, 8), but it speaks of a sealing with seven seals (3:8: ἑπτὰ σφραγῖσιν), and Rev 7:1–3 follows two chapters that are all about the opening of a scroll with seven seals: 5:1 (σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά), 5 (ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας); 6:1 (ἑπτά σφραγίδων). Furthermore, if, in 4 Baruch, a heavenly trumpet augurs the destruction of the temple (3:2), in Revelation, when the four angels finally release judgment, their action is announced by an angel blowing a trumpet (9:13–15). The present writer is not inclined to regard all this as coincidence. Given then that Revelation does not seem to depend upon 2 Baruch or 4 Baruch, and given that the latter do not seem to depend upon it,18 one plausible explanation is that Rev 7:1–3 has been influenced by a form of the story common to 4 Baruch and 2 Baruch. That is, John of Patmos or his source adopted the structure of a legend about Jerusalem—four angels of destruction at four corners stopped by a fifth angel until sacred objects are protected—and gave it new content: the temple became the world, and its sacred things became holy people. If this is the case, however, then it seems that neither the author of 2 Baruch nor 4 Baruch was the first to combine the legend of the four angels with the hiding of the vessels. Whatever the precise tradition-history may be, Lam 1:13 was almost certainly the exegetical origin of the legend that angels burned the temple.19 According to this, “From on high he sent fire (MT: ‫ ;ממרום שלח־אש‬LXX: ἐξ ὕψους αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν πῦρ); it went deep into my [Zion’s] bones.” Although this is a metaphor for anguish at the destruction of Jerusalem, the haggadic imagination, surely encouraged by Lam 2:5 (“The Lord … has destroyed Israel; he has destroyed all its palaces, laid in ruins its strongholds”), read more into it. Thus the targum renders the verse: “From heaven he sent fire into my fortified cites and subdued them.” And Pesiq. Rab. 31:1 reads: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘As you live, I burned it, as it is said, “From on high has he sent fire into my bones”’” (cf. 33:1). The same exegetical tradition appears in Lam. Rab. 1:41: “At the time [when the enemy conquered Jerusalem] the accuser sprang before the Throne of Glory and exclaimed, ‘Lord of the universe, shall this wicked person boast, say-

 18

Although one could, in theory, argue that a later Christian with knowledge of Revelation rewrote 4 Baruch.  19 Cf. the exegetical tradition, attested in y. Yoma 6:3 (43c); b. Yoma 39b; and Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2, that found the destruction of the second temple in Zech 11:1: “Open your doors, O Lebanon, so that fire may consume your cedars.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

137

ing, “I destroyed the house of God, I burnt his temple!”? Let fire descend from above and let it burn [the temple].’ What is immediately written? ‘From on high he sent fire into my bones.’” These late sources reveal the scriptural inspiration for our tale.20 As to how the instruments of judgment became four angels—fire could fall from heaven without angelic mediation (Gen 19:24; 2 Kgs 1:10, 12)—is unclear. One may note, however, that Jeremiah itself contains a text about four sorts of destruction21 and another where the destructive four winds come from the four corners.22 Closely allayed is the notion that the wall of the city was breached first not by the Babylonians but by God. This likely derives from Scripture as well. Both 2 Kgs 25:10 and Jer 52:14 relate that the Chaldeans broke down the walls around Jerusalem (so also 2 Chr 36:19). Before this, however, in 4 Kgs 25:4 and Jer 52:7, we read that “the city [wall] was breached” (the MT in both places has: ‫ ;ותבקע העיר‬LXX 4 Βασ 25:4: καὶ ἐρράγη ἡ πόλις; Jer 52:7: καὶ διεκόπη ἡ πόλις). The Hebrew and Greek verbs are passive, without subject. One guesses that they were understood as divine passives:23 it was God, or the angels at God’s command, who initially breached the city wall. The biblical basis of the legend that the temple vessels were hidden is less clear, although it was certainly encouraged by (i) the story of the first ark being returned (1 Sam 4–6) and (ii) the fact that the lists of items seized

 20 The

symbolic vision in Ezek 9:1–11 also presumably had some influence. Here six “men” with weapons in their hands are directed to execute the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but only after a seventh individual in linen garments (cf. perhaps Dan 10:5) has marked those to be spared. Here the destruction of Jerusalem is ultimately God’s doing, “men“—often identified in exegetical history with angels—with weapons in their hands carry out the slaughter, and some upright individuals are spared. Structurally, this closely resembles the legend in 4 Baruch.  21 Jer 15:3: “And I will appoint over them four sorts (of destroyers), says the Lord: the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds of the skies and the beasts of the earth to devour and to destroy.”  22 Jer 49:36: “I will bring upon Elam the four winds from the four heavens; and I will scatter them to all these winds.” Cf. further Ezek 7:2 (“the end has come upon the four corners of the land”); Zech 1:18–21 (four divine agents “scattered Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem”); 6:1–8 (four spirits patrol the earth); 1 En. 76:1–4 (the eight winds of punishment blow from four different directions). Unfortunately, the significance of the “four angels” in 1QapGen 15:14 is unknown given that the context—which mentions fire and sickle—is fragmentary.  23 Cf. 4:1, 6; 7:7; LXX Gen 15:6; 42:28; Num 4:20; Isa 19:2; Ecclus 44:16, 18; 45:24: 46:8; 49:7; Matt 3:10; 5:4; 24:22; Luke 4:24; 1 Cor 1:4–9; 4:2; 4 Bar. 4:1, 6; Sifre Deut. 48; m. ’Abot 3:15; etc.

138

Commentary

in 2 Kgs 25:13–17 and Jer 52:17–23 do not mention the stone tablets of the law, the ark, or the tent.24 Our tale can have nothing to do with Jer 13:1–7, where God commands the prophet to hide his linen loincloth in a hole in a rock by the Euphrates. In that passage, that which Jeremiah buries is, when dug up, ruined and good for nothing. Closer is Jer 32:6–15, where Jeremiah, at God’s bidding, buys a field, gives the deed of purchase to Baruch, and commands him to put them in an earthenware jar so that they may last a long time.25 This, however, remains only a distant relative of our story. One possible explanation for the legend is that someone construed Jer 3:16—the ark “will not come to mind, and they will not remember it, and they will not search for it, and it will not be made again”—to mean that the ark will not be made again or searched for or remembered because God will bring it back.26 The best guess, however, is that the tale grew out of a tendentious reading of Jer 27:21–22: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels which are left in the house of the Lord, in the house of the king of Judah, and in Jerusalem: To Babylon they will be carried, and they will remain there until the day when I give attention to them, says the Lord. Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.” If this text read, “To the earth” or “to the rock” or some such instead of “to Babylon,” it would perfectly match our legend, in which the vessels are consigned to the earth and remain there until God asks for them back. The Hebrew behind “to Babylon” is ‫בבלה‬. One guesses that someone sufficiently motivated substituted a different word—maybe ‫בסלע‬ = “in a rock”27—or rearranged letters—perhaps ‫בלבה‬ = “into her heart” understood as “into the heart of the earth”—and so created the fanciful story.28 This would be an early example of an ‫ אל תקרי‬midrash (“Do not read this way but that way”), and no stranger than the substitution of ‫ כוזבה‬for ‫כוכב‬

 24

One also wonders about a possible link with the legend in b. Sota 9a and Num. Rab. 15:13, according to which “the gates of the temple were hidden away in the place where they had stood.” Lam 2:9 is the proof text: “Her gates have sunk into the ground.” But the antiquity of this fanciful reading is unknown.  25 Davila, “Treatise of the Vessels,” thinks this is the origin of the legend of Baruch hiding temple vessels in Massekhet Kelim 9–10.  26 Cf. Barton, “Jeremiah,” 315–16: “the peg in the book of Jeremiah on which” the legend hangs is Jer 3:16. He fails, unfortunately, to elaborate.  27 Liv. Proph. Jer. 9 has a rock (πέτρα) swallow the ark and the things in it; cf. 2 Macc 2:5: Jeremiah hid the tent and ark in a cave (οἶκον ἀντρώδη).  28 For examples of exegesis of this sort from pre-Christian times see William H. Brownlee, “Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BA 14 (1951), 54–76.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

139

in Num 24:17—“Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai said: Rabbi Akiba, my teacher, used to explain the passage, ‘A star will come forth out of Jacob’ in this way: ‘Koziba (= Bar Kosiba) will come forth out of Jacob.’”29 When the legend of Jeremiah hiding the vessels was combined with the legend of angels destroying the city, they were stitched together with what may have otherwise been a topos—divine agents being commanded to delay their actions until something important has first happened. In the story of the flood in 1 En. 66:1–67:2, Enoch sees “the angels of punishment who are ready to go forth and let loose all the power of the water that is beneath the earth,” but the Lord of the Spirits commands them not to raise their hands but keep watch until the ark is finished.30 In 2 Bar. 51:11, the armies of angels are held back by God’s word, restrained by a command so that “they stand in their places until their advent comes.”31 As the discussion has already indicated, ch. 3 and/or its sources depend upon biblical texts associated with Jeremiah. The extent to which this is clear can be seen from the following: • 3:2: Jeremiah hears the sound of a trumpet (φωνὴ σαλπίγγος): in Jer 4:19–21, the prophet speaks of hearing the sound of the trumpet(s) (LXX: φωνὴν σάλπιγγος, φωνὴν σαλπίγγων). • 3:2–4: angels with torches burn Jerusalem: this derives from Lam 1:13 (“From on high he sent fire”); see above. • 3:6–8: Jeremiah hides the temple vessels in the earth, from whence they will return at the end of days: this legend may have originated in an ‫תקרי‬ ‫ אל‬midrash on Jer 27:21–22; see above. • 3:8: Jeremiah directly addresses the earth with ἄκουε, γῆ: this echoes LXX Jer 6:19: ἄκουε, γῆ. • 3:9: Ἀβιμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοπι: this is a variant of the formulation in LXX Jer 45:7: Ἀβδεμέλεχ ὁ Αἰθίοψ. • 3:9: Abimelech has done many good deeds for Jeremiah: this depends upon Jeremiah 38–39. • 3:9: αὐτὸς ἀνέσπασέ με ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου τοῦ βορβόρου: this borrows from LXX Jer 45:6 (ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ οὐκ ἦν ὕδωρ ἀλλ’ ἢ βόρβορος), 10 (ἀνάγαγε αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου), 13 (ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου).

Ta̔an. 68d (4:6); cf. Lam. Rab. 2:2: “Read not ‫ כוכב‬but ‫=[ כוזב‬ liar].” Additional examples abound.  30 See the comments of Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 285.  31 Perhaps related is 2 Thess 2:1–12, where “the lawless one” is restrained before the end. See also n. 20, on Ezek 9:1–11.   29 y.

140

Commentary

• 3:9: τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν: the phrase sounds like Jeremiah; see on v. 9. • 3:10: “I (God) will protect him”: this descends from Jer 39:17–18: “I will deliver you on that day, says the Lord, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you.” • 3:14: Baruch and Jeremiah sit and weep (ἐκάθισαν δὲ οἱ δύο, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν); cf. the LXX title to Lamentations, “And it happened, after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem was laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping” (LXX: ἐκάθισεν … κλαίων). • 3:15: Jeremiah hands Abimelech “the basket of figs”: this is the basket of good figs from Jer 24:1–7. The traditions taken up in 4 Baruch 3 are, without exception, Jewish in origin. One can, if so inclined, find traces of a Christian hand in νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι (see on 3:3) and, with more justification, Κύριε, κέλευσόν με λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου (see on 3:4). So one could, in theory, regard ch. 3 as a Christian retelling of Jewish lore. This chapter, however, contains nothing, aside from the two phrases just noted, that even remotely suggests a Christian origin. On the contrary, the keen interest in the temple vessels, the designation of Israel as “the beloved,” and the hope for return from exile (see on 3:8) are more than consistent with a Jewish original. A Jewish audience, after the Roman revolt of 70, would have understood 4 Baruch 3 as being, like 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, transparent to its own time, when the Romans had destroyed and burned the temple.32 This would have been all the more true for those familiar with the story, which both Josephus, Bell. 6.293–300, and Tacitus, Hist. 5.13, transmit, that a massive, bronze temple gate opened without human hand, and that a voice was later heard: “We are departing hence.” Josephus, and no doubt many others familiar with these omens, interpreted them to indicate that the temple dissolved of its own accord—implicitly by divine decree—and that God, in exiting the place, opened it to its enemies. All this is analogous to the situation in 4 Baruch, where God destroys the temple (3:1–2) and opens the gate of the city (4:1). Several lessons would follow for those perceiving parallels between the post-70 period and 4 Baruch’s narrative. First, Israel, after the Babylonian

sources also relate the two destructions to each other. Note e.  g. m. Ta̔an 4:6–7; b. Ta̔an. 29a; and Lam. Rab. proem 7. The first two texts place the two events on the ninth of Ab, and b. Ta̔an. 29a teaches that, on both occasions, the Levites were reciting the same Psalm when their enemies came and captured them.

 32 Rabbinic

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

141

conquest, and despite everything, survived and returned to the land, and the temple was rebuilt. Those events could supply reason to hope for the same again. Second, if the destruction of the first temple was somehow in accord with God’s will, and if it was a temporal punishment as opposed to everlasting rejection, then the same could be true of the more recent disaster. Third, if Jeremiah had buried the temple vessels before the Babylonian exile, and if the earth is guarding them until the eschatological restoration of the exiles, then the items that Titus carried back to Rome matter less. The real, original sacred utensils are still safe in the earth. That which is truly of God endures.33 Or, alternatively, perhaps some post-70 Jewish readers or hearers would have thought that much of the temple treasure and some of its sacred items had recently been successfully hidden. 3Q15, the Copper Scroll, seems to imply this.34 As part of his theory that 5:1–6:8 and indeed all mention of Abimelech did not belong to the earliest edition of 4 Baruch, Bogaert argues that vv. 9–10 and 15–16 are secondary and modeled on surrounding verses. As support, he appeals to the duplication of εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος in vv. 10–11— he accepts the reading of A B in v. 11—and the repetition of πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης in 3:15 and 4:1.35 He is right that 4 Baruch 3 conflates stories—those about the sleep of Abimelech and those about Jeremiah and the hiding of the vessels. It is, however, far from evident that we should think in terms of two editions of our book as opposed to a single author merging distinct traditions. Moreover, εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος may not be the original reading in v. 11. Even if it is, the HB/OT sometimes repeats “the Lord said” or a similar phrase without intervening action;36 and in 4 Bar. 9:24–25,  33

For how the temple vessels already serve the theme of religious continuity in the HB/ OT see P. R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166–81.  34 The Byzantines had a similar legend: when the Turks entered Hagia Sophia in 1453, a wall in the sanctuary miraculously opened so that some priests, carrying the holiest vessels, could enter. The priests and the holy things will, it was said, reappear when Christian worship returns to the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom; see Leonard of Chios, Ep. ad Nicolaum V Rom. Pont. PG 159.941–42. Did 4 Baruch (through the Menaion) partly inspire this legend? Or does our book lie behind the eschatological vision in (Apocr.) Apoc. John 13, where the sacred vessels, crosses, images, and all ἅγια of the churches will be removed from the earth to heaven before eschatological catastrophe strikes?  35 See Bogaert, Baruch, 1:192–95.  36 Note e.   g. MT Ezek 10:2 and the commentary on this in Lam. Rab. 1:13–41; also Lev 23:23–26; Num 3:5–14; 8:1–5; 16:20–23; Jer 11:6–9. Note also the repetition (without narrative break) of εἶπεν/ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς in Mark 8:34–9:1.

142

Commentary

which seems to be from one hand, “Jeremiah said to them” is followed by a one-sentence imperative and then immediately, without additional intervening material, by the redundant “And he said to them.”37 3:1. This verse, with its opening ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα τῆς νυκτός,38 registers Jeremiah’s obedient fulfillment of 1:9–10. Not only does καθώς + εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ explicitly remark on this, but the replication of the language underlines the correlation between command and execution:39 3:1   ἡ ὥρα      τῆς νυκτός … ἦλθον ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως  1:9–10        ὥραν τῆς νυκτός         ἔλθετε       ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως

Cf. the formulation in 3:14: Jeremiah and Baruch did καθὼς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Κύριος. Almost the entirety of 4 Baruch unfolds as human response to the divine imperatives in 1:1–3, 7–10; 3:8, 10–12; 6:12–14; 7:19; 8:1–3. Jeremiah and Baruch have left the area of the altar (2:10) and climbed the walls (1:10);40 cf 2 Bar. 6:3–4 (Baruch sees the four angels with torches after being “carried over the wall of Jerusalem”); Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 (when Jeremiah “climbed closer and stood upon the wall, he saw the temple overturned into heap upon heap of stones and the walls of Jerusalem broken down”). Jeremiah, as befits the honor due a prophet, is named before Baruch;41 and, despite the use of ὁμοῦ (1x), the prophet is, throughout this chapter, as throughout canonical Jeremiah, the chief protagonist: he alone converses with God (vv. 4–13).

 37

Cf. also Jer. Apocr. 14:1: “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, who was sitting in the prison yard, saying: ‘Jeremiah, my chosen one.’ The Lord said to him: ‘I swear, etc.’”  38 Cf. Ps.-Apollodorus, Bib. (epitomae e codd. Vat. 950 + Sabbaitico 366) 5.19a-b (ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο νύξ); Longus, Daphn. 3.10.1 (ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἡμέρα); Apophth. Patr. (systematic collection ed. Guy SC 474) 10.150 (ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο νύξ); also 2 Macc 1:22; Acts 10:25; 14:5; 21:1; Acts Barn. 7:1. For ἡ ὥρα τῆς νυκτός see on 1:10.  39 Καθώς: 4x: 3:1, 14 (of divine speech), 16 (of Jeremiah’s speech); 5:26; καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος: LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; cf. Polycarp, Phil. 7:2; Liv. Proph. Mal. Dor. prologue [Christian]; Acts Phil. 148; (Apocr.) Apoc. John 28; Ps.-Ephraem, Ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ed. Phrantzoles, 4:85.  40 Ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως: see on 1:10.  41 Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ: 3:1, 3, 14; 8:5.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

143

3:2. The line opens with a Septuagintism, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγένετο; cf. 1 Βασ 14:20 (for ‫ ;)והנה היתה‬Ecclus 24:31.42 It is unclear whether Jeremiah and Baruch alone or others also hear the sound of a trumpet (φωνὴ σαλπίγγος).43 Φωνή directly following ἐγένετο occurs in the NT and other Christian sources;44 but it also appears in 3 Bar. 11:3 and 14:1, and Josephus, Vita 259, has ἐγένοντο φωναί. In 4:1, the Babylonians hear the angelic trumpet, which calls them to enter the city. The “trumpet” is here a sophar,45 which was a signaling device, not really a musical instrument. It had multiple functions.46 In the literature it sometimes announces judgment or disaster.47 Note Philo, Spec. 2.189: the trumpet sounded when the law was given “so that the event might strike terror even into those who were far from the spot and dwelling well nigh at the extremities of the earth, who would come to the natural conclusion that such mighty signs portended mighty consequences.” Closely related is the blowing of the sophar to announce God’s coming or presence48 or to muster and direct armies and frighten enemies.49 The action is often performed by or associated with angels.50

  42

Ἰδού: 10x; καὶ ἰδού: 3x: 3:2; 6:1; 9:11. The expression also occurs in later Chris-

tian writers: Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Isa. PG 70:625, 712; Ps.-Macarius Magn., Serm. 64 2.12.14; Georgius Sphrantzes, Chron. min. 23.10. Καὶ ἰδού by itself— which occurs often in Matthew, Luke-Acts, and Revelation—is a Septuagintism; it occurs in the LXX several hundred times (cf. ‫ ;)והנה‬see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 121. But Schaller, Paralipomena, 716, raises the possibility that it is a Latinism.   43 Φωνή: see on 2:2; σάλπιγξ: 1x; cf. LXX 2 Βασ 6:15; Ps 46:6; 97:6; Jer 6:17—all for ‫ ;קול שופר‬and Dan 3:5, 7, 10 (also Theod.)—for ‫ ;קול קרנא‬cf. also Ps. Sol. 8:1; Plutarch, Sulla 7.3; Rev 8:13; Did. 16:6; (Apocr.) Apoc. John 9.  44 E.  g. Mark 9:7; Acts 7:31; 10:13; Acts Paul G ed. Lipsius, p. 272; Ps.-Ephraem, Res. mort. serm. ed. Phrantzoles, 4:266; Cyril of Alexandria, Thes. PG 75:317.   45 Although σάλπιγξ (cf. the rabbinic ‫ )סלפינגס‬translates several words in the LXX, it most often represents ‫שופר‬.  46 See esp. Sol B. Finesinger, “The Shofar,” HUCA 8–9 (1931–32), 193–228; Gerhard Friedrich, “σάλπιγξ,” TDNT 7 (1971), 71–88; Markus Bockmuehl, “‘The Trumpet Shall Sound.’ Shofar Symbolism and Its Reception in Early Christianity,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. William Horbury (JSNTSS 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 199–225.  47 As in Isa 18:3; Jer 6:1, 17; Amos 2:2; Rev 8–11; Sib. Or. 4:171–78; 4 Ezra 6:23.  48 As in Exod 19:13, 16, 19; 20:18; Ps 47:5; Zech 9:14.  49 E.  g. Josh 6:5–20; Judg 7:8–22; Neh 4:20; Job 39:25; Jer 4:19; Zeph 1:16; 1QM; Ps. Sol. 8:1; 1 Cor 14:8.  50 See Matt 24:31; 1 Thess 4:16; Rev 8:2, 6–12; 9:1, 13–14; 10:7; 11:15; Gk. LAE 22:1; Apoc. Zeph. Akh. 9:1; 10:1; 12:1; Quest. Ezra B 11.

144

Commentary

The instrument understandably came to be associated with the Day of the Lord and the ingathering of dispersed Israel in Jewish texts51 and with the parousia and resurrection of the dead in Christian texts.52 Given that the trumpet was used in religious celebrations and worship,53 and that trumpets were blown at the dedication of Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 5:1–13), one might detect irony in 4 Baruch: the trumpet is not calling for worship in the temple but to an end to worship there. The present text probably goes back in part to an imaginative, haggadic reading of the prophet’s agonizing confession in Jer 4:19–21: “My anguish, my anguish! I writhe in pain! O, the walls of my heart! My heart is beating wildly; I cannot keep silent; for I hear the sound of the trumpet (LXX: φωνὴν σάλπιγγος), the alarm of war. Disaster overtakes disaster, the whole land is laid waste. Suddenly my tents (LXX: σκηνή) are destroyed, my curtains (LXX: δέρρεις) in a moment. How long must I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpets (LXX: φωνὴν σαλπίγγων)?” Here Jeremiah, writing about a military invader, twice declares that he has heard a trumpet. Moreover, σκηνή could be used of the divine dwelling and δέρρις of its curtains, and some modern scholars take “my tents” and “my curtains” to refer the temple and its furnishings.54 Our line seemingly reflects the antiquity of this interpretation. The sound of the trumpet is followed immediately by the sight of angels—their number is unspecified55—descending: ἐξῆλθον ἄγγελοι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.56 On the link between angels and trumpet see above.  51

E.  g. Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zeph 1:16; Ps. Sol. 11:1–3; Apoc. Abr. 31:1. E.  g. Matt 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16; Did. 16:6; 5 Ezra 1:29; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:36; Quest. Ezra B 11; Sib. Or. 8:239–48.  53 Cf. Lev 25:9; Num 10:1–10; 1 Chr 13:8; 15:28; 2 Chr 7:6; 29:16–28; Ps 98:6; 150:3; Ecclus 50:16; CD 11:22–23; LAB 32:18; etc.  54 See F. Kenro Kumaki, “A New Look at Jer 4,19–22 and 10,19–21,” AJBI 8 (1982) 113–22, and William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 162, and cf. Exod 26:12; Lev 26:11; Num 4:25.  55 Contrast 2 Bar. 6:4; Rev 7:1–3; 9:14–15.  56 Ἐξέρχομαι: see on 1:1; ἄγγελος: 11x; the plural occurs only in 3:2, 4 bis; ἄγγελος + ἔρχομαι/ἐξέρχομαι/ἀπέρχομαι occurs also in 4:11; 6:1, 11, 15; 8:9; οὐρανός: 7x, always singular: 3:2, 13; 5:24, 32; 6:2; 7:3, 12. Cf. LXX 4 Βασ 19:35 (ἐξῆλθεν ἄγγελος Κυρίου); Zech 5:5 (ἐξῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος); Isa 37:36 (ἐξῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος); 1 Macc 7:41 (ἐξῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος); Matt 13:49 (ἐξελεύσονται οἱ ἄγγελοι); Rev 15:6 (ἐξῆλθον οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι); Pr. Jos. frag. A 4 (ἐξῆλθεν Οὐριὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ Θεοῦ). For ἄγγελος + ἐκ (τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ see LXX Gen 21:17; 22:11; Dan 4:13, 34; Gk. LAE 38:3.  52

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

145

Although ἄγγελος + ἐξέρχομαι as well as ἄγγελος + ἐκ (τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ are common (see n. 56), ἄγγελος + ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ (τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ is not. The closest Greek parallels to the whole construction appear to be Matt 28:2 (ἄγγελος γὰρ Κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ); Rev 10:1 (ἀγγελον … καταβαίνοντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; also 18:1; 20:1); 14:17 (ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ); Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.65 (ἄγγελος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ); and Gos. Nic. recs. M1, M2 12.4.2 (ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἀστραπηφόρος ἐλθὼν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ). The line is in any case closely related to 2 Bar. 6:5 (“and another angel came down from heaven”) and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 (which relates that the angel who destroyed the walls of Jerusalem came down from heaven: ‫ירד המלאך מן‬ ‫)השמים‬. The angels hold torches: κατέχοντες λαμπάδας ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν.57 The phrase has close parallels in 2 Bar. 6:4 (“Each of them was holding a flaming torch in his hands”) and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 (“four angels came down and in their four hands were torches of fire”).58 On the link with Rev 7:1–3 see above, pp. 135–36. While λαμπάς can mean either “torch” or “lamp,” given what follows and the parallel in 2 Baruch, the meaning here is obvious. For the association of torches and trumpets see LXX Exod 20:18 (at the giving of the law πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἑώρα τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὰς λαμπάδας καὶ τὴν φωνὴν τῆς σάλπιγγος); Judg 7:15–23 (the troops of Gideon, with torches and trumpets, defeat the Midianites). Our text, like 2 Baruch 6–8, does not, as it unfolds, relate that the city was burned.59 4 Baruch assumes the fact without relating it. For the scripturally-inspired notion that it was not really the Babylonians but God (via angels) who set the city on fire—a notion that contradicts the plain sense of 2 Kgs 25:9; 2 Chr 36:19; and Jer 52:13—see above, p. 136. The angels, like Jeremiah and Baruch (1:10; 3:1), stand on the walls of the city: ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τὰ τείχη τῆς πόλεως.60 Kraft-Purintun and Hezer both supply an object—“them” (= torches)—and make ἔστησαν transitive: “set them on the walls of the city.” It is better, however, to construe Scholia in Aeschyli sept. adv. Th. 423b (κατέχοντα τῇ  χειρὶ λαμπάδα); PGM 36:180 (τῇ  δεξιᾷ χειρὶ  κατέχοντα  λαμπάδα). Κατέχω: 2x: 3:2; 7:29 (ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν); λαμπάς: 1x; χείρ: see on 1:5.  58 Nag Hammadi’s Apoc. Paul 5.2.22, where four angels “with whips in their hands” are “goading the souls on to the judgment,” is only a distant relative.  59 Contrast 2 Kgs 25:9; 2 Chr 36:19; Jer 52:13; T. Mos. 3:2; Josephus, Ant. 10.146; Lam. Rab. 1:41; Pirqe R. El. 26:6; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 16:6, 11.  60 See on 1:10; ἵστημι: 7x: 3:2; 6:18; 8:5; 9:7, 25, 29, 30.  57 Cf.

146

Commentary

ἔστησαν as intransitive, so that the angels do what Jeremiah and Baruch do, namely, stand on the walls.61 The angels are about to set fire to the city—their destructive role being in line with tradition62—and it is only Jeremiah’s intercession that prevents them (v. 4). If, to the contrary, they are placing torches on the walls—for what purpose?63—they have already interrupted their destructive action before the prophet’s intervention. 3:3. Upon seeing the angels, Jeremiah and Baruch (see on v. 1) wail out loud: Ἰδόντες δὲ αὐτοὺς Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαρούχ, ἔκλαυσαν, λέγοντες.64 Their first person plural speech opens with a phrase, νῦν (see on 1:3) ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι, that also appears in John 8:52 (εἶπον … νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι) and otherwise almost exclusively in later Christian literature citing that verse;65 so one could entertain the possibility of a Christian hand here. The whole clause, however, harks back to 2:9 (q.  v.)— 2:9 3:3

     γνῷς   ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο νῦν ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα

The repetition with the shift in tense highlights the transition from prophecy to realization. 3:4. Jeremiah can speak not only to God but also to the angels. He cannot, however, command them; only God does that. He can, however, implore them: παρεκάλεσε δὲ Ἰερεμίας τοὺς ἀγγέλους, λέγων·  Παρακαλῶ

  61

Cf. Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 309, and the Hebrew translation of Licht, “‫ספר מעשי‬

‫ירמיהו‬,” 73: ‫ויעמדו על חומות העיר‬.

 62 Cf.

the texts that refer to “angels of destruction” or “punishment”: 1QS 4:12; 1QM 13:12; CD 2:6; 4Q510 1 5; 1 En. 63:1; 66:1; Tg. Ps.-Jn. Exod 12:12; b. Šabb. 55a, 88a; b. Hag. 16a; etc.; also the references to “the Destroyer” in Exod 12:23; ˙ 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Wisd 18:25; 1 Cor 10:10; Rev 9:11.   63 In Pesiq. Rab. 26:6, the four angels with flaming torches in their hands place them at the four corners of temple and thereby set it on fire: ‫ונתנו בארבעה זוית של היכל ושרפו‬ ‫( אותו‬Parma 271b). Here the torches are not set on the walls but at four separate spots in the temple to set it ablaze.  64 Ἰδόντες; see on 2:2; cf. 5:30: ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτά + nominative subject; κλαίω: see on 2:5; cf. Tob 11:13 (ἰδὼν τὸν υἱὸν … ἔκλαυσεν καὶ εἶπεν); Luke 19:41 (ἰδὼν τὴν πόλιν ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ’ αὐτὴν λέγων); Herm. Mand. 3:3 (ἰδὼν  δέ  με  κλαίοντα  λέγει); Acts Paul 34 (καὶ  ἰδοῦσαι … ἔκλαυσαν  λέγοντες). On weeping and mourning in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 19–20.  65 E.  g. Chrysostom, Hom. John PG 59:302; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John ed. Pusey, 2:116. Cf. also John 17:7: νῦν ἔγνωκαν ὅτι.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

147

ὑμᾶς.66 The duplication of the verb makes for emphasis; cf. Aristeas, Ep. 123: παρεκάλεσε … παρακαλῶν. The prophet wants the angels, whose torches are presumably already lit—as also in 2 Bar. 6:4 and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6; see above—to desist for the moment: μὴ ἀπολέσθαι τὴν πόλιν ἄρτι;67 cf. Gk LAE 27:2, where Adam implores the angels to leave him alone for a bit until he can beg God for mercy: παρεκάλεσεν … Ἀδὰμ τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγων· ‘Εάσατέ με μικρόν, ὅπως παρακαλέσω τὸν Θεόν. Ἄρτι is the key to the sense, for Jeremiah has already recognized the inevitable (1:6). He is asking here only for a brief delay. Jeremiah wishes first to speak with God: ἕως ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς Κύριον ῥῆμα.68 The construction has a biblical ring.69 At this point, “the Lord” interrupts and speaks to his angels, indicating that he wishes to hear Jeremiah. He accordingly commands them to stand down. By mirroring the words of Jeremiah, God confirms his esteem for the prophet: Jeremiah μὴ ἀπολέσθαι τὴν πόλιν ἄρτι, ἕως ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς Κύριον God μὴ ἀπολέσητε τὴν πόλιν               ἕως ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς τὸν ἐκλεκτόν μου

Cf. 1 Chr 21:15: “And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but when he was about to destroy it, the Lord took note and relented concerning the calamity; he said to the destroying angel, ‘Enough! Stay your hand.’” On Jeremiah as “elect” see on 1:1. Jeremiah responds with words that recall 1:4 (q.  v.)— 1:4 3:4

Κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι τῷ δούλῳ σου λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου Κύριε, κέλευσόν  με                    λαλῆσαι ἐνώπιόν σου

Although κελεύω (1x) in both the LXX and the NT almost always means “command”70 and is so translated here by Herzer, the sense must rather be

Cf. v. 9. Παρακαλέω: see on 1:4; ἄγγελος: see on 3:2. Contrast Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2666, who asserts that Jeremiah “has authority over the angels.” So too Herzer, 4 Baruch, 60.  67 Ἀπολέω: see on 1:1; πόλις: see on 1:1; ἄρτι: 1x.  68 For ἕως ἄν see on 2:3. Fully half of the uses of λαλέω (see on 1:1) in 4 Baruch occur in this chapter: 3:4 (3x), 5, 9, 12, 14. Κύριος: see on 1:4; ῥῆμα: see on 1:9.  69 Cf. LXX Exod 14:12 (τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλαλήσαμεν πρὸς σέ); Num 11:24 (ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα); 22:20 (τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἂν λαλήσω πρὸς σέ); 1 Βασ 3:17 (τὸ ῥῆμα  τὸ  λαληθὲν  πρὸς  σέ); 2 Βασ 14:12 (λαλησάτω δὴ ἡ δούλη σου πρὸς τὸν κύριόν μου τὸν βασιλέα ῥῆμα), 15 (λαλῆσαι  πρὸς  τὸν  βασιλέα  τὸν  κύριόν μου  τὸ  ῥῆμα  τοῦτο); Jos. Asen. 4:4 (λαλήσω πρός σε τὰ ῥήματά μου; cf. also 14:8, 11, 13); Acts 11:14 (λαλήσει ῥήματα πρὸς σέ).  70 Cf. GELS, s.  v.; BDAG, s.  v.  66

148

Commentary

akin to ἐπιτρέπω in 1:4—“permit, please allow.”71 For the sense, “if you please,” Lampe, s.  v., cites only a few post-fourth century texts,72 and the liturgical instances, such as Lit. Chrysos. ed. Brightman and Hammond, p. 370 (deacon to priest: κέλευσον δέσποτα), are also late. The closest parallel appears to be in T. Abr. RecShrt. 4:7 (Κύριε, κέλευσόν  με  ἐρω­ τηθῆναι ἐνώπιον τῆς ἁγίας δόξης σου), which is likely from a Christian hand.73 The introductory δέομαι Κύριε, by contrast, occurs in the LXX and so adds a biblical aura, as it does also in T. Levi 5:5.74 3:5. The only difference between this line—καὶ εἶπε Κύριος  λάλει, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου Ἰερεμίας—and 1:4 (q.  v.) is that the latter opens with εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Κύριος. Such repetition is typical of 4 Baruch. Note that while Jeremiah successfully halts the angel’s actions, we nowhere learn that they went back to their work and destroyed the city. The text, with its attention on other matters, assumes that they did this without saying so; see the discussion on 1:10. 3:6. Jeremiah first confesses that the destruction of Jerusalem and exile are inevitable: Ἰδοὺ νῦν, Κύριε, ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι παραδίδως τὴν πόλιν σου εἰς χεῖρας τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀπαροῦσι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.75 Only in the next verse will he ask what he should do. The opening ἰδοὺ νῦν has a strong biblical flavor even though the expression is attested outside Jewish and Christian circles.76 Νῦν … ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι repeats the language of v. 3 (q.  v.), so what Jeremiah and Baruch say to each other there, Jeremiah says to God here. His next words are also drawn from prior sentences:

 71 Cf.

Robinson, “Fourth Baruch,” 49: “Please, Lord, let me speak before you.” Kraft-Purintun, Paraleipomena, 17, have: “bid me to speak in your presence.”  72 Ps.-Amphilochius of Iconium, V. Bas. 13; John Moschus, Prat. 93, 127; Theodore the Studite, Ep. 1:37.  73 See Allison, Testament of Abraham, 130–31.  74 Δέομαι: 4x: 3:4; 6:9; 7:23, 28; δέομαι Κύριε in the LXX: Gen 19:18; 44:18; Exod 4:10, 13; 32:31; Num 12:11; Josh 7:7.  75 Ἰδού: see on 3:2; νῦν: see on 1:3; vocative Κύριε: see on 1:4; γιγνώσκω: see on 2:9; παραδίδωμι + χείρ: see on 1:5; πόλις: see on 1:1; ἐχθρός: 2x: 3:6; 4:6; ἀπαίρω: 1x; λαός: see on 1:5; εἰς Βαβυλῶνα: see on 2:7.  76 Diocles frag. 241; cf. LXX Exod 5:5; 3 Βασ 12:26; 4 Βασ 5:22; 1 Esdr 8:87. Note also 2 Cor 6:2; Jos. Asen. 16:16; Inf. Gos. Thom. 3:2; Acts Phil. 3:12; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.50; Athanasius, V. Ant. 78; etc.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

149

3:6 παραδίδως        τὴν πόλιν σου           εἰς χεῖρας     

         τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῆς 1:5 παραδίδως        τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐκλεκτὴν  εἰς χεῖρας               τῶν Χαλδαίων 2:7 παραδίδωσει  τὴν πόλιν             εἰς χεῖρας τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Χαλδαίων

All three times, the παραδίδωμι phrase is on the lips of Jeremiah. In 4:6, Baruch will say something similar: “Jerusalem … has been handed over into the hands of enemies” (παρεδόθη εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν).77 Jeremiah recognizes not only the tragic fate of the temple but also the miserable fate of the people: their enemies will take them away to Babylon. Once again, the language echoes what Jeremiah has said in an earlier chapter: 3:6 2:7

ἀπαροῦσι    τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα

The closest parallel outside our book appears to be Justin, Dial. 52.3: εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἀπήχθη ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν. This is followed by τῶν ἱερῶν σκευῶν ἀρθέντων, which may be compared with 4 Bar. 3:7, the next verse. 3:7. While the temple is doomed, Jeremiah, as befits his priestly status, raises the possibility of rescuing its sacred objects: Τί ποιήσωμεν τὰ ἅγιά σου ἢ τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας σου; τί θέλεις αὐτὰ ποιήσωμεν;78 The precise identity of these items is unspecified, even with the qualifying addition, τὰ σκεύη κτλ.79 The details do not matter to the story, only the basic

 77

Cf. LXX Lev 26:25 (παραδοθήσεσθε εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν); 4 Βασ 21:14 (παραδώσω αὐτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν); Jer 20:5 (δώσω τὴν πᾶσιν ἰσχὺν τῆς πόλεως … εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ); 41:21 (δώσω εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν); Dan 3:32 (παρέδωκας ἡμᾶς εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν; so too Theod.); also Jdt 8:33 (παραδώσειν τὴν πόλιν τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἡμῶν); 4 Ezra 3:27 (“tradidisti civitatem

tuam in manu inimicorum tuorum”). Ἅγιος: 5x: 3:7; 6:2; 9:3 (the trisagion); both σκεῦος (which often translates ‫ כלי‬in the LXX) and λειτουργία (most often for ‫ עבדה‬in the LXX) occur 3x, in the phrase, τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας: 3:7, 8, 14; θέλω: 9x: 3:7, 9; 5:4, 30; 6:10; 7:5; 8:2, 4; 9:22; with God as subject: 3:7; 5:30; our author likes τί + ποιέω: 3:7 bis, 9; 6:10; 7:4, 21.  79 For related expressions see LXX Num 3:31 (τὰ σκεύη τοῦ ἁγίου); 4:15 (τὰ ἅγια καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἅγια), 26 (τὰ σκεύη τὰ λειτουργικά); 18:3 (τὰ σκεύη τὰ ἅγια; also 31:6; 3 Βασ 8:4; 2 Chr 5:5); 1 Chr 9:28 (τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας); 1 Esdr 8:57 (τὰ σκεύη ἅγια; also 2 Esdr 8:28); 2 Esdr 20:40 (σκεύη τὰ ἅγια); Josephus, Ant. 7.342 (τὰ ἅγια σκεύη).

  78

150

Commentary

idea that holy items were preserved and, perhaps, that unlawful eyes did not see them.80 The sacred objects would, however, presumably include the ark of the covenant; cf. Eupolemus frag. 4 apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.5 (Jeremiah withheld [κατασχεῖν] the ark and the tablets); 2 Macc 2:4–5 (Jeremiah “found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance”); Liv. Proph. Jer 11 (Jeremiah takes “the ark of the law and the things [v.  l.: all the things] in it”); m. Šeqal. 6:1–2 (the ark lay hidden “opposite the wood-store” in the temple); b. Yoma 52b (King Josiah hid the ark, the bottle of manna, the bottle of sprinkling water, the staff of Aaron, and the chest of gold the Philistines sent as a gift of God).81 2 Bar. 6:7, however, mentions the mercy seat but not the ark.82 According to Euopolemus frag. 2 apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.34.14–15, Moses made τὰ σκεύη that were in the first temple, and “the ark, the gold altar, the lampstand, the table” were among those vessels; cf. Philo, Mos. 2.94: “the sacred vessels (σκεύη ἱερά) and furniture” included “the ark, candlestick, table and altars for incense and burnt offerings” (so too Her. 26). Also relevant is Josephus, Bell. 2.321, which recounts what happened during the second revolt: “Then it was that every priest and every minister of God, bearing in procession the holy vessels (τὰ ἅγια σκεύη) and wearing the robes in which they were wont to perform their priestly offices … fell on their knees and earnestly implored the people to preserve for them the

 80 It

was unlawful for non-priests to look at the sacred vessels; cf. Num 1:51; 4:5–20; 18:1–7, 21–24; 3 Macc 1:8–2:24; Josephus, Bell. 1.152–53; Ant. 3.125; 14.71–72, 482–83; m. Mid. 4:5. The idea that the temple sancta were sometimes displayed to festival pilgrims appears to be unhistorical and late; see Steven D. Fraade, “The Temple as a Marker of Jewish Identity before and after 70 CE: The Role of the Holy Vessels in Rabbinic Memory and Imagination,” in Jewish Identities in Antquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Lee I. Levine and Daniel R. Schwartz (TSAJ 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 237–65.  81 In Mek. Vayassa’ 6:81–85, the eschatological Elijah will restore “the bottle of manna, the bottle of sprinkling water, and the bottle of anointing oil. And some say: Also the rod of Aaron with its ripe almonds and blossoms.” This says nothing about where Elijah will find them, but some form of our story is likely in the background. It is also possible that the reference to “hidden manna” in Rev 2:17 has to do with the restoration of jar of manna in the temple; cf. Exod 16:32–34; Heb 9:4.  82 “The veil … and the holy ephod and the mercy seat and the two tablets and the holy garments of the priests and the altar of incense the forty-eight precious stones with which the priests were adorned and all the vessels of the holy temple.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

151

sacred ornaments, and not to provoke the Romans to pillage the treasures of the house of God.” Later in his narrative, Josephus recounts that a priest and treasurer of the temple handed over sacred objects to the Romans (Bell. 6.389). It is well known that the Arch of Titus in Rome, which commemorates the victory of 70, depicts as prizes the temple menorah, two trumpets, the table of shew-bread, and incense cups. 2 Chr 36:18–19 relates that the king of the Chaldeans took “all the vessels of the house of God, large and small, the treasures of the house of the Lord” to Babylon. Other texts, biblical and extra-biblical, are of similar import.83 Yet the list of items seized according to 2 Kgs 25:13–1784 and the very similar catalogue in Jer 52:17–2385 fail to mention the stone tablets of the law, the ark, or the tent.86 The conspicuous omission was opportunity for the haggadic imagination to posit that these and perhaps other items were divinely rescued. Jeremiah’s formulation is redundant because, in effect, he asks the same question twice: τί ποιήσωμεν … τί θέλεις αὐτὰ ποιήσωμεν;87 The LXX always uses the dative after τί ποιήσωμεν for the sense, “What should we do with?,”88 and this is the construction two verses later, in v. 9. Yet the accusative here is not unusual.89

 83 E.   g.

2 Kgs 24:13; Ezra 1:7–11; 5:14; 1 Esdr 1:54; Jer 28:3, 6; Dan 1:2; 5:2–3; Bar 1:8–9; 4Q385a frag. 18; T. Mos. 3:1–2 (“the king from the east” will carry off all the holy vessels); Josephus, Ant. 10.145; 4 Ezra 10:22 (“the ark of our covenant has been plundered, our holy things have been polluted”); Justin, Dial. 52.3. The rabbis debated whether the ark and other items were carried off or not; see above, n. 15.  84 “The pillars of bronze,” “the stands and the bronze sea,” “the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the dishes for incense and all the vessels of bronze used in the temple service, the firepans also, and the bowls,” as well as various items made of gold and silver.  85 “The pillars of bronze,” “the stands and the bronze sea,” “the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the dishes for incense, and all the vessels of bronze used in the temple service; also the small bowls, and the firepans, and the basins, and the pots, and the lampstands, and the dishes for incense, and the bowls for libation,” and various items made of gold and silver.  86 Jer 27:19 recounts that, after the initial removal of items from Jerusalem, “the pillars, the sea, the stands” and additional “vessels” were still left.  87 With the formulation cf. Gk LAE 29:2: τί θέλεις ποιήσωμέν σοι;  88 E.  g. Judg 21:7, 16; 2 Chr 20:12; Cant 8:8.  89 Cf. Matt 27:22; Prot. Jas. 8:2; Herm. Sim. 1:4. See further BDF § 157.1.

152

Commentary

In Jer 27:16–18, the prophet sets himself against a false prophecy, that “the vessels (LXX: σκεύη) of the Lord’s house will soon be brought back from Babylon.” He instead predicts that the remaining vessels (LXX: σκεύη) will be carried away and brought back only much later (28:1–6; cf. Ezra 1:7; 5:13–16). The end of the book confirms his word: 52:17–23 lists all that was taken from the temple when it was burned (cf. 2 Kgs 25:13– 17). The legend in 4 Baruch, which has God, through Jeremiah, saving the most sacred temple instruments, is at odds with the canonical account. As we have seen, however, a fanciful exegesis of Jer 27:19–22 could lie behind our legend; see above, p. 138. 3:8. God responds by instructing Jeremiah to entrust the vessels to the earth: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος· Ἆρον αὐτὰ, καὶ παράδος αὐτὰ τῇ γῇ καὶ θυσιαστηρίῳ.90 In 2 Baruch 6, an angel does this. But Jeremiah is also the agent in other versions of our legend.91 4 Baruch further differs from 2 Baruch in that it specifies the location as that of the altar in the temple. Is this our author’s contribution to the legend or a specification of what was already implicit in it? Although one might, on the basis of the Greek alone, think of an earthen altar (cf. Exod 20:24; LXX: θυσιαστήριον ἐκ γῆς), our text rather has in mind the large altar of incense that stood in the courtyard in front of the Jerusalem temple.92 The earth next to it or under it will hide the vessels.93 Contrast Liv. Proph. Jer 12, 16–17, where Jeremiah hides the ark and the things in it in a rock in the wilderness, between the two mountains where Moses and Aaron lie buried, and 2 Macc 1:4–9, where Jeremiah puts the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense in a cave-dwelling on Mount Nebo. Later, in 9:7, Jeremiah will stand in the same spot, at the altar. This helps tie the beginning and the end together

 90

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος: so too LXX Job 1:8; see further on 2:9; αἴρω: 12x; παραδίδωμι: 11x; cf. 3:14; γῆ: 8x, 4x in ch. 3: vv. 8 bis, 14 bis; 5:32; 6:20; 7:29; 9:14; θυσιαστήριον: 2x: 3:8; 9:7.

 91 Eupolemus

apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.5; 2 Macc 1:4–9; Liv. Proph. Jer. 12, 16–17.  92 2 Kgs 16:10–16; Ezra 3:2–3; Ezek 43; Ecclus 50:11–15; 1 Mac 4:47; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.198; Bell. 5.225.  93 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 172 suggests hendiadys: τῇ γῇ καὶ θυσιαστηρίῳ = “to the land on which the altar is raised.” Vessels or treasures from the temple are also hid in the earth in Massekhet Kelim. The idea is implicit in LAB 26:12–15. In b. Sotah ˙ 9a, the tent of meeting is stored “beneath the crypts of the temple.” In Jer. Apocr. 28:10–11, the garment of the High Priest lies inside the corner stone of the temple.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

153

God tells Jeremiah to address the earth as though it were animate: ἄκουε, γῆ;94 cf. Deut 32:1 (“Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear [LXX: ἀκουέτω γῆ] the words of my mouth”); Isa 1:2 (“Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth”); 34:1 (“Let the earth listen [ἀκουσάτω ἡ γῆ]”); Mic 1:2 (“hearken, O earth”); 2 Bar. 6:8 (the angel who hides the temple vessels addresses the earth with “Earth, earth, earth”; cf. Jer 22:29);95 4 Ezra 7:54 (“ask the earth and she will tell you”). Despite the several parallels, the direct inspiration for our text is almost certainly Jer 6:19: “Hear, O earth (ἄκουε, γῆ); behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices.” Not only is this line on the lips of Jeremiah, but it concerns the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, it is followed immediately by lines about the sanctuary (6:20), and it is the only place that the LXX has ἄκουε, γῆ. The imperative, ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς, is a Septuagintalism (= ‫)שמע בקול‬.96 The idiom occurs not only in the main body of the text (3:8; 6:10, 22) but also in 9:12, which is part of the Christian ending.97 The voice is that of God, here theatrically described as τοῦ κτίσαντός σε ἐν τῇ περιουσίᾳ τῶν ὑδάτων.98 The purpose of the grandiose characterization is to establish God’s right to command the earth. For a participial form of κτίζω as a substantive denoting God as “the one creating” see LXX 1 Esdr 6:12 (τοῦ κτίσαντος τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γήν); Eccles 12:1 (τοῦ κτίσαντός σε); Jos. Asen. 12:1; Matt 19:4. The scriptural background is Gen 1:2–10, where God gathers together the waters under the dome and causes the dry land to appear, land which the LXX calls γῆ.99 Cf. the formulation in Basil, Hex. 3.5: τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος περιουσίας κατὰ τὴν κτίσιν (the context is exegesis of Gen 1:6).

 94  95

Ἀκούω: 20x; γῆ: see n. 90.

According to Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 310, 4 Baruch’s words are, like 2 Bar. 6:8, a “citation” of Jer 22:29. Cf. Schaller, “Greek Version,” 78. According to Kaestli, “Influence,” 222, the author of 4 Baruch, in rewriting 2 Bar. 6:8, failed to perceive the echo of Jer 22:29.  96 Cf. Gen 21:12; 1 Βασ 8:7, 9, 22; 15:1 (ἄκουε τῆς φωνῆς Κυρίου). Φωνή: 14x; of God’s voice in 3:8; 6:22; 7:28.  97 Cf. also 7:28: εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς.  98 Κτίζω: 1x; περιουσία: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 81x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 21x; it occurs in Aquila Gen 14:21; Ps 16:14; Schaller, Paralipomena, 717, appealing to Lampe, s.  v., suggests the meaning here may be “power”; ὕδωρ: see on 2:5.  99 Cf. Ps 24:1–2; 104:5–9; 136:6; 6 Ezra 16:58; Herm. Vis. 1:3:4.

154

Commentary

The next phrase is more difficult: ὁ σφραγίσας σε ἐν ἑπτὰ σφραγῖσιν ἐν ἑπτὰ καιροῖς.100 With the formulation cf. 3 Βασ 20:8 (ἐσφραγίσατο τῇ σφραγῖδα); 4Q550 5 (a scroll sealed with seven seals of the ring of Darius: ‫ ;)חתימה חתמין שבעה‬Rev 5:1 (κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά); Gos. Pet. 8 (seven wax seals—ἑπτὰ σφραγῖδας—on the entrance to the tomb of Jesus; cf. Matt 27:66); Acts Phil. 134 (ἐσφραγισμέναι τῇ σφραγῖδι); Ap. John 2:31:19–20 (aeisvragize … xN +e Nsvragis); 5 Baruch (trans. Leslau, p. 74: “a terrible punishment, sealed with seven seals”). Note also Liv. Proph. Jer. 16: after the holy items are hidden in a rock, Jeremiah, with his finger, sets as a seal the name of God. There is no immediate background in Genesis for “the one sealing you with seven seals in seven ages.” Nor is there any obvious or direct connection with Jer 32:9–15, where the prophet gives to Baruch a sealed deed of purchase that is to be put in an earthenware jar so that it may last for a long time. The text rather takes up the idea, inspired by Persian and Hellenistic outlines of history, that, if the world was created in seven days, it will last for a period of seven ages.101 In other words, “the one sealing you with seven seal in seven periods” is a poetical way of saying that, by divine decree, the world, analogous to a week, will endure for and be completed after seven ages. Originally, the text may have encouraged a Naherwartung, for it was “common” for “early Jewish and Christian chronographers to see the first century C.  E. as following in the sixth millennium of the world.”102 The language of sealing with seven seals is likely intended to connote both irrevocability and secrecy; cf. the sealing of apocalyptic revelation 100

Σφραγίζω: 1x; Delling, Lehre, 41, conjectures that the Greek verb is an infelicitous translation of a Semitic word meaning “to make fast”; ἑπτά: 2x; σφραγίς: 2x; καιρός: 4x: 3:8; 5:24, 31; 9:14. On the disagreement between the nominative and the

preceding genitive see BDF § 136.1–2; also below, on 9:13. Schaller, Paralipomena, 717, wonders whether ὁ σφραγίσας κτλ. is parenthetical. 101 See LAB 28:8; T. Abr. RecLng. 19:7; T. Abr. RecShrt. 7:17; Barn. 15:1–8; 2 En. 33:1–2; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.28.3 (cf. 5.30.4); Lactantius, Fabr. mundi 6; Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 4.23–24; Augustine, Civ. 22.30; b. Sanh. 97a–b; Pirqe R. El. 19; John of Damascus, Exp. fid. 2:1. See further D. S. Russell, Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (OTL; London: SCM, 1964), 224–29; Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London/Chicago: Darton, Longman, & Todd/H. Regnery, 1964), 396–404. Other texts feature tenfold and twelvefold divisions of history: 1 Enoch 93:1–10 + 91:11–17; 4 Ezra 14:11–12; 2 Baruch 53; Apoc. Abr. 29:2; etc. 102 Lester Grabbe, “The End of the World in Early Jewish and Christian Calculations,” RevQ 11 (1982), 108. Cf. Invest. Abbat. 8:1: “In the 5,500 year, I will send my beloved Son to the world.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

155

in Dan 12:4, 9, the use of seven seals in Aramaic magical texts,103 and the reference to “the secrets of the times” in 4 Ezra 14:5. For “sealing” in connection with periods of time see Dan 9:24 (“Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet”); 4 Ezra 6:20 (“when the seal is placed upon the age which is about to pass away”).104 At the end of history, the earth will once more receive its beauty: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα λήψῃ τὴν ὡραιότητά σου.105 This might be a play on LXX Gen 2:1: “And the heaven and the earth were finished and all their ὁ κόσμος.” Although one could translate the closing words as “all their arrangement” (so NETS), the first meaning of κόσμος in BDAG, s.  v., is “that which serves to beautify through decoration,”106 so a reader or hearer might understand LXX Gen 2:1 to refer to the beautiful adornments of creation.107 In this case, 4 Bar. 3:8 could be an instance of the well-known theologoumenon that the end will match the beginning: God will restore the beauty of the earth.108 Given, however, that the earth in our passage is immediately around the altar in Jerusalem, it is no less likely that in the background is the notion that Zion, the temple, and the sacred items in the temple are beautiful, for which ὡραιότης and ὡραῖος were sometimes used.109 On this reading, when the vessels of the temple are restored, the

103

For Aramaic incantations with seven seals see Isbell, Incantation Bowls, 40 (# 10:2–3

‫)וחתימיתון בשבעה חתמין‬, 80 (# 28:3: ‫)ומחתם בשבעה חתמין‬, 81 (# 29:3: ‫ומחתם בשבעה‬ ‫)חתמין‬, 82 (# 30:3: ‫)ומחתם בשבעה חתמין‬, 83 (# 31:3: ‫)ומחתם בשבעה חתמין‬.

104 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 63, understands “in seven seals” and “in seven epochs” to be parallel: “the seven seals are the seven epochs.” 105 Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα occurs also in 5:2; 6:13; 7:30; 9:10; λαμβάνω: 7x: 3:8; 4:3, 7; 5:27; 8:2 bis; 9:32; ὡραιότης: 1x. 106 Cf. LXX Exod 33:5; T. Jud. 12:1; Jos. Asen. 2:6; 1 Pet 3:3. 107 Cf. LXX Gen 2:9: “out of the earth God furthermore made to grow every tree that is beautiful (ὡραῖον) to the sight.” 108 Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 718; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 64 (“‘beauty’ in this context serves as a ‘poetic’ description of the perfection that will characterize the new creation”); Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2667. If this is the right reading, it is of interest that the idea of seven ages of the world, which is in the preceding clause, was associated with Gen 2:1–3; cf. Barn. 15:1–8; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.28.3; Augustine, Civ. 22.30. 109 LXX 2 Chr 36:19 (πᾶν σκεῦος ὡραῖον in the temple); Ps 49:2 (of God’s splendor in Zion); 95:6 (of the temple); Aristeas, Ep. 59, 66, 74 (of vessels in the temple); cf. also 2 Macc 1:9; Josephus, Ap. 1.195 (Jerusalem is “most beautiful”); Bell. 2.222 (the exterior of the temple “wanted nothing that could astound either mind or eye”); Luke 21:5 (“adorned with beautiful stones”); Acts 3:2 (“the gate of the temple called the

156

Commentary

beauty of Jerusalem will be restored;110 cf. Isa 60:13: “The glory of Lebanon shall come to you … to beautify the place of my sanctuary.” Jeremiah, after announcing to the earth God’s authority over it and then prophesying the return of beauty at the end of the ages, is to issue this divine imperative (which takes up Jeremiah’s own words in v. 7): φύλαξον τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας ἕως τῆς συνελεύσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου.111 Given that ἔλευσις can refer, in Christian sources, to the first or second coming of Christ,112 who is God’s “beloved” in the NT and elsewhere,113 followers of Jesus would likely have taken our line to refer to his parousia;114 cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:13: ἡ ἐξέλευσιν τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ. It is worth recalling in this connection that the Christian reductor of 4 Baruch knew the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, which so often speaks of Jesus as “beloved.” For a Jewish reader, however, the beloved would be God’s people Israel, as in 4:6 (τοῦ ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ) and numerous other texts;115 cf. 2 Bar. 21:21 (“you

Beautiful Gate”); 3 Bar. Gk. title (“the beautiful gates”). Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 173. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 162, conjectures that, behind 3:10, is a corrupt Hebrew text of Jer 31:23: “the Lord bless you, O beauty of righteousness, O holy hill”; cf. the Vulgate: “pulchritudo justitiae, mons sanctus.” 110 In 2 Bar. 2:23, Baruch prays, “let the greatness of your beauty be known.” Herzer, 4 Baruch, 65, thinks this lies behind 4 Bar. 3:8: “the ‘beauty’ of God from 2 Bar. 21:23 becomes the ‘beauty’ the earth will receive at the end of the seven epochs by way of new creation.” Herzer traces additional elements in 4 Baruch 3 to creative interaction with 2 Bar. 21:21–23. 111 Φυλάσσω: see on 2:5; here the sense is both “guard” and “preserve”; τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας: see on v. 7; συνέλευσις: 1x; LXX: 3x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 1x; ἀγαπάω: 2x: 3:8; 4:7. 112 E.  g. Luke 21:7 v.  l.; 23:42 v.  l.; Acts 7:52; 1 Clem. 17:1; Pol. Phil. 6:3; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.10.1; Acts Thom. 28. 113 Matt 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; 12:6; Luke 3:22; 20:13; Eph 1:6; Col 1:13; 2 Pet 1:17; cf. T. Benj. 11:2; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:5, 7, 13; 3:13, 17–18; 5:15; 8:18, 25; 9:12; Ign. Smyr. inscription; Mart. Polyc. 14:1; Barn. 3:6; Diogn. 8:11; Odes Sol. 8:22; 38:11; Acts Paul Thec. 1; 2 Apoc. Jas. 49:8. 114 This is how Lampe, s.  v., συνέλευσις, 7, understands our text. So too arm 144: “until his coming from heaven.” Cf. Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 266 (4 Baruch’s Jewish source had “the beloved people,” which a Christian turned into “the beloved”); Nir, Destruction, 58. 115 So too Bogaert, Baruch, 1:204; Schaller, Paralipomena, 718 (suggesting that the original may have been τοῦ ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ, as in 4:6, but that λαοῦ dropped out due to homoioteleuton); Herzer, 4 Baruch, 63. Cf. LXX Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26; Ps 67:13; Isa 5:1; 44:2; Jer 12:7; Bar 3:37; Hos 3:1; 11:1; 3 Macc 6:11; 4Q522 2:8; Ps. Sol. 9:16; Rom 9:25; 11:28; Sifre Num. 1:10; Sifre Deut. 97; m. ᾽Abot 3:15; b. Ber. 6a; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 14:2; 26:18; 33:12; etc. According to Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

157

called us a beloved people on account of your name”); Jer. Apocr. 21:16 (“this beloved people”); and the traditional identification of “the beloved” in Canticles with Israel, as in the targum. Some versions of the Menaion actually here have ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ, which stands a good chance of being original.116 The “gathering” then is the eschatological return of scattered Israel to the land.117 The relevant biblical texts—which include notably several oracles in Jeremiah—are numerous.118 The hope, which came to expression in the tenth benediction of the Amidah—“Sound the great horn for our freedom, and lift up a banner to gather in our exiles. You are praised, O Lord, who gathers in the outcasts of his people Israel“—is exceedingly common in post-biblical materials.119 Although συνέλευσις does not appear to be otherwise used in this connection, συν- is all over the relevant texts.120 This eschatological reading of 3:8 is consistent with the tradition behind our text. In 2 Macc 2:7, the things Jeremiah hid will remain unknown “until God gathers his people together again.” In LAB 26:15, sacred relics in the ark will be stored “until I remember the world and visit those inhabiting the earth.” In 2 Bar. 6:8, the command to the earth is to safeguard the holy objects until “the latter times.”121 In Liv. Proph. Jer 15, the ark and 71, since the LXX translates “Jeshrun” (which the targums equate with Israel) as “beloved” in Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26, the Hebrew original behind 4 Bar. 3:8 was: ‫עד‬ ‫האסף ישורון‬. Rießler, “Baruch,” 1323, identifies the beloved with the Messiah. 116 Cf. Piovanelli, as in n. 114, and Schaller, as in n. 115. 117 But Herzer, 4 Baruch, 99; “Story,” 388, thinks rather of the righteous being gathered into the heavenly Jerusalem; cf. 5:34. 118 See Deut 30:1–5; 1 Chr 16:35; Neh 1:8–9; Ps 106:47; 147:2; Isa 11:11–13; 27:12– 13; 43:5–6, 14–21; 49:6; 56:8; 60:3–7; 66:18–24; Jer 23:8; 29:10–14; 31:1, 8, 10; 32:37–41; Ezek 11:17–20; 20:33–44; 28:25; 34:11–16; 36:24; 37:11–28; 39:26–27; Hos 11:11; Zeph 3:20; Zech 8:7; 10:6–12; 2 Macc 1:27; 2:7, 18; Ecclus 36:11; 48:10; Tob 13:5, 13; 14:5; Bar 4:37; 5:5. 119 See Jub. 1:15; Ps. Sol. 8:28; 11:2–3; 17:4, 21, 26–28, 44; 1 En. 57:1; 90:33; 11QTemple 57:5–6; 4QpsEzekb 1 col. 2; 4Q509 3; 4Q504 1–2 6:12–14; Philo, Praem. 164– 65, 168; 4 Ezra 13:32–50; 2 Bar. 78:1–7; Sib. Or. 2:170–73; T. Iss. 6:2–4; T. Dan. 5:8–9; T. Naph. 4:2–5; T. Ash. 7:3; T. Benj. 9:2; 10:11; T. Jos. 19:3–8 (Arm.); Mek. Beshallah 7:156–57; m. Sanh. 10:3; t. Sanh. 13:12; y. Sanh. 29c (10:6); b. Sanh. ˙ 110b; Tg. Neof. Num. 24:7; Tg. Isa. 6:13; 53:8; Tg. Hos. 2:2; Tg. Mic. 5:3; Commodian, Inst. 42 (2.1); Carm. apol. 941–46. 120 LXX Deut 30:3; 105:47; 12:12; Ps. Sol. 8:28; T. Benj. 9:2; etc. 121 On the hypothesis that 4 Baruch depends upon 2 Baruch, Herzer, 4 Baruch, 62–63, observes that, whereas 2 Bar. 6:9 foretells the rebuilding of the temple, 4 Baruch does not, the reason being the latter’s “eschatological orientation toward the heavenly Jerusalem; the earthly has no eschatological salvific significance.” But “the gathering of the beloved” is the return of Israel to the land, not to heaven.

158

Commentary

the things in it will be restored at the resurrection. In Massekhet Kelim 10, the treasures that Baruch and Zedekiah hid will remain stored “until the day that Israel returns to her former state … when all Israel shall be gathered together and they shall make a complete pilgrimage to Jerusalem.” The eschatological interpretation of “the coming of the beloved” is further confirmed by chs. 8–9, where the people return to Jerusalem but nothing is said about the holy objects being uncovered. Their restoration remains eschatological hope.122 Within its immediate context, the use of “beloved” with reference to Israel is a way of saying that, despite the destruction of the temple and the coming exile, God’s people remain the special object of God’s affection. Punishment can only, at some point, give way to return. Perhaps one should entertain the possibility that the immediate inspiration for our text is the enigmatic LXX Ps 67:12–13, read (against the original sense of the MT) as being about the latter day pilgrimage of dispersed Jews to Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple: “The Lord will give a word to those who bring good news (εὐαγγελιζομένοις; cf. 4 Bar. 3:11) to a large host—‘The king of the hosts of the beloved’ (τοῦ ἀγπητοῦ; cf. 4 Bar. 3:8)—and for the beauty (ὡραιότητι; cf. 4 Bar. 3:8) of the house of the Lord to divide the spoil.” Although an eschatological reading of v. 8 seems to be demanded, it is striking that, at the end of the Jeremiah Apocryphon (ch. 41), which shares so much with 4 Baruch, Jeremiah recovers the temple vessels when Israel returns to Jerusalem from Babylon, not at the eschaton. If the author of 4 Baruch knew a story like this, his version represents a deliberate revision. 3:9. Jeremiah responds with a second plea: καὶ ἐλάλησε Ἰερεμίας· Παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε.123 Having learned what to do about the temple vessels, his thought turns toward a particular person: δεῖξόν μοι τὶ ποιήσω Ἀβιμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοπι.124 The question has its haggadic roots in Jer 39:16– 18: “Go and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to fulfill my words against this city for evil and not for good, and they shall be accomplished in your presence on 122 For

Perdue, “Baruch,” 289, implicit in 4 Baruch is the expectation that “the new temple … will soon be built.” Cf. Lee, “Development,” 406–407. 123 Καὶ ἐλάλησε Ἰερεμίας: see on v. 3; παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε: see on 1:4. 124 For the formulation see on v. 7 (τί θέλεις αὐτὰ ποιήσωμεν); cf. Arrian, Epict. diss. 1.28.17 (δεῖξόν μοι τί); 3 Bar. 2:7 (δέομαί σου, δεῖξόν μοι τί εἰσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι;); 4:8 (δέομαί σου, δεῖξόν μοι τί τὸ ξύλον τὸ πλανῆσαν τὸν Ἀδάμ;). Δείκνυμι: see on 1:10.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

159

that day. But I will save you on that day, says the Lord, and you shall not be handed over to those whom you dread. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have trusted in me, says the Lord.” Although “Abimelech” is the name for several biblical characters, Jeremiah is connected with none of them. The individual named Ἀβιμέλεχ (= ‫אבימלך‬, “my father is king”) in our book is, in the LXX, known rather as Ἀβδεμέλεχ (for ‫עבד־מלך‬ = “servant of the king”).125 In canonical Jeremiah, after the prophet is let down by ropes into the cistern or pit of Malchiah, where there is no water but only mud or mire, an Ethiopian eunuch,126 Ebed-melech, a member of the king’s house, gains the ruler’s permission to rescue Jeremiah. He takes three men and they lift Jeremiah out.127 This occurs right before the city is sacked. 4 Bar. 3:9 briefly refers to this episode, on the assumption that readers or hearers know it; cf. the summaries in Eusebius, Proph. frag. PG 22.1269 (“the Jews, plotting against the prophet, threw him into the pit of mire, and Abdemelech the Ethiopian brought him out”); Ps.-Chrysostom, Hom. in Ps 139:1 PG 55.709 (“as Ἀβιμέλεχ the eunuch rescued Jeremiah from the cistern of mire”); Chron. Pasch. ed. Dindorff, p. 232 (“Jeremiah the prophet was thrown into the cistern of mire by Melchias the son of Joachim. But Abdemelech the Ethiopian, a eunuch of Joachim, when he heard of this said to the king, ‘It is for no good that Jeremiah has been thrown into the cistern.’ And being given permission by the king, he took thirty men and they brought him out of the cistern of mire”). Our text is not alone in naming Jeremiah’s rescuer Ἀβιμέλεχ rather than Ἀβδεμέλεχ.128 Notably, he is ab(d)imelek/y in the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon.129

125

See LXX Jer 45:7, 10, 11; 46:16. There are however variants, and 534* (Paris, Coislin 18; 11th-cent.) does have Ἀβιμέλεχ. 407 has Ἀνδραμέλεχ. The name, ‫עבד־מלך‬, “was clearly not his original name since it is Hebrew. It appears likely that it was bestowed upon him when he entered or rose to royal recognition in the kingly service. … The personal name is missing.” So Edward R. Dalglish, “Ebed-Melech,” ABD 2 (1992), 259. 126 Like the LXX, 4 Baruch omits the notice that this man was a eunuch. 127 Jer 38:1–13. The story is also told in Josephus, Ant. 10.120–23; Jer. Apocr. 5–6; 12; Pesiq. Rab. 26:5. 128 See LXX ms. 534 Jer 45:7; 46:4; Gk. 3 Bar. title; Chrysostom, Fr. in Jer PG 64.809; Ps.-Chrysostom, Hom. in Ps 139:1 PG 55.709; Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 6 ed. Geyer, p. 140; Διήγησις περὶ τοῦ Προφήτου καὶ Σοφωτάτου τοῦ Βασιλεὺς Σολομῶντος 11 ed. McCown, p. 118. 129 For the various forms in this text see Kuhn, “Apocryphon,” 347.

160

Commentary

Ἀβιμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοπι appears to be a revision of LXX 45:7: Ἀβδεμέλεχ τῷ Αἰθίοψ. In our book, no stress is laid upon his ethnicity,130 although his Gentile status might have helped a Christians audience to appreciate the book more. Some rabbinic texts identify him with Baruch,131 and a few have wondered whether, in some earlier version of our legend, the two were one and the same.132

130 But

according to Nir, Destruction, 209 n. 21, for whom 4 Baruch is Christian, Abimelech is “intended to be reminiscent of the Ethiopian eunuch” of Acts 8. 131 E.   g. Sifre Num. 99; Pirqe Rab. El. 53. Note also that the Theodore Psalter (see p. 331 n. 70) seems to name Baruch, not Abimelech, as the man who slept during the exile—although the Greek is not wholly legible; see Crostini, “Psalter,” 8–9. By contrast, b. Mo’ed Qat . 16b; Tg. Jer. 38:7; 39:16; and Midr. Ps. 7:18 give Ebed-me˙ lech the name Zedekiah. Josephus, Ant. 10.122, introduces him as an unnamed servant of the king. 132 Cf. Kulik, 3 Baruch, 99, who makes these observations: “(1) until the beginning of the third chapter, Baruch is the only companion of Jeremiah; (2) in 3:12 the prophet asks God, how he can spare Abimelech the Ethiopian (who does not appear in the narrative before) from the sight of Jerusalem’s destruction; (3) in 3:18 Baruch again is mentioned as the only one who accompanies the prophet, while in 3:21–22 Jeremiah gives orders to Abimelech; (4) in 7:25–27 Baruch (and not Abimelech as in 3:12) is spared from having to see the destruction.” These arguments are intriguing, not decisive. (1) It should not surprise that our book fails to introduce Abimelech before ch. 3. In canonical Jeremiah, he is a minor figure and less important than Baruch. (2) 4 Baruch often assumes that readers bring to its tale a knowledge of the Bible. Jeremiah e.  g. appears in 1:1 without introduction, as does Baruch in 1:9. (3) The force of Kulik’s third point is unclear. (4) In 7:25–27, Baruch is not spared sight of Jerusalem’s destruction but rather of Israel in exile. Beyond all this, whereas the tale of Abimelech sleeping through the exile plausibly derives from an imaginative reading of Jer 39:15–18, a passage that concerns Abimelech (see p. 219), it is not clear what would be the scriptural inspiration for imagining that Baruch slept through the exile. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 417, forwards a related thesis: “it is possible that the subservient character in chapter 2 was originally not Baruch at all but Abimelech, since he, and not Baruch, is in the habit of calling Jeremiah ‘father’ (5:5, 22), since 2:5 suggests that the unidentified character does menial labor (‘let us not draw water for the troughs’), and since the motif of Abimelech’s being spared the sight of Jerusalem’s destruction, which is mentioned twice (3:13; 5:28), is later transferred to Baruch (7:25–27).” But (1) in 7:23–24, as just indicated, Baruch is spared only the exile, not the disaster in Jerusalem; (2) one can hardly infer anything about a character’s vocation from the poetic 2:5, or insist that a scribe never drew water; and (3) there is no reason for more than one character not to address Jeremiah with the same honorific, “father.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

161

Jeremiah justifies his special concern for Abimelech by first referring to his good deeds in general: πολλὰς εὐεργεσίας ἐποίησε τῷ λαῷ;133 cf. Jer. Apocr. 22:1 (“God remembered Ebedmelech because of all the good deeds he had done for Jeremiah”); Pesiq. Rab. 26:5 (“Zedekiah Ebed-Melech stood out because of his good deeds” [‫)]מעשיו הטובים‬.134 While canonical Jeremiah says nothing about Abimelech’s good deeds on behalf of the people of Jerusalem, 39:18 speaks of his trust in God, so the inference was natural. Here εὐεργεσία has comprehensive sense; it is akin to φιλανθρωπία and the rabbinic ‫גמילות חסדים‬ = social acts of benevolence.135 Beyond serving the people, Abimelech also helped Jeremiah in particular when he pulled the prophet out of a pit: πολλὰς εὐεργεσίας ἐποίησε … τῷ δούλῳ σου Ἰερεμίᾳ. Ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀνέσπασέ με ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου τοῦ βορβόρου.136 This stands under the influence of the LXX:137 αὐτὸς ἀνέσπασέ με          ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου   τοῦ βορβόρου   ἀνάγαγε  αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου   ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ λάκκου ἐν τῷ λάκκῳ οὐκ ἦν ὕδωρ ἀλλ’ ἢ                                       βόρβορος138

4 Bar. 3:9 LXX Jer 45:10 LXX Jer 45:13 LXX Jer 45:6

It is striking, however, that Josephus, Ant. 10.123, also uses ἀνασπάω when retelling the same story: ἀνέσπασεν ἐκ τοῦ βορβόρου τὸν προφήτην. If not a coincidence, perhaps Josephus and 4 Baruch attest to a Greek text of Jeremiah with ἀνασπάω.139 Whether or not that is so, the canonical Πολύς: 2x: 3:9; 9:31; εὐεργεσία: 1x; LXX: 6x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 3x; Philo: 52x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 21x; λαός: see on 1:5. For ποιέω with εὐεργεσία as object see T. Job 44:2; Eusebius, Comm. Ps. PG 23.197; Schoia to Aelius Aristides Pan ed. Jebb, p. 172. 134 “Ebed-Melech” is also named Zedekiah in Tg. Jer. 38:12; b. Mo‘ed Qat. 16b. 135 See further G. Schneider, “εὐεργετέω κτλ.,” EDNT 2 (1991), 76–77; Spicq, “εὐεργεσία κτλ.,” TLNT 2 (1994), 107–113. 136 Τῷ δούλῳ σου Ἰερεμίᾳ: see on 1:4; ἀνασπάω: 1x; LXX: Amos 9:2; Hab 1:15; Dan 6:17; cf. Theod. Bel 42; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 10x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 9x; λάκκος: 1x; βόρβορος: 1x; LXX: 1x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 2x; cf. T. Benj. 8:3; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x. 137 Cf. Schaller, “Greek Version,” 79: “Λάκκος βορβόρου indicates an unambiguous linguistic relationship to the LXX: βόρβορος as a translation of ‫ טיט‬is specific to Jer. 45.6 LXX (LXX otherise πηλός).” 138 Βόρβορος occurs only here in the LXX. 139 So too Schaller, “Greek Version,” 79 (“there could be another variant of Jer. LXX 45.6”). Cf. also Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exp. Ps. ad 34:15: τῷ λάκκῳ μὲν ἐνέβαλον τοῦ βορβόρου … ἀνεσπάσθην διὰ τοῦ εὐνούχου. 133

162

Commentary

story assumes that Jeremiah was unable to climb out of the cistern, either because of its shape or because the walls were slippery.140 The prophet escaped only with the help of ropes. Jeremiah wishes that Abimelech, because of his service, might be spared sight of coming disaster: καὶ οὐ θέλω αὐτὸν ἵνα ἴδῃ τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν.141 The choice of ἀφανισμός probably reflects knowledge of the LXX. For although the word was commonly used of the destruction of cities,142 it is characteristic of LXX Jeremiah (18x), where it more than once appears in close connection with πόλις (9:10; 10:22; 19:8). The same holds for ἐρήμωσις, which occurs memorably in LXX Jeremiah 6x in the phrase, εἰς ἐρήμωσιν (= ‫)לחרבה‬. Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 13:8, 12 and Eccles. Rab. 1:1:2, interestingly enough, relate Jeremiah’s name to the Greek ἔρημος, observing that, in his days, the temple became a desolation. The noun was well-known from Daniel’s prophecy of “the abomination of desolation,”143 which early Christians, however they precisely understood it, associated with the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Instead of beholding destruction and desolation, the prophet wants Abimelech not to be grieved: ἀλλ’ ἵνα μὴ λυπηθῇ144 He wants to spare his friend what he and Baruch have already, in anticipation, suffered (2:1–10) and what they will suffer (4:5–6). Jeremiah’s hope will be fulfilled when Abimelech sleeps through the exile; cf. 5:30: “God did not want to show you the desolation of the city.” What Jeremiah wills, as it will turn out,

140 But

in Josephus, Ant. 20.122—if the emendation of Marcus for the Loeb edition is correct—Jeremiah is stuck because the mud is up to his neck. Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:5: “at first the water sank to the bottom, and then the mud came up to the top so that Jeremiah stood stuck in the mud.” 141 Θέλω: see on 3:7; εἶδον: see on 2:2; ἀφανισμός: 2x; 3:9; 4:9 (τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως); cf. the use of ἀφανίζω in 1:6, 10; πόλις: see on 1:1; ἐρήμωσις: 2x: 3:9; 5:30 (τὴν ἐρήμωσιν τῆς πόλεως); cf. LXX Dan 9:18 (ἰδὲ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς πόλεώς σου); 11:24 (ἐρημώσει πόλιν); T. Dan 5:13 (οὐκέτι ὑπομένει Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐρήμωσιν); Eusebius, Ecl. proph. ed. Gaisford, p. 95 (περὶ … τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀφανισμοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐρημώσεως τῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ); and the summary of 4 Baruch in Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r: παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως Χαλδαίων εἰς ἐρήμωσιν. 142 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.67.5; Strabo, Geogr. 10.4.15; 13.1.41; Jdt 4:12; Ps.-Justin, Quaest et resp. ed. Morel, p. 477A; etc. 143 Βδέλγυμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων: Dan 9:27; 11:31; cf. 1 Macc 1:54; 9:27. 144 Λυπέω: 6x: 3:9; 4:10; 5:15; 6:17; 7:26; 9:22. The short recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 311) inappropriately adds, in explanation: “because he is faint-hearted” (μικρόψυχος).

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

163

is what God wills. Nonetheless, even Abimelech will not escape all grief; see 5:15. With the formula here used of Abimelech—οὐ θέλω αὐτὸν ἵνα ἴδῃ … ἵνα μὴ λυπηθῇ—cf. the formulas used of Baruch in 7:23 (ὅπως μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν) and 24 (ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν). Although Abimelech alone sleeps through the exile, he is otherwise much like Baruch. Both are righteous (3:9; 5:30; 7:23). Both help Jeremiah (3:9, 14; 8:5). Both stay behind in the land during the time of exile (5:1; 6:1). Both receive angelic aid (6:1, 11). Both stand with Jeremiah and prevent those married to Babylonians from entering Jerusalem (8:5). Both receive esoteric revelation from Jeremiah (9:28). And both bury the prophet (9:32). Part or all of vv. 9–12 might be viewed as an interruption, and maybe even as in part secondary.145 In vv. 7–8, God tells Jeremiah what to do with the vessels in the temple, and in v. 15, the prophet acts as instructed. Verses 9–14 concern other matters. Nonetheless, and whatever source-critical hypothesis one adopts, the whole section, as it stands, unfolds in a clear, logical fashion: Question 1 and answer 1 6–7 Jeremiah asks about the vessels in the temple 8    God tells him what to do with them Question 2 and answer 2 9 Jeremiah asks about Abimelech 10    God tells him what to do with him Additional divine direction 11 What Jeremiah is to do 12   What Baruch is to do Ensuing events 13 God departs 14    Jeremiah hides the temple vessels, as directed 15–16      Jeremiah sends Abimelech away, as directed

3:10. God responds—καὶ εἶπε Κύριος τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ, as in 1:7—to Jeremiah’s concern for Abimelech with an imperative: ἀπόστειλον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ τοῦ ὄρους.146 This must mean “by 145 146

See the discussion of Bogaert’s hypothesis above, pp. 141–42.

Ἀποστέλλω: 14x; with εἰς again in 5:25; 6:16; with Jeremiah as subject and Abimelech as object in 3:10, 15; 5:5, 25; ἀμπελών: 1x; Ἀγρίππα: 3x: 3:10, 15; 5:25; ὄρος: 4x: 3:10, 15; 5:9; 9:18; in 9:18, the noun refers to the Mount of Olives. Her-

zer, 4 Baruch, 60 n. 4, asks why Abimelech is to be sent to a vineyard to collect figs (cf. p. 72). His answer is that fig trees were normally planted in vineyards; cf. Luke

164

Commentary

way of the mountain road.”147 Jeremiah will fulfill the imperative in v. 15: ἀπέστειλεν Ἰερεμίας τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ (cf. 5:25). The commentators take the mention of Agrippa to refer either the grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I (b. 11 BCE), who reigned as king from 37–44 CE (including Judea from 41 on),148 or his son, Agrippa II, the last of the Herodian line to rule over Judea (ca. 53–ca. 100).149 This obviously does not fit an exilic setting.150 If indeed Agrippa is here an anachronism, the name entails that our book, in its present form at least, cannot have been written before the middle of the first century, an inference confirmed on other grounds. In addition, it is also not likely to have been written too long thereafter given that the toponym seems otherwise unattested. The name, if it denotes a real place,151 must not have endured long. Most have assumed, perhaps rightly, that, although the location of Agrippa’s vineyard is not known, 3:10 likely reflects a knowledge of Judea. Such a place is mentioned in ancient literature only here and seemingly in the Jeremiah Apocryphon (see below), at least by this name. In v. 15 and 5:25, however, it is known as Agrippa’s “estate,” his χωρίον, and this last is also found in the title to 3 Baruch, perhaps in dependence upon our book. Harris envisaged the fertile valley below Solomon’s pools.152 Her-

13:6–9 and Jer. Apocr. 39:8 (“I [Ebedmelech] was about to go into the garden of Agrippa for fruit”). Note also Apoc. Pet. 2 eth. For Nir, Destruction, 211, the vineyard in 4 Baruch “alludes to paradise.” 147 Cf. 3:15 (διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὄρους); 5:9 (διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὄρους); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 9.26.5 (διὰ τοῦ ὄρους ὁδόν); Strabo, Geogr. 14.3.9 (ἡ … διὰ τοῦ ὄρους ὑπέρβασις). 148 On him see Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I (TSAJ 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990); Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 271–304, 378–80; Wilker, Rom und Jerusalem. 149 Siegert, Einleitung, 612–13, thinks of the latter. On Agrippa II see Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 317–41, 396–99; Wilker, Rom und Jerusalem. Agrippa was pro-Roman (cf. Josephus, Vita 407–408), but this fact plays no role in 4 Baruch’s references to Agrippa’s vineyard. 150 Cf. the closely-related anachronism in Jer. Apocr. 12:5, where Ebedmelech is a servant of king Agrippa. 151 Riaud, “Abimélech,” 174, n. 9, expresses doubt. So too Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 415. 152 Harris, Baruch, 12, wrote: “I know no more likely place for a royal garden in the vicinity of Jerusalem. And the curious thing is that there are decidedly two roads from Jerusalem to Artas; one the high-road to Bethlehem and Hebron, with a short divergence to the left at Solomon’s pools; and the other the track round the hills which follows the line of Solomon’s aqueduct from the pools to the city. It certainly looks as if the geography were real geography.”

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

165

zer thinks this place too far from Jerusalem153—it is approximately 11 km away—although it is not clear to this writer why that is a decisive objection. Less plausible is the proposal of Kohler, that our text has in view the beautiful open courts and parks of Agrippa, which Josephus writes about in Bell. 5.180–81.154 Yet it is hard to see how this area can have anything to with our book, which more than leaves the impression that Agrippa’s vineyard is not in or near Jerusalem. Herzer raises the same objection to yet another possibility, that a section immediately north of Jerusalem, which Herod Agrippa I enclosed, and which was known as “the king’s valley,” is where Abimelech goes.155 Herzer’s solution derives from a notice of the sixth-century travel book of Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 6 ed. Geyer, p. 140: “From the Mount of Olives to the village of Hermippo (uico Hermippo), where Abimelech slept under the fig tree for forty-six years, it is one mile. Abimelech was the disciple of the holy Jeremiah. There was also Baruch the prophet.” According to Herzer, not only is Theodosius’ Latin Hermippo a corruption of the name “Agrippa,”156 but Dalman was right to identity the place with Khirbet Ibqe̔dan (= biblical Bahurim157), which is northeast of Jerusalem on an old road to Jericho.158 This in turn implies that διὰ τοῦ ὄρους refers to a road that passes by or over or around the Mount of Olives (whence the definite article). The upshot would be that Abimelech is to go to a place north and east of the Mount of Olives, and his escape route might be close to that of King Zedekiah and his company, as reported in Jer 52:7 = 2 Kgs 25:4: “they fled and went out from the city by night by the way of a gate

153 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 68. See Kohler, “Haggada,” 409. 155 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 68. See 2 Sam 18:18; Josephus, Ant. 7.243. 156 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 69, citing in agreement F.-M. Abel, “Deir Senneh ou le domaine d’Agrippa,” RB 44 (1935), 61–68, and Bogaert, Baruch, 1:329. Herzer further notes the suggestion of Herbert Donner, Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land: Die ältesten Berichte christlicher Palästinapilger (4.–7. Jahrhundert) (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 196, n. 44, that Hermippo is a corruption of τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα. One might equally conjecture that ‫( כרם‬which translates both ἄμπελος and χωρίον in the LXX) + a Semitic form of Agrippa lies behind Theodosius. 157 As in 2 Sam 3:16; 16:5; 17:18; 19:16. 158 Gusaf Dalman, Jerusalem und sein Gelände. Mit einer Einführung von Karl Heinrich Rengstorf und mit Nachträgen auf Grund des Handexemplars des Verfassers von Peter Freimark (Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms, 1972), 38–39. 154

166

Commentary

between the two walls, by the king’s garden, while the Chaldeans were round about the city. And they went in the direction of the Arabah.”159 This may all be correct. Yet given that our book, which is so often laconic, is closely related to the Jeremiah Apocryphon,160 and given that Jer. Apocr. 22:3 and 39:8 refer, in a parallel to our episode, to the ­kwmarion = “garden” of Agrippa, one should at least note that, in Jer. Apocr. 6:2, Ebedmelech is identified with “Agrippa the king of Zebulun,” and that in 12:5 he is called the servant of “king Agrippa,” a “ruler of Israel.”161 There is clearly confusion and textual corruption here. In view, however, of the remarkable anachronism of a first-century king showing up in a tale about the exile, one wonders whether, originally, “Agrippa” was just to hand as the fictional name of a king, so that “the vineyard of Agrippa” was likewise fictional and had nothing to do with a real garden of a first-century king. God’s promise is that he will protect or shelter Abimelech: καὶ ἐγὼ σκεπάσω αὐτόν.162 This is a brief resume of Jer 39:17–18: “‘I will deliver you on that day,’ says the Lord, ‘and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you.’” The verb, σκεπάζω, occurs frequently in the LXX (although never in Jeremiah), most often for ‫סתר‬ = “hide” or “hide safely.” As here, it can be used of divine protection.163 As the story unfolds, Abimelech’s preservation, which parallels the safeguarding of the vessels in the temple, will be matched by the miraculous preservation of a basket of figs (5:23–6:2) and become a prophetic sign of the resurrection of the dead (6:2–7). God’s preservation of Abimelech will cover the period between the destruction of Jerusalem and the return, at God’s instigation, of the people to Jerusalem: ἕως οὗ ἐπιστρέψω τὸν λαὸν εἰς τὴν πόλιν.164 Ἐπιστρέφω 159

See further Herzer, 4 Baruch, 69–70, who suggests that Abimelech moves in the same direction as God when the divinity leaves Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8–11. 160 See the Introduction, pp. 47–53. 161 That Ebedmelech was the servant of a king derives from his Hebrew name: ‫עבד־מלך‬ = “servant of the king.” Here is a place where the Apocryphon shows knowledge of Jewish tradition independent of 4 Baruch. 162 Σκεπάζω: 2x: 3:10; 6:2. 163 See Lee, Septuagint, 76–77, and further on 6:2; cf. LXX Exod 12:13; 33:22; Deut 32:11; Isa 51:16; Zeph 2:3; Ps 16:8; 60:5; 90:14; Wisd 19:8; Ecclus 14:27; also Ps. Sol. 13:1; T. Levi 2:3 v.  l. (Mount Athos Koutloumous cod. 39: σκέπη σου τῆς δυναστείας σκεπασάτω με); T. Benj. 3:4; Sib. Or. 3:705; 1 Clem. 60:3. 164 With the formulation cf. LXX Isa 45:13 (Cyrus will build τὴν πόλιν μου καὶ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἐπιστρέψει); Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 4.28.2 (ἐπιστρέψαι τὸν λαὸν ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας εἰς τὴν Ἰερουσαλὴμ πόλιν). Ἕως οὗ: 6x: 3:10, 11, 12; 7:13; 9:3, 23; λαός: see on 1:5; πόλις: see on 1:1; εἰς τὴν πόλιν:

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

167

is used in LXX Jeremiah of the return from the Babylonian exile,165 and in 4 Baruch the return from exile takes place shortly after Abimelech is awakened. 3:11. Although Jeremiah has asked nothing regarding himself, God appends instructions on what he is to do after he has hidden the sacred vessels and spoken with Abimelech. He is to accompany the people—ἄπελθε μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ σου εἰς Βαβυλῶνα166—and, while in exile, console them with good news: μεῖνον μετ’ αὐτῶν εὐαγγελιζόμενος αὐτοῖς.167 This imperative—with its partial parallel in Jer. Apocr. 27:16: “Go before this people (laos) and accompany them into captivity“—is consistent with canonical Jeremiah, which is not unrelieved pessimism but contains oracles of promise and consolation, as in chs. 30–31. Especially relevant is the letter to the exiles in ch. 29, which speaks of “a future with hope” (v. 11) and of fortunes being restored (v. 14); cf. also 2 Bar. 10:2 (“Tell Jeremiah to go to Babylon and support the captive people”); 33:2 (“while I [Jeremiah] help the rest of our brothers in Babylon”); 77:12 (“a letter of doctrine and a scroll of hope”); Eusebius, Proph. frag. PG 22.1269 (Baruch comforted those in Babylon, εὐαγγελλόμενος αὐτοὺς τὴν παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐλπίδα). It is impossible to decide with conviction whether εὐαγγελίζομαι is from a Christian scribe or not. On the one hand, the verb is certainly Christian in 9:18 and—although this is disputed—almost certainly Christian in 5:21, where the construction is εὐαγγελίζομαι + αὐτοῖς, as here. On the other hand, the verb occurs 20x in the LXX (typically for ‫)ברש‬,168 12x in Philo, and 12x in Josephus, as well as in Ps. Sol. 11:1;169 and Ep 12x; ἐπιστρέφω: 4x: 3:10, 11; 4:8; 7:27—all with εἰς; with εἰς τὴν πόλιν in 3:10, 11; 4:8; cf. LXX 2 Βασ 15:27, 34; 3 Βασ 13:29; 4 Βασ 8:3; Luke 2:39. 165 E.  g. Jer 38:16; 39:37; 40:7; 41:22. Note also the use of the verb in LXX Ps 125:1, with reference to Israel’s return from captivity. Interpretation of this psalm lies behind the legend of the sleeping Abimelech; see below, pp. 218–19. 166 Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; ἀπέρχομαι + εἰς Βαβυλῶνα recurs in 5:12; 7:13; in the LXX, it appears most often in canonical Jeremiah (19x); λαός: see on 1:5; μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ: see on 5:21; Βαβυλῶνα: see on 2:7; μένω: see on 2:10. 167 Μένω: see on 2:10; εὐαγγελίζομαι: 3x: 3:11; 5:21; 9:18. 168 In Jeremiah only 1x, in 20:15. Justin, Dial. 72.4, attributes to Jeremiah this saying: “the Lord, the holy God, remembered his dead people, those asleep in the land of dust, and he descended to proclaim (εὐαγγελίσασθαι) to them his salvation.” The source of this is unknown. Irenaeus in one place attributes the same saying to Isaiah (Haer. 3.20.4), in another place again to Jeremiah (Haer. 4.22.1). 169 “Proclaim in Jerusalem the voice of the one who brings good news” (εὐαγγελιζομένου).

168

Commentary

Jer. 1:1 characterizes an epistle Jeremiah sent to Babylon with the words, ἀναγγεῖλαι αὐτοῖς. By itself, εὐαγγελίζομαι is not Christian language, and a Jewish audience could think of Jeremiah preaching to or comforting the exiles with the promise of their eventual return, as in 2 Bar. 77:12.170 Wolff, moreover, observes that, in LXX Isa 40:9 and 52:7, εὐαγγελίζομαι is used with reference to the end of the Babylonian exile.171 The final clause—ἕως οὗ ἐπιστρέψω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν πόλιν—which repeats the vocabulary of v. 10 (q.  v.), implies that Jeremiah will, after years in exile, and as chs. 8–9 recount, return to the land. This would mean, if one took 4 Baruch to be sober history, that the prophet would be well over a hundred years old upon his return. Our book, however, may have been understood from the beginning to be haggadic, religious entertainment, unbound by the factual past.172 The canonical sources leave the ultimate fate of Jeremiah unclear. According to Jeremiah 40–43, the prophet, following Jerusalem’s destruction, resided with others at Mizpah for a time, after which he, along with Baruch, was taken to Egypt, where they settled at Tahpanhes (Jer 43:7). None of this fits our story, which has Jeremiah in Babylon after Jerusalem’s fall, as also in 4Q385a;173 2 Bar. 10:2; 33:2; Jer. Apocr. 30–37; b. ‘Arak. 33a; and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6, although in the latter (and presumably 4Q385a) he is there only briefly.174 Although some later Christians perceived a contradic-

170

Cf. Isa 52:7, and note Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r, summarizing parts of 4 Baruch: Jeremiah εὐηγγελίζετο τὴν ἐπάνοδον. Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 178 n. 2, suggests that the verb here has the sense, “to instruct.” Cf. 7:22 (“act in conformity with all that you have heard in this letter”), 32 (“he continued to teach them to keep their distance from the defilements of the Gentiles of Babylon”); and Herzer, 4 Baruch, 70–71 (declaring the good news “refers to the teaching of the preserving law and to the comforting proclamation of the salvation of return [5:21; 7:32]).” 171 Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 125. He argues from this that here the verb must mean more than “preach”: it connotes consolation. 172 See the Introduction, pp. 10–12. 173 See the reconstruction in Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 159–60. 174 Pesiq. Rab. 26:6: “When Jeremiah reached the river Euphrates, Nebuzaradan spoke, saying to him, ‘If it seems good to you to come with me into Babylon, come’ (Jer 40:4). So Jeremiah thought in his heart: If I go with the exiles to Babylon, there will be no comforter for the captivity left in Jerusalem. Thereupon he started to go forth from among them. When the exiles lifted their eyes and saw that Jeremiah was taking leave of them, all of them broke out weeping with loud lamentation and cried out saying, ‘Our father Jeremiah, in truth, will you abandon us?’ There they sat down and wept, for thus it is written, ‘By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down, yes, we wept’ (Ps 137:1). Jeremiah answered and said: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

169

tion between Scripture and 4 Baruch because the latter has the prophet in Babylon immediately after Jerusalem’s destruction and then dying without ever going to Egypt,175 it is not clear that scripturally-informed Jews would have found Jeremiah’s presence in Babylon to be a problem. Jer 13:1–7 preserves words which have often been (however implausibly) construed as God commanding Jeremiah to go to the Euphrates (MT: ‫ ;פרתה‬LXX: ἐπὶ τὸν Εὐφράτην).176 Some may, in addition, have identified our prophet with the Jeremiah of Neh 10:2; 12:1, 12, 34, which would help explain why b. ̔Arak. 33a, just like 4 Baruch, records the opinion that Jeremiah brought the exiles back to Israel. Jeremiah’s presence in Babylon may also have been inferred from Jer 40:1 (“The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord after Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, had let him go from Ramah, when he took him bound in chains along with all the captives of Jerusalem and Judah who were being exiled to Babylon”), and it was in any case obvious for those who regarded him as the author of Ps 137.177 As for harmonizing the conflicting traditions about Egypt and Babylon, one could imagine that the Jews who were exiled to Egypt were subsequently exiled to Babylon.178 This is exactly what happens in S. ‘Olam Rab. 26. 3:12. As for Baruch, who is to be left in the land—κατάλειψον δὲ τὸν Βαροὺχ ὧδε—God will speak to him: ἕως οὗ λαλήσω αὐτῷ.179 This pre-

that if you had wept even once while you dwelt in Zion, you would not have been driven out.’ Jeremiah, weeping as he walked, said, ‘Alas for you, Zion, most precious of cities.’” After that, the prophet departs. On this see Leo Prijs, Die Jeremia-Homilie Pesikta Rabbati Kapitel 26: Eine synagogale Homilie aus nachtalmudischer Zeit über den Propheten Jeremia und die Zerstörung des Tempels (Studia Delitzschiana 10; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1966), 65–66. S. ‘Olam Rab. 25 contains a related tradition, for although it says Jeremiah and Baruch went to Egypt, it also says that Nebuchadnezzar exiled them to Babylon. Note further Lam. Rab. proem 34, where both Jeremiah and God go in chains to Babylon. 175 4 Bar. 3:11; 4:5; 9:1–32. See Turdeanu, Apocryphes, 326–29. Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174v–75r awkwardly moves immediately from the stoning to “they buried him in Tahpanhes in Egypt.” A reader might infer that Jeremiah was martyred in Egypt. This is in fact the scenario in arm 144, which is here closely related to Codex Patmensis. 176 The pointing of the MT agrees with the interpretation in the LXX. Modern commentators tend rather to think either of a vision or take ‫ פרתה‬to refer to “Parah” = modern Khirbet Farah (cf. Josh 18:23); see Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 668–69. 177 On this see below, p. 366. 178 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.182, and see further Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 177–78. 179 Καταλείπω: 4x: 3:12; 8:2, 4; 9:8; ὧδε: 3x: 3:12; 5:16; 7:5; ὧδε ἕως: 2x: 3:12; 5:16; ἕως οὗ: see on 3:11; λαλέω: see on 1:1.

170

Commentary

sumably anticipates 4:11, where angels “explain everything to him.” In any event, as the narrative unfolds, all Baruch is said to do for decades is mourn and sit by a tomb; see 4:6–11; 6:1. Does the text assume but fail to narrate that God ordered Baruch to separate himself from Jeremiah and remain in the land? Baruch 1:1–2 reports that Baruch was taken to Babylon whereas Jer 43:1–7 has him go, along with Jeremiah, to Egypt. 4 Baruch lines up rather with 2 Bar. 10:1–5, where Baruch stays behind in the land as Jeremiah and the exiles depart. 3:13. Having completed his speech, the Lord leaves Jeremiah and ascends to heaven: ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Κύριος, ἀνέβη ἀπὸ Ἰερεμίου εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.180 Cf. Liv. Proph. Jer. 11: after the holy vessels are hidden away, Jeremiah declares: “The Lord has gone away from Zion to heaven.” For ταῦτα εἰπών + subject + verb signifying departure see on 4:10. The idiom, ἀναβαίνω + εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν/τοὺς οὐρανούς, can be used of angels, saints, or Jesus ascending to heaven;181 here, however, God is the subject, as also in LXX Gen 17:22 (ἀνέβη ὁ Θεὸς ἀπὸ Ἀβραάμ) and 1 Βασ 2:10 (Κύριος ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς). An anthropomorphic form of the deity, a God with a body, seems to be assumed.182 With the exception of 8:1, God, after 3:13, no longer directly speaks. From here on, divine revelation takes place through angels (6:1, 11–14), an eagle (7:2–19), a vision (9:7–28), or in an unspecified manner (5:1, 3). Perhaps Herzer is correct: “what remains is left to human actors who should decide the right actions and beliefs … This observation itself could shed light on the author’s situation: God has withdrawn himself from the people in judgment on Jerusalem but has left behind a tradition that has power to carry and preserve people.”183

180

Ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Κύριος: see on 1:11; ἀναβαίνω: 1x; οὐρανός: see on 3:2; εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν recurs in 6:2; cf. 1:11: ὁ Κύριος ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰερεμίου; also LXX Gen 18:33 (ἀπῆλθεν δὲ Κύριος, ὡς ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν τῷ Ἀβραάμ). For ἀναβαίνω + ἀπό + εἰς see LXX Josh 16:1; 1 Esdr 4:49; 2 Esdr 1:11; Jer 27:44.

181 Angels:

1 En. 14:5; T. Abr. RecLng. 7:4. Saints: Rev 11:12; Apoc. Sedr. 2:2. Jesus: John 3:13; Barn. 15:9; T. Benj. 9:3; Justin, Dial. 36.5; Gos. Nic. 14:1 (καὶ ταῦτα λέγων ἀνέβαινεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν). 182 Siegert, Einleitung, 617–18, wonders whether the anthropomorphic God might be Christ. 183 So Herzer, 4 Baruch, 71.

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

171

3:14. Responding at once to God’s orders, Jeremiah and Baruch—it seems that the latter has been near the former during the conversation just related— leave the city walls (3:1) and go into the sanctuary to hide sacred items: εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον καὶ τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας παρέδωκαν τῇ γῇ.184 This accords with God’s command: καθὼς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Κύριος.185 This last is a Biblicism, the equivalent of ‫כאשר דבר אליהם יהוה‬.186 Their action perfectly mirrors the Lord’s command in v. 8: they do as God has spoken.187 The text seemingly presupposes that Baruch, like Jeremiah, is a priest, as in Sifre Num. 78 and b. Meg. 14b–15a. As soon as Jeremiah and Baruch lay the vessels on the ground, the earth takes them: καὶ αὔθωρον κατέπιεν αὐτὰ ἡ γῆ;188 cf. 2 Bar. 6:10 (“and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them”); Liv. Proph. Jer. 11 (after Jeremiah seized the ark and the things in it, a rock “swallowed” [καταποθῆναι] them); Jer. Apocr. 28:14 (the corner stone opens its mouth to receive the garment of the High Priest). In the background is the experience, during earthquakes, of a crack in the earth opening and then closing. The reader or hearer assumes that Jeremiah, who otherwise is perfectly obedient, has addressed the earth as God commanded in v. 8, even though nothing is said of that here. Several HB/OT and NT texts speak of the earth opening up to swallow things—LXX Exod 15:12 (κατέπιεν αὐτοὺς γῆ—of Pharaoh’s army); Num 16:32 (ἠνοίχθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτούς—of Korah and his household and their goods); 26:10 (ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς κατέπιεν αὐτούς—of Dathan and Abiram); Deut 11:6 (ἀνοίξασα ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς κατέπιεν αὐτούς—of Dathan and Abiram); Ps 105:17 (ἠνοίχθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν—of Dathan and Abiram); Rev 12:16 (ἤνοιξεν ἡ γῆ τὸ στόμα αὐτῆς καὶ κατέπιεν—of the river which the dragon poured from his mouth). Biblically-inspired texts inclue T. Abr. RecLng. 10:9 (χάνῃ ἡ γῆ

Ἐἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ ἁγιαστήριον: see on 2:1; παρέδωκαν τῇ γῇ: see on v. 8; τὰ σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας: see on v. 7. 185 Καθώς: see on 3:1; λαλέω: 14x, 3x in ch. 3; Κύριος: see on 1:4. 186 Cf. LXX Gen 12:4 (καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ Kύριος); 24:51 (καθὰ ἐλάλησεν Kύριος); Exod 7:13 (καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς Kύριος); 8:11 (καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν Kύριος); 8:15 (καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν Kύριος); Num 5:4 (καθὰ ἐλάλησεν Kύριος). 184

187 Baruch

also has a hand in hiding temple vessels in Massekhet Kelim 9–10, where along with Zedekiah he hides David’s musical instruments and many precious metal objects. 188 Αὔθωρος: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; cf. Strabo, Geogr. 3.5.7; Acts John 9:7; the variant αὐθωρί occurs in LXX Dan 3:15; 3 Macc 3:25; καταπίνω: 1x; γῆ: see on 3:8.

172

Commentary

καὶ καταπίῃ αὐτούς … ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατέπιεν αὐτοῦς—of adulterers being punished); Prot. Jas. 9:2 (ἐδιχάσθη ἡ γῆ καὶ κατεπόθησαν—of Dathan, Abiram, and Korah); Acts Phil. Mart. 133 (ἠνεῴχθη ἡ ἄβυσσος καὶ κατεπόθη ὅλος ὁ τόπος—of opponents punished by Philip); and Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2 (the earth will not swallow the blood of slain priests until Nebuchadnezzar rebukes it). The note of suddenness belongs with this motif; cf. Num 16:31 (the earth opened up “as soon as Moses finished speaking”); T. Abr. RecLng. 10:9 (εὐθύς); Acts Phil. Mart. 133 (ἐξαίφνης). In none of these texts, however, does the earth swallow objects for safekeeping.189 After the vessels disappear, Baruch and Jeremiah mourn: ἐκάθισαν δὲ οἱ δύο, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν;190 cf. 4:6, where Baruch alone sits and weeps (ἐκάθισε καὶ ἔκλαυσε); also the incipit to 3 Baruch, where Baruch is “weeping over the captivity of Jerusalem.” Although sitting is a common posture for mourning in Jewish and Christian texts,191 the immediate inspiration is likely the LXX title to Lamentations: “And it happened, after Israel was taken captive and Jerusalem was laid waste, Jeremiah sat weeping” (ἐκάθισεν … κλαίων). These words clearly lie behind 4:6 (q.  v.). 3:15. The text now skips to the morning, without relating intervening events. Presumably Jeremiah and Baruch have wept all night. Πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης (πρώϊος: 2x; cf. 4:1) does not appear in the LXX, Philo, Josephus, or otherwise in the Gk. Pseudepigrapha; nor is it classical. It is, however, attested in Christian literature and often in the later lives of the saints.192 According to Gen. Rab. 62:1 and Eccles. Rab. 5:11:2, it is best to pick figs in the morning because they become “wormy when the sun shines” upon them. Jeremiah sends Abimelech (see on v. 9)—who has evidently been with him and Baruch—away: ἀπέστειλεν Ἰερεμίας τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ, λέγων. Ἀποστέλλω + λέγων has a biblical ring.193 The actions come with a

189

On the various forms of this tradition see above, pp. 131–34. αθίζω: 4x: 3:14; 4:6; 5:1, 26; δύο: 2x: 3:14; 9:3; κλαίω: see on 2:5. 191 See Judg 20:26 (LXX B: ἔκαλυσαν καὶ ἐκάθισαν); 21:2; Ps 137:1 (LXX: ἐκαθίσαμεν καὶ ἐκλαύσαμεν); 1 Esdr 8:71; 2 Esdr 11:4 (ἐκάθισα καὶ ἔκλαυσα); ARN B 7:15 (Rabban Jonathan sat down to mourn when he saw the temple destroyed); Gos. Pet. 27 (ἐκαθεζόμεθα … κλαίοντες); Acts Xanthip. et Polyx. 35 (καθεσθεῖσα … ἔκλαιε). 192 Note e.  g. Matt 27:1; 1 Clem. 43:5; Ps.-Justin, Quaest. et resp. ed. Morel, p. 429; Acts Phil. 40; Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. β 1.7, 13; Vit. Aesopi vit. W 70. 193 Cf. 1 Βασ 20:21; 2 Βασ 14:32; 4 Βασ 5:22; also Matt 10:5; 22:4; Mark 8:26; 12:6; Luke 7:20; 19:29; Acts Thom. 19. Ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10. 190 K

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

173

three-part imperative. First, Abimelech is to take “the” basket: ἆρον τὸν κόφινον.194 Κόφινος (cf. Latin cophinus, Hebrew ‫ )קופה‬is rare in the LXX.195 The usual LXX word for basket is the Attic κανοῦν (always for ‫סל‬, a cane basket). But Juvenal, Sat. 3.14 and 6.542, writes of Jewish travellers with their κόφινοι, and the noun is familiar to readers or hearers of the NT as it occurs in connection with the feeding of the five thousand.196 Second, Abimelech is to go to a specified location by a specified route: καὶ ἄπελθε εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὄρους.197 On Agrippa and his “estate” and the way through the mountain see above on v. 10, which speaks of Agrippa’s “vineyard.”198 Third, Abimelech is to bring back some figs: καὶ ἐνεγκὼν ὀλίγα σῦκα, δίδου τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ.199 The language—which seems to be elliptical: ἐνεγκών = “(gather) and bring (back)”200—is be repeated in 5:25 and 7:32: 3:15 ἐνεγκὼν ὀλίγα σῦκα     δίδου  τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ 5:25 ἐνέγκαι  ὀλίγα σῦκα ἵνα δίδωμι      τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ 7:32 ἄρας         τὰ σῦκα       διέδωκε τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ

In the event, Abimelech does not hand out the figs, or at least the narrative fails to tell us he did. Rather, Baruch will take fifteen figs, send them via an eagle to Jeremiah in Babylon, and the prophet will give them to the ill (7:8, 32).

Αἴρω: 12x; cf. 3:9; 5:7 (ἦρε τὸν κόφινον); κόφινος: 12x, nowhere else in the Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis). Note 3 Bar. 12:1: φέροντες κανίσκια. 195 Only Judg 6.19 (for ‫ )סל‬and Ps 80.7 (for ‫)דוד‬. The container or basket for the ceremony of the first-fruits (Deut 26:1–11), which included figs, is called both κάρταλλος and ἀγγεῖον; cf. Philo, Spec. 2.215–16. 194

196 Matt

14:20; 16:9; Mark 6:43; 8:19; Luke 9:17; John 6:13. For speculation on the symbolism of the basket in Judaism see Goodenough, Symbols, 5:76–84. Some ancient Jewish baskets have survived; for pictures of specimens from around the turn of the era see Yigal Yaden, Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (New York: Random House, 1971), 63–64, 91–93, 147, 155, 206–209. 197 Ἀπέρχομαι + εἰς: see on 3:11; χωρίον: 2x: 3:15; 5:25; ὁδός: 5x: 3:15; 5:9, 10; 7:12, 23; ὅρος: see on 3:10. 198 In 3:10, 15; 5:25, the Armenian mss. consistently have “Agrippa’s village.” 199 Φέρω: 11x, of figs in 3:15; 5:1, 25, 26; the sense seems to be “bring back”; ὀλίγος: 6x: 3:15; 5:1, 2, 4, 25 (again of figs), 26; σῦκον: 17x, 11x in ch. 5, and always in the plural throughout the book; cf. the Heb. ‫ ;תאנים‬δίδωμι: 8x: 3:15; 5:25, 34; 7:12, 14 bis, 32; 9:15; νοσέω: 3x: 3:15; 5:25; 7:32; λαός: see on 1:5. 200 Cf. Jer. Apocr. 22:3 (“to come out to the garden of Agrippa and to gather fruit from those ready to be taken”); 39:8 (“to go into the garden of Agrippa for fruit”).

174

Commentary

“The basket of figs” derives from Jer 24:1–7, even though the LXX there has κάλαθος.201 In that passage, the Lord shows Jeremiah “two baskets of figs placed before the temple of the Lord.” It is unclear whether this is a vision or whether Jeremiah is speaking of what he has seen with his physical eyes and then turning it into a parable. However one judges that issue, the haggadic imagination had no trouble thinking literally and, in our story, the prophet is giving his friend the basket into which he will put the good figs of the vision. This may explain the definite article before “basket.” Because 4 Baruch has not previously mentioned a basket, the τόν cannot be anaphoric. Scripture does, however, mention a basket of figs. The sense then appears to be: Take the basket that I am handing to you, the one for the good figs (of Jer 24:1–7).202 Does our text assume the medicinal value of figs? In 2 Kgs 20:7 = Isa 38:21, Isaiah calls for a lump of figs to place over the boil of Hezekiah, and Pliny the Elder, Nat. 23.63, lists numerous illnesses that figs can cure or temper. Yet the basket of figs in 4 Baruch is not ordinary. God calls Jeremiah’s attention to it in Jer 24:1–7, and in the event its figs will be miraculously preserved for decades and will become a sign of resurrection (6:5–7).203 One gathers that they must have special properties or will be given such—perhaps a bit like the forbidden fruit in Eden, which was sometimes, on the basis of Gen 3:9, identified as the fig.204 It is, then, preferable to think of “magical” figs.205 If so, the exegetical origin may lie in Jer 24:2, where the figs are not ‫ טובת‬but ‫טובת מאד‬, “exceedingly good.” Whether or not Jeremiah already knows what will happen to the figs later in the story, 7:32 makes it clear that they (will) carry extraordinary healing properties.206 201 So

also Wolff, Jeremia, 150; Kaestli, “Influence,” 227; Herzer, 4 Baruch 72. Given that Symmacus uses κόφινος in Jer 24:1, Philonenko, “Traduction de Symmaque,” 145, urges the influence of that translation upon 4 Baruch here. 202 A basket (‫ )קרטלא‬of figs is also featured in a story in Lev. Rab. 25:5, but there is no significant overlap with 4 Baruch and no dependence upon Jer 24:1–7. So too for the basket (‫ )כלכלה‬of figs in Num. Rab. 3:2. 203 Cf. Goodenough, Symbols, 8:138 n. 121: “the preservation of the figs [in 4 Baruch] is a promise of immortality.” Of less relevance is his comments on p. 141: “the fig … in hellenistic symbolism … was identified with Dionysius to the point that as one of his many epithets the god was called Sykeites, and … the figs as a gift of God led men into a ‘purer’ and ‘more holy life’ … The fig was also associated with physical spiritual catharsis.” 204 Cf. Gk. LAE 20:4–5; T. Adam rec. 2 3:4; y. Šabb. 7(6:3); Gen. Rab. 15:7; 19:6. 205 Barton, “Jeremiah,” 313, speaks of “magic figs.” 206 Cf. the physical vehicles of healing in Mark 8:22–26 (saliva); John 9:6–7 (water); Acts 19:11–12 (handkerchiefs); Tacitus, Hist. 4.81 (water). One is reminded

Chapter 3:  The Preservation of the Temple Vessels

175

Jeremiah’s instruction to Abimelech has no parallel in God’s earlier order (v. 10). Should the reader or hearer assume that “Take the basket” and the words about the sick and God’s favor are Jeremiah’s addition? Maybe not, for the rest of the sentence lines up well with v. 10, which underlines the correlation between God’s command and Jeremiah’s actions: 10:  ἀπόστειλον   αὐτὸν      εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ

      τοῦ ὄρους

15:   ἀπέστειλεν … τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ … εἰς τὸ χωρίον   τοῦ Ἀγρίππα διὰ τῆς

ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὅρους

The prophet concludes his words with a two-fold evaluation of Baruch. He first declares, ἐπὶ σὲ ἡ εὐφρασία τοῦ Κυρίου.207 Although Kraft-Purintun and Herzer here translate εὐφρασία as “favor,” it means “cheerfulness, rejoicing, delight”208 or “joyous thing/occasion.”209 If the subject is God— that is, if this is not Ablimelech’s joy in the Lord—the next clause is perfectly parallel: both phrases have ἐπί + second person object (σέ/noun with σου) + divine subject. That this is the correct reading fits the fact that the LXX idiom for delight in God tends rather to employ ἐπί + divine object in the dative.210 What we have here is a statement that God delights in or is well-pleased with Abimelech; cf. Num 14:8 (“the Lord delights in us”); Ps 22:8 (“he delights in him”); Isa 42:1 (“in whom my soul delights”); Mal 2:17 (“he delights in them”); Matt 17:5; Mark 1:11; 2 Pet 1:17. Jeremiah adds that “the glory” rests on Abimelech’s head: ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου ἡ δόξα.211 Ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου = ‫על־ראשך‬, as in 2 Sam 1:16; Ezek 5:1; see on 2:1.212 Often God’s “glory” is “over” or “upon” things in the biblical tradition.213 Here the word cannot mean “honor.” Does it mean of how, in Christian tradition, oil has been blessed and then used to anoint the sick. 207 Cf. 2 Esdr 10:4: ὅτι ἐπὶ σὲ τὸ ῥῆμα (for ‫)כי־עליך הדבר‬. Εὐφρασία: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; κύριος: see on 1:4. 208 As in T. Abr. RecShrt. 3:5; PFlor. 391.1; Acts John 77. 209 As in Apoc. Ezek frag. 1 apud Epiphanius, Pan. 64.70; Acts Paul 8. 210 Cf. Delling, Lehre, 29, citing LXX Ps 39:17; 63:11; 69:5; 103:34. 211 Κεφαλή: 12x; δόξα: 2x: 3:15; 7:12. 212 Cf. LXX Prov 10:6, 22 (εὐλογία Κυρίου ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν δικαίου); Jer 13:18 (καθῃρέθη  ἀπὸ  κεφαλῆς  ὑμῶν στέφανος  δόξης  ὑμῶν); Bar 5:2 (ἐπίθου τὴν μίτραν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου τῆς δόξης τοῦ αἰωνίου); T. Sim. 4:5 (δῴη καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ Θεὸς χάριν καὶ δόξαν καὶ εὐλογίαν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς ὑμῶν); 1 Cor 11:7 (“a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God”). 213 E.  g. 2 Chr 7:3; Ps 57:5, 11; 108:5; Isa 60:20; 1 Esdr 5:61. On δόξα in Jewish and Christian Hellenistic texts see Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 354–464; Jörg Frey,

176

Commentary

“blessing” or “favor” (cf. Ecclus 35:12)? Perhaps it is just evocative religious language, without specific referent—“more an indication of general emotion than the meaning of a thing proper.”214 Yet one might also take it to refer to the divine presence—cf. ‫ שכינה‬in the rabbis—that will accompany Abimelech on his journey, like the pillar of cloud and fire that followed Israel in the wilderness, a pillar in which the glory of God appeared (Exod 24:16–17).215 In rabbinic sources, the ‫שכינה‬, the invisible divine presence, can be equated with “glory,” and it is often “upon” or “over” people.216 3:16. The closing sentence—αὐτὸς δὲ ἀπελήλυθεν καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ— prepares for ch. 5 and is very much like the conclusion of ch. 1: “When the Lord had said these things he departed from Jeremiah” (v. 11).217 Here too a scene ends with an exit and the verb ἀπέρχομαι. The perfect (ἀπελήλυθεν) is probably the equivalent of the aorist, as occasionally in narrative (cf. BDF § 343). With καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ (= ‫)כאשר אמר־לו‬218 cf. LXX Exod 7:13 (καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς); Josh 13:14 (καθὰ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς); 1 Macc 12:46 (καθὼς εἶπεν); Mark 14:16 (καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς).219 The idiom—which occurs in the parallel account in 2 Baruch but in a different context (8:1; cf. 21:1)—implies the authority of the speaker. That Abimelech is able to walk out of a besieged city and go where he is told is, of course, unrealistic and in stark contrast to the biblical stories of people unsuccessfully trying to escape the capital after the Babylonians surrounded it.220 It reflects not only the conflation of legends—one concerning Abimelech, the other concerning Jeremiah and Jerusalem’s destruction— but also 4 Baruch’s indifference to historical verisimilitude.

“The Use of δόξα in Paul and John as Shaped by the Septuagint,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature, ed. Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten (WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 85–104; also the bibliography in BDAG, s.  v. δόξα. 214 Augustine, Tract. ev. Ioan. 51. 215 Should one find here a new exodus motif, as elsewhere in 4 Baruch? 216 For the equation with “glory” see ARN A 2:61; Num. Rab. 12:4. For “glory” being “upon” or “over” people see Sifre Deut. 173; ARN A 11:8; 14:3; b. Šabb. 12b. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 165–66, suggests a connection with Jer 2:11; cf. the targum ad loc.: “for the sake of which I bring my glory upon them.” 217 Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; καθώς: see on 3:1. 218 As in Exod 17:10; Josh 11:9; 2 Kgs 8:19. 219 Also Acts Paul 19 (ἀπῆλθον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς); Inf. Gos. Thom. rec. 1 12:2 (καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτῷ); Gos. Phil. 146, 148 (καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς). 220 See e.  g. 2 Kgs 25:4–7; Jer 39:1–8; 52:7–11.

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile 4:1. And when morning came, behold, the host of the Chaldeans encircled the city. And the great angel sounded his trumpet and said: “Enter the city, host of the Chaldeans. For behold! the gate has been opened to you.” 4:2. Then the king entered with his hordes, and they took all the people into exile. 4:3. And Jeremiah, taking the keys of the temple, went outside of the city, and he threw them before the sun, saying, “I say to you, O sun, take the keys of the temple of God, and guard them until the day on which the Lord asks you for them. 4:4. For we have not been found worthy to guard them, for we have become false stewards.” 4:5. While Jeremiah was yet weeping for the people, they were dragged off to Babylon. 4:6. But Baruch put dust on his head, and he sat, and he cried this lamentation: “Why has Jerusalem become desolate? It has, because of the sins of the beloved people, been delivered into the hands of enemies, for our sins and those of the people. 4:7. But let not the lawless boast and say, ‘We had the power to take the city of God by means of our own strength.’ You were powerless against it. Yet we were (in truth) handed over because of our sins. 4:8. And our God will have mercy upon us, and he will return us to our city. You, however, will not have life. 4:9. Blessed are our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for they went out of this world without seeing see the destruction of this city.” 4:10. Having said these things, Baruch went out of the city and wept, and he said, “Grieving because of you, Jerusalem, I went out from you.” 4:11. And he remained sitting in a tomb while the angels came and spoke to him in detail about everything. 4:1. Πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης, ἰδοὺ ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων ἐκύκλωσε τὴν πόλιν. Ἐσάλπισεν δὲ ὁ μέγας ἄγγελος, λέγων· Εἰσέλθατε εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἠνεῴχθη ὑμῖν ἡ πύλη. 4:2. Εἰσῆλθεν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾐχμαλώτευσαν πάντα τὸν λαόν. 4:3. Ἰερεμίας δὲ ἄρας τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ, ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἔρριψεν αὐτὰς ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου, λέγων· Σοὶ λέγω, ἥλιε, λάβε τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ φύλαξον αὐτὰς ἕως ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ ἐξετάσει σε Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν. 4:4. Διότι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι τοῦ φυλάξαι αὐτάς, ὅτι ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους ἐγενήθημεν. 4:5. Ἔτι https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-015

178

Commentary

κλαίοντος Ἰερεμίου τὸν λαὸν, εἴλκοντο εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 4:6. Ὁ δὲ Βαροὺχ ἐπέθηκε χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκάθισε, καὶ ἔκλαυσε τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον, λέγων· Διὰ τί ἠρημώθη Ἰερουσαλήμ; Διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας του ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ παρεδόθη εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν, διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ. 4:7. Ἀλλὰ μὴ καυχάσθωσαν οἱ παράνομοι, καὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι, Ἰσχύσαμεν λαβεῖν τὴν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ δυνάμει ἡμῶν. Ἠδυνήθητε ἐπ’ αὐτῇ· ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν παρεδόθημεν. 4:8. Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἡμῶν οἰκτειρήσει ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπιστρέψει ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν· ὑμεῖς δὲ ζωὴν οὐχ ἕξετε. 4:9. Μακάριοί εἰσιν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ, ὅτι ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως ταύτης. 4:10. Ταῦτα εἰπὼν Βαροὺχ ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως κλαίων καὶ λέγων ὅτι Λυπούμενος διὰ σέ, Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ σοῦ. 4:11. Καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενος, τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐρχομένων καὶ ἐκδιηγουμένων αὐτῷ περὶ πάντων. Textual Notes 4:2. Instead of the descriptive εἰσῆλθεν … ᾐχμαλώτευσαν (so Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer, following C eth arm 144 slav N), A B arm 345 920 (= 993) slav T2 have the imperatival εἰσελθέτω … αἰχμαλωτευσάτω; so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. This makes v. 2 a continuation of the angel’s words in v. 1.1 4:3. At the end, C has: ἕως ἐρώτησιν ποιήσει Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν ἕως τῆς συνελεύσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου. This in part resembles 3:8, although there C lacks ἕως τῆς κτλ. 4:5. It is unclear whether εἴλκοντο refers to Jeremiah and the people or to the people alone. R solves the problem by adding: “And the blessed Jeremiah accompanied them.” Arm slav T1 are likewise explicit about Jeremiah’s presence with the departing people. The short version has: “And Jeremiah went with (ἐπορεύετο μετά) the people to the captivity in Babylon.”2 Cf. the summary in Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r: εἰς Βαβυλῶνα … συναπαχθεὶς καὶ αὐτὸς (Jeremiah) τῷ λαῷ. 4:6: R extends the confession: “Alas! alas! How our sins defeated the great clemency of God. For if our sins and those of the people had not abounded exceedingly, we would not have been handed over to the Chaldeans.” 4:7. ἠδυνήθητε ἐπ’ αὐτῇ: so C eth followed by Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer. Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun omit, with A B arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2. Did a scribe strike the words because he took them to mean “You did prevail over it” whereas in fact God is the agent of

  1   2

See further Herzer, Paralipomena, 12. See further Herzer, Paralipomena, 12.

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

179

destruction? // At the end of the verse, instead of παρεδόθημεν, Kraft-Purintun prints παρεδόθη ὑμῖν following eth; cf. Piovanelli. Evidently -μεν became ὑμῖν or vice versa. 4:10. Ceriani, Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer omit Βαρούχ. It appears, however, in A B arm slav N T2, and otherwise the nominative subject immediately trails ταῦτα εἰπών: 1:11; 3:13; 6:8, 15. // A B arm 144 920 (= 993) slav N T2: ἔξω τῆς πόλεως after ἐξῆλθεν; so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer omit. The phrase, however, occurs also in 4:3 and 5:12, and our book shows a penchant for repetition.3 // Licht omits καὶ λέγων κτλ. at the end. 4:11. At the very end, Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun have ὧν ὁ Κύριος ἔμηνυεν αὐτῷ δι’ αὐτῶν. This is (with minor variants) the reading of A B P R arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2. Is it a Christian clarification? Cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 5 frag. 15 (διὰ τῶν προειρημένων … ἐμήνυσεν ὁ Κύριος); Maximus the Confessor, Quaest. ad Thal. 54 (διὰ τοῦ παλαιοῦ τυπικῶς μηνυόμενος ὁ Κύριος). Yet one could argue for accidental omission: an eye skipped from the end of πάντων to the end of αὐτῶν. Commentary Chapter 4 in part recounts what has heretofore been prophesied or otherwise anticipated. In this regard it serves, like 3:14–16, to narrate the accomplishment of what God has commanded and foretold. It falls into three sections. Vv. 1–2 briefly narrate the entry of the Chaldeans into Jerusalem and the captivity of its citizens. The author avoids narrating painful details. Vv. 3–5 relate Jeremiah’s reaction. Vv. 6–11, which constitute the longest part, recount Baruch’s response and recite his lament, which is the heart of the chapter: I. The fate of Jerusalem (1–2) A. The surrounding of the city (1a) B. The actions of “the great angel” (1b) C. The captivity of the people (2) II. The response of Jeremiah (3–5) A. Jeremiah throws the keys (3a) B. Jeremiah speaks to the sun (3b–4) C. Jeremiah weeps as the people are led away (5) III. The response of Baruch (6–11) A. Baruch adopts a posture of mourning (6a) B. Baruch offers a lament (6b–9) C. Baruch departs and receives revelation (10–11)

  3

See further Harris, Baruch, 31–32.

180

Commentary

The chapter offers three promises— • 4:3: “until the day on which the Lord asks you about them” • 4:8: “our God will have mercy upon us” • 4:8: “he will return us to our city” The two promises in v. 8 refer to the return of the exiles from Babylon, which chs. 8 and 9 will narrate. The promise in v. 3, by contrast, remains unrealized when the book ends. It appears to be altogether eschatological, evidently looking forward to the restoration of the temple in the latter days. One wonders whether an earlier form of our story or a pre-Christian edition of 4 Baruch recounted—as does Jer. Apocr. 41—the restoration of the temple implements when Jeremiah returned to Jerusalem. In this case, all three promises would find their fulfillment within the narrative. 4 Baruch 4 is a key junction in the larger narrative flow and contributes significantly to the literary unity of the book. It looks forward, as just noted, to the return to the land in chs. 8–9. The chapter further, in its conclusion, moves Baruch to the place where he will meet Abimelech in 6:1 (see 4:11) and, in multiple respects, recalls, sometimes mechanically, what has gone before. Thus the chapter • recounts the fulfillment of the prophecy of destruction in 1:1; • reuses expressions introduced in chs. 1–3: “when morning came” (3:15; 4:1), “the host of the Chaldeans surrounds/ed” (1:3; 4:1), “go/went outside of the city” (1:7; 4:3); “put dust on his head” (2:1; 4:6); “cried (…) saying” (3:3; 4:6, 10); “beloved (people)” (3:8; 4:6); “delivered into the hands of” (3:6; 4:6); “the destruction of the/this city” (3:9; 4:9); • speaks of a great angel with a trumpet (4:1) and in this particular recalls ch. 3, where a trumpet announces the descent of angels (3:1); • refers to “the gate” of the city (4:1) whereas ch. 1 mentions Jerusalem’s “gates” (1:8); • has Jeremiah order the sun to guard the keys of the temple until they are asked for again (4:3), just as earlier he asks the earth to keep the holy implements of the temple “until the coming of the beloved” (3:9); • has Jeremiah go outside the city (4:3) in accord with God’s previous command (1:7); • reiterates that sin is the cause of everything going wrong (1:1, 7; 2:2–3; 4:4, 6–7); • narrates the realization of the prediction that the people will go to Babylon (2:7; 3:11; 4:5); • separates Baruch from Jeremiah (4:4–5), as earlier anticipated (3:11– 12); and • has Baruch pray, in words very close to those of Jeremiah in ch. 1 (1:5),

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

181

that the Chaldeans not be able to boast that they took Jerusalem by their own strength (4:7). In addition to being clearly indebted at points to both canonical Jeremiah and Lamentations (see on vv. 1, 5, 6), ch. 4 draws upon an extra-canonical legend.4 Verse 3 has a very close parallel in Pesiq. Rab. 26:6:5 “When the High Priest saw that the temple was on fire, he took the keys and cast them to heaven. He opened his mouth and cried out: ‘Here are the keys of your house; I have been a false steward (‫ )אפיטורופוס של שקר‬of it.’ He started to go, but the enemies seized him and slaughtered him at the altar.” This agrees with 4 Baruch in relating that, at the time of the temple’s destruction, a priest took the keys, threw them away, and spoke as he did so. In addition, the account in Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 directly follows a narrative in which four angels with burning torches set fire to the temple, which is strikingly similar to 4 Bar. 3:2; 4:1. Furthermore,‫ אפיטורופוס של שקר‬corresponds exactly to the ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους of 4 Bar. 4:4 (‫ אפיטורופוס‬being a Greek loanword from ἐπίτροπος). There are, however, also differences. (i) Whereas Jeremiah throws the keys in 4 Baruch, the High Priest does this in Pesiq. Rab. 26:6. 4 Baruch, it is true, assumes Jeremiah is the High Priest. Still, Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 does not speak of Jeremiah in connection with the keys, and 4 Baruch is nowhere explicit about Jeremiah’s identity as the High Priest. (ii) Although the High Priest in Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 takes (‫ )נטל‬and throws (‫ )וזרקן‬the keys (‫ )המפתיחות‬to heaven (‫)לשמים‬, Jeremiah in 4 Baruch takes and throws them specifically “before the sun.” (iii) If Jeremiah addresses the sun, the High Priest addresses God. (iv) After the High Priest confesses his sins, the foreigners slay him. Jeremiah, after commanding the sun to preserve the keys until the end, ends up in Babylon. One gathers, in the light of these differences, that 4 Baruch is not the immediate source for Pesiq. Rab. 26:6. One might nonetheless hold that 4 Baruch is the ultimate source—perhaps through secondary orality—for Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 and that a long period of time passed between the former and the later, during which changes were introduced. Yet one needs to observe that Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 also has a close parallel in y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3): when king Jehoiachin was told that Nebuchadnezzar demanded to

  4

On this legend see esp. Bogaert, Baruch, 1:234–41. Its exegetical origin, if there was one, is unknown.   5 Piska 26 distinguishes itself from the rest of Pesiqta Rabbati and should be regarded as an independent, pre-redactional piece; see A. Goldberg, “Pesiqta Rabbati 26, ein singulärer Text in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” FJB 17 (1989), 1–44.

182

Commentary

see him, “he took the keys of the sanctuary (‫)נטל מפתיחות של בית המקדש‬ and went up to the roof of the temple. He said before him [God], ‘Master of the world, in the past we were faithful to you, and the keys were handed over to us. But now that we are no longer faithful, here are your keys, handed back to you.’” Appended to this are two differing opinions, one that Jehoiachin “flung them (up) (‫ )זרקן‬and they did not come down,” the other that “something like a hand appeared and took them from his hand.” y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3)—which has further parallels in Lev. Rab. 19:6;6 b. Ta̔an. 29a;7 ARN A 4:39;8 ARN B 7:19;9 and Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:210— disagrees from Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 in two chief respects: the main character is Jehoiachin, and the mysterious removal of the keys is narrated. Neither difference brings us any closer to 4 Baruch. One suspects that the rabbinic sources are not indebted, even at a distance, to 4 Baruch, but that our

  6

“They went and said to Jeconiah, ‘Nebuchadnezzar demands you.’ What did he do? He collected all the keys of the temple and ascended the roof (of the temple) and said: ‘Master of the universe, because we are not worthy to be stewards before you, from now on behold, your keys are yours.’ There were two Amoras. One said, ‘A kind of fiery hand descended and took them from him.’ The other said, ‘When he threw them upward, they did not come down again.’”   7 “When the first temple was about to be destroyed, bands upon bands of young priests with the keys of the temple in their hands assembled and mounted the roof of the temple and exclaimed: ‘Master of the world, as we did not have the merit to be faithful stewards, the keys are handed back to you.’ And they threw them toward the height (‫ ;)וזרקום כלפי מעלה‬and there emerged something like a hand and it took them (the keys) from them.” There is a variant of this in the Cairo Geniza documents; see N. Ben-Menahem, “Two Songs of Lament from the Geniza,” ErIsr 4 (1956), 144–46.   8 “Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars” (Zech 11:1) refers “to the High Priests who were in the temple, who took their keys in their hands and threw them up to the sky, saying to the Holy One blessed be he: ‘Master of the universe, here are your keys which you gave to us, for we have not been found worthy custodians to do the king’s work and to eat of the king’s table.’”   9 “When the sons of the High Priests saw that the temple was being destroyed and that the sanctuary was being burned, they took the keys and went to the top of the sanctuary and threw the keys toward heaven, saying, ‘Behold, here are the keys which you gave us, for we were not faithful stewards, (worthy) to eat from the stores of the king.’ They held on to one another and were drawn into the fire and were burned.” This, however, is told in connection with the destruction of the second temple.  10 “When the High Priest saw that the priests had been killed (by Nebuchadnezzar), he put on his robe and adorned himself with the Ephod. Then he took the keys of the temple in his hand and proceeded to go up on the roof of the temple, and he proclaimed saying: ‘The house is now given (back) and restored to its Master, while its keepers are no more in it.’”

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

183

pseudepigraphon and the rabbinic texts retell an old legend that took multiple forms. Further, the later rabbinic texts may at points be more primitive. It is a good guess that the tradition originally spoke of priests or the High Priest throwing the keys and that 4 Baruch or its tradition, in order to enhance its story line, substituted Jeremiah, whom it remembered as a priest (so 5:18) and indeed as the High Priest.11 Jeremiah 1:1 says that Jeremiah’s father was Hilkiah, and that he was descended from the priests in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin; and if one identified this Hilkiah with the High Priest of 2 Kgs 22–23,12 Jeremiah would be the son of the High Priest. This presumably explains Tg. on Lam 1:1 and 2, which call him “the High Priest.” One recalls that Christian tradition, with equal tendentiousness, turned James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus himself into the great High Priest.13 2 Bar. 10:18, which is part of Baruch’s lament over Zion, also contains a version of our legend: “But you priests, take the keys of the sanctuary and throw them into the highest heaven, and give them to the Lord and say, ‘Guard your house yourself, for, behold, we have been found to be false stewards.’” This is likely an abbreviated account of the longer story known to the rabbis. It agrees with b. Ta̔an. 29a insofar as it is priests (plural; it is “sons of the High Priest” in ARN B 7:19), not the High Priest alone (so Pesiq. Rab. 26:6; Tg. Esth. Shen. 1:2) nor the king (so y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3); Lev. Rab. 19:6) nor Jeremiah (so 4 Baruch) who throws the keys. Yet another version of our legend appears in Jer. Apocr. 28–29, which in so many other ways is closely related to 4 Baruch. 29:2–4 has this: Jeremiah “took all the keys (and) laid them in the tower. He said: ‘I say to you, O tower, receive to yourself the keys of the house of the Lord and keep them until the people return from captivity.’ Then the stone opened its mouth (and) received them from him.” Right before this, in 28:15–20, we read, “Then Jeremiah took the golden plate on which the name of the Lord is

 11 See

on 2:1; 7:14; 9:2. Jeremiah is also a priest in Josephus, Ant. 10.80; Sifre Num. 78:1; b. Meg. 14b; Tg. Lam 1:1 and 2 (here again the High Priest); Ruth Rab. 2:1; Pesiq. Rab. 26:4 (26:12 compares him with a High Priest). In Jer. Apocr. 29:9–11, Jeremiah enters the temple, is clothed in a white robe, and has ointment running down his beard (cf. Ps 133:2); and in 41:4 he enters the holy of holies. Nonetheless, 41:13 confusingly distinguishes him from the high priest.  12 So Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.20.120.2; Qimhi on Jer 1:1.  13 For James see below, n. 26 on p. 119. For Jesus as the great High Priest see Eusebius, Quaest. Steph. suppl. 14; John of Euboea, Serm. conc. Deip. 18 PG 96:1489; and the so-called “Apology of Theodosius” or “On the Priesthood of Jesus.”

184

Commentary

written, which Aaron and his sons put upon their shoulders at the time when they are about to go into the Lord’s sanctuary. He looked into the sun (and) said: ‘I say to you, great giver of light, true servant, there is none among all living beings fit to be entrusted with this plate except you, for the name of the Lord is written on it. Now therefore receive it from me (and) guard it until I ask for it from you.’ And at once he cast it up, (and) the rays of the sun took it to themselves.” In accord with 4 Baruch, (i) it is Jeremiah who hides the keys; (ii) he speaks to the sun, invoking it to keep what he is giving it until the time for their return; and (iii) the hiding of the keys is associated with the hiding of other sacred items. Against 4 Baruch, (i) the keys are committed to the tower, not the sun; (ii) it is the golden plate—a thing 4 Baruch does not mention—that the sun receives, not the keys; and (iii) the holy items are returned not in the indefinite eschatological future but when Jeremiah asks for them when the exiles return from Babylon; so ch. 41. Whatever the right explanation for this series of similarities and differences may be, it cannot entail the exclusive dependence of one text upon the other. This is because each, in certain respects, agrees with other versions of the legend. Thus, when Jer. Apocr. 28:20 recounts that the rays of the sun took the golden plate, this resembles y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3), where a hand from above takes the keys; yet when, in 4 Baruch, Jeremiah commits the keys, not the golden plate, to the sun, this lines up with the rabbinic sources; so too his confession, “we have become false stewards.” The complexity of the relationship between the various sources of our legend becomes apparent when one examines in detail Jeremiah’s confession before throwing the keys (4 Bar. 4:4), which has its relatives in 2 Baruch and the rabbis: • 4 Bar. 4:4: διότι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι τοῦ φυλάξαι αὐτάς, ὅτι ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους ἐγενήθημεν. • 2 Bar. 10:18: “For we [priests] have been found to be false stewards.” • y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3): “in the past we [the king is speaking on behalf of the people] were faithful to you … But … we are no longer faithful.” • ARN A 4:39: “we have not been faithful managers.” • ARN B 7:19: “for we were not faithful stewards.” • b. Ta̔an. 29a: “because we [young priests] are not worthy to be faithful stewards.” • Lev. Rab. 19:6: “because we [the king is speaking on behalf of the people] are not worthy to be stewards before you.” • Pesiq. Rab. 26:6: “I [the High Priest] have been an unworthy steward of it.” • Tg. Esth. Sheni 2 1:2: “The house is now given (back) and restored to its Master, while its keepers are no more in it.”

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

185

Although 4 Bar. 4:4 might be viewed as an expansion of 2 Bar. 10:18, especially given that εὑρέθημεν = ‫אשתכחן‬, 4 Baruch’s ἄξιοι has its closest counterpart in the ‫ זכינו‬of b. Ta̔an. 29a and Lev. Rab. 19:6; and the use of ‫אפיטרופוס‬/‫אפטרופיס‬ = ἐπίτροπος in 4 Baruch, ARN B B 7:19, and Pesiq. Rab. 26:6 brings those texts together. Once again the data resist a simple genealogical explanation.14 4 Baruch distinguishes itself from all the other versions of the tale in locating the event outside the city. This variation may stem from the creativity of our author. When Jeremiah leaves the city, this fulfills God’s commandment to him in 1:1, 3, and 7, and this is one of several correlations between ch. 4 and earlier material; see above. It is of great interest that the version of our legend in ARN B 7:19 appears, from its immediate context, to concern the end of the second temple. In other words, a story about what happened when the Babylonians burned Jerusalem became a story about what happened when the Romans, centuries later, did the same. This reflects how natural it was to draw correlations between the two disasters or to set them in typological parallelism. 4 Baruch implicitly assumes that its readers will make this interpretive move. 4:1. The text assumes that the angels, at night, and in accord with 3:1–4, have already burned the city inside the walls. See the discussion on 1:10. The opening πρωΐας δὲ γενομένης, which repeats the beginning of 3:15 (q.  v.) and makes Jeremiah’s sending of Abimelech and the Chaldeans’ entry into Jerusalem simultaneous, is, strictly speaking, redundant. It nonetheless serves to mark the transition from one section to another.15 Although neither 2 Kings nor canonical Jeremiah says that Jerusalem was entered in the morning, our line—ἰδοὺ ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων ἐκύκλωσε τὴν πόλιν16—otherwise follows the Bible. Not only does ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων occur in LXX Jer 52:14 (for ‫ ;חיל כשדים‬cf. vv. 4, 8), but that verse speaks of the Chaldeans tearing down every wall “around” (κύκλῳ; cf. v. 4) Jerusalem while 52:7 has the Chaldeans encircling the city (οἱ Χαλδαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως κύκλῳ [v.  l.: ἐκύκλωσαν]); further, πόλις is used of Jerusalem 7–8x in ch. 52; cf. 2 Bar. 6:1: “the army of the Chaldeans surrounded the city.” Within its present literary context, 4:1 marks the  14 Were

one to hold, as does Herzer, 4 Baruch, 74, that 2 Bar. 10:18 is the immediate source of 4 Bar. 4:3–4, would the agreements here between 4 Baruch and the rabbinic sources against 2 Baruch imply the influence of 4 Baruch upon the rabbis?  15 On the source-critical question see above, p. 00.  16 Ἰδού: see on 3:2; ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων: see on 1:3; κυκλόω: see on 1:3; πόλις: see on 1:1.

186

Commentary

fulfillment of the divine prophecy in 1:3 (q.  v.). Perhaps Jewish readers or hearers would have recalled that Titus encircled Jerusalem.17 The subject of the second sentence is “the great angel”: ἐσάλπισεν δὲ ὁ μέγας ἄγγελος λέγων;18 cf. LXX Dan 12:1 (Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας); Sib. Or. 2:227 (Οὐριὴλ μέγας ἄγγελος); Gk LAE 40:2 (οἱ τρεῖς μεγάλοι ἄγγελοι—Michael, Gabriel, Uriel); Herm. Sim. 8:8:3 (ὁ δὲ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας καὶ ἔνδοξος Μιχαήλ); 8:4:1 (“the place τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ μεγάλου”); T. Sol. 14:7 (“the great angel [τῷ μεγάλῳ ἀγγέλῳ] who is seated in the second heaven, who is called in Hebrew Bazazath”); Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Zech. 2.365 (τοῦ μεγάλου ἀγγέλου Γαβριήλ).19 Although unidentified, this angel, introduced with the definite article, is almost certainly one of the (four or seven) archangels, most likely Michael, who is always a member of that group.20 Michael is not only “the great angel” in LXX Dan 12:1 (ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ μέγας)21 and Hermas, but he is also one of the three “great” angels in Gk LAE 40:2 (μεγάλοι ἄγγελοι); and our text names him in 9:5 (q.  v.) as “the righteous archangel.”22 Further, 1 En. 24:6 calls him “chief of the angels”; he bears the title, ἀρχιστράτηγος, in multiple texts (see on 9:5); he is prominent in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where he is probably the angelic “prince of light” and perhaps also the heavenly Melchizedek;23 he blows a trumpet in Gk LAE 22:1 (see below), as does the angel in our verse; he is the “head” of the angels in Heb. T. Naph. 8:4; and b. Yoma 17a reckons him to be greater than Gabriel and Raphael. Nonetheless, the angel’s identity is not here crucial for 4 Baruch. The great angel sounds a trumpet. This takes the reader or hearer back to 3:1–4; see the discussion there of trumpets and angels. In that passage,  17

Cf. Josephus, Bell. 5.491–511; Luke 19:43; Lam. Rab. 1:5:31.

Σαλπίζω: 1x; ἄγγελος: see on 3:2.   19 Note also the use of ‫ מלאכה רבה‬in Naveh and Shaked, Spells, 62 (amulet 19:17–18),  18

and Isbell, Incantation Bowls, 44 (bowl 12:14–15). Riaud, Paralipomènes, 177. See 1 En. 9–10; 20; 40:9; 87:2; 1QM 9:14–16; Sib. Or. 2:214–15; 3 En. 17:1 (Schäfer, Synopse 21 = 857); Ep. Apost. 13; Ap. John 17:29–32; Ps.-Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ed. Budge, fol. 12b. In Jer. Apocr. 16:1–14, it is Michael who initially incites Nebuchadnezzar to invade and attack Judea. For lit. on Michael see p. 413 n. 90.   21 MT: ‫השר הגדול‬. Theod.: ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας.  22 Cf. also 8:9: “the righteous angel.”  23 Paul J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša̔ (CBQMS 10; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981), 71–83; Maxwell J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran: A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian Writings from Qumran (JSPSup 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 225–27; Hannah, Michael, 64–75.  20 So

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

187

a trumpet sounds, and four angels with lit torches stand ready to burn the city. If one connects the two passages, it is natural to infer that the angel in 4:1 is the same angel who blows the trumpet in 3:2 and so is in charge of the four angels with torches in their hands; cf. 2 Bar. 6:4–8; Rev 7:1–3. In any case, Jeremiah’s plea stayed the action the first trumpet sought to initiate. Now the trumpet blows a second time. The purpose is different. The sound does not serve to call the angels to action. They have already, it appears, done their work, although the narrator neglects to say so; that is, God, through the angels, has already destroyed Jerusalem. The second trumpet is to alert the Chaldeans that they have permission to enter the city: εἰσέλθατε εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡ δύναμις τῶν Χαλδαίων.24 The Greek, ἐσάλπισεν … λέγων, is a bit odd. One might rather expect ἐσάλπισεν … καὶ ἔλεγεν. The trumpet itself does not speak words, nor is σαλπίζω here figurative, as though the meaning were “he trumpeted words.” The sense must be analogous to Gk LAE 22:1 v.  l., where Michael first blows a trumpet and then speaks: τοῦ ἀρχαγγέλου Μιχαὴλ σαλπίζοντος ἐν τῇ σάλπιγγι αὐτοῦ … καὶ λέγοντος. The words of the angel constitute permission to enter: ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἠνεῴχθη ὑμῖν ἡ πύλη;25 cf. LXX Nah 3:13 (ἰδού … τοῖς ἐχθροῖς σου ἀνοιγόμεναι ἀνοιχθήσονται πύλαι τῆς γῆς σου) and esp. the close parallels in 2 Bar. 8:2 (“Enter, enemies, and come, adversaries. For he who preserved the house has abandoned it”) and Pesiq. Rab. 26:5 (“Let the enemies come and enter the house, for the master of the house is no longer within. Let them despoil and destroy it”). Within their present context, the words mark the fulfillment of 1:8: “neither the king nor his force will be able to enter into it unless I first open her gates” (ἀνοίξω τὰς πύλας αὐτῆς). Thus the passive is divine. Post-70 readers or hearers would, if familiar with it, have almost certainly recalled the legend in Josephus, that a massive gate (πύλη) in the temple opened (ἠνοιγμένη) of its own accord before the place was burned and a voice was heard: “we are departing hence” (Bell. 6.288–309); cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.13 and see above, p. 140. On the derivation from 2 Kgs 25:4 (MT: ‫ ;ותבקע העיר‬LXX: ἐρράγη ἡ πόλις) and Jer 52:7 (MT: ‫ ;ותבקע העיר‬LXX: διεκόπη ἡ πόλις) of the idea that God himself breached the wall of Jerusalem see above, p. 137. It is of interest that both of those verses refer to a gate (LXX: πύλη) in the walls of Jerusalem.

Εἰσέρχομαι + εἰς τὴν πόλιν recurs in 4:1; 8:5, 7; δύναμις: see on 1:3; Χαλδαῖος: see on 1:1; cf. 1:8: ἡ δύναμις … εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτήν.  25 Ἰδοὺ γάρ: 3x: 4:1; 5:30; 6:5; for ἀνοίγω and πύλη see on 1:8.

 24

188

Commentary

4:2. The details of the military campaign are of no concern to the author. He is interested only in baldly relating that (i) the Chaldeans entered the city—εἰσῆλθεν οὖν ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους αὐτοῦ26—and (ii) they carried away the people: ᾐχμαλώτευσαν πάντα τὸν λαόν.27 The destruction of the city is known to the biblically literate and remains implicit. The parallel in 2 Bar. 8:4, which is a summary of 2 Kgs 25:8–21 par. Jer 52:12– 30, is fuller: “The army of the Chaldeans entered, and they seized the house, and all that was around it. And they led the people away captive, and they killed some of them, and they bound King Zedekiah and they sent him to the king of Babylon.”28 Although 4 Baruch’s “they took all the people into exile,” if taken literally, contradicts Jer 52:16 (“Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left some of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil”), our verse nonetheless echoes the closing chapters of 2 Kings and Jeremiah, for these use λαός29 and ἔρχομαι + εἰς30 and repeatedly employ βασιλεύς.31 4:3. Jeremiah leaves as the Chaldeans enter: ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.32 This marks the prophet’s obedient response to God’s word in 1:1 (ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης), 3 (ἐξέλθατε), and 7 (ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης). One might, however, find tension with 1:3, where God tells Jeremiah to “rise and go before the force of the Chaldeans surrounds it.” In ch. 4, it seems rather that Jeremiah leaves only after the troops have taken the city. The inconcinnity is due to the author’s imperfect mixing of traditions and to his lack of concern, apparent elsewhere, for perfect narrative coherence. Leaving the city, Jeremiah takes the keys of the temple: Ἰερεμίας δὲ ἄρας τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ, ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.33 “In ancient Israel, the For this expression see on 1:5. Εἰσῆλθεν answers to the εἰσέλθατε in v. 1. 2:7 (τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι τὸν λαόν); 5:21 (λαοῦ ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν), 23 (ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαός), 26 (ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαός); LXX 1 Esdr 6:15 (τὸν λαὸν ᾐχμαλώτευσαν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα); Amos 1:5 (αἰχμαλωτευθήσεται λαός). Αἰχμαλωτεύω: see on 1:1; λαός: see on 1:5; πᾶς + λαός: see on 5:18.  28 Neither 2 Baruch nor 4 Baruch bothers to note that it was actually Nebuzaradan, the captain of Nebuchadrezzar’s bodyguard, who entered Jerusalem; cf. 2 Kgs 25:8–12; Jer 52:12–16.  29 LXX 4 Βασ 25:3, 11, 19 bis, 22, 26; Jer 52:6, 16, 25.  30 LXX 4 Βασ 25:8; Jer 52:12.  31 LXX 4 Βασ 25: 20x; Jer 52: 18x.  32 Ἐξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: 5x: 4:3, 10; 5:15; 6:1; 7:14; cf. Matt 21:17; πόλις: see on 1:1.  33 Cf. Bel 11 (τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ); Homer, Il. 6.89 (οἴξασα κληῖδι θύρας ἱεροῖο δόμοιο); Aristotle, Ath. pol. 44.1 (κλεῖς τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν). Αἴρω: 12x; cf. 3:8: ἆρον  26

 27 Cf.

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

189

doors of palaces, temples, granaries, and domestic dwellings were locked with a wooden bolt and tumbler lock mounted on the inside of the door.”34 According to MT 1 Chr 9:27, the Levites were ‫ על המפתח‬of the temple. Whether this means they had its “key” or were, more generally, in charge of opening the temple, the LXX takes the meaning to be that they “had charge of the keys (κλειδῶν) to open the temple doors,” and the Tg. translates: “they were put in charge of the keys” (‫—אקלידיא‬a loanword from κλειδός). We are probably to imagine a large wooden key with teeth, not wholly unlike later, smaller metal keys; cf. m. Kel. 14:8, which refers to the “teeth” and “gaps” of keys. Jeremiah throws the keys upward: ἔρριψεν αὐτὰς ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου.35 The expression, ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου, may here mean “openly” or “publicly”; cf. esp. 3 Bar. 9:8 (ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου) and Asterius Sophista, Comm. Ps. 3:14 (ἐν τῷ φανερῷ καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἡλίου; so also 18:2).36 To have or to receive a key often, in Jewish and Christian tradition, is to have or receive authority.37 So when Jeremiah returns the keys of the temple, it marks resignation: the priesthood has lost its authority over the holy place.

 34

αὐτά; κλείς: 2x, both in this verse; ναός: 2x, both in this verse; our author is fond of ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ + τῆς πόλεως: see on 1:1.

So Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 31, citing Judg. 3:25; Isa 22:22; 1 Chr. 9:27.  35 In Jer. Apocr. 28:17–19, Jeremiah addresses the sun not about the keys but about the golden plate: “Guard it until I ask for it from you. And at once he cast it up, and the rays of the sun received it to themselves.” The keys he commits to the tower, to “keep them until the people return from captivity.” See above, p. 183. In the Arabic version, however, he throws “the mitre … which Aaron and his sons used to place on their heads at the divine service”; then he throws the keys to the door-post of the temple (trans. Mingana and Harris, 172). Ῥίπτω: 1x; ἐνώπιον: see on 1:4 and BDF § 214.5; ἡλίος: 2x, both in 4:3.   36 Αlso Num 25:4 (MT: ‫ ;נגד השמש‬LXX: ἀπέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου; cf. b. Sanh. 34b–35a); 2 Sam 12:12 (ΜT: ‫ ;נגד השמש‬LXX: ἐναντίον τοῦ ἡλίου); Job 8:16 (MT: ‫;לפני־שמש‬ LXX: ὑπὸ ἡλίου); Jer 8:2 (MT: ‫ ;לשמש‬LXX: πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον); Ps. Sol. 2:11 (κατέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου), 12 (ἀπέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου); 4:19 (κατέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου); 8:8 (ἐναντίον τοῦ ἡλίου). DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 136 n. 179, wonders whether the sense is that Jeremiah is “facing east, the direction from which the glory of God returns to the Temple in Ezekiel.”  37 Note e.  g. Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 1:8; 3:7; 3 Bar. 11:2; Tg. Neof. 1 Gen 30:22; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 28:12; 3 En. 18:18 (Schäfer, Synopse 26 = 862); 48 C 3 (Schäfer, Synopse 72).

190

Commentary

The prophet commands the sun: σοὶ λέγω, ἥλιε.38 The sun is here personified.39 The introductory σοὶ λέγω adds emphasis.40 One recalls the words of Joshua in Josh 10:12, but even more of Jeremiah’s direct address and command to the earth in ch. 3, which is structurally parallel: 3:8 4:3

γῆ …     φύλαξον … ἕως ἥλιε … φύλαξον … ἕως

The chief formal difference between the two imperatives is that 3:8 has an elaborate reference to the commanding deity: “the one creating you in the superabundance of the waters, the one sealing you with seven seal in seven ages.” In 4:3, Jeremiah addresses the sun directly, without elaboration. The double command is to take the keys (see above) of the temple and guard them: λάβε τὰς κλεῖδας τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ φύλαξον αὐτάς.41 How we are to envisage this is not at all clear. The text says only that Jeremiah throws the keys. As in Pesiq. Rab. 26:6, there is nothing about him burying them or about the earth swallowing them (which is what the earth does in 3:14)42 or about them otherwise being laid out of sight. Are readers or hearers to imagine that the sun will guard the keys by not shining any light on them? As noted above, y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3) and b. Ta̔an. 29a record the tradition that God’s hand reached down and took the keys. 4 Baruch, which has God asking the sun about the keys (4:3), seems to exclude that

 38

Σοὶ λέγω: 5x: 4:3; 5:17; 7:9, 15, 19; ἡλίος: 2x, both in 4:3.

 39 Cf.

Ps 148:3; Isa 24:23; Ep Jer 6:60; Pr Azariah 40; Ps. Sol. 18:10–12; Josephus, Bell. 2.128; b. Šabb. 156a (Mercury is the sun’s “scribe”); Sefer ha-Razim 4:61–66 (a prayer to “holy Helios”). Recall also the image of Helios in some late antique synagogues (e.  g. Beth Alpha and Sepphoris) and the images of and naming of Helios on Jewish magical amulets; see Goodenough, Symbols, 2:258–59. Against Bogaert, Baruch, 1: 237 n. 1, one need not wonder about a non-Jewish background. And despite Ps 84:11 and other applications of solar imagery to God, the sun cannot here be a periphrasis or name for God: the two are clearly distinguished (“O sun … until the day on which the Lord asks you about them”). One might raise the possibility that the sun is here a lesser God, but the parallel with 3:8 makes that implausible.  40 Cf. LXX Exod 6:29; Philo, Det. 158; Matt 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 38, 44; 16:18; Mark 9:1; Luke 5:24; 23:43; 4 Ezra 2:34; Inf. Gos. Thom. 17, 18.  41 Λάβε; see on 3:8; κλείς: 2x, both in this verse; ναός: 2x, both in 4:3; Θεός: see on 1:1; φυλάσσω: see on 2:5. Ναός τοῦ Θεοῦ is common in the sources: LXX Jdt 4:2; 5:18; 1 Esdr 5:52, 55; Theod. Dan 5:3; Eupolemus apud. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.34.4; Sib. Or. 4:116; T. Jud. 23:3; T. Benj. 9:2; Matt 23:21; 2 Cor 6:16; Rev 3:12; Josephus, Ant. 8.119; 9.254; etc.  42 In arm 993 (=920), Jeremiah throws the key on the ground and buries it “in the sight of the sun.”

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

191

possibility. Yet our text just might presuppose, even if it does not narrate, an alternative tradition, also attested in y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3), that the keys were tossed up and never came down; so also Lev. Rab. 19:6. Whatever the truth on that score, the sun is to keep to its task until God asks for them: ἕως ἡμέρας, ἐν ᾗ ἐξετάσει σε Κύριος περὶ αὐτῶν.43 The verb, whose first meaning in the dictionaries is “examine well,” “question,” or “scrutinize,”44 seems here to mean, in effect, “ask (for them back).” The “day” is the same as the time of “the coming of the beloved” (3:8), that is, the eschatological day when exiled Israel returns to Zion and God establishes the kingdom. Implicit then, is the expectation that the temple will be restored, rebuilt, or replaced by a new temple in the latter days.45 4:4. Jeremiah, speaking not on behalf of all the people but, as a priest (cf. 5:18) for all the priests,46 now verbalizes his reason for throwing away the keys: διότι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι τοῦ φυλάξαι αὐτάς.47 The sun will guard what the priests can no longer guard. God is presumably the agent of the passive, so that the sense is, “God has found us unworthy.” On the question of who exactly has sinned see the commentary below on 4:6.48 Further clarification follows: those Jeremiah represents have become ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους.49 Kraft-Purintun and Herzer translate ψεῦδος as

 43

Ἡμέρα: 8x: 4:4; 5:6; 6:13; 7:26; 8:1; 9:1, 12, 13; ἕως ἡμέρας occurs 2x in Jere-

miah 52—vv. 11, 34—a chapter which has otherwise influenced our chapter; cf. 1 En. 99:15; T. Levi 1:1; Gk. LAE 26:4; 37:5; 43:2; ἐν ᾗ: cf. 8:1; ἡμέρα ἐν ᾗ; ἐξετάζω: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 116x; NT: 3x; Josephus: 29x; Κύριος: see on 1:4.  44 LSJ, s.  v.; BDAG, s.  v.  45 See the discussion on 3:8 and cf. 1 En. 90:28–29; 11QTemple 29:8–10; Tob 13:16– 18; 14:5; Jub. 1:27; 4QFlor. 1:1–3; 4 Ezra 10:54; Sib. Or. 5:414–33; Tg. on Isa. 53:5. Although Young, “Eagle,” 394, denies expectation of a new temple in 4 Baruch, surely 9:1–2, with its apparent calendrical interest (“for nine days”) and twofold mention of sacrifices, is against this.  46 Cf. 2 Bar. 10:18. Baruch, who in 6:3 is sinless and in 7:2 faithful, cannot be included.  47 Cf. Rev 5:4 (οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη); Apos. Con. 3:15:1 (μὴ εὑρεῖν ἀξίους). Διότι: 1x; εὑρίσκω: 9x; passive also in 7:23; ἄξιος: 1x; φυλάσσω: see on 2:5.  48 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 76, interprets the plural this way: “Jeremiah and Baruch take responsibility for what has happened. In his priestly function, Jeremiah, together with Baruch, becomes accountable for the deterioration of the situation among the people.”  49 Ἐπίτροπος: 1x; LXX: 3x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 41x; NT: 3x; Josephus: 60x; ψεῦδος: 1x.

192

Commentary

“unfaithful,” which probably captures the connotation.50 For the close parallels to 4:4 in other versions of our legend see above, p. 181. There is no reason to regard the line as Christian polemic against Judaism. It represents rather a well-attested Jewish tradition—in line with canonical Jeremiah’s polemic51—of disappointment in or even hostility toward the Jerusalem priesthood of the second temple.52 Perhaps it goes back to Jer 6:13: “From prophet to priest, every one deals falsely” (MT: ‫ ;שקר‬LXX: ψευδῆ). 4:5. Jeremiah’s mourning has been prominent since the beginning of the story.53 So here he does again what he has done before: ἔτι κλαίοντος Ἰερεμίου τὸν λαόν.54 Here, however, he weeps specifically “for the people.” The direct accusative, τὸν λαόν, is an echo of LXX Jer 8:23, for this is the only place where τὸν λαόν is the immediate, direct object of κλαίω in the LXX, and Jeremiah is the subject of the sentence: “I shall weep for my people (κλαύσομαι τὸν λαόν) day and night.”55 As the prophet mourns, the people—their number is not given56—are dragged off to Babylon: εἵλκοντο εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.57 The verb here connotes violence: the people are compelled against their will to depart. As to whether the plural εἵλκοντο refers to the people plus Jeremiah58 or covers

 50 Delling,

Lehre, 26 n. 43, suggests the sense is “unreliable, untrustworthy.” On the genitive of quality see below, on 7:2.  51 Note 6:13; 8:10; 23:11; and esp. Jer 7:11, which is quoted in Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:41.  52 Note e.  g. Jub. 23:21; 1QpHab 8:8–13; 9:4–11, 16–10:1; 11:12–15; 12:7–10; T. Levi 14:1–6; 17:11; T. Mos. 5:3–6:1; 7:1–10; Mark 11:17; Josephus, Ant. 20.181, 206– 207; 2 Bar. 10:18; t. Sotah 14:6; t. Menah 13:18–22; and see further Craig A. Evans, ˙ ˙ “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 413–28.  53 See 2:1–5, 10; 3:3, 14. On weeping and mourning see the Introduction, pp. 19–21.  54 Ἔτι: 4x: 4:6; 6:11 (also in initial position); 7:10; 9:11; κλαίω: see on 2:5; λαός: see on 1:5.  55 The MT is different: “I weep day and night for the slain of my dear people.”  56 Contrast the counts in 2 Kgs 24:24–16 and Jer 52:28–30.  57 Cf. Aristophanes, Eq. 772 (ἑλκοίμην εἰς Κεραμεικόν); Ps.-Demosthenes, Orat. 50.20 (ἕλκειν εἰς Μαρώνειαν); Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 48 (ἑλκύουσί σε εἰς Βαβυλῶνα). The LXX prefers other verbs—e.  g. ἀποικίζω, μετοικίζω, εἰσφέρω— for exile to Babylon. Ἕλκω: 1x; for Babylon see on 2:7.  58 Cf. the translation of Sparks and Thornhill: “he and they were dragged off to Babylon.”

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

193

only the collective singular, τὸν λαόν (see BDF 134.1), is unclear.59 3:11 (“Jeremiah, go with your people to Babylon”) inclines one to the former alternative, and this lines up with what happens in 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C (4Q385a frag. 18) and Jer. Apocr. 27:16; 30:1–10: Jeremiah goes with the people to Babylon. If, however, the verb does not include the prophet, the text assumes that he followed them soon enough, as in the Armenian (cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:6), or that different groups were exiled at different times (cf. 2 Kings 24–25). This seems to be the story line in 2 Baruch.60 4:6. Although he has appeared before, this is the first time the spotlight is on Baruch. The shift away from Jeremiah helps prepare for the focus on Abimelech in the next chapter. Here Baruch puts dust on his head, just as Jeremiah did in 2:1 (q.  v.): 2:1 4:6

ἐπέθηκε χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπέθηκε χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ

Baruch in addition sits (καὶ ἐκάθισε) to mourn, as he and Jeremiah did in 3:14 (q.  v.); cf. 2 Bar. 10:5, where Baruch sits and mourns after Jeremiah has gone away with the exiles; and 3 Bar. title, where he sits (ἐκάθητο) by the beautiful gates and weeps. As in 3:14, Baruch weeps. Here, however, his mourning takes the form of a lamentation: ἔκλαυσε τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον.61 Our line is modeled upon the LXX title of Lamentations: καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐρημωθῆναι ἐκάθισεν Ἰερεμίας κλαίων καὶ ἐθρήνησεν τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον ἐπὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ εἶπεν.62 Our author has simply substituted Baruch for Jeremiah, which is appropriate given that, in our book, the two otherwise behave in the same manner (1:7; 2:8–10; 3:1, 3, 14):

 59

Parts of the textual tradition seek to clarify; see above, p. 178. See 10:2–5. On Jeremiah in Babylon see further above, p. 168.  61 Cf. Romanos the Melodist, Cant. 31.27 (κλαύσωσι πικρῶς ἀτέλεστον θρῆνον); there are much later parallels in Damascenus Studites, Thes. 23.809 (κλαύσουν θρῆνον μέγαν), 899 (κλαύσει θρῆνον μέγαν). Κλαίω: see on 2:5; θρῆνος: 1x. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 76, notes that, in the LXX, θρῆνος “is typical in prophetic literature for a lament over Israel or Jerusalem.” He cites Jer 7:29; 9:9, 17, 19; Lam 1:1; Ezek 19:1; Amos 5:1.  62 One wonders whether our author knew Lamentations as a liturgical piece used to commemorate the destruction of Jerusalem.  60

194

Commentary

4 Baruch 4:6

Lamentations title

Israel goes into exile

Israel goes into exile

Jerusalem is deserted: ἠρημώθη

Jerusalem is deserted: ἐρημωθῆναι

Baruch sits: ἐκάθισε

Jeremiah sits: ἐκάθισεν

Baruch weeps: ἔκλαυσε

Jeremiah weeps: κλαίων

τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον λέγων

τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον … καὶ εἶπεν

The parallel in 2 Baruch 10 also seems to imitate Lamentations,63 but at this point 4 Baruch is closer to the canonical source. The following lament—which Sparks and Thornhill and Schaller indent as a poetic piece—contains four points. First, the disaster is explained as a consequence of the sin of the people (v. 6). Second, the conqueror is warned not to boast and forewarned that he will not endure (vv. 7, 8b). Third, mercy and return from exile are promised for God’s people (v. 8a). Finally, the patriarchs are blessed for not seeing the horror that has unfolded (v. 8b).64 Baruch’s lamentation belongs to a literary tradition. Canonical Jeremiah is filled with the prophet’s laments over the destruction and exile: 4:19–31; 9:17–26; etc. Lamentations, which ancients regularly attributed to Jeremiah,65 strings together several poems of mourning in response to the events of the sixth century BCE. Similarly, 2 Bar. 10:5–12:4 and 35:1–5 record Baruch’s mournful response to the devastation of Zion, and Pesiq. Rab. 26:7, in a similar context, puts a lament in Jeremiah’s mouth. Each of the themes in 4 Bar. 4:6–8 is paralleled in one or more of these sources:66

 63

Bar. 10:5: “I Baruch, returned and sat in front of the gates of the temple. And I made this lament over Zion and said. …”  64 Herzer, “Direction,” 13, offers this analysis: question followed by “lament (4.6; implicit in v. 9); reason (4.6c); cry against an enemy (4.7) and confession of trust (4.8).”   65 Cf. the title and subscription to Lamentations in LXX ‫ א‬B; b. B. Bat. 15a; Tg. Lam. 1:1. It is possible that 4Q385a frag. 19, which has Jeremiah weeping after Jerusalem’s destruction, already assumes this tradition; cf. Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 106. 2 Chr 35:25 (“Jeremiah also uttered a lament for Josiah”) may lie behind this tradition.  66 Laments over the first or second destruction of Jerusalem and/or its temple not attributed to Jeremiah or Baruch include Psalm 74; 79; 137; 4Q179; Josephus, Bell. 5.19; 4 Ezra 10:19–23; Apoc. Abr. 27:4–6; Sib. Or. 5:396–413. See further Bogaert, Baruch, 1:133–57.

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

195

• Explanation of disaster: Jer 4:22; 17:1–13; Lam 1:8, 14, 18; 3:42; 2 Bar. 10:18 • Warning to conqueror: Jer 50:1–51:58; Lam 1:21–22; 2 Bar. 12:1–4 • Encouragement/promise of return: Jer 9:23–24; 16:14–21; 23:1–8; 30:1–31:26; 32:26–44; Lam 3:21–24, 31–33; 4:22; Pesiq. Rab. 26:7 • Blessing of those who have not seen the desolation: 2 Bar. 10:6; 11:4–7 The chief difference between 4 Bar. 4:6–9 and the other texts is its brevity.67 Baruch’s lament opens with a question (which names “the city” for the first time): διὰ τί ἠρημώθη Ἰερουσαλήμ;68 Cf. Gk 3 Bar. 1:2: “Lord, why have you set fire to your vineyard and laid it waste? Why have you done this? And why, Lord, did you not requite us with another punishment, but rather handed us over to such heathen so that they reproach us, saying, ‘Where is their God?’” One might regard διὰ τί as Jeremian given that it occurs fourteen times in LXX Jeremiah. The verb, ἐρημόω, appears in other texts with regard to both the destruction of 586 and of the destruction of 70.69 Baruch can answer his own question, for to him the truth is obvious: διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας του ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ παρεδόθη εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν, διὰ  τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ.70 The explanation of Jerusalem’s capture, which readers have known since 1:1, is not historical or political but purely theological: sin. This differs from 3 Bar. 1:1–2, where Baruch seems genuinely nonplussed regarding Jerusalem’s destruction.71 That the people who have sinned are “beloved” makes their suffering more poignant  67  68

Although Gk. 3 Bar. 1:1–2 (see above) is likewise fairly brief.

Διὰ τί: 2x: 4:6; 9:30; ἐρημόω: 2x: 4:6; 6:17, both of Jerusalem; Ἰερουσαλήμ: 10x;

throughout 4 Baruch, the transliterated form of the Hebrew is preferred over the graecized form, Ἱεροσόλυμα. Although this last fact is consistent with a translation from the Hebrew (cf. Delling, Lehre, 45 n. 19), it hardly demands it as the Hebrew form appears in sources composed originally in Greek, such as Matt 23:37; Luke 4:9; Rom 15:19; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:22. See further Schaller, “Greek Version,” 59–61.   69 Of 586: LXX 1 Esdr 2:17; 2 Esdr 4:15; Jer 40:10; Bar 4:12; Lamentations title; Ecclus 49:6; 3 Bar. 1:2; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.132. Of 70: Josephus, Bell. 3.431; Justin, 1 Apol. 47.4; cf. the use of ἐρήμωσις in Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20 and the use of ‫ שמם‬with reference to the desolation of Jerusalem in Lam 4:5; 5:18; 4Q179 frag. 1 1:10; 2:7; frag. 2 5; etc. See on 7:15 for the association of Jeremiah with the related ἔρημος.  70 Ἁμαρτία: see on 1:1 and pp. 114–15; του ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ: see on 3:8; cf. Ps. Sol. 9:8: ἡμεῖς λαὸς ὃν ἠγάπησας; παρεδόθη εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν: see on 1:5; 3:6; ἁμαρτία: see on 1:1; λαός: see on 1:5.  71 For the divine passive cf. v. 1 and see p. 137 n. 23.

196

Commentary

and implies that, despite what they have done, and despite what God—the agent of the passive, παρεδόθη—has done to them, their divinely-favored status endures. The line is modeled on LXX Jer 12:7, where God, through Jeremiah, says of Israel: ἔδωκα τὴν ἠγαπημένην ψυχήν μου εἰς χεῖρας ἐχθρῶν αὐτῆς. Although the concluding διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ is in part redundant, it makes for emphasis. It also adds a self-indictment: the speaker humbly includes himself. Implicitly this would seem to put Baruch beneath Abimelech, for the former, in 6:3, confesses the latter to be without sin.72 Note also 2 Bar. 9:1, which makes the same claim for Jeremiah: “I, Baruch, came with Jeremiah, whose heart was found to be pure from sins.” One suspects that, in 4 Baruch’s source, the double plural—“for our sins and those of the people“—referred to the priests and the people.73 4:7. Baruch now turns from himself and God’s people to their enemies, warning them not to boast. The line picks up the wording of 1:5 (q.  v.): 4:7 μὴ καυχάσθωσαν οἱ παράνομοι    καὶ εἴπωσιν ὅτι,      Ἰσχύσαμεν λαβεῖν τὴν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ δυνάμει ἡμῶν74 1:5 ἵνα καυχήσηται ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ    καὶ εἴπῃ ὅτι,      Ἴσχυσα ἐπὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ

In addition, Baruch’s rhetorical admonition—which is an apostrophe, a feigned turning from one’s audience to address an absent audience, as often in the Hebrew Bible prophets and the Sibylline Oracles—coheres with the narrative, which makes it abundantly clear that it is God who has delivered the city and its temple into the hands of the Babylonians (1:8, 10; 3:1–4; 4:1).

 72 According

to Herzer, 4 Baruch, 76, “in light of the reference to the ‘unfaithful trustees’ in 4:4, ‘our’ refers to Jeremiah and Baruch.”  73 Cf. 2 Bar. 10:18; y. Šeqal. 50a (6:3); ARN B 7:19; b. Ta̔an. 29a.  74 Καυχάομαι: see on 1:5; cf. 3 Macc 2:17: μὴ καυχήσωνται οἱ παράνομοι; παράνομος: 1x; Schaller, Paralipomena, 722, suggests that “the lawless” here effectively means “the pagans”; cf. 3 Macc 2:17; ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5; ἰσχύω: see on 1:5; λαμβάνω: see on 3:8; for the verb with military content see LXX Isa 36:1; Dan 11:15; Amos 4:2; τὴν πόλιν τοῦ Θεοῦ: see on 1:5; ἐν τῇ δυνάμει ἡμῶν: see on 1:3; ἐν τῇ δυνάμει recurs in 6:7 and 7:1.

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

197

The meaning of ἠδυνήθητε ἐπ’ αὐτῇ is unclear because the verbal root is uncertain. The verb may be δύναμαι (as in 1:8, q.  v.), with the sense “conquer” or “prevail”: “you did prevail against it.”75 But Riaud and Piovanelli may be correct to translate as though the verb were ἀδύναμαι or ἀδυναμέω, so that the sense is: “You were powerless against it.”76 While the former is very rare—a TLG search reveals only four occurrences in all of Greek literature77—the latter is better attested78 and occurs in LXX Ecclus prol. 20 and Apoc. Ezek. Pap. Ch. Beatty 185 frag. 2 recto 5. In any case the important point is theological and has to do with God and Israel, not the Chaldeans: ἀλλὰ διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν παρεδόθημεν.79 Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:5: “a conquered (‫ )כבושה‬city you have conquered.” By this point, the words have become a refrain: 1:1 διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ 1:7 διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν αὐτῇ 4:6 διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας του ἠγαπημένου λαοῦ 4:6 διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ                                                                                                   λαοῦ 4:7 διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας                                                                       ἡμῶν  

4:8. The next line moves from warning to prophecy. It contrasts the future of Israel with the future of Babylon. The one on top now will be on the bottom then, and the one on the bottom now will be on top then.80 Presumably this is eschatological reversal.81 The future will bring mercy and return from exile: ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἡμῶν οἰκτειρήσει ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπιστρέψει ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν.82 The words probably echo LXX Mic 7:19—αὐτὸς ἐπιστρέψει καὶ οἰκτιρήσει ἡμᾶς—interpreted as a prophecy of the ingath-

 75 Cf.

LXX Jer 1:19; 3:5; 15:20; Hos 12:4. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 13, translates: “you did receive power over it.”  76 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 143: “vous étiez impuissants contre elle”; Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 313: “siete stati impotenti contro di lei.”  77 Three being Christian and from the sixth century or later.  78 A TLG search returns twenty-one hits, the earliest being Euripides frag. pap. 156.  79 Ἁμαρτία: see on 1:1 and pp. 114–15; παραδίδωμι: see on 1:5.  80 Cf. and contrast 9:14–17, where Israel is on the wrong side of future reversal.  81 See on 3:8, 10. There is also eschatological reversal in the Christian ending in ch. 9; there the Gentile nations depose Israel.  82 Θεὸς ἡμῶν: 1x; οἰκτιρέω: 1x; cf. Lam 3:32, which is also uttered after the fall of Jerusalem: ὁ ταπεινώσας οἰκτιρήσει; ἐπιστρέφω: see on 3:10; πόλις: see on 1:1; εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν recurs in 7:21, 22; 8:4, 7.

198

Commentary

ering of scattered Israel in the latter days.83 Not only is this the only place that the LXX has οἰκτιρήσει ἡμᾶς, but if 4 Bar. 4:8 is immediately followed by “blessed are our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (4:9), Mic. 7:19 is immediately followed by “You will give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as you swore to our fathers” (7:20). By contrast, the Chaldeans will not have life: ὑμεῖς δὲ ζωὴν οὐχ ἕξετε.84 This is one of the few places where 4 Baruch contemplates revenge.85 The expression is a bit unusual. It appears to be a way of saying “your end has or will come” (cf. Jer 51:13), although it is just possible, given our text’s eschatological orientation, that the reference is to the perdition of Israel’s enemies in the world to come. One might suspect a Christian hand here; cf. John 6:53 (οὐκ ἔχετε ζωήν); 1 John 3:15 (οὐκ ἔχει ζωήν); 5:12 (τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει); Acts Thom. 51 (οὐχ ἕξει ζωήν). This, however, is not necessary; cf. Plotinus, Enn. 4.7.11 (οὐχ οὕτω τὴν ζωὴν ἔχει); Themistius, In Arist. lib. de an. paraphr. ed. Heinze 5/3 p. 43 (οὐκ ἔχει ζωήν); Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. ed. Diehl 2 p. 230 (οὐκ ἔχει ζωήν). 4:9. Baruch now utters a beatitude, blessing the patriarchs: μακάριοί εἰσιν οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν, Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ, ὅτι ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, καὶ οὐκ εἶδον τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως ταύτης.86 The word, μακάριος, appears first in Pindar (5th cent. BCE). The basic meaning, like that of ὄλιβος, is “free from daily cares or worries” or “prosperous.” It originally describes the blessed state of the gods, who neither toil nor suf-

 83 Liv.

Proph. Mic Dor. 1 quotes Mic 7:19. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 77, citing Ps 60:1; Lam 3:32; Mic 7:19; 2 Macc 8:2; 3 Macc 5:51, observes: οἰκτιρέω “often refers to sympathy for one already punished, so the result of this mercy is the reversal of the judgment: God will bring the deported people back to the city.”  84 Ζωή: 3x: 4:8; 9:13, 14, the latter two Christian.  85 See the discussion below, on 7:29.   86 Μακάριος: 1x; οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ: the phrase (in the genitive) recurs in 6:18; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ: 9x; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ + noun + ταύτης/τοῦτο: 4x: 1:1, 7; 4:9; 6:17; κόσμος: 3x: 4:9; 6:18, 19; although τοῦ κόσμου τούτου occurs 12x in the NT and is the equivalent of the common rabbinic ‫העולם הזה‬, it also appears in Plutarch, Mor. 1054E, 1055C; εἶδον: see on 2:2; τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως: see on 3:9. On the beatitude in general see G. Bertram and F. Hauck, “μακάριος κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967), 362–70; E. Lipiński, “Macarismes et psaumes de congratulation,” RB 75 (1968), 321–67; M. Hengel, “Zum matthäischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund,” TRu 52 (1987), 332–41; Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 97–105; Ulrich Heckel, Der Segen im Neuen Testament: Begriff, Formeln, Gesten, mit einem praktisch-theologischen Ausblick (WUNT 150; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

199

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

fer.87 Yet human beings may also be considered “blessed” because of their good children, virtue, piety, wisdom, or fame. In Hebrew Jewish texts, ‫אשרי‬ and ‫ ברך‬are the key words, and religious circumstances are typically to the fore, as here. The difference between ‫ אשרי‬and ‫ ברך‬is that the former, which is never applied to God, is less sacred and solemn and usually has to do with a condition of happiness. The latter is the liturgical word used for blessing God. The LXX uses μακάριος (64x) only for ‫אשרי‬, never for ‫ברוך‬ (= εὐλογητὀς). While the beatitude took multiple forms, the pattern in our text— μακάριος/οι + form of εἰμί + ὅτι—is well attested: Ps.-Plato, Hippia major 304b Bar 4:4 Jos. Asen. 16:14 Matt 5:11–12 Matt 16:17 Luke 14:14 Acts Thom. 94 (bis) Apos. Con. 5:2:3 Inf. Gos. Thom. 1:12; 3:13 Gos. Barth. 4:68

μακάριος εἶ μακάριοί ἐσμεν Ἰσραήλ μακάρια εἶ σύ, Ἀσενέθ μακάροί ἐστε … μακάριος εἶ Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ μακάριος ἔσῃ μακάριοί ἐστε οἱ πραεῖς μακάριός ἐστιν μακάριός εἰμι ἐγὼ μακάριος εἶ …

ὅτι ὅτι διότι ὅτι ὅτι ὅτι ὅτι ὅτι ὅτι ὅτι

Note also 1 En. 58:2–3: “‘Blessed are you, just and elect ones, because glorious is your portion.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—all three are named only here and in 6:18— are “our fathers.” The expression goes back to the revelation to Moses on Sinai,88 appears elsewhere in the HB/OT,89 and then occurs often in later sources, Jewish and Christian.90 The three fathers are fortunate because “they went out of this world” without seeing “the annihilation” of Jerusalem.91 Similar sentences occur in 2 Baruch: “Blessed is he who was not born, or he who was born and died. But to us who are living, woe to us,

Homer, Od. 5.7 (“O Father Zeus and other gods blessed [μάκαρες] forever”); Epicurus, Ep. ad Men. 123 (God is immortal and μακάριον); Ps.-Socrates, Ep. 6.4 (“God is happy and μακάριος”).  88 Exod 3:15–16: “The God of our fathers, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”  89 Exod 4:5; 1:8; 6:10; 1 Chr 29:18; Tob 4:12; Pr. Man. 1; T. Levi 15:4; Apoc. Ezek. Pap. Ch. Beatty 185 frag. 1 recto 10–11.  90 E.  g. Acts 3:13; Josephus, Ant. 11.169; Apos. Con. 7:26:3; 33:2; Gos. Nic. 14:2.  91 Contrast Ps. Sol. 17:44, which blesses those who “see the good fortune of Israel” (cf. 18:6) and Matt 13:16 and Luke 10:23, which bless people for what they see now.  87 Cf.

200

Commentary

for we see the afflictions of Zion and what has happened to Jerusalem” (10:6–7); “our fathers went to rest without grief and, behold, the just sleep in the earth in peace. For they did not know this anguish, nor did they hear what happened to us. If only you had ears, O earth, and if only you had a heart, O dust, that you could go and announce in Sheol, and say to the dead, ‘Blessed are you, more than we who live’” (11:4–7).92 Our author likes the construction, ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ + definite article + noun + τούτου/ταύτης (cf. ‫ יצא‬+ ‫מן‬+ ‫ ה‬+ noun + ‫)הזה‬.93 Comparable is the rabbinic ‫ יצא‬+ ‫מן העולם‬.94 4:10. Having uttered a lament, Baruch departs: ταῦτα εἰπὼν Βαροὺχ ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.95 Our author likes ταῦτα εἰπών + subject + verb signifying departure: 1:11 3:13 4:10 6:15

ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ Κύριος ἀπῆλθεν ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ Κύριος ἀνέβη ταῦτα εἰπὼν Βαροὺχ ἐξῆλθεν ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ ἄγγελος ἀπῆλθεν

This is not a LXX locution.96 Departure, signified here by ἐξῆλθεν (see on 5:12), is a motif that runs through the chapter. Jeremiah departs from the

 92 Contrast

Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2, where Jeremiah, after seeing Jerusalem’s destruction, weeps and cries out, “O our merciful fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! Arise from your graves and observe your people the house of Israel going into captivity and embarking into exile.” Herzer, 4 Baruch, 78 n. 27, takes our text “to interpret 2 Bar. 11:4 [see above] in the light of 2 Bar. 21:24 [‘there have been many years of desolation since the days of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all of those like them, who sleep in the earth, on whose account you said that you created the world’]” and so to formulate a “new text on the basis of an exegesis of the old.”  93 4x: 1:1, 7; 4:9; 6:17. Cf. LXX Gen 19:14 (ἐξέλθατε ἐκ τοῦ τόπου τούτου); 31:13 (ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς ταύτης); Jer 22:11 (ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ τόπου τούτου); also Herm. Sim. 50:3 (ἔξελθε ἐκ τῆς γῆς πόλεως ταῦτης); and esp.1 Cor 5:10 (ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐξελθεῖν); 2 Clem. 5:1 (ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου); 8:3 (τὸ ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου); Acts Paul frag. 6 (ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου); Hippolytus, Comm. Dan. 2.37 (ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου … ἐξεληλύθεσαν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου); 4.18 (ἐξέλθη ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου); Physiologus (Ps.-Bas. red.) 29 (ἐξέλθῃς ἐκ τοῦ βίου τούτου); P. Col. 7 169 (ἐξῆλθεν τὸν βίον); CMC 37:7–8 (ἐξερχόμεναι ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου).  94 As in m. ’Abot 2:11; 3:11; 4:21; Tanh. (Buber) Metsora̔ 3; b. Mes. 43a. ˙  95 Ταῦτα εἰπών: see on 1:1; ἐξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: see on 4:4.  96 For parallels see Gk. LAE 43:4 (ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ ἄγγελος ἀνῆλθεν); John 18:1 (ταῦτα εἰπὼν Ἰησοῦς ἐξῆλθεν); Acts Paul 6 (ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ Παῦλος ἀπῆλθεν);

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

201

city in v. 3 (ἐξῆλθεν). The patriarchs are said to have departed this world in v. 9 (ἐξῆλθον). And Baruch leaves the city in v. 10, where the narrator uses ἐξῆλθεν and Baruch himself uses ἐξῆλθον. The following two participles—κλαίων καὶ λέγων—imply continuous action.97 We are to envisage Baruch repeating, again and again, the refrain, “Grieving because of you, Jerusalem, I went out from you.” The Greek is nicely balanced and has a poetic feel: Λυπούμενος διὰ σὲ   Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ σοῦ98

Jerusalem (see on v. 6) in the vocative occurs in other texts related to Jeremiah and Baruch.99 4:11. Baruch—who has survived the sack of Jerusalem in accord with the oracle of comfort in Jer 45:5 (“I will give you your life as a prize of war”)— sits in a tomb: ἔμεινεν ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενος.100 Although sitting in order to mourn is not new to our narrative (see on 3:14), the place—a tomb— is. Baruch is obviously not sitting there in order to consult the dead.101 His action is rather a prophetic symbol. He, like the nation, is lifeless. He will no longer participate in everyday life. He is fit only for the company of the dead. In the Jeremiah Apocryphon, it is Jeremiah who sits in a tomb (9, in the land; 31, 35: in Babylon). One recalls later Christian ascetics who lived in cave tombs.102 Note also Mark 5:1–2 (a demoniac “lived among the tombs”); Apophth. Patr. (systematic collection ed. Guy SC 387) 3.87 (a grieving woman sits in a tomb [ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζομένην] weeping bitterly).103 In 2 Bar. 21:1, Baruch sits and mourns in a cave in the valley of Kidron. Perhaps this is the earlier tradition, and 4 Baruch turned the cave into a

Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. recs. β 3:30 (ταῦτα εἰπών ὁ Χαλδαῖος ἐξῆλθεν).  97 Κλαίω: see on 2:5; ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5.  98 Λυπέω: see on 3:9; Ἰερουσαλήμ: 10x; ἐξέρχομαι + ἀπό: 4x: 4:10; 5:12; 8:7 bis.  99 See e.  g. Jer 4:14; 6:8; 13:27; 15:5; Bar 4:30, 36; 5:1, 5. 100 Μένω: see on 2:10; μνημεῖον: 3x: 4:11; 6:1; 7:1—in each case in a narrative seam; καθέζομαι: 3x: 4:11; 5:16; 6:1 (again of sitting in a tomb). For the construction see on 7:32. 101 Contrast Deut 18:11–12; Isa 65:4. 102 See e.  g. Athanasius, Anth. 8–10; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Phil. hist. 9:3; 12:2. 103 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 79, appropriately compares the symbolism of graves in Ezek 37:12–13.

202

Commentary

tomb. Or perhaps it was the other way around: the tradition referred to a tomb, and 2 Baruch turned this into a cave. Given that cave tombs were so common (cf. John 11:38), it would have been easy to turn the one into the other.104 In either case, Abimelech also may enter the tomb in 6:1–2. One should note that, in Jer. Apocr. 9:2, Baruch takes soldiers to the tomb in which Jeremiah sits (cf. 35). If hearers of 4 Baruch were familiar with this story, they might imagine that Baruch now occupies the tomb Jeremiah once occupied. The narrator concludes this section by remarking that angels clarified all: τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐρχομένων καὶ ἐκδιηγουμένων αὐτῷ περὶ πάντων.105 The verb, ἐκδιηγέομαι, can mean “narrate” or “recount.”106 It can also, however, connote “in detail” (so LSJ, s.  v.); cf. BDAG, s.  v., citing Acts 15:3: “to provide detailed information when telling something.” That seems to be the case here. The angels are not simply telling Baruch, who has himself been a witness to the main events, what has happened. They are rather interpreting, explaining at length, giving him knowledge beyond his own analysis in vv. 6–9.107 In other words, Baruch is the recipient of angelic revelation concerning the meaning of Jerusalem’s downfall. One could, then, view 4:11 as an abbreviated reference to the apocalyptic revelations granted to Baruch in 2 Baruch or some other text.108 Certainly an audience familiar with that book might well think in those terms. Yet it is also possible that v. 11 does not allude to a particular book but rather, more broadly, to a tradition that Baruch received revelation after Jerusalem fell; cf. 3 Baruch. Our narrator in any event is uninterested is reciting those revelations (cf. 9:28) but in telling the story of Abimelech, which unfolds next.

104 Wright, Baruch,

64–65, thinks that 4 Baruch is more primitive here: “Had the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah known” the tradition of Baruch lamenting in the ruins of the temple, as in 2 and 3 Baruch, “it would have been unnecessary to introduce the image of Baruch receiving revelation while sitting in a tomb.” For the various attempts to identify the place in 4 Bar. 4:11 see Herzer, 4 Baruch, 78 n. 29. 105 Τῶν ἀγγέλων ἐρχομένων: see on 3:2; ἐκδιηγέομαι: 1x; LXX: 14x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 3x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 11x; with πᾶς: LXX Ecclus 42:17; Ezek 12:16; Josephus, Bell. 1.619. 106 See GELS, s.  v., with examples from the LXX. 107 Angels often appear as interpreters of visions in Jewish literature: Dan 8:15–26; Zech 1:7–17; etc. Here, however, the angels interpret events; cf. Matt 1:20–24; Mark 16:4–7; Acts 1:10–11. 108 In 2 Baruch, however, God speaks to Baruch more often than do angels. For Sparks, AOT, 901, “it is tempting to see the Greek Apocalypse [3 Baruch] as a later apocalyptist’s amplification of the situation described so neatly at Par. Jer. iv. 11.”

Chapter 4:  Destruction and Exile

203

Jer 43:5–44:1 has Baruch going to Egypt (cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.179) while Bar 1:1 has him going to Babylon with the exiles.109 Our text implies that Baruch spent the years of the Babylonian exile in Judea. The tension with other texts might hint that 4 Baruch text has no interest in what we call “history.” Yet readers or hearers of 4 Baruch could, if so moved, have imagined that, while Baruch went to Egypt during the exilic period, it was only for a short time, and that he soon enough returned to Israel.

109

Cf. b. Meg. 16b; Lam. Rab. proem 34; Cant. Rab. 5:5; S. ‘Olam Rab. 26.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs 5:1. Now Abimelech carried the figs in the heat, and coming upon a tree, he sat under its shadow in order to rest for a bit. And inclining his head on the basket of figs, he fell asleep, and he slumbered for sixty-six years. And he did not wake up from his sleep. 5:2. And afterward he rose up from his sleep and said, “Would that I had slept sweetly a little longer; and my head is heavy, for I did not get enough sleep to satisfy me.” 5:3. Then, uncovering the basket of figs, he found them dripping with sap. 5:4. And he said: “I wish that I could sleep a little longer because my head is heavy. 5:5. I am, however, afraid, lest I (go back to) sleep and fail to wake up in time, so that my father Jeremiah will think less of me. For if he were not in a hurry, he would not have sent me today at daybreak. 5:6. So I will get up and go in the heat of the day, and I will go to where there is no heat … 5:7. Then getting up he took the basket of figs, and he put it on his shoulders, and he went to Jerusalem. Yet he did not know it (the city), nor his house nor his place nor his family, and he said: 5:8. “Blessed is the Lord, for a great ecstasy has fallen upon me. This is not the city. 5:9. And I have lost my way, for when I got up from my sleep, I came by way of the mountain road, 5:10. and with my head heavy since I failed to get enough sleep, I have lost my way. 5:11. To say this, that I became lost, will astonish Jeremiah.” 5:12. And he left the city, and observing (further) he saw the characteristic signs of the city, and he said: “This is the city. Nonetheless, I have lost my way.” 5:13. And again he returned to the city, and he searched about, and he did not find any of his own people. 5:14. And he said: “Blessed is the Lord, for a great ecstasy has fallen upon me.” 5:15. And again he went out of the city. And he continued grieving, not knowing where he should go. 5:16. And he put the basket down, saying, “I will sit here until the Lord takes away from me this ecstasy.” 5:17. While he was sitting there, he saw an aged man approaching from a field, and Abimelech said to him, “I say to you, old man, what city is this?” And he said to him, “It is Jerusalem.” 5:18. And Abimelech said to him, “Where is Jeremiah the priest, and Baruch the public reader, and all the people of this city, for I have not found them?” 5:19. And the old man said to him, “Are you not of this city 5:20. (seeing that) today you remember Jeremiah, that you ask about him after such a long time has passed? https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-016

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

205

5:21. For Jeremiah is in Babylon with the people. For they were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar the king, and with them is Jeremiah, who brings good news to them and instructs them in the word.” 5:22. Now Abimelech, upon hearing this from the old man, immediately said, 5:23. “If you were not an old man, and one were allowed to upbraid his elder, I would have ridiculed you and said that you have taken leave of your senses since you have said, ‘The people were taken captive to Babylon.’ 5:24. Even if the cataracts of heaven had rained down upon them, there has not been enough time (for them) to go to Babylon. 5:25. For how much time has passed since my father Jeremiah sent me to the estate of Agrippa, in order (for me) to bring (back) a few figs so that I might give (them) to the sick of the people? 5:26. And going away I carried them, and coming upon a certain tree in the heat of the day, I sat down in order to rest a bit, and I laid my head on the basket and slept. And when I woke up, I uncovered the basket of figs, supposing that I was late, and I found the figs dripping with sap, just as I had gathered them. Yet you say, ‘The people have been exiled to Babylon.’ 5:27. And that you might know (the truth), take the figs and look (at them).” 5:28. And he uncovered the basket of figs for the old man, 5:29. and he saw them dripping with sap. 5:30. And when he saw them, the old man said, “O my son, you are a righteous man, and God did not want to show you the desolation of the city. For he brought upon you an ecstasy, for behold, it is indeed sixty-six years today since the people were taken away as captives to Babylon. 5:31. And in order that you might know, young man, that this is true, look up at the field, and observe that the growth of the produce is not yet visible. Observe also the figs, that it is not yet their season. And understand.” 5:32. Then Abimelech cried out in a great voice, saying, “Blessed are you, God of heaven and earth, the rest of the souls of the just in every place.” 5:33. And he said to the old man, “What month is this?” He said, “Nisan, and it is the twelfth day.” 5:34. And taking one of the figs, he handed it to the old man and said to him, “May God light your way to the upper city, Jerusalem.” 5:1. Ὁ δὲ Ἀβιμέλεχ ἤνεγκε τὰ σῦκα τῷ καύματι, καὶ καταλαβὼν δένδρον, ἐκάθισεν ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον. Καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων ὕπνωσεν, κοιμώμενος ἔτη ἑξηκονταέξ. Καὶ οὐκ ἐξυπνίσθη ἐκ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ. 5:2. Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ, εἶπεν ὅτι, Ἡδέως ἐκοιμήθην ἂν ἄλλο ὀλίγον, καὶ βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκορέσθην τοῦ ὕπνου μου. 5:3. Καὶ ἀνακαλύψας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων, εὗρεν αὐτὰ στάζοντα γάλα. 5:4. Καὶ εἶπεν· Ἤθελον κοιμηθῆναι ὀλίγον ὅτι βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου. 5:5. Ἀλλὰ φοβοῦμαι, μήπως κοιμηθῶ

206

Commentary

καὶ βραδυνῶ τοῦ ἐξυπνισθῆναι, καὶ ὀλιγωρήσῃ Ἰερεμίας ὁ πατήρ μου· εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἐσπούδαζεν, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέστειλέ με ὄρθρου σήμερον. 5:6. Ἀναστὰς οὖν πορεύσομαι τῷ καύματι, καὶ ἀπέλθω ὅπου οὐ καῦμα … 5:7. Ἐγερθεὶς οὖν ἦρε τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτὴν, οὔτε τὴν οἰκίαν οὔτε τὸν τόπον οὔτε τὸ γένος ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν· 5:8. Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ. Οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ πόλις. 5:9. πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν, ὅτι διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὅρους ἦλθον, ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου μου· 5:10 καὶ βαρείας οὔσης τῆς κεφαλῆς μου διὰ τὸ μὴ κορεσθῆναί με τοῦ ὕπνου μου πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν. 5:11. Θαυμαστὸν εἰπεῖν τοῦτο ἐναντίον Ἰερεμίου, ὅτι πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν. 5:12. Ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ κατανοήσας εἶδε τὰ σημεῖα τῆς πόλεως, καὶ εἶπεν· Αὕτη μὲν ἔστιν ἡ πόλις, πεπλάνημαι δέ τὴν ὁδόν. 5:13. Καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ ἐζήτησε, καὶ οὐδένα εὗρε τῶν ἰδίων. 5:14. Καὶ εἶπεν· Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ. 5:15. Καὶ πάλιν ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως. Καὶ ἔμεινε λυπούμενος, μὴ εἰδὼς ποῦ ἀπέλθῃ. 5:16. Καὶ ἀπέθηκε τὸν κόφινον λέγων· Καθέζομαι ὧδε ἕως ὁ Κύριος ἄρῃ τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. 5:17. Καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ, εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ· Σοὶ λέγω, πρεσβῦτα, ποία ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις αὕτη; Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰερουσαλήμ ἐστι. 5:18. Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ· Ποῦ ἔστιν ὁ Ἰερεμίας ὁ ἱερεὺς, καὶ Βαροὺχ ὁ ἀναγνώστης, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, ὅτι οὐχ εὗρον αὐτούς; 5:19. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ πρεσβύτης· Οὐκ εἶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης 5:20. σήμερον μνησθεὶς τοῦ Ἰερεμίου,  ὅτι ἐπερωτᾷς περὶ αὐτοῦ μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον; 5:21. Ἰερεμίας γὰρ ἐν Βαβυλῶνί ἐστι μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ· ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονόσορ τοῦ βασιλέως, καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν Ἰερεμίας εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ κατηχῆσαι αὐτοὺς τὸν λόγον. 5:22. Εὐθὺς δὲ ἀκούσας Ἀβιμέλεχ παρὰ τοῦ γηραιοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἶπεν· 5:23. Εἰ μὴ ἦς πρεσβύτης, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ὑβρίσαι τὸν μείζονα αὐτοῦ,  ἐπικατεγέλων ἄν σοι καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι μαίνῃ· ὅτι εἶπας, ᾘχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 5:24. Εἰ ἦσαν οἱ καταρράκται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατελθόντες ἐπ’ αὐτούς, οὔπω ἐστὶ καιρὸς ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 5:25. Πόση γὰρ ὥρα ἐστὶν ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπέστειλέ με ὁ πατήρ μου Ἰερεμίας εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐνέγκαι ὀλίγα σῦκα, ἵνα δίδωμι τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ; 5:26. Καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἤνεγκον αὐτὰ, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐπί τι δένδρον τῷ καύματι, ἐκάθισα τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον, καὶ ἔκλινα τὴν κεφαλήν μου ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον καὶ ἐκοιμήθην. Καὶ ἐξυπνισθεὶς ἀπεκάλυψα τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων, νομίζων ὅτι ἐβράδυνα, καὶ εὗρον τὰ σῦκα στάζοντα γάλα, καθὼς συνέλεξα αὐτά. Σὺ δὲ λέγεις, ὅτι ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 5:27. Ἵνα δὲ γνῷς, λάβε, ἴδε

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

207

τὰ σῦκα. 5:28. Καὶ ἀνεκάλυψε τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων τῷ γέροντι. 5:29. Καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὰ στάζοντα γάλα. 5:30. Ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὰ ὁ γηραιὸς ἄνθρωπος, εἶπεν· Ὦ υἱέ μου, δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος εἶ σύ, καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς δεῖξαί σοι τὴν ἐρήμωσιν τῆς πόλεως. Ἤνεγκε γὰρ ταύτην τὴν ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ σέ ὁ Θεός. Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη σήμερόν εἰσιν ἀφ’ οὗ ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 5:31. Καὶ ἵνα μάθῃς, τέκνον, ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστιν, ἀνάβλεψον εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν καὶ ἴδε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐφάνη ἡ αὔξησις τῶν γενημάτων. Ἴδε καὶ τὰ σῦκα, ὅτι καιρὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ γνῶθι. 5:32. Τότε ἔκραξε μεγάλῃ φωνῇ Ἀβιμέλεχ λέγων· Εὐλογήσω σε, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ἡ ἀνάπαυσις τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν δικαίων ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. 5:33. Καὶ λέγει τῷ γηραιῷ ἀνθρώπῳ· Ποῖός ἐστιν ὁ μὴν οὗτος; Ὁ δὲ εἶπε· Νισσάν· καὶ ἐστιν ἡ δωδεκάτη. 5:34. Καὶ ἐπάρας ἐκ τῶν σύκων, ἔδωκε τῷ γηραιῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Ὁ Θεὸς φωταγωγήσει σε εἰς τὴν ἄνω πόλιν Ἰερουσαλήμ. Textual Notes 5:2: Harris and Herzer have ἂν ἄλλο ὀλίγον. Kraft-Purintun print ὀλίγον, found in C R. Ceriani follows A B: ἀλλ’ ὀλίγον. // On the longer readings, which refer to God commanding Jeremiah and/or speak of “the shade of the mountain,” as well as the change to “seventy” in the Menologion/Synaxarion mss., see Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 313–14. 5:6. After ἀναστὰς οὖν … καύματι καί, Herzer prints in brackets the text of Harris: ἀπέλθω ὅπου οὐ καῦμα, οὐ κόπος ἔστιν καθ’ ἡμέραν. Although not in any ms., Herzer defends Harris’ conjecture as in accord with his view that the entire chapter has an eschatological orientation, as though Abimelech is really on his way to the heavenly Jerusalem, where there is neither heat nor toil. This reads a great deal into the passage. Kraft-Purintun follow A B: οὐ γὰρ καῦμα οὐ κόπος ἔστιν καθ’ ἡμέραν; (“for is there not heat, is there not toil every day?”). This—which just might allude to Qohelet’s refrain about toiling under the sun, even though the key word there is μόχθος, not κόπος (1:3; 2:18; etc.)—seems extraneous, as does the eth: “because the heat has grown intense and is never lacking anywhere.” Piovanelli follows the latter in part: “perché il caldo e la fatica non diminuiscono da nessuna parte.” Ceriani prints: ἀπέλθω οὐ γὰρ καῦμα, οὐ κόπος ἐστὶ καθ’ ἡμέραν. C R omit, presumably because the Greek did not make sense. The short text has: μὴ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι κόπος καὶ καῦσον καθ᾽ ἡμέραν.1 Arm. 933 (= 920)

  1 Enigmatically

following this is: “I will instead go away quickly and heal him (θεραπεύσω αὐτόν) and there I will sleep.”

208

Commentary

is not much better: “Neither today’s heat nor my judgment will hinder me.” The text seems to be corrupt, and no conjecture convincingly explains the variants.2 Maybe some words were accidentally omitted through homoioteleuton. See further below on v. 6. 5:7. Before καὶ εἶπεν, Kraft-Pruintun print οὐτὲ τινα τῶν γνωρίμων εὗρεν. Cf. A B (οὐτὲ τινα εὗρεν; so Ceriani) and R (οὐτὲ τινα ἕτερον τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτοῦ εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ).3 The eth has: “neither the city nor his house.” Harris and Herzer follow A B. Piovanelli translates the shorter reading of C, which omits οὔτε τὸν τόπον; but this may be due to an eye passing from the οὔτε in οὔτε τὸν τόπον to the οὔτε in οὔτε τὸ γένος. See further the commentary below. 5:8. Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun with C R add σήμερον after ἐμέ. // After πόλις, P R eth have Ἰερουσαλήμ; so Kraft-Purintun and Piovanelli. A B C arm 993 (= 920) slav omit. 5:9. Ceriani, Harris, and Kraft-Purintun lack τὴν ὁδόν, which appears in C R and Kraft-Purintun. Given its occurrence in v. 10 and perhaps vv. 11–12, and given 4 Baruch’s love of parallelism, it may be original. 5:11. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer omit τὴν ὁδόν at the end. It appears in C R and Kraft-Purintun. 5:12. C followed by Kraft-Purintun has τὴν ὁδόν at the end. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer omit. 5:18. Eth arm 993 (= 920): ὁ ἱερεύς. A B arm 345 slav N T2: ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ. C: ὁ ἀρχιερεύς. P R: ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Arm 144: “the prophet and the priest.” Slav T1: “the priest, the prophet of God.” Piovanelli accepts C here.4 Harris, Kraft-Purintun, Herzer, and Schaller follow the eth. 5:23. The eth puts the comment about upbraiding after the reference to laughing; see Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 316. // Instead of μαίνῃ, B has μένει, which seems to be an error of the ear. A omits ἄν σοι καὶ ἔλεγον, which may instead be an error of sight, an eye having skipped from the end of ἐπικατεγέλων to the end of ἔλεγον. 5:25. Kraft-Purintun, following C, have: εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐνέγκαι ὀλίγα σῦκα. Herzer instead prints: εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐπὶ ὀλίγα σῦκα. Yet as A B have the related ἐνεγκα, and as the close parallels in 3:15 and 5:25 also have the verb, it is likely original. Ceriani: εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα; ἐπεὶ ὀλίγα σῦκα ἤνεγκα. 5:30. A B have ἰδεῖν σε (so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun) instead of δεῖξαί σοι (so Harris and Herzer). Given our author’s penchant for repetition and the use of ἴδῃ in 3:9, this could be original. // σήμερον, which Harris, Kraft-Purintun, Piovanelli, and Herzer accept, is problematic. The day Abimelech awakens

  2 Our

line is nonetheless somehow related to Jer. Apocr. 38:4, where Abimelech says upon waking up: “the weariness of every day is absent.”   3 In the closely-related Jer. Apocr. 38:10, Ebedmelech “did not find anyone he knew.”   4 So also Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 37.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

209

cannot be the same calendar day as when the exiles left, for although the people went into exile almost immediately after sending Abimelech away, it was then the seasons for figs (3:16–4:5), which it is not now (5:31). Is the inconcinnity original and due to an author’s lack of concern for ironing out details, or did a scribe carelessly add σήμερον for emphasis? The problem does not appear in A B arm slav T1 T2, which omit σήμερον (cf. Ceriani); but then perhaps perception of the problem led to deletion. 5:31. After ἀληθές ἐστιν, A B P arm 993 (= 920) add ἅπερ λέγω σοι; so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Cf. R: ἅπερ σοι λέγω. // Herzer prints ὅτι ἐφάνη ἡ αὔξησις τῶν γενημάτων (so too Harris), which he translates as: “that the growth of the crops has (just) begun”; cf. Piovanelli. But Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun, in line with A B, have ὅτι οὐκ ἐφάνη κτλ.—“the growth of the produce is not yet visible“—and surely this is the appropriate sense. 5:32. A B P R arm omit Κύριε; so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. C has Κύριε but not ὁ Θεός. The Ethiopic has “my Lord, God.” Harris and Herzer print: Κύριε ὁ Θεός; cf. Piovanelli.5 5:33. Νισσάν· καὶ ἐστιν ἡ δωδεκάτη: this is the conjecture of Harris, in line with eth: “the twelfth of the month of Nisan, which is Mijazja.”6 So too Herzer. Ceriani prints the text of A B, which must be corrupt: Νισσάν, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ δωδεκάτη. Nisan is not the twelfth month. C: Ἰσαάκ ἐστιν ὁ μὴν οὗτος. Ἰσαάκ is presumably a corruption of Νισσάν. Arm 993 (= 920): “It is Nisan, the first month.” Kraft-Purintun conjecture: Νισσάν, ὅ ἐστιν Ἀβιβ. Abib and Nisan are alternate names for the same month, and the conjecture is based on the fact that IB = 12: someone read (a textually corrupted?) ιβ as a number.7 Commentary Chapter 5 falls into two closely-related yet distinct parts. First, vv. 1–16 tell the story of Abimelech’s confusion after awakening from a sleep of seventy years. The narrative moves forward by alternating editorial comments (in the third person) with sentences that Abimelech speaks to himself (in the first person): 1 Abimelech wakes 2   Abimelech speaks 3 Abimelech uncovers the basket of figs

  5

See further Herzer, Paralipomena, 14. Piovanelli and Herzer also follow the eth here. Cf. Jer. Apocr. 39:13: “It is the twelfth of Parmoute [= April] today.” The Arabic parallel to the latter (Mingana, p. 187) has: “This month is the month of Nisaan” (so M; ms. P: Barmūdah).   7 Further discussion in Herzer, 4 Baruch, 94.   6

210

Commentary

4–6   Abimelech speaks 7 Abimelech enters Jerusalem 8–11   Abimelech speaks 12a Abimelech exits Jerusalem 12b   Abimelech speaks 13 Abimelech enters Jerusalem again 14   Abimelech speaks 15–16a Abimelech exits Jerusalem again 16   Abimelech speaks

Throughout these verses, which are full of humor, Abimelech remains utterly nonplussed. At the same time, his faith in God remains intact; see vv. 8, 14, 16. In the second half of ch. 5, Abimelech ceases to go in and out of Jerusalem. Having failed to figure things out, he gives up and sits in resignation, until an old man comes along. Vv. 17–34 then recount Abimelech’s conversation with this unnamed individual, who is able to put the pieces of the puzzle together and explain what has happened. The conversation turns upon the revelation of the figs in vv. 28–29: 17a-b Abimelech asks a question 17c    The old man answers 18 Abimelech asks a question 19–21    The old man answers 22–29 Abimelech relates all that has happened and uncovers the figs 30–31    The old man responds/interprets 32–33a Abimelech responds and asks a question 33b    The old man responds 34 Abimelech responds

The chapter is characterized by a remarkable degree of repetition, which is often verbatim: 1                     τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων 2–3 ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ …  ἀνακαλύψας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων,    εὗρεν αὐτὰ  στάζοντα

γάλα

7                     τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων 26    ἐξυπνισθεὶς ἀπεκάλυψα        τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων …           εὗρον τὰ σῦκα στάζοντα 

γάλα

28 ἀνεκάλυψε   τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων 29  εἶδεν αὐτὰ  στάζοντα γάλα 1 ἤνεγκε τὰ σῦκα τῷ καύματι, καὶ καταλαβὼν δένδρον 26 ἤνεγκον αὐτὰ, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐπί τι δένδρον τῷ καύματι

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

211

1 ἐκάθισεν … τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον 26 ἐκάθισα        τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον 1 καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων ὕπνωσεν 26 καὶ ἔκλινα τὴν κεφαλήν μου    ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον   καὶ ἐκοιμήθην 2 βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου 4 βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου 5 βραδυνῶ 26 ἐβράδυνα 8 εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ. 14 εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ 8–9 οὐκ   ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ πόλις. πεπλάνημαι    τὴν ὁδόν 10              πεπλάνημαι                                 τὴν ὁδόν 11              πεπλάνημαι                                 τὴν ὁδόν 12 αὕτη μὲν ἔστιν     ἡ πόλις, πεπλάνημαι δέ τὴν ὁδόν 12 15

ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως ἐξῆλθεν   ἔξω τῆς πόλεως

16 30

ὁ Κύριος ἄρῃ    τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ ἤνεγκε γὰρ ταύτην τὴν ἔκστασιν         ἐπὶ σέ ὁ Θεός

21 Βαβυλῶνί … τοῦ λαοῦ, ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν 23 ὅτι εἶπας, ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 26 σὺ δὲ λέγεις … ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 30 ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα

Perhaps such repetition betrays the oral basis of our tale. The humor in ch. 5 is striking. Until now, our story, with its focus on the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Israel, has been unremittingly somber and sad, bleak without relief. The story of Abimelech, by contrast, is humorous; it is designed to evoke laughter. The incongruity may be taken, not just as a sign of multiple origins for our book’s legends, but as a reflection of psychological health. A Jewish audience who, after the horrific events of CE 70, saw its own debacle reflected in 4 Baruch would be moved not only to contemplate its misery but also, despite everything, prodded to smile at a bit of a humor, if only for a few moments.8

  8 Cf.

Eric S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews admidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press, 2002), 137: “A people … suffering or fearing oppression, under the thumb of greater powers, may be ‘smiling through tears.’

212

Commentary

According to Herzer, Abimelech “is a symbol for the people in exile,” and according to Nir, Abimelech’s sleep is a consoling hint “that the period of Jerusalem’s desolation and the exile of the Jewish people would pass as quickly as a dream.”9 Yet Abimelech is wholly atypical: he alone sleeps. All the other characters, including Jeremiah and Baruch, are awake for the duration of the exile. Abimelech, moreover, remains in the land and so is a rather poor symbol for the exiles; and the depiction of conditions in ch. 7 is beyond miserable and has nothing in common with a quickly-passing dream. The legend of the sleeping Abimelech, which appears also in Jer. Apocr. 6, 12, 22, 38–40,10 goes back ultimately to an old Greek folktale that took various forms, a folktale that, in rabbinic tradition, came to be associated

Freud would appear to have the right answer. Laughter serves to mask a grim reality; humor permits a release of social aggressions by the powerless … Mirth can suppress fear. Comedy serves as compensation. Or, as Lord Byron put it, ‘if I laugh at any mortal thing, ‘tis that I may not weep.’”   9 Herzer, 4 Baruch, xv; Nir, Destruction, 208.  10 In chs. 6 and 12, Ebedmelech helps Jeremiah out of the pit of mire, after which the prophet promises him that he will not see Jerusalem’s destruction or suffer exile, and that “the sun will nurture you and the air cherish you. The earth on which you lie will give you rest. The stone under your head will give you repose. You will not be cold in winter and you will not faint in summer, but your soul will dwell at ease for seventy years until you see Jerusalem inhabited in glory.” In ch. 22, Ebedmelech goes to the garden of Agrippa to gather fruit, after which, at the fifth hour, on his way back to Jerusalem, he sits down in a cool and shady place with his basket of figs, grapes, and other fruit. A rocky outcrop spreads over him like a shelter and he falls to sleep. In chs. 38–40, which move seventy years into the future, the rock recedes and Ebedmelech awakens, seeing “the basket of figs and fruit, with their harvested fruit juicy and their twigs fresh upon them.” He observes to himself: “It is not long since I lay down. My head is still a little heavy, but the weariness of every day is absent.” He next goes to the city and finds its walls destroyed and its streets changed. Recognizing no one, he asks God, “What is this delusion to which I have come today?” When he sees an old man, he inquires about Jerusalem and Jeremiah and is told seventy years have passed. Ebedmelech responds, “If you were not an old man, I would say you are crazy. Now as I was about to go into the garden of Agrippa for fruit (and) turned aside for a little (and) sat down, in this very hour they took the people into captivity! I think that even if the cataract had opened its mouth (and) had overwhelmed them, I would have encountered them.” The old man, observing that it is not the season for figs, informs Ebedmelech that he is righteous and that God has kept him in sleep for years, and that the exiles are just now returning. As they are speaking, Jeremiah approaches on the king’s chariot, runs to greet him, and they embrace and kiss.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

213

with Honi the Circle Drawer.11 Aristotle, Phys. 218b, when writing about ˙ how time can pass without consciousness noticing, speaks of “the men in the fable who slept with heroes in Sardinia” and who, when they awoke, were unaware of the interval of time that had passed. While this is cryptic, Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10 is much clearer: Epimenides12 was a native of Knossos in Crete, though from wearing his hair long he did not look like a Cretan. One day he was sent into the country by his father to look for a stray sheep, and at noon he turned aside out of the way, and he went to sleep in a cave, where he slept for fifty-seven years. After this he got up and went in search of the sheep, thinking that he had been asleep only a short time. And when he could not find them, he came to the farm, and he found everything changed and another owner in possession. Then he went back to the town in utter perplexity; and there, on entering his own house, he met people who wanted to know who he was. At length he found his younger brother, now an old man, and learned the truth from him. So he became famous throughout Greece, and he was believed to be a special favorite of heaven.13

Both Talmuds have versions of this fable. According to y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9), R. Yudan Giria said: This is Honi the circle drawer, the grandson of Honi the circle drawer. Near the time ˙ ˙ of the destruction of the Temple, he went out to a mountain to his workers. Before he got there, it rained. He went into a cave. Once he sat down there, he became tired

 11

Lit.: John Koch, Die Siebenschläferlegende, ihr Ursprung und ihre Verbreitung: Eine mythologisch-literaturgeschichtliche Studie (Leipzig: C. Reissner, 1883); Huber, Wanderlegende; Herzer, Paralipomena, 91–100; idem, 4 Baruch, 84–90; Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 256–64; van der Horst, “Long-Sleepers.”  12 The saying in Tit 1:12 is commonly attributed to this semi-legendary Greek who lived in the first half of the 6th century BCE.  13 Additional references to this legend include Pliny the Elder, Nat. 7.175 (“Epimenides of Knossus when a boy, being weary with the heat and with travel, slept in a cave fifty-seven years, and when he awoke, just as if it had been on the following day, was surprised at the appearance of things and the change in them; and afterwards old age came on him in the same number of days as he had slept years, though nevertheless he lived to the age of 157”; Pliny does not believe this tale); Pausanias, Descr. 1.14.4 (“In front of this temple, where is also the statue of Triptolemus, is a bronze bull being led as it were to sacrifice, and there is a sitting figure of Epimenides of Knossus, who they say entered a cave in the country and slept. And the sleep did not leave him before the fortieth year, and afterwards he wrote verses and purified Athens and other cities”); Maximus of Tyre, Or. 10.1 (Epimenides—who is not to be believed literally—“said that he had lain for many years in a deep sleep in the cave of Dictaean Zeus and that in his dreams he had encountered the gods themselves and conversed with them”).

214

Commentary

and fell asleep. He remained sound asleep for seventy years, until the Temple was destroyed and it was rebuilt a second time. At the end of the seventy years he awoke from his sleep. He went out of the cave, and he saw a world completely changed. An area that had been planted with vineyards now produced olives, and an area planted in olives now produced grain. He asked the people of the district, “What do you hear in the world?” They said to him, “And you do not know what the news is?” He said to them, “No.” They said to him, “Who are you?” He said to them, “Honi the ˙ circle drawer.” They said to him, “We heard that when he would go into the Temple courtyard, it would be illuminated.” He went in and illuminated the place, and he recited concerning himself the following verse of Scripture: “When the Lord restored the fortune of Zion, we were like those who dream” (Ps 126:1).14

b.Ta̔an. 23a contains a near-relative of this story: R. Johanan said: “This just man [H oni] was throughout the whole of his life troubled ˙ about the meaning of the verse, ‘Song of Ascents, When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream’ (Psalm 126:1). Is it possible for a man to dream continuously for seventy years? One day he was journeying on the road and he saw a man planting a carob tree. He asked him, ‘How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?’ The man replied: ‘Seventy years.’ He then further asked him, ‘Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?’ The man replied: ‘I found [ready grown] carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted these for me so I too plant these for my children.’ Honi sat down to have a meal and ˙ sleep overcame him. As he slept, a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight, and he continued to sleep for seventy years. When he awoke he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree and he asked him, ‘Are you the man who planted the tree?’ The man replied: ‘I am his grandson.’ Thereupon he exclaimed, ‘It is clear that I have slept for seventy years.’ He then caught sight of his donkey who had given birth to several generations of mules, and he returned home. He there enquired, ‘Is the son of Honi the circle drawer still alive?’ The people answered him, ˙ ‘His son is no more, but his grandson is still living.’ Thereupon he said to them, ‘I am Honi the circle drawer.’ But no one would believe him. He then returned to the Beth ˙ Hamidrash and there he overheard the scholars say, ‘The law is as clear to us as in the days of Honi the Circle-Drawer, for whenever he came to the Beth Hamidrash he ˙ would settle for the scholars any difficulty that they had.’ Whereupon he called out, ‘I am he.’ Yet the scholars would not believe him, nor did they give him the honor due to him. This hurt him greatly, and he prayed [for death] and died. Raba said: ‘Hence the saying, “Either companionship or death.”’”15

 14 The

same tradition appears in Midr. Ps. 126:1, although there the subject is not the grandson of Honi the circle drawer but Honi himself. ˙ ˙  15 Midr. Ps. 126:1 also contains this variant. According to Gaster, “Beiträge,” 1266, the version of the story in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9) is older than the version in b.Ta̔an. 23a.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

215

The fable of an individual or several people who slept for years proved to be popular and enduring. There are later variations in the Christian legend— which goes back to the fifth century—of the seven sleepers of Ephesus,16  16

For an introduction to the secondary lit. see Bernhard Bischoff and Michael Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 527–30. The earliest versions of the legend appear in Symeon the Metaphrast’s Menologion (see PG 115.427–48) and in a poetic homily of Jacob of Serug; for the latter see Paul Bedjan, ed., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug: Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis, with additional material by Sebastian P. Brock, vol. 6 (Piscataway, N.  J.: Gorgias Press, 2006), 324–30 (Syriac text), and Sebastian P. Brock, “Jacob of Serugh’s Poem on the Sleepers of Ephesus,” in “I Sowed Fruits into Hearts” (Odes Sol. 17:13): Festschrift for Professor Michael Lattke, ed. Pauline Allen, Majella Franzmann, and Rick Strelan (Early Christian Studies 12; Strathfield, NSW: St. Pauls Publications, 2007), 13–30 (this includes an English translation). For the fully developed form see Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea, ed. G. P. Maggioni (2 vols.; Millenno Medievale 6; Testi 3; Tavarnuzze: Sismel: Edizioni del Galluzzo, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 2:670–75. The basic story is as follows. Seven Christian boys or young men—they are twelve or fifteen in some accounts—once lived in the palace of the emperor Decius. They refused to sacrifice to idols. Upon becoming afraid for their lives, they escaped by withdrawing to Mount Celion, where they hid. One day, after a meal there, they fell asleep, and Decius, having discovered their hiding place, walled up their cave with stones, so that they would die of hunger. All thought they had become martyrs for the faith, and a letter recounting their story was composed, sealed with silver seals, and left in front of the cave. Three hundred and seventy-two years later, during the reign of Theodosius, when many heretics (Origenists) denied the resurrection of the dead, God moved certain individuals to remove the stones from the mouth of the cave for their building project. The seven then awoke, thinking that they had slept only one night. Still afraid of the emperor, they sent one of their number, a certain Malchus, to the city to get food and to find out what was happening. He was dumbfounded by the crosses he saw everywhere—the empire had become Christian—and he could not believe he was in Ephesus. When he tried to buy bread with his coins, people were convinced that he had stumbled upon an ancient treasure. Eventually he was taken to a church and interrogated by a bishop and a proconsul, to whom he told his story. Then those three, together with a great crowd, went to Mount Celion. There they found the letter sealed with two silver seals. They opened and read it and then, after seeing the seven youths together, all believed Malchus’ story. The emperor was then invited to come and see, and he too believed. Shortly thereafter, the seven died and were buried in the cave, which was embellished with gilded stones. Theodosius decreed that all bishops professing faith in the resurrection were vindicated. The story is celebrated in Goethe’s “The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus,” and a cave where all this supposedly happened is to this day a popular destination for tourists. It seems likely that the story was invented near Ephesus in the mid-fifth century; see Ernest Honigmann, “Stephen of Ephesus (April

216

Commentary

in the Koran (Sura 18),17 in the seventh- or eighth-century “Immram Brain 15, 448–Oct. 29, 451) and the Seven Sleepers,” in Patristic Studies (Studi e testi 173; Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1953), 125–68. According to the latter, although the story “was copied and transformed in so many places, at such different times, and handed down in languages so diverse that it seems a rather hopeless task to find one’s way through the labyrinth of this abundant literary production” (125), there nonetheless is “no doubt” that the story of the seven sleepers “was influenced, perhaps indirectly, by the older legends of Onias (Khônî) and Abimelech” (142). Cf. Heller, “Éléments,” 213–14; also Herzer, 4 Baruch, 89–90; van der Horst, “Long-Sleepers,” 265; and the Introduction above, p. 61. Consistent with this is the resemblance between Ἰάμβλιχυς, the name of the Christian sleeper who goes into town in PG 115:427–48, and Ἀβιμέλεχ—the sequence, β λ χ, is common to both; cf. also the “Iamlikha” in Jacob of Serug, the “Malchus” in the Latin texts, and the names that appear in Arabic versions of the tale (see next note). Note that, in the Theodore Psalter (see p. 331 n. 70), the illustration of 4 Baruch (36r) is immediately followed by an illustration of the seven sleepers of Ephesus (36v).  17 “Did you think the Sleepers of the Cave and Al-Raquim were a wonder among Our signs? When the youths sought refuge in the Cave, they said, ‘Lord, have mercy on us and guide us out of our ordeal.’ We made them sleep in the cave for many years, and then awakened them to find out who could best tell the length of their stay. We shall recount to you their story in all truth. They were young men who had faith in their Lord, and on whom We had bestowed Our guidance. We put courage in their hearts when they stood up and said: ‘Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. We call on no other god besides Him, for if we did we should be blaspheming. Our people serve other gods besides Him, though they have no convincing proof of their divinity. Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood against Allah? When you depart from them and from their idols, go to the Cave for shelter. Allah will extend to you His mercy and prepare for you a means of safety.’ You might have seen the rising sun decline to the right of their cavern and, as it set, go past them on the left, while they stayed within. That was one of Allah’s signs. He whom Allah guides is rightly guided; but he whom He misleads shall find no friend to guide him. You might have thought them awake, though they were sleeping. We turned them about to right and left, while their dog lay at the cave’s entrance with legs outstretched. Had you looked upon them, you would have surely turned your back and fled in terror. We roused them that they might question one another. ‘How long have you been here?’ asked one of them. ‘A day, or but a few hours,’ replied some; and others: ‘Your Lord knows best how long we have stayed here. Let one of you go to the city with this silver coin and bring you back some wholesome food. Let him conduct himself with caution and not disclose your whereabouts to anyone. For if they find you out they will stone you to death or force you back into their faith. Then you shall surely be ruined.’ Thus We revealed their secret, so that men might know that Allah’s promise was true and that the Hour of Doom was sure to come. The people argued among themselves concerning them. Some said: ‘Build a monument over their remains. Their Lord alone knows who they were.’ Those who were to win

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

217

meic Febail,” that is, “The Voyage of Bran son of Febal,”18 in tales from Turkestan,19 and in Washington Irving’s short story, “Rip Van Winkle” (1819), which was based on a German folktale.20 Among these parallels, the closest parallel to the tale of Abemelech/Ebedmelech in 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon is y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9).21 In the latter, the main character goes out to a mountain (cf. 4 Bar. 3:10;

said: ‘Let us build a chapel over them.’ Some will say: ‘The sleepers were three; their dog was the fourth.’ Others, guessing at the unknown, will say: ‘They were five; their dog was the sixth.’ And yet others: ‘Seven; their dog was the eighth.’ Say: ‘My Lord alone knows their number. Few know them.’ Therefore, when you dispute about them, adhere only to that which is revealed and do not ask any Christian concerning them.” There is a more distant parallel to 4 Baruch 5 in Sura 2:259: A man, “when passing by a ruined and desolate city, remarked: ‘How can Allah give life to this city, now that it is dead?’ Thereupon Allah caused him to die, and after a hundred years brought him back to life. ‘How long have you stayed away?’ asked Allah? ‘A day,’ he replied, ‘or a few hours.’ ‘Know then,’ said Allah, ‘that you have stayed away a hundred years. Yet look at your food and drink: they have not rotted. And look at the bones of your ass. We will make you a sign to mankind: see how We will raise them and cloth them with flesh.’ And when it had all become manifest to him, he said, ‘I know now that Allah has power over all things.’” See further the traditions about the sleepers and discussions of them in History of al-Tabarī, pp. 775–82 (trans. Per˙ lmann, 4:155–59). On these texts and traditions and other relevant Arabic texts see Huber, Wanderlegende, 17–32, 221–354; Heller, “Éléments”; Hugh Nibley, “Qumran and the ‘Companions of the Cave,’” RQ 18 (1965), 177–98; Schwarzbaum, Legends, 76–116; Hermann Kandler, Die Bedeutung der Siebenschafer (Asha-b al-kahf) ˙˙ im Islam: Untersuchungen zu Legende und Kult in Schrifttum, Religion und Volksglauben unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Siebenschläfer-Wallfahrt (Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Geowissenschaften und Religion/Umwelt-Forschung 7; Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1994). The direct or indirect debt of the Islamic story to the legend about Abimelech is indicated by the variants of the name regularly given to one of the sleepers—“Tamlīkha-,” “Namlīkha-,” “Yamlīkha-.”  18 See Kuno Meyer, ed., The Voyage of Bran Son of Febal to the Land of the Living (2 vols.; London: A. Nutt, 1895). In this, Bran and companions visit far-off islands, and when they return, centuries have passed, and memories of them have become old tales.  19 See Wilhelm Weyh, “Zur Geschichte der Siebenschläferlegende,” ZDMG 65 (1911), 289–301.  20 See further Gaster, “Beiträge,” and Pierluigi Piovanelli and Claudio Zambagni, “Abimelech in visita da Eusebio. Eugenio Montale lettore di un frammento dei Paralipomeni di Geremia,” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 61 (2000), 157–88, with additional examples from European folklore and even modern literature.  21 There is also the exceedingly brief summary in the Greek title to 3 Baruch: ὅτε καὶ Ἀβιμελὲχ ἐπὶ Ἀγροίππα τὸ χωρίον τῇ χειρὶ θεοῦ διεφυλάχθη. On the relationship of this to 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 60–61.

218

Commentary

Jer. Apocr. 22:10 refers to a “rocky overhang”),22 he sits (cf. 4 Bar. 5:1; Jer. Apocr. 22:9), vineyards or a place where grapes can be gathered are mentioned (cf. 4 Bar. 3:10; Jer. Apocr. 22:9; 38:8), the changes to the world are underlined (4 Bar. 5:7–16; Jer. Apocr. 38:7–11), and—most importantly— the sleep coincides with the time of exile: “He remained sound asleep for seventy years, until the temple was destroyed and it was rebuilt a second time.”23 Yet the tales are sufficiently different, as is that in b.Ta̔an. 23a,24 to disallow constructing a straightforward genealogy. We appear to have here a legend that, once it entered Jewish culture, took multiple forms, including two different accounts about Honi the circle drawer or his grandson and ˙ two slightly different accounts (in 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon) about Abimelech/Ebedmelech. This inference is reinforced by Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 6 ed. Geyer, p. 140: “From the Mount of Olives to the village of Hermippo (uico Hermippo), where Abimelech slept under the fig tree for forty-six years, it is one mile. Abimelech was the disciple of the holy Jeremiah.” This evidently preserves what Theodosius heard as a tourist in Israel, and the details match nether 4 Baruch nor the Jeremiah Apocryphon. Abimelech slumbers for forty-six rather than sixty-six (4 Baruch) or seventy years (Jer. Apocr. 38:7), and he does so not upon a basket of figs (4 Baruch) or a stone (Jer. Apocr. 12:17) but under a fig tree.25 As to whether the original Jewish story concerned Abimelech/Ebedmelech or Honi the circle drawer, it appears more likely that a story about a ˙ lesser known figure (Jeremiah’s friend) became attached to a better known figure.26 In addition, Honi lived centuries after Jeremiah, so associating him ˙  22 In

Jer. Apoc. the rocks grows around Ebedmelech and then later retracts itself; see n. 24.  23 b.Ta̔an. 23a neither states nor entails this. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 87, also draws a parallel between 4 Bar. 5:34 (“May God illumine your way to the upper city, Jerusalem”) and Honi illuminating the temple courtyard in Jerusalem. ˙  24 Note the agreement however between Jer. Apocr. 22:10 (“the rocky overhang covered him like a shelter”), 38 (“the rock that covered him for shelter moved away from him”) and b.Ta̔an. 23a (“as he slept, a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight”).  25 This matches the pictorial representations in the Theodore Psalter fol. 36r (see p. 331 n. 70) and EMML 569 (Addis Ababa, 18th century) folio 74r (see p. 69).  26 Contrast Bogaert, Baruch, 1:197–98, who urges that 4 Baruch substituted Abimelech for Honi. Cf. van der Horst, “Long-Sleepers,” 260–61, although he acknowl˙ edges that “there is no way to reach certainty in this matter.” According to Herzer, 4 Baruch, 88, the rabbinic legend about Honi in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9) is the “interme˙ diate step” between 4 Baruch and the foundational tale about Epimenides. In the History of al-Tabarī, p. 647 (trans. Perlmann, 4:45), it is Jeremiah himself who sleeps ˙

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

219

with the destruction of the first temple and the return from exile seventy years later is peculiar. Beyond all that, however, the rabbinic texts probably preserve the scriptural root for the Jewish adaptation of the legend. Both y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9) and b.Ta̔an. 23a cite the enigmatic MT Ps 126:1: “When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those who dream.” The best guess is that someone familiar with the Greek fable read it into the Hebrew of the Psalm.27 If so, the connection with a figure of the exilic period was almost certainly original to the Jewish version. At some point, someone read the reinterpreted Greek legend into Jer 39:15–18: “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah while he was shut up in the court of the guard: ‘Go, and say to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will fulfill my words against this city for evil and not for good, and they shall be accomplished before you on that day. But I will deliver you on that day, says the Lord, and you shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you, and you shall not fall by the sword; but you shall have your life as a prize of war, because you have put your trust in me, says the Lord.”’” The emphatic “saving I will save you” (MT: ‫ ;מלט אמלטך‬LXX 46:18: σῷζων σώσω σε) no doubt aroused the haggadic imagination. The story was further elaborated by adding the basket of figs from Jer 24:1–7; see above, p. 174. If all this is correct, 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon are likely, in certain respects, to be closer to the Jewish original than are the talmudic passages. This is consistent with two additional considerations. First, if 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon were in circulation before the middle of the second century, they preserve the oldest literary versions of the legend. Second, 4 Baruch and/or the Jeremiah Apocryphon share features with Diogenes Laertius over against the talmudic parallels.28 (i) Both Diogenes Laertius and 4 Baruch refer to an ἄγρος (see on v. 17). (ii) If Epi-

for seventy years. See further Schwarzbaum, Legends, 168–69. Baruch succumbs to a supernatural sleep when Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem in 5 Baruch (ed. Halévy, p. 80), although its length is not noted.  27 Cf. Huber, Wanderlegende, 419. Note the v.  l. in Tg. Ps. 125:1: “When the Lord restores the exiles of Zion we shall be like those who sleep and are awakened.” For other examples of Greek legends being read into the Hebrew Bible see Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Abraham’s Oracular Tree (T. Abr. 3:1–4),” JJS 54 (2003), 1–11; idem, “Resurrecting a Calf: The Origin of Testament of Abraham 6:5,” JTS 55 (2004), 105–116.  28 The following parallels are evidence against the contention of van der Horst, “Long-Sleepers,” 257, that the Jewish legends may be independent of the Greek myth.

220

Commentary

menides seeks relief in a cave at noon (μεσημβρίαν), in 4 Baruch, Abimelech travels in the heat of the day (τῷ καύματι: vv. 1, 6, 26), which must mean noon or early afternoon; and in Jer. Apocr. 22:8, Ebedmelech seeks a “cool and shady” spot at the fifth hour of the day, which again put events near midday. (iii) In all three sources, the main character goes into town, and the language is similar in two cases: Diogenes Laertius 1.109 πάλιν ἧκεν        εἰς   ἄστυ 4 Bar. 5:13 πάλιν ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν

(v) All three sources explicitly have their character supposing that he has slept only a short time, and in this connection Diogenes Laertius and 4 Baruch both use ὀλίγος.29 (v) Epimenides and Abimelech/Ebedmelech are keenly perplexed. Nothing like this is said of Honi. Indeed, in b.Ta̔an. 23a he recognizes the truth of what has happened ˙almost immediately. (vi) Most importantly, in the stories about Epimenides and Abimelech/Ebedmelech, it is an old man who reveals the truth of what has happened to the main character. “At length he (Epimenides) found his younger brother, now an old man (γέροντα ὄντα), and learnt the truth from him” has its parallel in 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon, where an old (γηραιός; x-Llo) man interprets what has happened to Abimelech/Ebedmelech. The question of the extent to which a Christian hand has disturbed 4 Baruch 5 is difficult.30 The last part of v. 21 (καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν Ἰερεμίας εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ κατηχῆσαι αὐτοὺς τὸν λόγον) is more likely than not secondary, and that a Christian scribe might not be shy about introducing foreign elements to this chapter is evident from C’s addition to v. 33: τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ἡ ἀληθινὴ ἀνταπόδοσις, ὁ ὤν, μέγας θαυμαστὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Other decisions about Christian influence are, however, more difficult. One might find in v. 31’s ὅτι καιρὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι an echo of Mark 11:13’s ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων. Yet there are non-Christian parallels, so this is far from certain; see on v. 31. More suspect is εὐλογήσω σε, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς in v. 32. While this need not, as the commentary below shows, depend upon Matt 11:25 = Luke 10:21 (ἐξομολογοῦμαι σοι, πάτερ, Κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς), it is conspicuous that both Matt 11:25 and 4

 29 Diogenes

Laertius 1.109; 4 Bar. 5:2, 4. Cf. Jer. Apocr. 22:8: Ebedmelech intends to rest “for a little” (noukoui).  30 It is striking that, in Wolff’s examination of points of contact between 4 Baruch and the NT (“Neue Testament”), fully half of his examples come from ch. 5.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

221

Bar 5:31 precede a phrase that not only depends upon Jer 6:16 but further disagrees with the LXX: 4 Bar. 5:32       ἡ ἀνάπαυσις  τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν δικαίων Matt 11:28 εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν LXX Jer 6:16 εὑρήσετε ἁγνισμὸν  ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν

The concord against the LXX’s ἁγνισμόν could betray the Christian origin of the whole line. Yet it is also possible that the agreement goes back to a variant of Greek Jeremiah or to independent renderings of Jeremiah’s ‫ מרגוע‬or that a Christian copier of 4 Baruch assimilated an already-existing allusion to Jeremiah to Matthew’s Gospel. It is further conceivable that we have here a coincidence, or that Matthew and 4 Baruch independently draw upon some defunct source. In v. 34, ὁ Θεὸς φωταγωγήσει σε εἰς τὴν ἄνω πόλιν Ἰερουσαλήμ also raises questions. Its closest parallel is Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. pasch. hom. 1:1: φωταγωγούμενοι λαμπάσιν εἰς τὴν ἄνω καταντήσωμεν Ἰερουσαλήμ. At the same time, it would be unwise to be dogmatic, and some space should be given to coincidence. Beyond all this, even if, as seems likely to this author, one phrase or another in 4 Baruch 5 comes from a secondary hand, the Christian revisions do not appear to have altered the basic content of the chapter as a whole. Bogaert has argued that the whole Abimelech episode is a secondary interpolation.31 He is correct in terms of tradition-history; that is, the legend about Abimelech did originate apart from, and circulate originally independently of, the other stories now gathered in 4 Baruch. The evidence does not, however, suffice to show that a Greek text of 4 Baruch ever circulated without the story of Abimelech or without the references to him in 3:9–10, 15–16; 7:8, 15, 28; and 8:5.32 Herzer has urged that ch. 5 might reflect Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusa­ lem as Aelia Capitolina, ca. 130.33 In line with this, while Abimelech recognizes that the city he sees is Jerusalem, it is radically changed. Herzer’s thesis is attractive insofar as 4 Baruch could come from the time of Hadrian (117–38). Nonetheless, the motif of the much altered city belongs, as we have seen above, to the folktale of the long sleeper(s).

 31 Bogaert, Baruch,

192–95. Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 81–82. Against the latter, however, all the references to Abimelech in ch. 9 might come from a secondary, Christian hand.  33 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 45–46, 92; idem, Paralipomena, 181–86; idem, “Story.” Cf. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2669–70.  32

222

Commentary

5:1. In terms of chronology, this verse, which passes over sixty-six years in less than a sentence, marks the turning point in the story. Everything before is pre-exilic. Everything after concerns the end of exile. The lack of attention given to the exilic period itself is partly remedied in 7:14, 23–29. Abimelech, introduced in 3:9–10, now becomes the main focus, along with his figs, to which vv. 1, 3, 7, 16, 25–30 refer.34 The narrative, which picks up from 3:16—“and he (Abimelech) went away as he (Jeremiah) had told him”—neglects to mention that Abimelech picked figs, but readers or hearers easily fill in the blank. Having, like Baruch, left the city (cf. 4:10– 11), he takes his basket and travels in the heat: ὁ δὲ Ἀβιμέλεχ ἤνεγκε τὰ σῦκα τῷ καύματι.35 Soon he espies a tree: καὶ36 καταλαβὼν δένδρον.37 From vv. 25–26, it is clear that this tree is in the estate of Agrippa; cf. 3:15. Abimelech, with basket in hand, has gone where Jeremiah told him to go. It may not be coincidence that both the parallels in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9) and b.Ta̔an. 23a refer to fruit. The former speaks of olives, the latter of the fruit of the carob tree. Perhaps the motif of fruit developed in different directions in different versions of the story. Even more interesting are the parallels in Jer. Apocr. 22:9, which has Abimelech gathering figs, grapes, and unspecified fruits, and 38:3, which has him gathering “figs and fruit.”38 Piovanelli observes that, in m. Bikk. 3:4–5, Agrippa himself takes a baset of first fruits, including figs and grapes, to the temple court. This is noteworthy given that 4 Baruch and the Jeremiah Apocryphon not only mention “Agrippa” but that 4 Baruch speaks of a vineyard (3:10)—even if it fails to mention grapes—while, in the Jeremiah Apocryphon, Ebedmelech is either identified with Agrippa or called his servant (6, 12). According to Piovanelli, Abimelech’s goal was, in an early  34  35

Cf. Wolff, “Jerusalem,” 148: the figs run like a “red thread” through the chapter.

Ἤνεγκε τὰ σῦκα: see on 3:15, which discusses the background in Jer 24:1–7; καῦμα:

4x: 5:1, 6 bis, 26. On the parallel in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, see above, p. 213. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2669, interprets the heat as having, in addition to the literal sense, “a symbolic meaning”: it refers to “the ‘heat’ of judgment and deportation that takes place when Abimelech is away.” Torijano appears to be following Herzer, 4 Baruch, 82. The mention of heat, however, may just have been part of the folktale in 4 Baruch’s source; cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 7.175, as in n. 13.  36 In vv. 1–7, καί occurs 7x, which adds to the Semitic feel of the text. Parataxis is also prominent in vv. 26–29 (again 7x).  37 Καταλαμβάνω: 1x; for the sense, “come upon” or “arrive at,” see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 10.56.1; Josephus, Ant. 4.78; John 6:17 ‫ א‬D; Prot. Jas. 14:1; also Lampe, s.  v., καταλαμβάνω 4; δένδρον: 6x: 5:1, 26; 9:3, 14 bis, 15.  38 The Arabic version (trans. Mingana and Harris, p. 167) has “grapes, figs, peaches, and pears.”

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

223

version of our tale, to gather first-fruits for the High Priest, Jeremiah, so that he could offer them in the temple, which miraculously took place seventy years later. Then the Christian author of 4 Baruch, not understanding the cultic background, turned the story about fruits for the temple into a story about figs for the sick and found in them eschatological symbolism.39 The thesis, however, is problematic if 4 Baruch’s version of events depends upon a reading of the Hebrew of Jer 24:1–10.40 It seems better to suppose that, whether the original tradition was closer to the episode in 4 Baruch or the Apocryphon, the modification was an inner Jewish development. Beyond that, the Apocryphon refers to the figs alone in 38 (“the figs were fresh as before”) and 39 (“those figs … it is not their season”), which may betray their priority in the tradition. Seeking relief from the heat, Abimelech sits down: ἐκάθισεν ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ; cf. Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 6 ed. Geyer, p. 140 (“Abimelech slept under the fig tree for forty-six years”); 2 Bar. 55:1 (“I [Baruch] sat there under a tree”); 77:18 (Baruch “sat down under the oak”).41 Note that Honi the circle drawer sits in the parallels in y. Ta̔an. ˙ 23a. Did an earlier version of our story specify that 66d (3:9) and b.Ta̔an. Abimelech sat under a fig tree? Or has our author substituted a tree for a cave?42 The image of sitting under a fig tree—which could carry eschato­ logical connotations—was common.43

 39

Piovanelli, “Sommeil,” 91–92. See below, p. 331.  41 Cf. also 4 Ezra 14:1 (“I [Ezra] was sitting under an oak tree”) and Vita sancti Auxibii ed. Noret, p. 191 (ἐλθὼν ἐπί τι δένδρον, ἐκάθισεν ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀναπεσὼν ὕπνωσεν). Καθίζω: see on 3:14; σκιά: 1x.  42 Kohler, “Haggada,” 409, conjectured that an original ἄντρον, “cave,” replaced an original δένδρον. This would bring the story into conformity with the parallels in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 7.175; Pausanius, Descr. 1.14.4; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 10.1; y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9); b.Ta̔an. 23a; Koran Sura 18 (The Cave); the tale of the seven sleepers of Ephesus; and the Arabic Jeremiah Apocryphon trans. Mingana and Harris, 167.  43 Cf. 1 Kgs 4:25 (“Judah and Israel dwelt in safety … everyone under his vine and under his fig tree”); Mic 4:4 (“they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree”); Zech 3:10 (“In that day, says the Lord of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor under his vine and under his fig tree”); 1 Macc 14:12 (“Each man sat under his vine and his fig tree”); John 1:48 (“I saw you under the fig tree”); Gen. Rab. 62:2 (rabbis sitting and studying under a fig tree; cf. Eccles. Rab. 4:11:2). Riaud, Paralipomènes, 181–82, wonders whether there is an echo of Jon 4:6, and Piovanelli, “Sommeil,” 90–91, suggests that the image of Jonah sleeping under a castor-oil tree or gourd, which became for Christians a symbol of the repose of the  40

224

Commentary

Abimelech wishes to rest: τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον; cf. Jer. Apocr. 22:8: “I shall go into this cool and shady place for a little, and sit down and rest for a little” (tamike mmoi noukoui).44 The literal use of ἀναπαύω in v. 1 prepares for the theological declaration at the end of the chapter: God is ἡ ἀνάπαυσις τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν δικαίων. According to Nicophon frag. 12, “If one of us munches green figs at midday and then goes to sleep, a terrible fever immediately rushes upon him.” Related statements appear in Aristophanes frag. 479 (“one summer, on seeing him with a belly-ache, he ate some figs at noon, so as to be sick too”) and Pherecrates frag. 85 (“eat some Phibalean figs in summer; when you are full, sleep until noon, and then writhe in pain”). All three texts are about eating figs when it is hot, and two of them refer to sleep. Has a motif from Greek comedy entered 4 Baruch? The observation that Abimelech laid his head—v. 2 will remark that it was “heavy”—on his basket of figs—κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων ὕπνωσεν45—adds a picturesque touch.46 There is no cause to imagine that κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ, because of Matt 8:20 = Luke 9:58—“the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ)—or John 19:30 (κλίνας τὴν κεφαλήν)—betrays a Christian hand, nor even that a Christian reader or hearer would recall those texts.47

dead, has influenced the text. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 84 n. 17, thinks the tree is the source of the figs.  44 Ἀναπαύω: 3x: 5:1, 26; 7:13; ὀλίγος: see on 3:15. Cf. 5:2 (ἐκοιμήθην … ὀλίγον), 3, 26 (τοῦ ἀναπαῆναι ὀλίγον); also Mark 6:31 (ἀναπαύσασθε ὀλίγον); Josephus, Bell. 4.544 (ὀλίγον ἀνεπαύσατο); Appian, Bell. civ. 5.12.112 (ἀναπαυσάμενος ὀλίγον); Arrian, Anab. 3.15.4 (ἀναπαῦσαι ὀλίγον); Achilles Tatius, Leucip. et Clitoph. 1.6.4 (ἀνέπαυσεν ὀλίγον); Acts Thom. 4 (ὀλίγον ἀναπαέντες).   45 Κλίνω: 2x; κεφαλή: 12x, 5x in ch. 5; cf. v. 26 (ἔκλινα τὴν κεφαλήν μου); also Prot. Jas. 15:2 (ἔκλινας τὴν κεφαλήν σου); κλίνω + κεφαλή does not appear to have been a common Greek idiom; perhaps it goes back to ‫ רכן‬+ ‫ראש‬, as in m. Git. 7:1; t. Ma̔aś. ˙ Š. 5:8; and Num. Rab. 10:7; τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων: cf. v. 26 and see on 3:15; ὑπνόω: 1x.  46 Cf. Mark 4:38: Jesus “was asleep in the stern, asleep on the cushion.” Oddly enough, the sleeping figure in the Thedore Psalter (see p. 331 n. 70) reclines on his left hand, not on the basket, which is off to the side. That the figs themselves somehow preserve Abimelech—so Young, “Eagle,” 397: the figs may be “a kind of divine food that, held by Abimelech, preserve him in suspended animation”—has no foothold in the text.  47 Contrast Acts Andr. 42: ἔχει ποῦ κλῖναι τὴν κεφαλήν.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

225

The next few words—κοιμώμενος ἔτη ἑξηκονταέξ48—are the key to all that follows. They move the narrative ahead sixty-six years. They introduce an incredible miracle that will receive an eschatological interpretation in 6:6–7. And they are the setup for the remainder of the narrative. They further raise acutely the nature of the narrative.49 While, in 4 Baruch, Abimelech sleeps for sixty six years,50 in the Jeremiah Apocryphon, Ebedmelech sleeps for seventy years (12, 34, 38), and the talmudic accounts have Honi sleeping for the same period of time.51 ˙ the prophecy in Jer 25:11–12 (which may, The number “seventy” reflects however, refer only to the length of Babylon’s world domination): “then after seventy years are completed”; cf. 29:10 and 2 Chr 36:20–21: the king of the Chaldeans “took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword … to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah … All the days that it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.” Other biblical and extra-biblical passages likewise refer to seventy years—a rounded number designating the ideal human life span (Ps 90:10)—in connection with the exile.52 Since the actual duration of the exile, according to modern historians, was only about fifty years,53 maybe the Chronicler included the years up to the dedication of the second temple in 515.54 In any case, one can ask if 4 Baruch—which emphasizes, through repetition, the span of sixty-six years: 5:1, 30; 6:5; 7:25—somehow preserves the memory that the time between Nebuchadnezzar’s first year (605 BCE) and Cyrus’ capture of Babylon (539) was sixty-six years.55 This seems unlikely

 48

Κοιμάω: 5x: 5:1 bis, 4, 5, 26; ἔτος: 5x: 5:1, 30; 6:5; 7:24; 9:14; ἑξηκονταέξ: 2x; cf. 6:5; note also ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη in v. 30 and 7:24.

 49 For

discussion of how an ancient audience might have understood 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 10–13.  50 Contrast Theodosius, De situ terrae sanctae 6 ed. Geyer, p. 140: Abimelech slept for forty-six years.  51 See above, pp. 213–14. In Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, and Pliny the Elder, Nat. 7.175, Epimenides sleeps for fifty-seven years. In Pausanius, Descr. 1.14.4, it is forty years. In the legend of the seven sleepers of Ephesus, the period of sleep is over 300 years—although in some late versions of the legend, perhaps influenced by 4 Baruch, they sleep for sixty-six years; see Heller, “Éléments,” 213.  52 Cf. Dan 9:2; Zech 1:12; 7:5; Sib. Or. 2:280–81; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.132; Bell. 5.389; Ant. 10.184; 11.2; 20.233; b. Meg. 11b; Jer. Apocr. 12:19; 14:19; 38:6; 39:5.  53 Note that, according to S. ‘Olam Rab. 29, “Israel was fifty-two years in the kingdom of the Chaldeans.”  54 Cf. Ezra 6:15: “this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.”  55 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 38 (assuming the dates 604 and 538), raises this possibility.

226

Commentary

given 4 Baruch’s distance from and indifference to history. Other explanations of 4 Baruch’s number are that our author counts from 70 CE to his own time, 136 CE;56 or that sixty-six is a round number;57 or that it is symbolic, perhaps being related to the sixty-six days of blood purification after the birth of a girl (Lev 12:5); or that it was a way of discounting expectations surrounding Bar Kokhba, who was killed sixty-five years after 70;58 or that sixty-six years is not the time of exile but only of Abimelech’s sleep, and that a few years pass between 5:1 and 8:1, that is, between his being awakened and the return from exile 70 years after the destruction59— although this last suggestion ill comports with 6:13, which implies little time between the events of ch. 5 and 8:1.60 Yet another possibility is that 4 Baruch represents a tradition that the exile lasted sixty-six years. The very fragmentary 4Q389, part of 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C,61 contains these words: ‫]…[שים ושש שנה לגלות‬. If one reads ‫ ובש‬in the lacuna, the result is, “and in the sixty-sixth year of exile.”62 Given the other points of

 56

This was the theory of Harris. See further the Introduction, p. 62. So Delling, Lehre, 9. Cf. the 666 of 2 Chr 9:13. Yet seventy, the number customarily linked with the exile, is equally a round number. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 83, finds some support for the notion of sixty-six as a round number in Josephus, C. Ap. 1.187, which refers to a certain High Priest as “approximately (ὡς) sixty-six years” old.  58 So Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 263–64, who posits that 4 Baruch’s tradition had seventy years, as in the stories about Honi. ˙  59 So Wolff, Jeremia, 115–16, who supposes that, in 4 Baruch’s source, the time was seventy years; cf. y. Ta̔an 66d (3:9); b. Ta̔an. 23b. But why not sixty, sixty-five, sixty-eight (the reading of arm 144), or sixty-nine years?  60 Cf. arm 144 7:32–8:1: “And Jeremiah took the figs and gave them to the sick, and instantly they recovered. And on the same day Jeremiah and the people returned to Jerusalem.”  61 See Doering, Letters, 190–94, for the likelihood that this text referred to or quoted a letter that Jeremiah, while in Egypt, wrote to exiles.   62 Other possibilities are ‫“( שלושים‬thirty”; so Dimant) or ‫“( בשלשים‬in the thirty-”; so Doering) or ‫“( בחמשים‬in the fifty-”); see Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 221; Lutz Doering, “Jeremia in Babylonien und Ägypten: Mündliche und schriftliche Toraparänese für Exil und Diaspora nach 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C*,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie: Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testament, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (WUNT 162; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 65–67. If “sixty-six” is the right reading and refers to the end of exile, there would be a rough parallel with 4 Baruch, where a letter read to the exiles marks the beginning of the end of their captivity.  57

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

227

contact between 4 Baruch and Qumran’s Jeremian apocryphon,63 this is an inviting solution, although it would still leave unexplained how 4Q389a (if indeed it had “sixty-six”) got that number.64 That Abimelech did not wake up from his sleep—οὐκ ἐξυπνίσθη ἐκ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ65—adds emphasis. The phrase has a biblical feel; cf. LXX B Judg 16:14 (ἐξυπνίσθη ἐκ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ, for ‫וייקץ‬ ‫)משנתו‬, 20 (ἐξυπνίσθη ἐκ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ, for ‫ ;)ויקץ משנתו‬Job 14:12 (ἐξυπνισθήσονται ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτῶν); and see further below, on v. 2. Readers or hearers might wonder how Abimelech could sleep for years under a tree without anyone noticing him. Is this yet another comedic element? Or did our author, intent on other matters, overlook the problem? There is no analogous difficulty in the parallel in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, where Epimenides sleeps in a cave, or in in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9), where Honi the ˙ circle drawer does the same, or in b. Ta̔an. 23a, where a rocky formation encloses Honi and keeps him from sight; cf. Jer. Apocr. 22:10: “the rocky overhang ˙covered him like a shelter.” 5:2. Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα (see on 3:8) means, in context, “after the sleep of sixty six years.” At this point, Abimelech awakens: ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ.66 Although ἐγερθείς + ἀπό + ὕπνου has a few Greek parallels,67 it seems to be a Semitism,68 and it is noteworthy that the exact

 63 The

latter draws heavily upon canonical Jeremiah (cf. Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 91, 101–102), and in it Jeremiah is Israel’s Mosaic leader who laments after Jerusalem falls, and he goes to Babylon with the people, where he exhorts them to keep Torah (4Q385a frag. 18).  64 Cf. the unexpected and unexplained duration of the exile in T. Mos. 3:14: “they will be slaves for about seventy-seven years.” It is interesting that the Slavic mss. of 4 Baruch offer different dates—sixty or seventy or eighty-six. One understands the alteration to seventy, but the reasons for the other two numbers are just as obscure as the reason for sixty-six.  65 Ἐξυπνίζω: 4x: 5:1, 5, 26; 9:13; LXX: 5x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 9x; Philo: 0x; NT: 1x: John 11:11; Josephus: 0x (it appears however as a variant reading in Ant. 5.349); ὕπνος: 5x: 5:1, 2 bis, 9, 10.  66 Ἐγείρω: 3x: 5:2, 7, 9, always ἐγερθείς; ὕπνος: see on v. 1.  67 E.  g. Matt 1:24; Origen, Comm. Eph. frag. 26; Ps.-Ephraem, Λόγοι παραινετικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατ’ Αἰγύπτον μοναχούς 20 ed. Phrantzoles, 3:96.   68 Cf. Gen 28:16 (‫ ;וייקץ יעקב משנתו‬LXX: ἐξηγέρθη Ἰακὼβ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου); Judg 16:14, 20 (see above, on v. 1); Zech 4:1 (MT: ‫ ;כאיש אשר־יעור משנתו‬LXX: ὅταν ἐξεγερθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ); Ecclus 22:9 (ἐξεγείρων καθεύδοντα ἐκ βαθέος ὕπνου); 1QapGen 19:17 (‫ ;)ואתעירת בליליא מן שנתי‬y. Pe’ah. 15c (1:1) (‫)דאיתעיר אבוה מן שינתיה‬.

228

Commentary

Aramaic equivalent occurs in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9) with reference to Honi the ˙ circle drawer: ‫איתער מן שינתיה‬.69 This is consistent with the likelihood that 70 our tale goes back ultimately to a Semitic original. Abimelech speaks aloud to himself with three interconnected phrases.71 He first declares that he would have been pleased to have slept longer: ἡδέως ἐκοιμήθην ἂν ἄλλο ὀλίγον;72 cf. Xenophon, Anab. 4.3.2 (ἡδέως ἐκοιμήθησαν); LXX Prov 3:24 (ἡδέως ὑπνώσεις); Jer 38:26 (ὁ ὕπνος μου ἡδύς μοι ἐγενήθη);73 3 Macc 5:11–12; Josephus, Bell. 7.349; Vita Aesop W rec. 2 8 (ἡδέως κεκοίμημαι); also the parallel in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10: when Epimenides got up, he wrongly imagined that he had been asleep only a short while (ἐπ’ ὀλίγον κεκοιμῆσθαι). In Greek literature, the notion of sleep as “sweet” goes back to Homer, where it occurs often and is expressed with several different terms.74 Abimelech’s notion is of course hilariously absurd: he has slept for decades. He further adds, however, that his head is heavy: βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου;75 cf. Jer. Apocr. 38:4: “my head is still a little heavy.” This is a way of saying, not that he has a headache,76 but that, despite sleep, he still feels tired; cf. Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodisias, Prob. 3.17 (βαροῦντα τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα); Aelius Dionysius, Ἀττικὰ ὀνόματα Κ 13 (τὴν κεφαλὴν βαροῦμενος ἀπὸ μέθης οἴνου); also the verb, καρηβαρέω, which LSJ, s.  v., defines as “to be heavy in the head, drowsy.”77 Of similar connotation is the description of eyes as “heavy.”78 The note harmonizes with

Note also LXX Prov 6:9: ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερθήσῃ. As opposed to 4 Baruch as a whole; see the Introduction, pp. 24–26.  71 Cf. Jer. Apocr. 38:4–12, where Ebedmelech speaks to himself and then to God. For ὅτι recitativum see on 1:5.  72 Ἡδέως: 1x; LXX: 10x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 1x; NT: 3x; Josephus: 44x; κοιμάω: see on 5:1; ἄν: for its function here see BDF § 360; ἄλλος: 4x: 5:2; 7:13; 9:4, 14; ὀλίγος: see v. 1 and on 3:15.  73 Kaestli, “Influence,” 225, sees an allusion to this line. According to Philonenko, “Traduction de Symmaque,” 145, Jer 31(38):26 (“I awoke and looked, and my sleep was pleasant to me”), in the version of Symmachus, which has ἐξυπνισθείς, lies in the background of 4 Baruch’s line.  74 Cf. e.  g. Homer, Il. 1.601; 2.2; 4.131; Od. 1.364; 9.333 (γλυκὺς ὕπνος); 16.451; 18.199; 23.16–17 (ὕπνου … ἡδέος); etc.  75 Βάρεω: 2x; cf. v. 4; LXX: 2x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 12x; NT: 7x; Josephus: 7x; κεφαλή: 12x, 5x in ch. 5.  76 Contrast Jos. Asen. 10:6; 18:4.  77 Cf. Aristotle, Part. an. 653a: τὴν κεφαλὴν καρηβαροῦσιν οἱ ὑπνώσσοντες.  78 As in Isa 6:10; Philo, Legat. 269; Matt 26:44; Mark 14:40; Arabic Jer. Apocr. trans. Mingana and Harris, p. 186.  69  70

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

229

v. 1 and the remark that Abimelech inclined his head on the basket of figs.79 Abimelech makes the same point in yet a third way: his sleep has not satisfied him: οὐκ ἐκορέσθην τοῦ ὕπνου μου.80 The verb, κορέννυμι, which means “to have had enough” or “to be satiated,”81 is otherwise attested in connection with sleep.82 With the exception of Jer. Apocr. 38–39, the related accounts of an individual or individuals sleeping for decades do not contain humorous quotations from the central character. This element then characterizes the tradition about Abimelech/Ebedmelech. 5:3. The next editorial observation, that Abimelech uncovered his basket— ἀνακαλύψας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων83—seemingly implies that it had a cover of some sort; cf. perhaps Exod 2:5–6, where the daughter of Pharaoh opens the basket containing the infant Moses. Verse 26 will look back on this verse (ἀπεκάλυψα τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων), and in v. 28 Abimelech will uncover the basket again so that another can see (ἀνεκάλυψε τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων). Abimelech finds the figs—picked figs do no stay fresh long—to be dripping with “milk”: εὗρεν αὐτὰ στάζοντα γάλα.84 Cf. the descriptions in the parallel account in Jer. Apocr. 38:3, 6: “their harvested fruit juicy and their twigs upon them”; “the figs were fresh as before.” The precise phrase, στάζοντα γάλα, recurs in vv. 26, 29 and so is emphasized. Elsewhere στάζω + γάλα refers to lactation of the female breast.85 Here it designates the milky sap flowing from the ripe fig.86 Abimelech’s figs are the “very

  79

Kaestli, “Influence,” 225 n. 15, links 5:2 to 3:15: Abimelech’s head is heavy because God’s “glory” (the Hebrew ‫כבוד‬ = both “glory” and “weight”) is upon it.  80 Κορέννυμι: 2x: 5:2, 10; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 11x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 7x; ὕπνος: see on 5:1.  81 Cf. Sib. Or. 3:697; Acts 27:38; 1 Cor 4:8; Josephus, Ant. 8.26.  82 Note Nicander of Colophon, Ther. 56 (ὕπνοιο κορέσσῃ); Eutecnius, Paraph. in Nic. Ther. ed. Gualandri, p. 28 (ἐκ τῆς νομῆς καὶ τροφῆς κεκορεσμένη καὶ ὕπνου); Callinicus, Vita S. Hyp. 48.33 (ὕπνου ἐκορέσθην).  83 Ἀνακαλύπτω: 2x; cf. v. 28; τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων: see on 3:15.  84 Εὑρίσκω; 9x; 4x in ch. 5: vv. 3, 13, 18, 26; στάζω: 4x: 5:3, 26, 29; 6:5; γάλα: 4x: 5:3, 26, 29; 6:5.  85 E.  g. Mart. Perpet. et Felicit. 20: μασθοῖς στάζουσαν γάλα. Note Pliny the Elder, Nat. 15.19: one type of fig is known as the “mamillana.”  86 Cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. 15.19 (he speaks of the fig’s “milky juice”); Scholia in Nicandrum 249b; Etymologicum Gudianum ed. Sturz Ω, p. 432.

230

Commentary

good” figs of Jer 24:2, which are “like first-ripe figs,” and they are still ripe, as though recently picked; see on 3:15. That the figs ooze sap means one thing for Abimelech, another for the informed reader or hearer. The former takes the circumstance to mean that not much time has passed: the figs are as they were a short time ago. Readers or hearers, however, alerted to the fact that Abimelech has slept for sixty-six years, realize that the figs, like Abimelech, have been miraculously preserved—a fact that will later receive an eschatological interpretation; cf. 6:4–7.87 5:4. This verse has Abimelech repeat himself. As in v. 2 (q.  v.), so here too: he declares that he wants to sleep some more because his head is till tired: 5:4 ἤθελον κοιμηθῆναι  ὀλίγον ὅτι βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου.88 5:2        ἐκοιμήθην … ὀλίγον …   βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή μου

The redundancy keeps the absurd, comedic element to the fore. 5:5. Abimelech now explains to himself, and thereby to readers or hearers, why, despite his disposition, he will not lie down and go back to sleep. He fears that if he returns to sleep, he might fail to get up in time: φοβοῦμαι, μήπως κοιμηθῶ καὶ βραδυνῶ τοῦ ἐξυπνισθῆναι, καὶ ὀλιγωρήσῃ Ἰερεμίας ὁ πατήρ μου· εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἐσπούδαζεν, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέστειλέ με ὄρθρου σήμερον.89 Abimelech is as ignorant of the real reason he was sent to Agrippa’s estate as he is regarding how much time has passed. He knows neither the when nor the why. He mistakenly supposes that Jeremiah, his “father,” sent him away earlier because of some urgent task, presumably

 87 Close

here is the Koran, Sura 2:259: Allah tells the man who has slept for a hundred years that his food and drink have not rotted, which is a sign of eschatological resurrection. For Nir, Destruction, 214, the ripe figs betoken an eschatology that is already being realized.  88 Ἐθέλω: see on 3:7; the imperfect indicates an unattainable wish; see BDF § 359; κοιμηθῆναι κτλ.: see on v. 2.  89 Φοβέω: 1x; μήπως: 1x; κοιμάω: see on 5:1; βραδύνω: 2x; 5:5, 26; ἐξυπνίζω: see on 5:1; the formulation, βραδυνῶ τοῦ ἐξυπνισθῆναι, seems to be unparalleled; ὀλιγωρέω: 1x; LXX: 1x: Prov 3:11; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 37x; NT: 1x; Josephus: 15x; Ἰερεμίας ὁ πατήρ μου: see on 2:2; σπουδάζω: 1x; LXX: 11x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x; Philo: 99x; NT: 11x; Josephus: 121x; ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; ὄρθρος: 1x; for the sense “before dawn” see GELS, s.  v.; σήμερον: 3x: 5:5, 20; 7:24.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

231

the distribution of figs to the ill; see 3:15. Yet in truth it is not so, and he is, humorously, sixty-six years too late to hurry. Beyond that, and ironically, so far from Jeremiah thinking less of him, Abimelech’s circumstance is the result of God thinking so highly of him; see 3:9–11; 5:30.90 5:6. Continuing to talk to himself, Abimelech affirms that he will go on his way: ἀναστὰς οὖν πορεύσομαι.91 Although there is nothing distinctively Semitic about ἀναστάς + πορεύομαι,92 a participial form of ἀνίστημι + πορεύομαι occurs often enough in the LXX that our line has a biblical feel.93 This likely explains Luke’s fondness for the construction.94 Just as he did sixty-six years before, so now Abimelech walks in the heat of the day.95 What more happens at this point is unclear. This is because the text seems to be corrupt, the remnant of a sentence; see above, p. 207. The plot, in any case, requires that Abimelech return to the capital. He is in a hurry because, while he has picked figs, he has not yet distributed them to the sick, who presumably are in the city, not at Agrippa’s estate.96 5:7. After talking to himself, Abimelech takes his basket, puts it on his shoulder, and returns to Jerusalem: Ἐγερθεὶς οὖν ἦρε τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων αὐτοῦ· καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.97 The phrase offers one more instance of our author’s repetitive, almost mechanical style: 5:7 ἦρε  τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων … καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς 3:15 ἆρον τὸν κόφινον             καὶ ἄπελθε      εἰς

 90  91

See 3:9–11; 5:30.

Ἀνίστημι: 12x; with participial forms in 1:3, 10; 5:6; 8:4, 6; πορεύω: 3x: 5:6; 7:12;

8:6. Cf. Xenophon, Cyr. 5.2.1; Plutarch, Alex. 24; etc.   93 Cf. Gen 22:3, 19; 24:10; 43:8; Josh 18:8; 2 Βασ 15:9; Tob 8:10; 1 Macc 16:5; and the Hebrew ‫ קום‬+ ‫ילך‬. See further Doudna, Greek, 117–19.  94 Cf. Luke 1:39; 15:18; 17:19; Acts 8:27; 9:11; 10:20; 22:10.  95 Τῷ καύματι: see on 5:1 and cf. v. 26.  96 Contrast the motive in Jer. Apocr. 38:5: Abimelech needs to get back to take bread to Jeremiah, who is in prison.  97 Cf. Ps 81:6 (“I relieved your shoulder of the burden; your hands were freed from the basket”); Catena in Marc. ed. Cramer, p. 328 (κοφίνους ἐπὶ τῷ ἕκαστον ἐπ’ ὤμων ἀράμενον). Ἐγερθείς: see on 5:2; αἴρω: 12x; τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων: see on 3:15; ἐπιτίθημι: see on 2:1; ὧμος: 1x; εἰσέρχομαι εἰς: see on 1:8; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6.  92

232

Commentary

The motif of the sleeper returning to his city has its parallels in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, in the Koran, and in the legend of the seven sleepers but not in the parallel tales in the Talmuds; b. Ta̔an. 23a does, however, refer to the sleeper’s “house.”98 Upon arriving at Jerusalem, Abimelech fails to recognize the place: οὐκ ἐπέγνω αὐτήν.99 Our narrative next moves from the general, the city, to the specific, to Abimelech’s own property and kin: he also does not find his house (οἰκία), his “place” (τόπος), or his family (γένος).100 Although there are three words here, it is not clear that three things are meant. One naturally identifies Abimelech’s “place” with his “house” (which is presumably why C omits the former).101 One might distinguish the two by rendering οἰκία as “household” or “family” (cf. BDAG, s.  v. 2), but then the distinction between οἰκία and γένος becomes unclear. Maybe τόπος here signifies “neighborhood,” so that οὔτε τὴν οἰκίαν οὔτε τὸν τόπον means “neither the house nor the area where it was.”102 Or should we imagine that his house has been destroyed, so that the meaning is: neither his house nor the place where it stood (cf. arm 993 [= 920])?103 Whatever the solution, the failure to recognize the familiar goes back to the folktale behind our story. In Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, Epimenides fails to recognize “the farm, and found everything changed and another owner in possession. Then he went back to the town in utter perplexity; and there, on entering his own house, he fell in with people who wanted to know who he was.” In y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9), Honi the circle drawer finds “a world ˙ completely changed.”104 Why does Abimelech not recognize the city? The text does not say. Most assume that the place is in ruins. Lee, however, raises the possibility that Jerusalem has been “completely renewed and restored.”105 This accords with 5:30—God wanted Abimelech to be spared sight of Jerusalem’s desolation—and with what happens in the Jeremiah Apocryphon, and it would

‫אזל לביתיה‬: “he went to his house.” See above, p. 214. Ἐπιγιγνώσκω: 2x: 5:7; 8:8. 100 Οἰκία: 1x; τόπος: 9x: 5:7, 32; 6:1; 7:13, 14, 28; 8:6, 8, 9; γένος: 1x.   98  99 101

But arm 345 identifies the “house” here spoken of as Jeremiah’s residence. Sparks and Thornhill translate: “neither his house, nor the district where he lived.” 103 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 163, takes the narrative to imply that Jerusalem is “a ghost town.” See further on 9:1. 104 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 91, interprets Abimelech’s failure to recognize anything as anticipating 5:32 and 34: the Jerusalem above is one’s true home, and God can give rest to the righteous in every place. 105 Lee, “Development,” 409. Cf. DiTommaso, New Jerusalem, 138–39. 102

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

233

further explain how sacrifices can be offered in 9:1–2. It is also lines up with the legend about Honi in y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9): he slept “for seventy ˙ destroyed and it was rebuilt a second time.” Yet years, until the temple was 4 Baruch nowhere remarks on such a restoration, and on this reading it is odd that, in 6:1, Baruch is still sitting in a tomb: his mourning over Jerusalem (cf. 4:7–11) has not ended. The conflicting indicators are likely due to the imperfect integration of two or more traditions. 5:8. Abimelech’s religious response to his confusion, as also in v. 14, is to bless God. He employs a form known from the HB/OT: 4 Bar 5:8, 14 LXX Exod 18:10 LXX Ps 27:6 LXX Ps 30:22

εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ106 εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι ἐξείλατο τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι εἰσήκουσεν τῆς φωνῆς τῆς δεήσεώς μου εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι ἐθαυμάστωσεν τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ

The underlying Hebrew formula is ‫אשר‬/‫ ;ברך יהוה כי‬cf. 4Q222 1:5–6.107 Abimelech’s behavior lines up with m. Ber. 9:5: one “must offer a blessing over evil just as he pronounces a blessing over good.” The confused man can only guess—he comes to another view in v. 12— that, since what he beholds is not the Jerusalem he knows, he must be in an altered state of consciousness: μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ. Οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ πόλις;108 cf. vv. 14 (μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ), 16, 30; and Jer. Apocr. 38:12, where Abimelech asks, “What is this delusion?” The language is biblical, with its closest parallel being in Daniel: 4 Bar. 5:8, 14 μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ Theod. Dan 10:7 ἔκστασις μεγάλη ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ αὐτούς (= ‫)עליהם‬109

‫חרדה גדלה נפלה‬

According to Philo, Her. 249, an ἔκστασις can take multiple forms. “Sometimes it is a mad fury producing mental delusion due to old age or melancholy or other similar causes. Sometimes it is extreme amazement at the events which so often happen suddenly and unexpectedly. Sometimes it is Εὐλογητός: 2x: 5:8, 14; Κύριος: see on 1:4; μέγας: 12x; ἔκστασις: 4x: 5:8, 14, 16, 30; ἐπιπίπτω: 2x. 107 Note also Tob 9:6 (εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός, ὅτι); Jos. Asen. 3:3 (εὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεός τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, ὅτι); Luke 1:68 (εὐλογητὸς Κύριος ὁ Θεός τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, ὅτι). 108 Πόλις: see on 1:1. 109 Cf. also LXX Gen 15:12 (ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν); 27:33 (ἔκστασιν μεγάλην, for ‫חרדה‬ ‫ ;)גדלה‬Mark 5:42 (ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ); Acts 10:10 (ἐγένοτο ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἔκστασις); Acts Paul frag. 5 (ἔκστασις μεγάλη). 106

234

Commentary

passivity of mind, if indeed the mind can ever be at rest; and the best form of all is the divine possession or frenzy to which the prophets as a class are subject.”110 As 30 will reveal, an ecstasy or trance has indeed fallen upon Abimelech, so he here speaks the truth. He nonetheless has not yet grasped what has happened. His own thought appears to be close to Philo’s first or second definition.111 The reader or hearer, however, thinks something closer to the third definition—passivity of mind—because Abimelech has been asleep and has not registered the passing of time.112 Comparable are those texts in which “ecstasy” indicates “a state of being in which consciousness is wholly or partially suspended,” a state induced by “divine action” (BDAG, s.  v., 2). Note esp. LXX Gen 2:21 (God puts Adam in an “ecstasy” so that, while he sleeps, one of his ribs can be removed); 15:12 (a “trance” or “ecstasy” falls upon Abraham at sunset, an event which tradition associated with a profound visionary experience113); Philo, Leg 2.31 (“the mind’s ἔκστασις … is its sleep”); QG 1.24 (“sleep in itself is properly an ἔκστασις … which comes about through the relaxing of the senses and the withdrawal of the reason”); T. Reub. 3:1 (sleep is the ἔκστασις of nature); LAB 28:6 (“a holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled in him and put him in ecstasy” [et extulit sensum eius]). 5:9–10. For emphasis, Abimelech repeats to himself πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν.114 He is confused because he is awake and because he knows the mountain road—ὅτι διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ὅρους ἦλθον, ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου μου115—so all should be familiar. All he can suppose, then, is that, despite appearances, he is in a trance or ecstasy (see on v. 8) arising from his failure to get enough sleep. He is in effect repeating what he has already said in v. 2 (q.  v.):

110

Gen. Rab. 17:5 contains a closely related analysis. Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 91, who translates ἔκστασις as “confused fright.” 112 The experience of Jeremiah in ch. 9 fits Philo’s fourth definition; there, however, the word ἔκστασις is not used. 113 See e.   g. LAB 23:6–7; 4 Ezra 3:14–15; 2 Bar. 4:3–4; Apoc. Abr. 9:1–6; Gen. Rab. 44:21. Nothing comparable is said of Abimelech. 114 Πλανάω: 4x—all in this immediate context: vv. 9, 10, 11, 12; ὁδός: see on 3:15. With πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν cf. LXX Deut 11:28 (πλανηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ); Prov 21:16 (πλανώμενος ἐξ ὁδοῦ); Isa 53:6 (τῷ ὁδῷ αὐτοῦ ἐπλανήθη); Sib. Or. 3:233 (πεπλανῆσθαι ὁδούς). The accusative following the verb may be a Semitism; cf. 1QS 9:20 (‫ ;)הסר דרכו‬CD 1.13 (‫ ;)סרי דרך‬4Q258 8:5 (‫)הסיר דרכיו‬. 115 Ἐγερθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου: so also v. 2, q.  v.; διά … ἦλθον: this refers back to 3:15, q.  v. 111

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

235

5:10 βαρείας  οὔσης τῆς κεφαλῆς μου διὰ τὸ μὴ  κορεσθῆναί με τοῦ ὕπνου 5:2 βεβαρημένη ἐστὶν ἡ κεφαλή  μου ὅτι   οὐκ ἐκορέσθην     τοῦ ὕπνου

μου

The repetition here betokens confusion. The only real difference from v. 2 is the insignificant substitution of the noun, βαρύς, for the passive participial form of βαρέω, and the addition, at the end, of the redundant πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν.116 5:11. As in v. 5, Abimelech worries what Jeremiah will think of him. If, in excusing himself for being late, he claims that he has gotten lost, he supposes that Jeremiah will deem his story past belief: θαυμαστὸν εἰπεῖν τοῦτο ἐναντίον Ἰερεμίου, ὅτι πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν.117 The statement is deeply ironic. For while Abimelech thinks he is both late and lost, he is neither; and while he anticipates that Jeremiah, who told him what to do (3:15), will not credit his story, this never happens. In the LXX, ἐναντί(ον) + proper name translates ‫ בעיני‬or ‫ לפני‬+ proper name.118 While θαυμαστόν … ἐναντίον Ἰερεμίου is an unusual Greek construction, it recalls MT Exod 11:10: ‫המפתים האלה לפני פרעה‬. 5:12. Having entered the city (v. 7) and failed to recognize it, Abimelech exits: ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως; cf. v. 15.119 But he continues to look about and eventually notices “the signs of the city”: κατανοήσας εἶδε τὰ σημεῖα τῆς πόλεως.120 What those “signs” or “characteristic marks” are goes unsaid. A reader or hearer might think of Jerusalem’s quite distinctive topography—its “landmarks”121—or perhaps written words, as on a Roman milestone.122 Yet all that matters is the character’s recognition that the city he sees is, despite its unfamiliar features, Jerusalem. The identification—αὕτη μὲν ἔστιν ἡ πόλις123—which is the antithesis of the denial in

Hippocrates, Epid. 7.1.69 and Mul. affect. 1–3 41: κεφαλὴ βαρέη. Βαρύς: 1x; πεπλάνημαι τὴν ὁδόν: see n. 114 above. 117 Cf. T. Abr. RecLng. 18:6: τοῦτο θαυμαστόν ἐστι ὅτι. Θαυμαστός: 1x; ἐναντίον: 2x: 5:11; 7:23; πλάνω: see on vv. 9–10; ὁδός: see on 3:15.

116 Cf.

118

E.  g. Gen 21:11; 28:8; 34:18; 43:15; Josh 17:4; 2 Chr 13:15. ἐξέρχομαι + ἀπό see also 4:10; 8:7 bis; πόλις: see on 1:1. 120 Cf. Acts 11:6: κατενόουν καὶ εἶδον. Κατανοέω: 1x; εἶδον: see on 2:2; σημεῖον: 2x: 5:12; 6:23. 121 This is the translation of Kraft-Purintun, Robinson, Sparks and Thornhill, and Herzer. 122 Schaller, Paralipomena, 725, thinks of a milestone. Jer 31:21, which refers to road-markers and signposts, offers no obvious help. 123 Μέν occurs only here in 4 Baruch. 119 For

236

Commentary

v. 8—οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ πόλις—does not, however, lead to comprehension. Abimelech has no explanation for how the place he sees can be Jerusalem. Once more, then, he has to confess that he is “lost” or “deceived”: πεπλάνημαι δέ τὴν ὁδόν.124 5:13. Abimelech returns to the city again and, once there, searches about: καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, καὶ ἐζήτησε, καὶ οὐδένα εὗρε τῶν ἰδίων;125 cf. Inf. Gos. Thom. rec. 2 19:3: ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ζητοῦντες. That he fails yet again must add to his disorientation. The verb, ζητέω, also occurs in the story about Epimenides in Diogenes Laertius 1.109, although in a different connection. There the sleeper searches for a lost sheep after he wakes up and fails to find it: ἐζήτει … οὐχ εὕρισκε. 5:14. Because further investigation has clarified nothing, so that Abimelech has made no progress in his thinking, he repeats himself, uttering his earlier declaration: v. 14 καὶ εἶπεν· Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ vv. 7–8 καὶ εἶπεν· Εὐλογητὸς Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ

See the discussion on v. 8. 5:15. After continued failure to understand his situation, Abimelech exits, reprising his earlier action: v. 12           ἐξῆλθε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως v. 15 πάλιν ἐξῆλθεν    ἔξω τῆς πόλεως

In doing so, he reverses the action of v. 13: v. 13 καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς  τὴν πόλιν v. 15 καὶ πάλιν ἐξῆλθεν       ἔξω τῆς πόλεως126

124 125

126

Πλανάω: see on v. 9. Both senses work here. Ὁδός: see on 3:15. Πάλιν: 6x: 5:13, 15; 6:7; 7:21; 9:11, 20; καὶ πάλιν: also in v. 15; ὑποστρέφω: 4x: 5:13; 8:4 (also with εἰς τὴν πόλιν), 6, 8; πόλις: see on 1:1; εἰς τὴν πόλιν: 12x; ζητέω: 1x; οὐδείς: 2x: 5:13; 6:9; εὑρίσκω: see on v. 3; it is often paired with ζητέω, as in Diogenes Laertius 1.109; cf. also LXX Prov 1:28 (ζητήσουσιν … οὐχ εὑρήσουσιν); Isa 41:12 (ζητήσεις … οὐ μὴ εὕρῃς); Luke 13:7 (ζητῶν … οὐχ εὑρίσκω); Galen, Dignos. pulsib. ed. Kühn, 8:942 (ζητῶν … εὑρίσκων δ’ οὐδέν); Libanius, Ep. 826.1 (ζητῶν εὗρον οὐδέν). Ἴδιοι: 1x; for οἱ ἴδιοι meaning “relatives” or “associates” see BDAG, s.  v., 4a. Πάλιν: see on 5:13; ἐξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: see on 4:3.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

237

Abimelech is wholly nonplussed. He no longer knows where he should go: μὴ εἰδὼς ποῦ ἀπέλθῃ.127 Although Abimelech has been, in accord with Jeremiah’s request (see on 3:9), spared the pain of seeing Jerusalem destroyed as well as the pain of going into exile, he is not spared pain altogether. Rather, because of his profound confusion, his inability to learn where he is, he grieves: ἔμεινε λυπούμενος.128 The language reminds one of 4:10–11, where Baruch grieves (λυπούμενος) and remains (ἔμεινεν) in a tomb, and of 2:10, where Jeremiah and Baruch remain (ἔμειναν) in the temple weeping. In each case, the grief is prolonged. So here Abimelech is assimilated to the other main protagonists. The next verse will further assimilate the three figures, for in his grief, Abimelech sits, just as Jeremiah and Baruch have done (3:14; 4:11). 5:16. Abimelech now puts down his basket: ἀπέθηκε τὸν κόφινον.129 This means that he has been carrying it around ever since getting up. Once more he speaks to himself, announcing that he will stay put until God puts him in his right mind: καθέζομαι ὧδε ἕως ὁ Κύριος ἄρῃ τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ.130 The irony is that God has already taken him out of his trance. Yet Abimelech, while retaining his faith that God will help him, remains nonplussed. Mark 14:32—καθίσατε ὧδε ἕως—offers a close formal parallel to καθέζομαι ὧδε ἕως. Yet there is no need to posit a Christian hand here, for there is nothing striking about καθέζομαι + ὧδε.131 2 Kgs 7:3 (MT: ‫ ;ישבים פה עד‬LXX: καθήμεθα ὧδε ἕως) is just as close. 5:17. Until this point in the chapter, we have heard only two voices, that of Abimelech and that of the narrator. From this point on, there is a third voice, that of an unnamed old man who functions as a Deus ex machina: the story needs someone to perceive and interpret the miracle of the figs.132

Οἶδα: 1x; ποῦ: 3x: 5:15, 18; 7:14; ἀπέρχομαι: 17x. One could entertain the possibility of a Christian hand given the parallel expressions in John 12:35 (οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει) and 1 John 2:11 (οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει). In those places, however, the verb of movement is ὑπάγω. 128 For the construction see on 7:32. Μένω: see on 2:10; λυπέω: see on 3:9. On weeping 127

and mourning in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 19–21. Ἀποτίθημι: 1x; κόφινος: see on 3:15. 130 Cf. T. Reub. 1:4: ἕως ὁ Κύριος δῴη. Καθέζομαι: see on 4:11 and 5:1; for the present with future sense see BDF § 323; ὧδε: see on 3:12; Κύριος: see on 1:4; αἴρω: 12x; ἔκστασις: see on v. 8. 131 Cf. LXX 4 Βασ 7:4 (καθίσωμεν ὧδε); Ruth 4:1 (κάθισον ὧδε), 2 (καθίσατε ὧδε). 132 The same thing happens in Jer. Apocr. 39:10–13. 129

238

Commentary

One can imagine a version of our story in which Baruch would be the interpreter. In ch. 6, Baruch is seemingly able, simply by looking at the basket of figs, to reach the same conclusion as the old man. Why then introduce the latter? It was in 4 Baruch’s tradition. In the Greek legend about Epimenides in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10, it is an “old” (γέροντα) man who fathoms what has happened. As Abimelech sits—the reader or hearer assumes some time has passed between vv. 16 and 17—he sees an elderly man, unnamed, approaching: καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ, εἶδέ τινα γηραιὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐξ ἀγροῦ;133 cf. LXX B Judg 19:16: πρεσβύτης ἤρχετο … ἐξ ἀγροῦ. Those who judge 4 Baruch to be a Christian text might hear an echo of Mark 15:21 = Luke 23:26: ἐρχόμενον ἀπ’ ἀγροῦ. The agreement, however, is inexact, and the Hebrew equivalent, ‫ בוא‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫שדה‬, as in Gen 25:29; 30:16 (LXX: εἰσῆλθεν δὲ Ἰακώβ ἐξ ἀγροῦ); 34:7; Judg 19:16 (see above); and b. Ber. 4b (‫אדם בא‬ ‫)מן השדה‬, is common enough. Moreover, the legend about Epimenides in Diogenes Laertius 1.109 uses ἄγρος, albeit it in a slightly different connection (“he was sent into the country by his father”).134 The Theodore Psalter, in its pictorial illustration of 4 Baruch, depicts a sleeping figure, the flying eagle, Jerusalem, the Jordan River, and the enthroned Christ (the latter perhaps representing Jeremiah’s vision in ch. 9). But on the bottom and to the left, under the caption, γεωργοί, are two farmers, one planting and one reaping.135 This may represent the field of 5:17, just as the farmers may illustrate the κόπος = “toil” in A B, the short recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 312), and the Menaion.136 Although the age of the man, whom Abimelech addresses with πρεσβῦτα, is not given, that he is old has meaning.137 He is old enough to remember Jeremiah and so must have been born either about the same time as Abimelech or not much later. And yet, in v. 23, Abimelech is the younger one. The situation is extraordinary. Abimelech, whose age is sixty-six + however old he was when Jerusalem was destroyed, should be like the man he encounters—old, not young.

133

Κάθημαι: 1x; εἶδον: see on 2:2; γηραιός: see on 5:22; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): only 4 Baruch; Philo: 3x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 27x; ἄγρος: 2x: 5:17, 31.

134 See

further Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 126–28. The parallel in Jer. Apocr. 39, which says nothing about the old man coming from a field, has him gathering wood. 135 On the picture and secondary literature see p. 331 n. 70. 136 Contrast Crostini, “Psalter,” 6–7, who implausibly suggests that the farmer digging up the ground alludes to Jeremiah and Baruch burying the liturgical vessels in ch. 4. 137 On the connection with the legend about Epimenides see above, p. 000.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

239

One might suppose that Abimelech’s question, introduced with the emphatic “to you I say”—σοὶ λέγω, πρεσβῦτα, ποία ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις αὕτη;—is a bit odd.138 He has already concluded that the city is Jerusalem; see v. 12. So the reader or hearer infers that he holds his conclusion without full conviction and is looking for confirmation. He immediately receives it when the old man states what should be obvious: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἰερουσαλήμ ἐστι.139 5:18. The answer to one question leads Abimelech to ask another: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ· Ποῦ ἔστιν ὁ Ἰερεμίας ὁ ἱερεὺς, καὶ Βαροὺχ ὁ ἀναγνώστης, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, ὅτι οὐχ εὗρον αὐτούς;140 Although the introductory καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ occurs only once in the LXX (Tob 6:16 ‫)א‬, it may still be a Semitism; cf. the Hebrew ‫אליו‬/‫ויאמר לו‬ and ‫אליו‬/‫ ואמר לו‬and Gk LAE 6:3 v.  l. (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἀδάμ); 16:2 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος); 35:1; 39:1 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός).141 The locution became quite popular in Christian narratives.142 Abimelech wants to know the whereabouts not only of Jeremiah and Baruch but also everybody else. He explains his query by remarking upon his own inability to find them. “All the people” refers not to others personally known to Abimelech; it rather adverts to the circumstance that, with its people in exile, few remain in Jerusalem.

Cf. the question in v. 33 with ποῖος. Σοὶ λέγω: see on 4:3; πρεσβύτης: 3x: 5:17, 19, 23; most often for ‫ זקן‬in the LXX; for the vocative see 4 Macc 5:6; 7:10; ποῖος: 4x: 2:2; 5:17, 33; 9:12; πόλις: see on 1:1. 139 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 1:1 and 4:6. 140 Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ: 3x: 5:17, 18, 34; ποῦ: see on 5:15; ἱερεύς: 2x: 5:18; 9:8 (Ἰερεμίας … ὁ ἱερεύς τοῦ θεοῦ); ἀναγνώστης: 1x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 2x—both of Ezra; C omits, and arm 144 drops Baruch altogether; eth calls Baruch not a scribe or public reader (so arm 345) but a “Levite”; on the tradition that Baruch was a priest see Bogaert, Baruch, 1:108–110; λαός: see on 1:5; πᾶς + ὁ λαός (= ‫)כל־העם‬: 4x: 4:2; 5:18; 7:18; 9:9; τῆς πόλεως ταύτης: see on 1:1; εὑρίσκω: see on 5:3. 141 See MT Gen 3:9; 4:15; Exod 4:18; Josh 5:13; 2 Sam 2:16; 1 Kgs 21:6; 4Q185 1–2.5, 7; T. Jos. 13:1; T. Abr. RecLng. 6:2; 9:8; etc. The LXX rarely has καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ because it much prefers the aorist εἶπεν αὐτῷ (2337x) over the present λέγει αὐτῷ (21x). 142 Cf. Matt 8:4, 20 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς); Mark 14:30 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς); John 1:43 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς); Herm. Sim. 5:2:2; 9:7:1; Acts Thom. 137 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ Τερτία); Quaest. Iacobi ad Iohannem ed. Vassiliev, p. 320 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰάκωβος); Gos. Barth. 4:23 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Βαρθωλωμαίος); Inf. Gos. Thom. rec. 3 15:3 (καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ καθηγητής); it appears hundreds of time in the Apophthegmata patrum. 138

240

Commentary

Jeremiah is here called “the priest.” This designation—which lines up with his activities in 2:3 (interceding for the sins of the people); 3:6–8, 14 (hiding the temple vessels); 4:3–4 (disposing of the keys of the temple); and 9:1–2 (offering sacrifice in the temple)—derives ultimately from the superscription of Jeremiah: “The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin” (1:1). Our book indeed assumes that Jeremiah is the High Priest,143 so the text in C (ἀρχιερεύς; cf. P R: ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ) is, whether original or not, correct in substance. Baruch is here ὁ ἀναγνώστης. The word occurs only six times in the LXX, always with reference to Ezra, who is repeatedly called “the priest and reader (ἀναγνώστης; cf. ‫סופר‬/‫ )ספר‬of the law.”144 One might imagine, given that the word is so common in later Christian sources (Lampe, s.  v.), that it is here secondary. But (i) both canonical Jeremiah and Baruch characterize Baruch as a public reader, and for this activity the LXX uses the verb, ἀναγινώσκω;145 (ii) Jer. Apocr. 8 refers twice to Baruch as Jeremiah’s “reader” (5, 7: refwϣ); (iii) 2 Baruch, which is closely related to 4 Baruch, assimilates Baruch to Ezra.146 Our text does the same. 5:19–20. The elder responds with his own question: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ πρεσβύτης· Οὐκ εἶ σὺ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης, σήμερον μνησθεὶς τοῦ Ἰερεμίου, ὅτι ἐπερωτᾷς περὶ αὐτοῦ μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον;147 He reasons as follows. If Abimelech knows about—lit. “remembers today”—Jeremiah, so that he can inquire about him after the prophet has been gone for such a long time, that is, sixty-six years after his departure, then surely Abimelech is “of this city.” With σήμερον μνησθείς compare Gen 41:9: “Today I remember (‫ ;מזכיר היום‬LXX: ἀναμιμνῄσκω σήμερον) my faults.” The language of memory is fitting in a text about the exile; cf. Ps 137:1 (“By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion”); Jer 51:50 (“Remember the Lord from afar, and let Jerusalem come

143

See further on 2:1; 7:14; 9:2; and p. 183. Ezra 8:8, 9, 19; 9:39, 42, 49; cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.123, 127. 145 Jer 43:6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15; Bar 1:3. 146 Mark F. Whitters, “Baruch as Ezra in 2 Baruch,” JBL 132 (2013), 569–84. 2 Baruch, however, does not refer to Baruch as a scribe or reader; it promotes him to the office of prophet. 147 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; πρεσβύτης: see on v. 17; εἶ σύ recurs in 5:30, q.   v.; πόλις: see on 1:1; σήμερον: see on 5:5; μιμνήσκω: 3x: 5:20; 7:27–28—all of remembering Jerusalem before its destruction; ἐπερωτάω: 1x; cf. Cassius Dio 48.37.6: περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπηρώτων; χρόνος: 2x: 5:20; 7:29; with μετὰ τοσοῦτον χρόνον cf. Heb 4:7; Josephus, Ant. 1.318; Lucian, Somn. 5. 144

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

241

into your mind”); Lam 1:7 (“Jerusalem remembers in the days of her affliction and bitterness all the precious things that were hers from days of old”). 5:21. Rather than pausing for an answer, the old man clarifies: Ἰερεμίας γὰρ ἐν Βαβυλῶνί ἐστι μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ· ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν γὰρ ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονόσορ τοῦ βασιλέως.148 See the commentary on 4:5. Μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ occurs in the LXX and adds a biblical touch.149 Nebuchadnezzar—named here for the first time—is often, in Jewish literature, an archetypical king of evil.150 Although “Nebuchadnezzar the king,” which recurs in 7:25, is particularly characteristic of canonical Jeremiah, where it occurs over thirty times,151 it is otherwise common.152 One suspects that the final clause in v. 21—καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν Ἰερεμίας, εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ κατηχῆσαι αὐτοὺς τὸν λόγον153— is a secondary expansion, perhaps from the same hand that authored the Christian ending.154 (1) Καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν Ἰερεμίας is redundant. (2) That the old man knows what Jeremiah is doing in Babylon is unexpected. (3) Εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτοῖς καὶ κατηχῆσαι αὐτοὺς τὸν λόγον sounds Christian. It is true that εὐαγγελίζω by itself could be Jewish, as in 3:11. Yet, in 9:18, in which the twelve apostles announce good news, the verb is

148

On “Babylon” see on 2:7; λαός: see on 1:5 and cf. 3:11; αἰχμαλωτεύω: see on 1:1; Ναβουχοδονόσορ: 3x: 5:21; 7:14, 25; the spelling occurs often in the LXX; cf. also

Demetrius the Chronographer frag. 6 apud Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.141.1; Eupolemus frag. 4 apud. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.39.4; Liv. Proph. Dan. 4, 9; Liv. Proph. Hab. 3; Gk. 3 Bar. 1:1; Josephus prefers Ναβουχοδονοσόρου for the genitive: Ant. 10.87, 146; etc.; βασιλεύς: see on 1:1. 149 Cf. Deut 32:43; Judg 1:16; 4 Βασ 23:35; 2 Chr 20:21; also 1QM 18:7; Rom 15:10; Josephus, Ant. 9.271; Justin, Dial. 130.1–4. 150 See Chyutin, Hagiographies, 291. 151 Jer 21:2, 7; 22:25; 24:1; 25:1; etc. 152 Cf. 2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:6; Ezra 2:1; Ezek 29:19; Dan 4:31; Josephus, Ant. 10.186; 3 Bar. 1:1; etc. 153 Εὐαγγελίζω: see on 3:11; κατηχέω: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 1x; NT: 8x; Josephus: 1x; λόγος: 5x: 5:21; 6:11, 19, 20; 9:17; it is also singular in this last instance and nowhere else in 4 Baruch. 154 Cf. Siegert, Einleitung, 618. Contrast Delling, Lehre, 21–25 (appealing among other things to the absolute use of τὸ ῥῆμα in LXX Deut 30:14); Schaller, Paralipomena, 726; Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 124–26; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2670. Note, however, Delling’s formulation: “It is not impossible that the expression ‘instructing them in the word’ in … 5:21 was formulated by a Jew.” Herzer, 4 Baruch, 93, despite not seeing a Christian hand here, rightly observes that the absolute “use of λόγος referring to the content of teaching is … unusual in a Jewish document.”

242

Commentary

indisputably Christian, and the addition of κατεχέω + the unqualified τὸν λόγον suggests the same judgment here. Although the late verb, κατηχέω, which means “instruct orally,”155 appears in both secular and Jewish sources,156 its combination with the unqualified, definite, singular λόγον— which here means something like “the divine word” or even “the word of the gospel”157—appears to be uniquely Christian; cf. Gal 6:6 (κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον); Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1.13.3 (τοῦ ἀληθοῦς λόγου … κατηχήσας με); Apos. Con. 7:39 (κατηχείσθαι τὸν λόγον); Basil of Caesarea, Spir. 29.25 (τὸν λόγον κατηχουμένων); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John ed. Pusey 2:484 (κατηχείτω λόγον).158 The co-ordinated use of εὐαγγελίζω and κατηχέω in the same sentence is also characteristically Christian.159 5:22–23. As soon as he hears the old man—εὐθὺς δὲ ἀκούσας Ἀβιμέλεχ παρὰ τοῦ γηραιοῦ ἀνθρώπου160—Abimelech speaks.161 He is incredulous. His response—εἰ μὴ ἦς πρεσβύτης, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ὑβρίσαι τὸν μείζονα αὐτοῦ, ἐπικατεγέλων ἄν σοι καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι μαίνῃ·

155 See

Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 336–37; C. Spicq, “κατηχέω,” TLNT 2 (1994), 292–94. 156 E.  g. Philo, Legat. 198; Josephus, Vita 366; Plutarch, Mor. 538A; Diogenes Laertius 8.64; Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 5.5; Philostratus, Imag. 2.2; P. Stras. 41.37. 157 Cf. Mark 4:15; 16:20; Luke 1:2; Acts 4:4; 1 Pet 2:8; 1 John 2:7. Note also the Akhmimic text of Apoc. Zeph. 10:9: “the catechumens (Nkachkoumenos) who heard the word of God.” Against O. Wintermute, “The Apocalypse of Zephaniah,” in Charlesworth, OTP, 1:515, this is likely Christian. 158 Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 178 n. 2, argues, to the contrary, that the language of 4 Baruch has a parallel in the targumic ‫ אלף‬+ ‫ אוריתא‬or ‫ ;פתגם אוריתא‬cf. Tg. Neofiti 1 and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 49:10; Tg. Neofiti 1 Deut 32:29; Tg. Isa 2:3; 30:10; 32:6. He cites, however, no instance of ‫ אלף‬+ unqualified ‫ ;פתגם‬and ‫אורייתא‬, which means “law,” “instruction,” or “lesson” (Jastrow, s.  v.), is an imperfect parallel to λόγος. If the meaning were “to teach the law,” would we not expect νόμος? Note, however, Deut 30:14 (“the word is very near to you”); T. Mos. 8:5 (blasfemare verbum); 11:16 (dominum verbi). 159 E.  g. Socrates Scholasticus, H.  E. 7.4; Ps.-Basil of Seleucia, V. Thecl. 1.28; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Top.10.11. 160 Εὐθύς: 1x; ἀκούω: 20x; with παρά only here; cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Dan. PG 81.1392 (εὐθὺς δὲ ἀκούσας Βαλτάσαρ); γηραιός: 5x: 5:17, 22, 30, 33, 34—4x with ἄνθρωπος: 5:22, 30, 33, 34; the expression is uncommon, although note Lucian, Anach. 16: γηραιός … ἄνθρωπος; ἄνθρωπος: 7x, 6x in 5:22–34. 161 Here the parallel with Jer. Apoc. 39 is very close; see p. 212 n. 10.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

243

ὅτι εἶπας, ᾘχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς Βαβυλῶνα162—is wrong on two accounts. First, the old man is not really his elder; see on v. 17. Second, the people have indeed been taken captive and are in Babylon. Abimelech is as wrong about these things as about everything else; and while he may laugh at the old man, the reader laughs at him.163 The background for Abimelech’s comment, that he will not upbraid the old man, is the robust tradition that elders should be honored.164 5:24. Abimelech justifies his incredulity by observing the obvious: εἰ ἦσαν οἱ καταρράκται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατελθόντες ἐπ’ αὐτούς, οὔπω ἐστὶ καιρὸς ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.165 Even if (εἰ)166 the cataracts of heaven had poured down—which clearly has not happened—not enough time has

162

163

Πρεσβύτης: see on v. 17; ἔξειμι: 1x; cf. Ps.-Demosthenes, Orat. 25.4 (οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ λέγειν); LXX Est 4:2 (οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἐξὸν αὐτῷ εἰσελθεῖν); 4 Macc 5:18 (οὐδὲ οὕτως ἐξὸν ἦν ἡμῖν); BGU 4 1127:20 (μὴ[ι] ἐξ[ε]ῖναι τῶι Ἀπολλωνίῳ λέγε[ι]ν); Matt 12:4 (οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν); 2 Cor 12:4 (οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι); Josephus, Ant. 6.338 (οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτῇ ποιήσασθαι); 8.404 (οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ καταψεύσασθαι); Cassius Dio 41.17.2 (οὐκ ἐξὸν τισι πελέκεσιν … χρήσασθαι); Ps.-Aelius Aristides, Ars rhet. 1.4.1 (οὐκ ἐξὸν αὐτῷ λέγειν); ἄνθρωπος: 7x, 6x in 5:22–34; ὑβρίζω: 2x: 5:23; 6:17; μέγας: 12x; for the sense, “older,” cf. LXX Gen 25:23; 29:16; ἐπικαταγελάω: seemingly a hapax legomenon for all of Greek literature; perhaps it is the author’s own intensification of the common καταγελάω; A B R have: ἐπεὶ καταγέλων; d e Menaea have: κατεγέλων; μαίνομαι: 1x; cf. 4 Macc 8:5; 10:13; T. Job 35:4–5; 39:13; ᾐχμαλωτεύθη κτλ.: see on 5:21.

Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 316, noting the irony of our passage, cites Marcus Aurelius 11:33: “to look for a fig in winter is a madman’s act.” 164 See Lev 19:32 (“you shall … honor the face of the an old man”); Prov 23:22 (“Hearken to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old”); Isa 3:5 (“the youth will be insolent to the elder” characterizes the breakdown of society); 9:15 (“the elder and honored man”); Lam 5:12 (the author mourns that “no respect is shown to the elders”); Wis 2:10 (the wicked say, “Let us … not regard the gray hairs of the aged”); Ecclus 8:6 (“Do not disdain one who is old”); also 4 Macc 5:36 (“the honorable mouth of my old age”); Philo, Spec. 2.237–38; Ps.-Phoc. 220 (“revere those with gray hair on the temples”). 165 Καταρράκτης: 1x; οὐρανός: see on 3:2; κατέρχομαι: 2x: 5:24; 7:17, both with ἐπί; οὔπω: 1x; καιρός: see on 3:8; ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα: see on 3:11. The short recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 313) adds: “and (if) the angels of God had come to take them with power and authority.” 166 Schaller, Paralipomena, 726, understands εἰ to introduce a direct question; cf. Matt 12:10 and see BDF § 440.3. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 16, punctuates the Greek as though Schaller is right; but then, in his English translation, he appears to construe εἰ as introducing a hypothetical.

244

Commentary

passed for the floods to have swept the inhabitants of Jerusalem to Babylon. Cf. the conditional in 2 Kgs 7:2, 19: “If the Lord himself should make windows in heaven, could this thing be?” Perhaps the image in 4 Baruch—a mass of people carried by giant waves—is intended to be humorous. The concluding ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα nicely balances the earlier κατελθόντες ἐπ’ αὐτούς. The phrase, οἱ καταρράκται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (= ‫)ארבת השמים‬, goes back to the biblical story of Noah’s flood.167 It is probably just a coincidence that καταρράκτης occurs twice in LXX Jer 20:1–3, in close connection with the exile to Babylon.168 5:25. The emphasis continues to be upon time: πόση γὰρ ὥρα ἐστὶν ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπέστειλέ με ὁ πατήρ μου Ἰερεμίας εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐνέγκαι ὀλίγα σῦκα, ἵνα δίδωμι τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ;169 Abimelech imagines that the last thing he remembers took place not long ago. Readers, by contrast, know that sixty-six years have passed. For Jeremiah as Baruch’s πατήρ see on 2:6. The line largely recapitulates 3:15 (q.  v.) 3:15 ἀπέστειλεν Ἰερεμίας τὸν Ἀβιμέλεχ εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐνεγκὼν ὀλίγα σῦκα δίδου τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ

5:25 ἀπέστειλέ με … Ἰερεμίας εἰς τὸ χωρίον τοῦ Ἀγρίππα ἐνέγκαι ὀλίγα σῦκα δίδωμι τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ

5:26. This verse continues to reiterate, often word for word, the earlier narrative, in this case the beginning of the chapter, vv. 1–5 (q.v), as well as v. 23 (q.  v.); see above, p. 211. The only new item is Abimelech’s remark that that figs were just as he had gathered them: καθὼς συνέλεξα αὐτά.170 Abimelech’s reasoning is sound. The people cannot be in Babylon if they were not there just a few hours ago; and that only a few hours has passed is proven by the figs, which still exude sap. Anybody in Abimelech’s situation would conclude what he does. The empirical evidence is on his side. He is, nonetheless, deceived. 5:27. Abimelech confidently ends by challenging the old man to pick up and examine the basket of figs: ἵνα δὲ γνῷς, λάβε, ἴδε τὰ σῦκα.171 He assumes

167

LXX Gen 7:11; 8:2; cf. Philo, Conf. 23; Fug. 192. For use of the expression in other contexts see LXX 4 Βασ 7:2, 19; Mal 3:10; Gos. Barth. 4:55. 168 On the close parallel in Jer. Apocr. 39:8 see the Introduction, p. 52. 169 Πόσος: 1x; ὥρα: see on 1:10; ἀφ’ οὗ: 2x: 5:25, 30. 170 Καθώς: see on 3:1; συλλέγω: 1x; the verb is often agricultural in the LXX. 171 Ἵνα δὲ γνῷς: see on 2:9; λαμβάνω: see on 3:8; εἶδον: see on 2:2; σῦκον: see on 3:15.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

245

that, once the elder perceives the truth about the figs, the conclusion will be inevitable. Yet even though Abimelech is right about the figs—they are just as they were when picked—his inference is wrong. The old man—whose ἵνα μάθῃς in v. 31 answers to the ἵνα γνῷς of this verse—will proffer a different and correct interpretation; see 5:30–31. 5:28. Abimelech uncovers the figs for “the old man”172 so that the latter will behold what the former beheld earlier; see on v. 3 and note the characteristic parallelism (cf. also v. 26): 5:3 καὶ ἀνακαλύψας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων 5:28 καὶ ἀνεκάλυψε  τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων

Abimelech’s expectation is that the old man will infer what he has: little time has passed since the figs were picked. 5:29. The old man does indeed see what Abimelech saw earlier, in v. 3 (q.  v.): 5:3 εὗρεν αὐτὰ στάζοντα γάλα 5:29 εἶδεν αὐτὰ στάζοντα γάλα

The only difference between the two clauses is the substitution of εἶδεν for εὗρεν.173 The change is due to v. 27: εἶδεν matches the imperative, ἴδε. 5:30. Having seen what Abimelech has seen, the old man, who has witnessed the intervening sixty-six years, understands (as does the reader) that a miracle has occurred, and he wishes to communicate the fact to the still-incomprehending Abimelech: ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὰ ὁ γηραιὸς ἄνθρωπος, εἶπεν· Ὦ υἱέ μου.174 Υἱέ μου functions as a term of affection in the LXX and elsewhere.175 Here the address underlines Abimelech’s youthful appearance, which is part and parcel of the miracle. As in Rom 11:33, the interjection, ὦ, expresses both emotion176 and amazement.177

Τῷ γέροντι; γέρων: 1x; cf. γηραιός in vv. 17. 22, 20, 33, 34. Εἶδεν: see on 2:2; εὗρον occurs in v. 26. 174 Εἶδεν: see on 2:2; ὁ γηραιὸς ἄνθρωπος: see on 5:22; for ὦ (3x: 5:30; 6:14; 9:30) 172 173

followed by the vocative cf. LXX Ps 114:4; 4 Macc 15:1; Acts 1:1; Rom 2:1; 1 Tim 6:11; Jas 2:20; etc.; υἱός: 11x; the vocative recurs in 7:23. The old man addresses Abimelek thirce as “son” in Jer. Apocr. 39. 175 LXX Gen 27:1; 2 Βασ 13:25; 19:1; T. Abr. RecLng. 4:1; Gk. LAE 6:3; Heb 12:3; etc. 176 Cf. Tob 7:7; 4 Macc 7:15; Matt 15:28; Gal 3:1; 1 Clem. 23:4. 177 Cf. Philo, Fug. 149; T. Abr. RecLng. 7:10; T. Job 21:3 and see further BDF § 146.

246

Commentary

According to the old man, Abimelech is righteous: δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος εἶ σύ.178 The same will be said of Noah in 7:10 and of Baruch in 7:23. Note that δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος matches the preceding γηραιὸς ἄνθρωπος. As for the sense of δίκαιος, which in the LXX most often translates ‫צדיק‬, the meaning is probably “law-abiding.” The Greek word could, to be sure, include the whole range of right action, but principally it pertained to legal justice.179 This was particularly so within Judaism, where the whole sphere of righteousness was contained in the Torah; cf. Sus 3 (“her parents were δίκαιοι and had taught their daughter according to the law of Moses”); Luke 1:6 (both Zechariah and Elizabeth were δίκαιοι “before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”). The same holds for ‫ צדיק‬in the DSS and rabbinic literature: the ‫ צדיק‬observes the law of God.180 Note that, if Abimelech is δίκαιος in 4 Baruch, in the parallel legends in Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10 and b. Ta̔an. 23a, Epimenides is θεοφιλέστατος while Honi the Circle-drawer is ‫צדיק‬. ˙ righteousness, God wished to spare him the sight Because of Abimelech’s of Jerusalem’s devastation: οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς δεῖξαί σοι τὴν ἐρήμωσιν τῆς πόλεως.181 Within its literary context, the old man’s evaluation recalls Jeremiah’s wish in 3:9 and reveals that the prophet’s will was God’s will: 5:30  οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεὸς δεῖξαί σοι             τὴν ἐρήμωσιν 3:9

                        τῆς πόλεως οὐ    θέλω αὐτὸν ἵνα ἴδῃ τὸν ἀφανισμὸν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν

Δίκαιος: 6x: 5:30, 32; 7:10, 23; 9:5 bis; ἄνθρωπος: see on 5:22. The characterization of Abimelek also appears in Jer. Apocr. 39:13 (ntKoudϊkaϊos). The identification formula, εἶ σύ, recurs in v. 19 and 7:3; cf. John 4:19 (προφήτης εἶ σύ); T. Abr. RecShrt. 2:4 (φιλάνθρωπος εἶ σύ). With δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος (= ‫ )איש צדיק‬εἶ σύ cf. LXX Gen 6:9 (ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος; cf. Philo, Deus 117; Abr. 31, 33); 1 Βασ 24:17 (δίκαιος σύ); Job 1:1 (ἄνθρωπος … δίκαιος); 35:7 (δίκαιος εἶ); Prov 23:31 (ἀνθρώποις δικαίοις); Ep Jer 72 (ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος); 1 En. 1:2 (ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος); T. Abr. RecShrt. 4:10 (δίκαιος ἄνθρωπος); Mark 6:20 (ἄνδρα δίκαιον); Luke 2:25 (ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος); 23:50 (ἀνὴρ … δίκαιος); Acts 10:22 (ἀνὴρ δίκαιος); Justin, Dial. 17.1 (δίκαιον ἄνθρωπον). 179 See G. Schrenk, “δίκη κτλ.,” TDNT 2 (1964):182–91. 180 See Benno Przybyiski, Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 13–52. On the rabbinic lit. see esp. R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden: Brill, 1957). 181 Cf. LXX Deut 29:19 (οὐ μὴ θελήσῃ ὁ Θεός); Ps 5:5 (οὐχὶ Θεὸς θέλων). Ἐθέλω: see on 3:7; Θεός: see on 1:1; δείκνυμι: see on 1:10; τὴν ἐρήμωσιν τῆς πόλεως: see on 3:9. 178

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

247

The old man’s next comment likewise echoes previous speech that he was not there to hear, in this case Abimelech’s repeated remarks about his trance. The impossible borrowing adds to the unreality of our tale: 5:30  ἤνεγκε ταύτην         τὴν ἔκστασιν        ἐπὶ σέ

                ὁ Θεός182

5:8 and 14        Κύριος, ὅτι μεγάλη     ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ’ ἐμέ 5:16           ὁ Κύριος ἄρῃ             τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην        ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ

The only new elements are the use of φέρω and the substitution of ὁ Θεός— carried over from the previous clause—for (ὁ) Κύριος. The last clause in v. 30 is also constructed of previous elements, although in this case from words of the narrator (v. 1) and Abimelech (vv. 5, 23, 25, 26): 5:30        ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη σήμερόν εἰσιν ἀφ’ οὗ ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς

Βαβυλῶνα183

5:1 ἔτη ἑξηκονταέξ 5:5                σήμερον 5:23                      ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς

Βαβυλῶνα

5:25                     ἀφ’ οὗ 5:26                      ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ὁ λαὸς εἰς

Βαβυλῶνα

Even the introductory ἰδοὺ γάρ184 is recycled, although from a previous chapter (4:1). Unlike the first γάρ in this verse, the second γάρ may mean more than “for” or “because”; it may include the sense of “indeed.”185 Σήμερον generates a problem. If Abimelech awakens on the same day of the year on which he fell asleep, and if it was then possible to gather figs, it should be possible to do the same now. According to v. 31, however, it is not the season for figs. Σήμερον seems at odds then with the rest of the story. Was it the infelicitous insertion of an editor or scribe? Or does our book assume, despite 3:11 and maybe 4:5, that Jeremiah went to Babylon only after most of Israel was already there (cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:6)?

Φέρω: 10x; ἔκστασις: see on 5:8; Θεός: see on 1:1. Ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη: see on 5:5; σήμερον: see on 5:5; αἰχμαλωτεύω: see on 1:1; λαός: see on 1:5; Βαβυλῶν: see on 2:7 184 Ἰδού: 10x; ἰδοὺ γὰρ: 3x: 4:1; 5:30; 6:5. 182 183

185

As in LXX Ps 64:14; 67:9; Rom 2:25.

248

Commentary

5:31. The old man now comes to the decisive observation. His assertion in v. 30—Abimelech has been in a trance for sixty-six years—must be true because it is the wrong time of the year for fresh figs: καὶ ἵνα μάθῃς, τέκνον, ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστιν, ἀνάβλεψον εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν καὶ ἴδε, ὅτι οὐκ ἐφάνη ἡ αὔξησις τῶν γενημάτων. Ἴδε καὶ τὰ σῦκα, ὅτι καιρὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ γνῶθι.186 It follows that Abimelech’s figs, dripping with sap, must be the product of a miracle. The introductory καὶ ἵνα μάθῃς matches the concluding καὶ γνῶθι and may reflect an intentional chiastic structure: Καὶ … μάθῃς   ἴδε ὅτι  οὐκ    ἴδε ὅτι … οὐκ καὶ  γνῶθι

Once more, the old man’s words echo earlier lines: 5:31 ἵνα μάθῃς … ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστιν 2:9 ἵνα γνῷς        ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι 3:3        ἐγνώκαμεν ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι

The closest parallels to ἵνα μάθῃς … ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστιν are in Chrysostom’s writings, where ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀληθές occurs a dozen times.187 The affectionate address, τέκνον—which underlines the miracle of Abimelech’s youth—occurs often in the LXX for ‫( בני‬Gen 27:13; 43:29; etc.); it is thus the equivalent of υἱέ μου in v. 29. Abimelech is invited to use his own eyes to perceive the nearby field, first mentioned in v. 17. The description of what he is supposed to see is a bit difficult. While the general sense is clear—the crop-bearing vegetation has not grown long enough to bear fruit—the wording is unexpected. The combination, αὔξησις + genitive of γενήμα, is seemingly not otherwise attested. The closest parallel is in 2 Cor 9:10: “The one who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your resources and increase the harvest (αὐξήσει τὰ γενήματα) of your righteousness.” Αὔξησις, whose first

186

Μανθάνω: 1x; τέκνον: 3x: 5:31; 7:16; 8:7; ἀληθές: see on 2:9; ἀναβλέπω: 2x: 5:31; 6:2; ἀγρός: see on 5:17; εἶδον: 24x, 8x in 5:12–31; φαίνω: 2x: 5:31; 7:18; αὔξησις:

1x; LXX: 1x: 2 Macc 5:16; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 47x; NT: 3x; Josephus: 7x; γενήμα: 1x; σῦκον: see on 3:15; καιρός: see on 3:8; γιγνώσκω: see on 2:9. 187 Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 4 PG 48.873; Jud. 8 PG 48.939; Stat 5.1 PG 49:69; etc.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

249

meaning is “growth, increase” (LSJ, s.  v.),188 is often associated with fruit.189 The same is true of γενήμα,190 a word which the LXX often links to ἀγρός and which can denote agricultural yield or produce.191 Passing from the general to the particular, the old man invites Abimelech to look also at the figs. These are presumably the figs on nearby fig trees. The old man knows that, when Abimelech does so, he will perceive that the figs are not yet ripe. The imperative matches that of Abimelech in v. 27— ἴδε τὰ σῦκα—except here the object of sight is not the figs in the basket but their unripe counterparts. Because figs tree in Palestine bear ripe fruit from May through October, our story implicitly places itself in the period from November to April. This fits with v. 33, which names the month as Nisan (which occurs shortly before our May; cf. the v.  l. in R for v. 33: νισὰ ὅς ἐστιν Ἀπρίλλιος = Aprilis). The precise wording of the old man’s imperative—ὅτι καιρὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι—recalls Mark 11:13, where a fig tree that Jesus curses has leaves but no fruit, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς οὐκ ἦν σύκων. The parallels are striking. Both clauses (i) open with an explanatory conjunction (ὅτι/γάρ); (ii) follow this immediately with καιρός; (iii) subsequently employ οὐκ + a form of εἰμί; (iv) qualify καιρός with σύκων or with a pronoun, αὐτῶν, that refers back to σῦκα;192 and (v) have basically the same content: it is/was not the season for figs, it being in both cases Nisan. It is true that “the season of figs” was perhaps a traditional expression,193 and also true that there is a parallel in b. Ta̔an. 24a: “you have troubled your creator to make the fig tree to bring forth its fruits before its time.”194 Nevertheless, given that Christian scribes copied our text, and given that a Christian added the current ending

188

Sparks and Thornhill translate: “see how much progress the crops have made.” Cf. e.  g. Aristotle, Col. 795a (τὴν αὔξησιν … τὴν τῶν καρπῶν); Philo, Fug. 176 (αὐξήσεις καὶ καρπῶν γενέσεις); Spec. 2.154 (καρπῶν … γενέσεις καὶ αὐξήσεις); Josephus, Bell. 3.44 (καρπῶν ἡμέρων αὔξησιν); Justin, 2 Apol. 5.2 (αὔξησιν καρπῶν); Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Arist. Meteor. ed. Hayduck, p. 181 (αὐξήσεις καρπῶν). 190 E.  g. LXX Lev 19:25; Ps 106:37; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 1.3.17. 191 E.  g. LXX Exod 22:4; Deut 14:22; 32:13; 4 Βασ 8:6; Ezek 36:30; Lam 4:9; cf. ‫תבואה‬. 192 The substitution in C of σύκων for αὐτῶν almost certainly betrays assimilation to Mark 11:13. 193 Cf. Athenaeus, Deipn. 2.69: τῷ τῶν σύκων καιρῷ. 194 ‫ ;פירותיה שלא בזמנה‬cf. Lam. Rab. 1:14. Note also Gen. Rab. 622 (“when a fig is gathered at the proper time”); Eccles. Rab. 11:5:2 (“the owner of the fig tree knows well which is the proper time for the figs to be gathered”).

189

250

Commentary

in ch. 9 and the last part of v. 21 in the present chapter, we may have a Christian hand here too.195 5:32. Upon perceiving that it is indeed not the time for figs, Abimelech blesses God: τότε ἔκραξε μεγάλῃ φωνῇ Ἀβιμέλεχ λέγων· Εὐλογήσω σε, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.196 Once more then, as in vv. 8 and 14 (where however the formula is εὐλογητὸς Κύριος), Abimelech expresses his piety aloud. The introductory εὐλογήσω σε is a likely Semitism. It appears in the LXX, most often for ‫אברכך‬.197 The title here used of God, Κύριε, ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, goes back to the HB/OT; see Gen 24:3, 7 (Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς/Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς/ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς γῆς = ‫;)יהוה אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ‬198 Deut 4:39 (Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου, οὗτος Θεὸς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω);199 2 Esdr 1:2 (Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ = ‫ ;)יהוה אלהי השמים‬5:11 (τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς = ‫ ;)אלה שמיא וארעא‬Jdt 9:12 (δέσποτα τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τῆς γῆς); Tob 7:17 A B (Κύριος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς); 10:14 ‫( א‬εὐλογῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς).200 These texts reduce the likelihood that our line, which emphasizes the power and universal reign of God, borrows from Matt 11:25 = Luke 10:21: ἐξομολογοῦμαι σοι, πάτερ, Κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς; but see above, p. 220–21.

195 196

So too Piovanelli, “Sommeil,” 93–94.

Τότε: 3x: 5:32; 7:13; 9:30; ἔκραξε μεγάλῃ φωνῇ λέγων: see on 2:2; it covers only v. 32, not v. 33; εὐλογέω: 2x: 5:32; 9:17; Κύριος: see on 1:4; Θεός: see on 1:1; οὐρανός: see on 3:2; γῆ: see on 3:8; the latter two nouns are paired only

here. Gen 12:2; 22:17; 26:3; 27:2; Exod 20:24; Ps 25:12; 62:5; 144:2; Isa 12:1; also 11Q5 22:12; CIJ 2:1538 = JIGRE 122; T. Abr. RecLng. 8:7; Heb 6:14; 1 Clem. 10:3. There are, however, non-Jewish examples of εὐλογέω + name of deity; see SB 1:3692; 5:8562, 8563; CIG 4705. 198 24:3 is preceded by the direct address, ἐξορκιῶ σε. MT Gen 24:3 has: ‫ואשביעך ביהוה‬ ‫אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ‬. Cf. 1QGenApoc. 22:16, 21. 199 Cf. also Josh 2:11; 3 Βασ 8:23; 2 Chr 6:14. 200 Note also 1QapGen 22:16 (‫ ;)מרה שמיא וארעא‬1QM 10:8 (‫;)אל ישראל בשמים ובארץ‬ T. Sol. 1:6 (τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς; so also 17:4), 8 (ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς); 2:5 (ἐδόξασα τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς; the same in 2:9; 3:7; 18:41; 20:21).Cf. the closely related, “God/Lord, creator of heaven and earth,” as in Gen 14:19, 22; Isa 42:5; 1 Esdr 6:13; Jdt 13:18; Bel 1:5; Eupolemus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.34.1 (“Blessed be the God who created heaven and earth”); etc. 197 Cf.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

251

Abimelech’s theological exclamation introduces his anthropological declaration: ἡ ἀνάπαυσις τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν δικαίων ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ.201 Cf. Wis 4:7 (“the righteous [δίκαιος], even if they die prematurely, will be at rest” [ἀναπαύσει]); Ps.-Clem., Hom. 17.10 (the Hebdomad “is the rest of the whole [ἡ τῶν ὅλων ἀνάπαυσις] who grants himself as rest to those who imitate his greatness”); and note that the theme of rest occurs in connection with Ebedmelech in Jer. Apocr. 12:17: “the stone which is under your head will give you rest (+mi"ke nak).” It seems likely that “in every place” is emphatic. The HB/OT recurrently associates rest with both the land and the temple.202 In 4 Baruch, rest is, it appears, for the faithful wherever they reside. How this harmonizes with the picture of the misery of exile in ch. 7 goes unexplained. 4 Baruch’s line, which turns the story of Abimelech seeking “rest” (cf. ἀναπαύω in vv. 1, 26) into a symbol of a theological truth, goes back to a reworking of MT Jer 6:16 (‫)ומצאו מרגוע לנפשכם‬. The latter no doubt drew attention because of the legend of Abimelech’s supernatural slumber. The LXX translates ‫( מרגוע‬a HB/OT hapax legomenon) not with ἀνάπαυσις but with ἁγνισμός = “purification, expiation.”203 Yet ‫ מרגוע‬derives from the verb, ‫רגע‬, which means (in the hiphil) “give rest to”;204 hence the translation of the RSV: “you will find rest for your souls”; cf. Matt 11:29: εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν.205 In 4 Baruch, Jeremiah’s phrase has been augmented by references (i) to “the just,” which picks up the characterization of Abimelech in v. 30 and (ii) to “every place,” which is the equivalent of “heaven and earth” in the previous clause. Perhaps Jer 45:3–4 has affected the text, for here Baruch complains, “I found no The short text (ed. Vassiliev, p. 314) omits ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ. Ἀνάπαυσις: 1x; ψυχή: 5x: 5:32; 9:7, 11, 13, 18; δίκαιος: see on v. 30; τόπος: see on 5:7; ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ appears in the LXX—several times for ‫ בכל־)ה(מקום‬and became popular with Christian writers; cf. LXX Exod 20:24; Num 18:31; Deut 12:13; Ps 102:22; Prov 15:3; Amos 8:3; 1 Macc 1:25; 2 Macc 7:8; T. Dan 6:6; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 2:14; 1 Thess 1:8; 1 Tim 2:8; 1 Clem. 41:2; etc.; but it is also attested in secular contexts: P.Oxy. 10 1258.9; 61 4113.19; etc.; it is likely only a coincidence that the expression occurs 4x in LXX Jeremiah: 8:3; 24:9; 31:37; 51:35. 202 See Deut 3:20; 12:9–10; 25:19; Josh 1:13; 21:44; 1 Kgs 8:56; Ps 95:11; 132:14; Ecclus 36:13; and Laansma, Rest, 17–59. 203 Ἁγιασμός = “sanctification” is a variant reading. 204 Cf. the ‫= מרגעה‬ “rest(ing place)” of Isa 28:12. 205 See Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 436. On the relationship between 4 Baruch and Matt 11:25–30 see Allison, “Two Notes,” and above, pp. 220–21. Siegert, Einleitung, 618, sees a Christian hand here. In the LXX, ψυχή recurrently—over 800x—translates ‫נפש‬.

201

252

Commentary

rest” (LXX 51:33: ἀνάπαυσιν οὐχ εὗρον), and God responds that he will give him his life “in every place” (LXX 51:35: ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ).206 In context, the reference to rest is both literal and spiritual: the omnipresent God who has given literal rest to Abimelech for sixty-six years likewise gives, or will give, spiritual rest to the just. The precise nature of this rest, however, is left unspecified. One could read so-called Gnostic ideas of “rest” into the clause207—although nothing in the immediate context hints at this; or one could propose a wisdom background208 or think in terms of soul sleep209 or, to the contrary, of God’s presence in the here and now210 or or even of some sort of mystical rest in the heavenly, spiritual realm above.211

206 Cf.

Kaestli, “Influence,” 227. Oddly enough, the LXX (51:33) has a reference to sleeping: “I slept (ἐκοιμήθην) in groaning.” 207 See e.  g. Gos. Thom. 50, 60, 90; Gos. Truth 22:4–12; 37:19–21; 42–3; Gos. Phil. 72:22–24; Dial. Sav. 120:1–8; Auth. Teach. 35:3–18; Acts Thom. 10, 52. For discussion see P. Vielhauer, “Ἀνάπαυσις,” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu Seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964 (BZNW 30: Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1964), 281–99; Jan Helderman, Die Anapausis im Evangelium Veritatis: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung des valentinianisch-gnostischen Heilsgutes der Ruhe im Evangelium Veritatis und in anderen Schriften der Nag Hammadi-Bibliothek (NHS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1984); Laansma, Rest, 145–51, 154– 58. 208 Cf. Ecclus 6:28: “For at last you will find the rest she gives”; 51:27: “I have labored little and found for myself much rest.” Delling, Lehre, 30–31, appealing to Wis 3:1 (“the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them”) and 4:7 (“the righteous man, though he die early, will be at rest”), thinks in terms of post-mortem rest. See n. 212 below. 209 Aphraates, Ephraem the Syrian, and the later Nestorians taught that the soul “sleeps” between death and resurrection. This would enhance the analogy with Abimelech’s experience: he slept while God preserved his body and the figs in his basket. Seemingly against this proposal are 6:17 and 9:3, which imply the separation of soul from body at death. 210 Cf. Exod 33:14, where the promise of rest is in effect a promise of the divine presence. 211 Philo, Deus 12, takes Samuel as a type of the “soul which rests in God and toils no more at any mortal task.” Cf. Det. 121–22; Migr. Abr. 30. Note 4Q491 frag. 11 1:13–14: “I sat in [tranquili]ty in the heavens; and there is no [st]rife.” The use of “rest” in the Odes of Solomon also belongs here; see Michael Lattke, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 38–39. Cf. further the agraphon in P.Oxy. 4 654 (“Whoever seeks should not cease until he finds. And when he finds, he will be amazed. And when he is amazed, he will be a king. And once he is a king, he will rest”) and its variants in Gos. Heb. 4 apud Clement Alexandria, Strom. 2.9.45; 5.14.96.

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

253

One could likewise think in terms of rest in the afterlife or the eschatological future212 or find some sort of “realized eschatology,” so that the just can already, wherever they are, anticipate or experience the rest of the messianic age or the world to come.213 The language, however, remains unqualified, which allows and perhaps even invites the audience to read their own ideas into the text. Although ψυχή denotes a “soul” that can survive bodily death in 9:7 and 11, here it may mean “self” or “person.”214 For its qualification by δικαίου/δικαίων see LXX Num 23:10 (ψυχαῖς δικαίων); Ps 93:21 (ψυχὴν δικαίου = ‫ ;)נפש צדיק‬Wis 3:1 (δικαίων ψυχαί); Dan 3:86 (ψυχαὶ δικαίων); 1 En. 102:4 (ψυχαὶ τῶν δικαίων); Philo, Somn. 2.223 (τῆς τοῦ δικαίου ψυχῆς); 4 Ezra 4:35 (animae iustorum); 7:99 (animarum iustorum).

212 So

Ulrich Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1978), 121 (interpreting 5:32 in the light of 5:24); Wolff, “Jerusalem.” Rest is, in both Jewish and Christian sources, commonly associated with the afterlife, the messianic age, and/or the age to come. Relevant texts include 1 En. 38:2; 39:4–5; 45:3 (?); 4Q174 frag. 1 1:7–8; T. Levi 18:9; T. Dan. 5:12; Lat. LAE 51:2; T. Abr. RecShrt 7:10; 9:8; Jos. Asen. 8:9; 15:7; 17:6; 22:13; Heb 4:9–10; 4 Ezra 7:36, 38, 75, 85, 91, 95; 8:52; 2 Bar. 73:1; 85:11; 2 En. 33:1–2; 42:3; Apoc. Sedr. 16:3; Barn. 15:7; Ep. Apost. 19, 22, 26; 2 Clem. 5:5; 6:7; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.30.4; T. Isaac 2:5–16; Acts John 113; Acts Thom. 94; m. Tam. 7:4; b. Ber. 57b; b. Hag. 5b; Gen. Rab. 17:5; Lev. 32:2; ˙ CIJ 1 688; 2 877, 903. See further Otfried Hofius, Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom Endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970), esp. 59–74; Laansma, Rest, 104–111; Walter Ameling, ed., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis Band II: Kleinasien (TSAJ 99; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 527–29. One could draw a connection with 4 Bar. 3:8, which sees world history as a week: this might assume that the last day is an age-long or eternal sabbath; cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 4.16.1; Origen, Hom. Num. 23.4; m. Tam. 7:4; and the following note. Both Herzer, 4 Baruch, 99, and Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 128–29, underline the parallel with Abimelech’s sleep and think in terms of postmortem rest; cf. n. 213. 213 If, in Ep. Apost. 19, 22, and 26, rest belongs to the future kingdom, in 28 it is experienced even now. Cf. the idea of the weekly Sabbath as anticipation of the eschaton, on which see Theodore Friedman, “The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption,” Judaism 16 (1967), 443–52; Samuele Bacchiocchi, “Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption,” JSJ 17 (1986), 153–76. 214 Cf. GELS, s.  v. 6; BDAG, s.  v. 3. Note the variant of Matt 11:29 in Gos. Thom. 90: “you will find rest for yourselves” (nhtN).

254

Commentary

5:33. Abimelech now turns from addressing God (v. 32) to addressing the old man.215 He wants to know what month it is. The question closely resembles the first one he asked: 5:33 ποῖός ἐστιν ὁ μὴν οὗτος;216 5:17 ποία ἐστὶν ἡ πόλις αὕτη;

Abimelech evidently asks his question in order to gain further evidence for, or clarification of, the miracle he has experienced. The answer is twofold: Νισσάν· καὶ ἐστιν ἡ δωδεκάτη.217 What is the significance of the date? According to Exod 12:18, Passover began on the evening of the 14th of Nisan (note Exod 12:18), so if not much time passes between 5:1 and 8:1 (the most natural reading), our book places subsequent events, including the departure of exiles from Babylon, at approximately the same date as the deliverance under Moses. This could then be part of 4 Baruch’s Moses typology: Jeremiah is the leader of a new exodus in the season of Passover. In Ezra 8:31, Ezra leads the exiles out from Babylon on the twelfth of Nisan, and this appears to be a second exodus motif.218 One should, in any case, further note that, in the HB/OT, the Babylonians captured Jerusalem on the ninth day of Tammuz, and that it was burned in ’Ab (traditionally on the 9th), after which the population was exiled;219 so, despite the σήμερον of v. 30, Abimelech has manifestly awakened on a different day and in a different month than he fell asleep.220 5:34. Jeremiah had instructed Abimelech to distribute figs to the sick (3:15). As of yet, he has not done so. Here, however, Abimelech takes one of them and gives it to the old man: ἐπάρας ἐκ τῶν σύκων, ἔδωκε τῷ γηραιῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; cf. 3:15 (ἐνεγκὼν ὀλίγα σῦκα δίδου); 5:25 (ὀλίγα σῦκα ἵνα δίδωμι); 7:32 (ἄρας τὰ σῦκα διέδωκε).221 The significance of the act is unclear. Nothing is said about the old man being sick or hungry. Is the fig a carrier or a sign of blessing?

Τῷ γηραιῷ ἀνθρώπῳ: see on v. 22. Ποῖος: 4x: 2:2; 5:17, 33; 9:12; μήν: 1x. 217 Νισσάν: 1x; δωδεκάτος: 1x. 215 216

218

See Klaus Koch, “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism,” JSS 19 (1974), 185–86. Kgs 25:2–4; Jer 1:3; 39:2; 52:5–7; t. Ta̔an. 3:9; b. Ta̔an. 29a; b. ̔Arak. 9b. 220 Nisan is the first month in the Jewish calendar; ’Ab is the fifth month. 221 Ἐπαίρω: 3x: 5:34; 7:6; 9:13; σῦκον: see on 3:15; δἰδωμι: see on 3:15; τῷ γηραιῷ ἀνθρώπῳ: see on v. 22. The use of ἐκ + genitive plural to denote “a few” or “some of” (cf. ‫ מן‬and LXX Gen 9:21; Exod 30:36) recurs in 7:25. 219

Chapter 5:  Abimelech’s Sleep and the Preservation of the Figs

255

Beyond handing the old man a fig, Abimelech adds the prayer that God illumine the elder’s way: ὁ Θεὸς φωταγωγήσει σε εἰς τὴν ἄνω πόλιν Ἰερουσαλήμ.222 The verb is popular in patristic literature (Lampe, s.  v.); but it occurs in the LXX, in 4 Macc 17:5 (“the moon … illuminating the way”), as well as in T. Abr. RecLng. 7:2 (“the sun and the moon … illuminating the way for me”), so it need not be Christian; cf. Bar 5:9: “God will lead Israel with joy, in the light of his glory.” At the same time, the connection with the immediate context is loose, and the closest parallel is in Cyril of Alexandria; see above, p. 221. Whether original or secondary, the general sense of the line is straightforward: God, who leads the saints to the upper Jerusalem, functions like a guiding light to the heavenly realm.223 This anticipates 9:5, where however it is Michael the archangel who opens the gates—seemingly the gates of heaven—to the righteous. How precisely God lights the way to the upper city is not disclosed. One could think of a mystical illumination or transformation224 or of the gift of divine instruction.225 The language might also be more affective than anything else. The lack of clarification invites more than one interpretation. “The upper city, Jerusalem” refers to the heavenly counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem. The idea presumably goes back to Exod 25:9 and 40, which refer to the pattern of the tabernacle God showed to Moses; cf. Wis 9:8: “You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the beginning.” As 2 Bar. 4:1–7 shows, some readers—influenced by the idea of a “new” Jerusalem226 and perhaps at some point by Plato’s notion of an ideal city227—inferred that Moses saw not just the tabernacle but an entire city. 4 Ezra speaks of it on multiple occasions.228 Philo,

222 223

Θεός: see on 1:1; φωταγωγέω: 1x; ἄνω: 1x; πόλις: see on 1:1; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6. One just might take the subject of λέγει to be the old man.

The motif of God as light was widespread; see n. 109 on p. 281. For Herzer, 4 Baruch, 98, 4 Bar. 5:34 preserves the idea of the law as a light: Ps 119:105; Prov 6:23; Wis 18:4. 224 Cf. Origen, Cels. 2.71: τοὺς μὲν εὐσεβοῦντας οὗτος φωταγωγεῖ. 225 Schaller, Paralipomena, 729, thinks of divine teaching. 226 Ezek 45:6–7; 48:15–20; Tob 13:16; 1 En. 90:29; 1Q32 + 2Q24 + 4Q554 + 4Q554a + 4Q555 + 11Q18; 5Q15; Sib. Or. 5:420–27; T. Dan 5:12; b. B. Bat. 75b. 227 Cf. Plato, Resp. 592A-B; Herm. Sim. 1:1–6. 228 7:26 (“the city that is not now seen”); 8:52 (“a city is built”); 13:36 (“Zion shall come and be made manifest to all people, prepared and built”). Cf. also 4 Ezra 10:25–29, 42, 44, 54. T. Job 18:7 (“the city about which the angel had spoken to me”) alludes to the heavenly Jerusalem.

256

Commentary

QE 2.40, refers to “the holy and divine city,”229 2 En. 55:2 J to “the highest Jerusalem,” Gal 4:26 to the ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ,230 Heb 12:22 to “the heavenly Jerusalem,” Rev 3:12 to “the new Jerusalem that comes down from … heaven” (cf. 21:2, 9–27), Acts Phil. 109 to τῆς πόλεώς μου τῆς ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ, b. Ta̔an. 5a to ‫ירושלים של מעלה‬.231 Despite all these parallels, the only other texts to have the precise phrase, ἡ ἄνω πόλις Ἰερουσαλήμ, are Christian,232 and it is possible that ch. 5 ends with a Christian line.233 At the same time, a Jewish author could have sought to encourage a post-70 audience with the notion of an other-worldly Jerusalem beyond the miseries of history. Thought of the heavenly city might indeed be one way by which God gives rest to the just wherever they are (v. 32): to anticipate the future, which will bring rest (see n. 00), is to experience it proleptically.234 Because 4 Baruch, despite teaching resurrection, has a dualistic anthropology (see on 6:3; 9:11, 13), it is probable that we should think of the just entering the upper Jerusalem at death. Since our book says nothing about the eschatological descent of this heavenly city, it is less likely one should envision entering the heavenly Jerusalem come to earth in the messianic age.235

229

Here too God is the guide: “Those who do not return from the holy and divine city, to which they have migrated, have God as their chief leader in the migration.” 230 Because of this verse, the expression became common in Christian lit.: Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.6.45.1; 2.12.119.1; Ps.-Clement, Ep. virg. 1.5.2; Origen, Frag. Luke 168; Eusebius, Eccl. theol. 2.20.8; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 6 PG 35.729; Ps.-Athanasius, Virg. 24; etc. 231 Cf. further Apoc. Elijah 1:10 (“they will walk with the angels up to my city”); b. H ag. ˙ 12b (Michael the great prince offers an offering on the altar in the heavenly Jerusalem); Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Pequde 1 (“the Jerusalem on high is situated directly ˙ opposite the earthly Jerusalem”); Midr. Ps. 122:4 (‫ ;ירושלים של מעלה‬the proof text for the existence of a heavenly Jerusalem is here given as Ps 122:3: “Jerusalem, you are built as a city bound by fellowship to the other”). 232 Ps.-Macarius Magn., Serm. 64 16.3.6 = Hom. spirit. 50 17; Ps.-Ephraem, Ἐγκώμιον εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους Τεσσαράκοντα Μάρτυρας ed. Phrantzoles, 6:145; Stephan the Deacon, Vit. Setph. Iun. 17. 233 Kohler, “Haggada,” 408, and Bogaert, Baruch, 1:211–12, see a Christian hand here. Lee, “Development,” 408–410, also takes the verse to be secondary but identifies the hand as Jewish. Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 129–30, argues that the words are Jewish and original. 234 Cf. John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice-Hall, 1975), 49–57. 235 But Wolff, “Jerusalem,” 149–50, thinks of end-time resurrection.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah 6:1. After these things, Abimelech went out of the city, and he prayed to the Lord. And behold, an angel of the Lord came and returned him to the place where Baruch was. And he found him sitting in a tomb. 6:2. And when they saw each other, they both cried and kissed each other. Then looking, Baruch saw the figs sheltered in the basket. And raising his eyes to heaven, he prayed, saying, “God is the one who rewards his saints. 6:3. Make ready, my heart, and be glad, and rejoice in your body, that is, in your house of flesh. Your grief has been turned into joy, for the Self-sufficient comes, and he will take you from your tent. For you have not sinned. 6:4. Be cheered in your tent, my virgin faith, and believe that you will live. 6:5. Pay close attention to this basket of figs. For behold, they are sixty-six years old, and they have neither shriveled up nor begun to smell bad, but they are (still) dripping with sap. 6:6. Thus will it be with you, my flesh, if you keep the things commanded by the righteous angel. 6:7. The one preserving the basket of figs, he will also preserve you by his power.” 6:8. After Baruch said these things, he said to Abimelech: “Let us arise and pray that, on account of your preservation, the Lord might make known to us how we will be able to send news to Jeremiah in Babylon.” 6:9. And Baruch prayed, saying: “Our power, O God our Lord, the elect light, which goes forth from your mouth, I implore and entreat your goodness; O great name, which no one is able to know, 6:10. hear the voice of your servant and let knowledge come into my heart. What do you want us to do? How shall I send this news to Jeremiah in Babylon?” 6:11. While Baruch was praying, behold, an angel of the Lord came, and he said to Baruch: 6:12. “Baruch, counselor of the light, do not worry about how you will send (news) to Jeremiah. For at the hour when light dawns tomorrow, an eagle will come to you, and (through him) you will send (news) to Jeremiah. 6:13. Write then in a letter: ‘Speak to the sons of Israel: “Let the alien who is among you be removed, and let fifteen days go by; and after that I shall lead you to your city,” says the Lord. 6:14. “The one who does not separate himself from Babylon, O Jeremiah, will not enter the city. And I shall punish them, so that they will not be welcomed in turn by the Babylonians,” says the Lord.’” 6:15. And after the angel said these things, he departed from Baruch. 6:16. And Baruch sent (Abimelech) to the marhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-017

258

Commentary

ketplace of the Gentiles, and he brought (to him) papyrus and ink, and he wrote a letter containing this: 6:17. “Baruch, the servant of God, writes to Jeremiah, who is in the captivity in Babylon: Greetings. Be glad, because God has not abandoned us so that we will depart from the body (still) grieving on account of the city being desolate and having suffered outrages. 6:18. For this reason the Lord had mercy upon our tears, and remembered the covenant he established with our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 6:19. For he sent to me his angel, and he spoke to me these words, which I have sent to you. 6:20. These then are the words which the Lord, the God of Israel, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the great furnace, has spoken: 6:21. ‘Because you did not keep my statutes, but your heart was arrogantly exalted, and you were stiff-necked before me, I became angry, and in wrath I handed you over to the furnace in Babylon. 6:22. If then you heed my voice, says the Lord, from the mouth of Jeremiah my servant—the one who heeds I will bring him back from Babylon. But the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon. 6:23. You will test them by the water of the Jordan. The one not heeding will become manifest. This is the sign of the great seal.’” 6:1. Μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν Ἀβιμέλεχ ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, καὶ προσηύξατο πρὸς Κύριον. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε, καὶ ἀπεκατέστησεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἦν Βαροὺχ· εὗρε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενον. 6:2. Καὶ ἐν τῷ θεωρῆσαι ἀλλήλους, ἔκλαυσαν ἀμφότεροι καὶ κατεφίλησαν ἀλλήλους. Ἀναβλέψας δὲ Βαροὺχ εἶδε τὰ σῦκα ἐσκεπασμένα ἐν τῷ κοφίνῳ. Καὶ ἄρας τοὺς  ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, προσηύξατο λέγων· Ἔστιν Θεὸς ὁ παρέχων μισθαποδοσίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ. 6:3. Ἑτοίμασον σεαυτήν, ἡ καρδία μου, καὶ εὐφραίνου, καὶ ἀγάλλου ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, λέγω τῷ σαρκικῷ οἴκῳ σου· τὸ πένθος σου μετεστράφη εἰς χαράν· ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ ἱκανός, καὶ αἰρεῖ σε ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου. Οὐ γὰρ γέγονέ σοι ἁμαρτία. 6:4. Ἀνάψυξον ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, ἡ παρθενίκη μου πίστις καὶ πίστευσον ὅτι ζήσεις. 6:5. Ἐπίβλεψον ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον τοῦτον τῶν σύκων· ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἑξηκονταὲξ ἔτη ἐποίησαν, καὶ οὐκ ἐμαράνθησαν, οὐδὲ ὤζεσαν, ἀλλὰ στάζουσι τοῦ γάλακτος. 6:6. Οὕτως γίνεταί σοι ἡ σάρξ μου, ἐὰν ποιήσῃς τὰ προσταχθέντα σου ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς δικαιοσύνης. 6:7. Ὁ φυλάξας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων, αὐτὸς πάλιν φυλάξει σε ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ. 6:8. Ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Βαρούχ, λέγει τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ· Ἀνάστηθι καὶ εὐξώμεθα, ἵνα γνωρίσῃ ἡμῖν ὁ Κύριος τὸ πῶς δυνησώμεθα ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν φάσιν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα διὰ τὴν γενομένην σοι σκέπην. 6:9. Καὶ ηὔξατο Βαροὺχ λέγων· Ἡ δύναμις

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

259

ἡμῶν, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριε, τὸ ἐκλεκτὸν φῶς, τὸ ἐξελθὸν ἐκ στόματός σου, παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί σου τῆς ἀγαθότητός· τὸ μέγα ὄνομα, ὃ οὐδεὶς δύναται γνῶναι, 6:10. ἄκουσον τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ δούλου σου, καὶ γενοῦ γνῶσις ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου. Τί θέλεις ποιήσωμεν; Πῶς ἀποστείλω πρὸς Ἱερεμίαν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα τὴν φάσιν ταύτην; 6:11. Ἔτι δὲ προσευχομένου τοῦ Βαρούχ, ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε, καὶ λέγει τῷ Βαρούχ· 6:12. Βαρούχ, ὁ σύμβουλος τοῦ φωτὸς, μὴ μεριμνήσῃς τὸ πῶς ἀποστείλῃς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν· ἔρχεται γὰρ πρός σε ὥρᾳ τοῦ φωτὸς αὔριον ἀετός, καὶ σὺ ἀποστείλῃς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν. 6:13. Γράψον οὖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι, Λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ· Ὁ γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ξένος, ἀφορισθήτω, καὶ ποιήσωσι ιεʹ ἡμέρας· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν, λέγει Κύριος. 6:14. Ὁ μὴ ἀφοριζόμενος ἐκ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος, ὦ Ἰερεμία, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν· καὶ ἐπιτιμῶ αὐτοῖς, τοῦ μὴ ἀποδεχθῆναι αὐτοὺς αὖθις ὑπὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνιτῶν, λέγει Κύριος. 6:15. Καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ ἄγγελος, ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Βαρούχ. 6:16. Ὁ δὲ Βαροὺχ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν ἐθνῶν, ἤνεγκε χάρτην καὶ μέλανα, καὶ ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν περιέχουσαν οὕτως· 6:17. Βαροὺχ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ γράφει τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ, ὁ ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος· Χαῖρε καὶ ἀγαλλιῶ, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἀφῆκεν ἡμᾶς ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τούτου λυπουμένους διὰ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐρημωθεῖσαν καὶ ὑβρισθεῖσαν. 6:18. Διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ὁ Κύριος ἐπὶ τῶν δακρύων ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐμνήσθη τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἔστησε μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακώβ. 6:19. Ἀπέστειλε γὰρ πρός με τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶπέ μοι τοὺς λόγους τούτους, οὓς ἀπέστειλα πρός σε. 6:20. Οὕτοι οὖν εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι, οὓς εἶπε Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν ἡμᾶς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης καμίνου· 6:21. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε τὰ δικαιώματά μου, ἀλλὰ ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐτραχηλιάσατε ἐνώπιόν μου, ἐθυμώθην καὶ ἐν ὀργῇ παρέδωκα ὑμᾶς τῇ καμίνῳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 6:22. Ἐὰν οὖν ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου, λέγει Κύριος, ἐκ στόματος Ἰερεμίου τοῦ παιδός μου, ὁ ἀκούων, ἀναφέρω αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Βαβυλῶνας. Ὁ δὲ μὴ ἀκούων, ξένος γενήσεται τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος. 6:23. Δοκιμάσεις δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου· ὁ μὴ ἀκούων φανερὸς γενήσεται· τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖόν ἐστι τῆς μεγάλης σφραγῖδος. Textual Notes 6:1. Between καί and ἀπεκατέστησεν, Kraft-Purintun print: κράτησας αὐτοῦ τῆς δεξίας χειρός, which agrees with A B P arm 345 993 (= 920). Cf. Ceriani: κράτησας τῆς δεξίας αὐτοῦ χειρός. Whether or not this is original, it has parallels in Gen 19:16 (angels take Lot and his family by the hand and lead them out of Sodom) and CMC 51:6–12 (“When

260

Commentary

that angel placed his hand on my right hand, he wrenched me from the world from which I was born and carried me off to a place exceedingly great”). // Harris and Herzer have: αὐτὸν ὅπου ἦν Βαροὺχ, omitting the εἰς τὸν τόπον of A B, which Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print. But surely an eye skipped from αὐτόν to τόπον. Note that εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου recurs in 7:28. 6:2.1 Immediately after Βαροὺχ, Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, the reading of A F L H N P Τ U Y Z. B has: τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ. Perhaps τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ was mistakenly brought forward from the next line, and because it did not make sense, a scribe turned it into τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ. // Instead of τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ at the end (so C followed by Herzer), A B F G H N T Y Z have τοῖς ἀγάπωσί σε (cf. arm), which Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print. Maybe the latter is secondary, assimilation to an expression (cf. ‫ )לאהביו‬popular in Jewish and Christian texts.2 Piovanelli here translates the eth, sa¯deqa-nihu = “his righteous ones.” L W have τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. O P R U˙ have: τοῖς φοβουμένοις σε ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. 6:3. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print λέγω, which the latter translates as “I mean.” For this sense see LSJ, s.  v. λέγω 9. Kraft-Purintun and Piovanelli prefer λέγων, which makes what follows a quotation. Piovanelli, following eth, understands the text this way: “dicendo al tuo tabernacolo carnale, alla tua santa dimora” (“saying to your fleshly tabernacle, to your holy habitation”). // Herzer prints γάρ after τὸ πένθος σου. Did this migrate from the next sentence? // Following C, Kraft-Purintun print αἰρεῖ σε ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου instead of αἰρεῖ σε ἐκ τοῦ σκηνώματος σου. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print the latter reading, supported by A B P arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2.3 Schaller, seeing here a reference to resurrection, when soul and body unite, defends the reading in C.4 This makes the passage about deliverance in the body— either bodily ascension before death5 or, as Schaller urges, resurrection at

  1

For this verse, Hentschel, “Beobachtungen,” supplies a full list of variants in the long recension.   2 Cf. esp. LXX Judg 5:31; Ps 121:6; Dan 9:4; Theod. Bel 38; Tob 13:14; Ps. Sol. 4:29. It is associated with eschatological reward in 1 Cor 2:9; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 11:34; Acts Thom. 36; Apos. Con. 7:32:5; 4 Ezra 5:40 arm. See further J. B. Bauer, “‘… τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεόν’ Rm 8 28 (I Cor 2 9, I Cor 8 3),” ZNW 50 (1959), 106–112.   3 Cf. Gk LAE 32:4 v.  l.: Adam ἐξῆλθεν ἀπὸ σκηνώματος αὐτοῦ. For αἴρω used of taking souls at death see T. Abr. RecLng. 20:10, 14; Gk. LAE 37:3, 6.   4 Schaller, Paralipomena, 730–31. Contrast Wolff, “Jerusalem,” 150–51; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 102–104.   5 Cf. Gen 5:24; 2 Kgs 2:11; and see Riaud, “Tente,” defending the text of C here. Given the equation of Baruch with Ebedmelek (= 4 Baruch’s Abimelech) in Sifre

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

261

the end. Kraft-Purintun translate: “the Sufficient One is coming and will deliver you in your tabernacle.” Cf. Piovanelli, on the basis of eth: “and will bring you (εἰσάξει σε) in your tabernacle.”6 One could urge, in favor of ἐκ over ἐν, that (i) ἐν may mark assimilation given that ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου occurs shortly before and after our phrase; (ii) ἐκ τοῦ σκηνώματος σου coheres with 4 Baruch’s dualistic anthropology and is formally very close to the ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τούτου in v. 17 (cf. 4:9; 9:8); and (iii) reading ἐκ τοῦ σκηνώματος σου makes for a pleasant rhetorical contrast with the preceding ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου: Baruch now rejoices in the tent from which he will soon be taken.7 None of this, however, is decisive, and given that ἐν has the support of C eth and that the removal of the soul or self from the body seems to distract from the main point, which is about resurrection, perhaps a later editor, more concerned about life after death than resurrection at the end of history, changed ἐν to ἐκ. From the context, one would expect a statement about God coming to raise the dead.8 6:4. A B P: ἀνάψυξον ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, ἐν τῇ παρθενικῇ σου ποίμνῃ. So Ceriani. Kraft-Purintun prints this, substituting πίστει for ποίμνῃ. C: ἀνάστηθι ἀνάστρεψον εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σου ἡ παρθενικη μου πίστις. Eth: “Observe your virginity of faith.” Arm 993 (= 920): “in the purity of your faith believe.” Harris conjectured: ἀνάψυξον ἡ παρθενικη μου πίστις. Herzer prints this.9 Probably the best solution is the reconstruction of Bogaert, which combines the latter part of C with the beginning of A B P: ἀνάψυξον ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, ἡ παρθενικη μου πίστις.10 As Bogaert observes, ἡ παρθενικη μου πίστις matches the vocatives in vv. 3 (ἡ καρδία μου) and 6 (ἡ σάρξ μου). 6:8. Instead of διὰ τὴν γενομένην σοι σκέπην (so Harris, Herzer), Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun have διὰ τὴν σκέπην τὴν Num. 99 and Pirqe R. El. 53, perhaps worth noting is the late legend that the latter was, like Elijah, taken alive to heaven: Der. Er. Zut. 1:18; 2 Alphabet of Ben Sira 28b. ˙   6 An original ἐγερεῖ τὸ σκήνωμά σου or some such might also be conjectured.   7 For αἴρω of God or angels transporting the soul see Gk. LAE 37:4–5; T. Abr. RecLng. 20:10, 14; RecShrt. 14:6; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 6:18; also John 17:15. For the image of God coming to an individual at death see T. Job 52:8–10 (“After these things the one who sat in the great chariot got off and greeted Job … And taking the soul he flew up, embracing it, and mounted the chariot and set off for the east”) and cf. John 14:3: “when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come [ἔρχομαι] again and will take you to myself.” Much more common was the idea of angels coming for the soul at death; see Allison, Testament of Abraham, 397–99.   8 For God “coming” in eschatological contexts see Isa 26:21; 31:4; 66:15; Zech 14:5; T. Jud. 22:2; T. Levi 8:11; LAB 19:12; T. Mos. 10:1–2; T. Abr. RecLng. 13:4; etc.   9 See further Herzer, Paralipomena, 15.  10 Bogaert, Baruch, 1:210. Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 731.

262

Commentary

γενομένην σοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ; so A B slav N T2. C: διὰ τὴν σκέπην σου. Piovanelli here translates the eth: “the protection which I have enjoyed.” 6:9. In this verse and the next, A B, followed by Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun, consistently have plurals—παρακαλοῦμεν καὶ δεομεθά instead of παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί, τῶν δούλων instead of τοῦ δούλου, καρδίᾳ ἡμῶν instead of καρδίᾳ μου, and ἀποστείλωμεν instead of ἀποστείλω. Given the εὐξώμεθα, ἵνα γνωρίσῃ ἡμῖν ὁ Κύριος πῶς δυνησώμεθα of v. 8 and the ἡ δύναμις ἡμῶν, ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν earlier in v. 9, it is possible that a scribe thought it best to have plurals throughout; cf. also the ποιήσωμεν of v. 10 and the v.  l. in v. 11: “and Abimelech” (A B). By contrast, the singulars are consistent with v. 12, where the angel who answers the prayer addresses only Baruch. // Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer have στόματος αὐτοῦ (cf. slav N T2). Kraft-Purintun print, and Piovanelli translates, στ. σου (cf. arm 993 [= 920]). None supplies an apparatus. 6:10. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer, following C eth, omit τὴν φάσιν ταύτην at the end. Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun print it. It appears in A B P (cf. arm) and is consistent with the author’s love for parallelism; see v. 8. 6:11. At the end, A B have ἅπαντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους, which Ceriania and Kraft-Purintun print. Perhaps it is worth noting that πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους is characteristic of LXX Jeremiah.11 6:12. At the end, Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print ἐπισκέψῃ πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν, which is difficult. The meaning demanded for the verb is “send” (cf. slav N T2 and the modern translations), which is not what ἐπισκέπτομαι means. One expects ἀποστείλῃ, which is the conjecture printed above. The justification is our book’s fondness for repetition and the fact that ἀποστέλλω occurs otherwise four times in this chapter: vv. 10 (ἀποστείλω πρὸς Ἱερεμίαν), 16 (ἀπέστειλας εἰς), 19 (ἀπέστειλε γὰρ πρός με … ἀπέστειλα πρός σε); cf. also 8:9 (ἀπέστειλε δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς). It is nonetheless not obvious how ἀποστείλῃ, if original, became ἐπισκέψῃ. 6:16. A B P arm 993 (= 920) have διασποράν instead of ἀγοράν. This makes little sense. One wonders if the variant goes back to a poor or damaged ms. that had ΕΙΣ ΤΗΝ [ ]Α[]ΟΡΑΝ, and a scribe guessed what was missing.12 6:21. A B: καὶ ἐν ὀργῇ καὶ θυμῷ παρέδωκα; so Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. This is a stylistic variant of ἐθυμώθην καὶ ἐν ὀργῇ παρέδωκα, which Harris and Herzer print.

 11  12

28:60, 61; 33:12, 15; 34:12; 41:6; 43:17, 18, 24; 45:27; 50:1. On the originality of ἀγοράν see Harris, Baruch, 32.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

263

Commentary Chapter 6 features four brief speeches. The first two (vv. 2c–7, 9–10) take the form of prayers. The third and fourth speeches (vv. 12–14, 17–24) together introduce the content of a letter to Jeremiah: 2c–7 First prayer of Baruch 9–10    Second prayer of Baruch 12–14      Angel’s directions to Baruch for writing Jeremiah 17–24       Baruch’s letter to Jeremiah

Each speech builds on the previous one. Baruch’s first prayer interprets the incident of the figs as a miracle providing evidence for resurrection and leads to the second prayer, which is for help in making the miracle known to Jeremiah. In vv. 12–14, the angel’s words reveal how that is to be done, through a letter, whose content Baruch recites. Finally, vv. 17–23 contain Baruch’s additions to the letter. Four short narrative sections introduce and connect the four speeches: 1–2b Abimelech’s reunion with Baruch 8    Baruch’s exhortation to Abimelech to pray 11     Appearance of angel 15–16        Departure of angel; Baruch gets writing supplies

Note the parallelism between vv. 1 and 11: 1 Abimelech prays and an angel appears   προσηύξατο …   ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε 11 Baruch prays and an angel appears   προσευχομένου … ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε

Although Abimelech is the central character in ch. 5, and although v. 1 recounts in detail his actions, as soon as Baruch shows up, the spotlight moves to the latter—just as it will move to Jeremiah once he is back on stage. A central theme of ch. 6 is theology proper, for here we find a sizable concatenation of titles, attributes, and actions of God: • God rewards his saints, v. 2 • God is “the Self-sufficient” one, v. 3 • God comes for souls at death, v. 3 • God will preserve bodies for resurrection, v. 7 • God is “our power,” v. 9 • God is “the elect light,” v. 9 • God is good, v. 9 • God has a great name no one is able to know, v. 9

264 • • • • • • • •

Commentary

God wants Israel to separate from the Babylonians, vv. 13 God punishes those who do not obey, vv. 14, 21, 22 God has, despite the exile, not abandoned Israel, v. 17 God is merciful and acts according to his covenant with the patriarchs, v. 18 God acts through intermediaries—an angel, an eagle, Jeremiah, vv. 1, 11–12, 19, 24 God is the one who brought Israel out of Egypt, v. 20 God can become angry and wrathful, v. 21 God will reward those who are obedient, v. 22

Most of this is conventional. God is the transcendent and ineffable Lord— forms of Κύριος occur 10x in our chapter—who, through intermediaries, acts in history on behalf of Israel. The divine benevolence is not, however, indiscriminant: God punishes disobedience and rewards the obedient. Within a post-70 Jewish context, such a theology would serve partly to explain past tragedy and to foster hope for the future. The chapter also introduces the book’s anthropology, which in its current form is dualistic. On the one hand, v. 17 envisages the continued existence of the self or soul apart from the body. On the other hand, and according to vv. 3–7, God will resurrect bodies in the (eschatological) future. The latter point is made via an analogy: just as God preserved Abimelech’s figs, so God will keep human flesh. It is peculiar that Abimelech’s preservation during sixty-six years of sleep is nowhere enlisted to the same end. It would have been easy enough to write, in v. 7, “the one preserving the basket of figs and Abimelech, he will also preserve you by his power.” Whatever the explanation for this unexpected omission, the point remains implicit, especially given the use of σκεπάζω with reference to both Abimelech and his basket (3:10; 6:2). The legend of the seven sleepers of Ephesus, which depends upon 4 Baruch, explicitly enlists the sleepers as support for eschatological resurrection, as do the parallels in the Koran.13 4 Baruch 6 delivers two large promises. First, vv. 3–7 hold forth the hope of the future resurrection of the body. Second, vv. 13–14 and 22 pledge that God—the God of the exodus (v. 20)—will lead the exiles to Jerusalem. The common theological element is the divine δύναμις (v. 9): Israel’s God can and will do for his people what they cannot do for themselves. Unlike the letters in 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch’s letter in ch. 6 and that of Jeremiah in ch. 7 were, in the words of Klauck, “created from the outset

 13

See on v. 7 below and p. 216 above.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

265

by a single author to be placed in their present narrative context. Their purely literary existence as embedded letters, for which the author made very free use of typical letter components and forms of prophetic speech, is the reason for their many formal peculiarities.14 Within the broad letter tradition of Jeremiah and Baruch in Judaism … they are both an independent and an idiosyncratic witness.”15 Several phrases in ch. 6 likely come from a Christian hand. This holds above all for “God is the one who rewards his saints” (see on v. 2), “virginal faith” (see on v. 4), and “I implore and entreat your great goodness” (see on v. 9). The chapter nonetheless leaves the impression that these are secondary insertions. In line with this, a Christian is unlikely to have invented the notion that Baruch was sinless; see on v. 3. The same is true of the express command against intermarriage in vv. 13–14. Furthermore, the phrase, “marketplace of the Gentiles” (v. 16), reflects a Jewish point of view, as does the link between the return to the land and God’s covenant with the patriarchs (v. 18). The sort of obvious and wholesale Christian intervention that is on display in the latter half of ch. 9 is not evident here. As part of his argument that most of the eschatological and other-worldly items in 4 Baruch are not original, Lee urges that 6:3–7 is secondary. He observes that 6:8 follows 6:2 smoothly and that Baruch’s subsequent letter says nothing about resurrection or even the figs. Indeed, 6:3–7 has no “immediate connection to the subsequent developments in the narrative of exile and return.”16 One can add that 6:3–7 contains words and expressions—including “the Self-sufficient” as a divine title and “my virginal faith”—that 4 Baruch otherwise never uses.17 Perhaps Lee is right. If, however, he is, there is no more reason to posit a Jewish hand, as he does, than a Christian hand.18 Nonetheless, in the nature of the case his conjecture remains only an intriguing possibility. 6:1. Following his encounter with the old man, Abimelech—for the third time (see 5:12, 15)—exits the city: μετὰ ταῦτα ἐξῆλθεν Ἀβιμέλεχ ἔξω τῆς

 14

See below on vv. 17 and 23. Letters, 289. Cf. Doering, “Diaspora Letters,” 64: Jeremiah’s letter is “virtually devoid of normal epistolary features.”  16 Lee, “Development,” 410–12 (quotation from 411).  17 Εὐφραίνω, ἀγάλλω, σαρκικός, πένθος, μεταστρέφω, χαρά, ἱκανός, ἀναψύχω, παρθενικός, ἐπιβλέπω, μαραίνω, σάρξ, ὄζω, προστάσσω.  18 “My virginal faith” is likely Christian (see on v. 4), and σκήνωμα (3x in 6:3–7) recurs elsewhere only in the Christian addition at the end (9:12).  15 Klauck,

266

Commentary

πόλεως.19 The notice puzzles because Abimelech is already, according to 5:15, outside the city.20 Once there, he prays: προσηύξατο πρὸς Κύριον.21 The expression is recognizably biblical; cf. ‫יתפלל אל־יהוה‬.22 The short version clarifies the object of the prayer: that “it would be revealed to him what it is necessary to do.” Note the focus on prayer in the first half of the chapter, which underlines the commendable piety of Abimelech and Baruch: 1 προσηύξατο 2 προσηύξατο 8   εὐξώμεθα 9   ηὔξατο 11 προσευχοιμένου

The following words—καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε—also have a distinctly biblical feel.23 Note that ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε recurs in v. 11, so that what happens to Abimelech is what happens to Baruch: when they pray, an angel of the Lord appears—a not uncommon occurrence in Jewish and Christian literature.24  19

See on 5:12 and 15. Contrast v. 13: μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν. Μετὰ ταῦτα: see on 3:8; the expression always follows καί; έξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: see on 4:3.

 20 Wintermute,

review of Delling, Lehre, 445, thinks this inconcinnity may reflect the imperfect merging of sources. See further Schaller, Paralipomena, 666–67.  21 Προσεύχομαι: 3x: 6:1, 2, 11; προσεύχομαι + πρός: 1x; Κύριος: see on 1:4.  22 Cf. LXX 1 Βασ 1:10; 4 Βασ 4:33; 2 Chr 32:24; Isa 38:2; 2 Macc 2:10; also Prot. Jas. 2:22; Apos. Con. 2:22:11.   23 Cf. LXX Gen 28:12 (ἰδού … οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ); MT 1 Kgs 19:5 (‫;)והנה־זה מלאך‬ LXX 4 Βασ 6:33 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος); Job 1:14 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος ἤλθεν); Zech 2:7 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄγγελος); Sus 44/45 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου); Dan 4:13 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος), 34 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος); also T. Ab. RecLng. 12:16 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄγγελος); Matt 4:11 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι); Acts 12:7 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου); Prot. Jas. 7, 18, 29, 40 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου). Καὶ ἰδού: see on 3:2; ἄγγελος Κυρίου: 2x: 6:1, 11; cf. ‫מלאך יהוה‬.  24 Cf. 2 Chr 32:20–21 (“Hezekiah the king and Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, prayed because of this and cried to heaven. And the Lord sent an angel”); Dan 9:20– 21 (Daniel and Gabriel); Gk LAE 13:1–2 (Eve, Seth, and Michael); 32:3 (“while Eve was still on her knees praying, behold, the angel of mankind came to her”); Luke 1:10–11 (John the Baptist’s father in the temple); 22:41–43 (Jesus in Gethsemane); 4 Ezra 3–4 (Ezra and Uriel); 10:29 (“As I was speaking these words, behold, the angel who had come to me at first came to me”); 3 Bar. 1:3 (“while I was … saying such things, I saw an angel of the Lord coming and saying to me”); Vis. Ezra 1–2 (Ezra and seven angels); Jer. Apocr. 35:1–16 (Jeremiah and Michael). On this motif and for further examples see Johnson, Prayer, 63–65.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

267

The “angel of the Lord” is not a way of speaking of God himself.25 In our book, God speaks directly only to Jeremiah, the prophet like Moses. Here the intermediary is, in accord with later Jewish thought, a being subject to God but with its own identity.26 There is no reason to hold that the absence of articles (ἄγγελος Κυρίου) reflects the Hebrew construct state (cf. ‫ )מלאך יהוה‬so that we have here “the Angel of the Lord.” This is an unspecified, unnamed angel. Nor is there any reason to surmise that this must be Abimelech’s personal or guardian angel, although that idea is very well-attested; see on v. 6. The angel takes Abimelech to his friend: ἀπεκατέστησεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου ἦν Βαρούχ.27 The verb, ἀποκαθίστημι, which most often translates ‫ שוב‬in the LXX, is unexpected because it seemingly implies that Abimelech is being returned to a place he was before. The narrative, however, has said nothing of him being in or near a tomb. Is the inconcinnity evidence of an earlier form of our story? Or does the verb here lack the sense of “return” and mean simply “take”? Or does it perhaps mean “accompany”?28 Whatever the answer, Abimelech finds Baruch sitting in a tomb: εὗρε δὲ αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενος.29 The language is intended to recall 4:11, which is where the narrative left Baruch: 6:1       ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενον 4:11 ἔμεινεν ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενος

It is as though Baruch has been sitting in the tomb and mourning the entire time Abimelech has been asleep. The fantastic character of the narrative is once more obvious. Although the narrator passes over the fact, it is natural to infer that Abimelech enters the tomb30 because, in 7:1, Baruch is still there. Also overlooked without remark is the fact that Baruch must, after the passing of sixty-six years, be ancient of days.31

 25

As may be the case in Genesis 16; 21; 22; Exodus 3; and Judges 6. Cf. Zech 1:8–17; Luke 1:26; and the naming of angels in 1 En. 6:7; 8:3–4; 69:1.  27 Ἀποκαθίστημι: 1x; τόπος: see on 5:7; ὅπου: 3x: 6:1; 7:16, 28; εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου recurs in 7:28. Baruch also survives to the end of the exile in b. Meg. 16b; Cant. Rab. 5:5:1.  28 Lampe, s.  v., attests to this meaning, citing Mark the Deacon, V. Porph. 62: “all the Christians and the holy bishop accompanied him (ἀποκαταστησάντων) for two miles.”  29 Εὑρίσκω: 9x; ἐν μνημείῳ καθεζόμενος: see on 4:11.  30 Cf. John 20:4–6: “Peter … went into the tomb.”  31 Contrast Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2671, who takes the narrative to imply that “no time has passed for Baruch.” So too Riaud, Paralipomènes, 187.  26

268

Commentary

How does the angel lead Abimelech to the tomb? A reader can imagine the angel, as a guide (cf. Exod 23:20; 32:34), walking with him a short distance (cf. Tobit 5–7; Hist. Rech. 1:3). It is, however, also possible to envisage the angel lifting Abimelech or carrying him by the hair and flying off with him.32 Other stories refer to supernatural transport without offering details.33 6:2. Both Abimelech and Baruch, when they see one another, weep with joy and embrace each other with, as was the custom, a kiss: καὶ ἐν τῷ θεωρῆσαι ἀλλήλους, ἔκλαυσαν ἀμφότεροι καὶ κατεφίλησαν ἀλλήλους.34 There are parallels in 2:10, where both Jeremiah and Abimelech cry (ἀμφότεροι … κλαίοντες), and in 7:31, where kissing is also associated with weeping (κατεφίλησεν … ἔκλαυσε). Only here, however, do we have tears of joy. Whether we are to envisage a kiss on the head or face or hand is not said. For instances of a kiss marking emotional reunion, as a greeting after time spent apart, see Gen 33:4 (Jacob and Esau); 45:15 (Joseph and his brothers; cf. Philo, Jos. 182); Exod 4:27 (Moses and Aaron); 18:7 (Moses and Jethro); Luke 15:20 (the prodigal son and his father); Acts Xanth. Polyx. 41:1 (Polyxena and Xanthippe).35 Our book has not, to this point, associated Abimelech and Baruch, although it has associated both with Jeremiah. After kissing Abimelech, Baruch sees what he has with him: ἀναβλέψας δὲ Βαροὺχ εἶδε τὰ σῦκα ἐσκεπασμένα ἐν τῷ κοφίνῳ.36 The introduc-

 32

Cf. Ezek 8:3; Bel 36; Apoc. Elijah 5:2–5; CMC 51:6–12; and the visual depiction of Ezek 37:2 on the north wall of the Dura-Europos synagogue. On the v.  l. which has the angel taking Abimelech “by the right hand,” see above, p. 000.  33 So e.  g. 1 Kgs 18:12; 2 Kgs 2:16–18; 5:26; Acts 8:39; Mek. Pisha 14:8–10; Gen. Rab. ˙ 59:11; Hist. Rech. 10:5; CMC 55:13–21; Arabic Jer. Apocr. trans. Mingana and Harris, pp. 169, 170.  34 Cf. Thucydides 4.93 (ἐθεώρουν ἀλλήλους); Dorotheus the Astrologer ed. Pingree, p. 343 (θεωρήσαντες ἀλλήλους); LXX Exod 4:27 (κατεφίλησαν ἀλλήλους); 3 Macc 5:49 (κατεφίλουν ἀλλήλους); Jos. Asen. 21:7 (κατεφίλησαν ἀλλήλους); Ps.Plutarch, Prov. Alex. frag. 10 (ἀλλήλους καταφιλοῦσιν). Θεωρέω: 1x; ἀλλήλων: 3x: 6:2 bis; 8:7; κλαίω: see on 2:5; ἀμφότερος: 2x: 6:2; 7:30; καταφιλέω: 2x: 6:2; 7:31.  35 See further Homer, Od. 16.190; Herodotus, Hist. 1.134; Gen 27:27; 29:11, 13; 2 Sam 14:33; 15:5; Tob 7:6; 4Q158 frags. 1–2 14; and Gustav Stählin, “φιλέω κτλ.,” TDNT 9 (1974), 113–46; William Klassen, “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament,” NTS 39 (1993), 122–35; Gerhard Binder, “Kiss,” BNP 7 (2005), 54–62. According to Gen. Rab. 70:12, “the kiss of reunion” is one of the kisses that is not indecent.  36 Ἀναβλέπω: see on 5:31; εἶδον: see on 2:2; σῦκον: see on 3:15; σκεπάζω: see on 3:10; cf. σκέπη in v. 8; κόφινος: see on 3:15.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

269

tory participle means “looking” or perhaps “looking around.”37 One wonders whether there is (unconscious?) assimilation to the famous episode in which Jacob greets Esau: LXX Gen 33:1–5 ἀναβλέψας δὲ Ἰάκωβ εἶδεν…ἐφίλησεν…ἐκλαυσαν ἀμφότεροι

…ἀναβλέψας εἶδεν

4 Bar. 6:2 ἔκλαυσαν ἀμφότεροι καὶ κατεφίλησαν ἀλλήλους. Ἀναβλέψας

δὲ Βαροὺχ εἶδε

Since Baruch can see the figs in the basket, it would seem that ἐσκεπασμένα must here mean “protected” (so Herzer) or “sheltered”38 rather than “covered” (the translation of Kraft-Purintun); cf. 1 Clem. 28:1: “that we might be protected (σκεπασθῶμεν) by his mercy from the coming judgments.” The figs, evidently, have been, as in 5:3 (q.  v.), uncovered. The literal sense is, however, less important than the theological lesson. The verb is also used in 3:10 of God’s protection of Abimelech, so what matters is the correlation between God’s protection of the saint and God’s preservation of the figs, a correlation that vv. 5–7 will exploit as testimony to resurrection of the body. For Baruch, unlike Abimelech, the sight of the figs generates instant recognition of the miracle. His pious response is to pray: ἄρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, προσηύξατο λέγων;39 cf. v. 9; also LXX Isa 44:17: προσεύχεται λέγων.40 He praises God as the one who rewards his saints:41 ἔστιν Θεὸς ὁ42 παρέχων μισθαποδοσίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ.43 In context, the generalization—note the plural, τοῖς ἁγίοις44—refers to Ἀνα- has here lost its usual force; cf. BDAG, s.  v., ἀναβλέπω, 2β and note for comparison Luke 21:1: ἀναβλέψας δὲ εἶδεν.  38 Cf. LSJ, s.  v. 2; Lampe, s.  v.  39 Αἴρω: 12x; ὀφθαλμός: 2x: 6:2; 7:3; οὐρανός: see on 3:2; εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν: also in 3:13; προσεύχομαι: see on 6:1.   40 MT: ‫ויתפלל אליו ויאמר‬. Προσηύχετο λέγων occurs in Matt 26:42; Luke 22:41–42; Acts John 38–41; Acts Phil. 144.  41 Cf. Gen 15:1; Ruth 2:12; Prov 11:18; Wis 5:15 Ecclus 2:8; Philo, Leg. 1.80.  42 Ἔστιν Θεὸς ὁ is an unexpected way to open a sentence.  43 With the formulation cf. Rev 11:18 (δούναι τὸν μισθόν … τοῖς ἁγίοις); Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.44 (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παρέχων ἐκείνῳ); Apophth. Patr. (systematic collection ed. Guy SC 387) 7.58 (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παρέχων ἡμῖν); Ps.-Ephraem, Λόγοι παραινετικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατ ’ Αἰγύπτον μοναχούς 1 ed. Phrantzoles, 3:37 (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παρέχων τοῖς πᾶσι); Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 197 (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παρέχων πᾶσι). Θεός: see on 1:1; παρέχω: 1x; μισθαποδοσία: 1x; ἅγιος: see on 3:7.   44 In both Jewish and Christian texts, οἱ ἅγιοι (cf. ‫קדושים‬, as in 1QS 11:8; 1QSb 3:26; 4Q403 frag. 1 1:24) can refer to the people of God: LXX Ps 15:3; 33:10; Amos 4:2; Dan 7:8, 18, 21–22, 25; Wis 18:9; T. Dan. 5:11–12; Hazon Gabriel B 76; Matt  37

270

Commentary

Abimelech: his reward has been to sleep through the destruction of Jerusalem and the misery of exile.45 It is probable that the words are from a Christian hand. For while τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ could certainly be Jewish,46 (i) παρέχω and μισθαποδοσία are hapax legomena for our book; (ii) while the latter—unlike the common ἀποδίδωμι + τὸν μισθόν47—is otherwise unattested in Jewish or secular literature, it is common in Christian texts, beginning with Hebrews;48 (iii) 4 Baruch nowhere else uses ἅγιος as a substantive meaning “saint”; and (iv) the closest parallel to παρέχων μισθαποδοσίαν τοῖς is in a Byzantine text: Arethas, Scripta minora (praecipue e cod. Mosq. Hist. Mus. gr. 315) 4 ed. Westerink, p. 46: ἑκάστῳ μισθαποδοσίαν παρέχηται. As for what originally stood in a Jewish original, one can only guess. One might also take ἄρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν to be Christian. The phrase is almost identical to John 17:1 (ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν), where the context is also prayer.49 Yet MT Deut 4:19 (‫ )תשא עיניך השמימה‬and Isa 51:6 (LXX: ἄρατε εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν = ‫ )שאו לשמים עיניכם‬are also quite similar.50 Aside from that question, other texts naturally have people looking up or raising their hands toward heaven when they pray.51 27:52; Acts 9:13; Rom 1:7; Heb 13:24; Rev 5:8; 1 Clem. 46:2; etc. See further Stephen Woodward, “The Provenance of the term ‘Saints’: ‘A Religionsgeschichtliche’ Study,” JETS 24 (1981), 107–116.  45 But Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2671, understands the reward to be the resurrection of the holy ones; cf. vv. 6–7. On the concept of divinely-bestowed reward, which became an eschatological topos (cf. Matt 5:12; Rev 11:18; etc.), see A. Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in the Old Rabbinic Literature (London: Oxford University Press, 1920); H. Preisker and E. Worthwein, “μισθός κτλ.,” TDNT 4 (1967), 695–728; Urbach, Sages, 1:436–44; C. Spicq, “μισθός, μισθόομαι,” TLNT 2 (1994), 502–515.   46 Cf. LXX Zech 14:5; 1 En. 1:9; also ‫ קדושיו‬in 1QM 3:5; 4Q181 frag. 1 2:4; 4Q511 frag. 8 8.  47 Cf. Thucydides, Hist. 8.45.6; Isocrates, Antid. 111, 120; Xenophon, Anab. 7.5.4; LXX Deut 24:15; Matt 20:8; etc.  48 Cf. Heb 2:2; 10:35; 11:26; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.16.101.3; Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.21.2; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 6.14.3; Gregory Palamas, Orat. antirrhet. contra Acindyn. 7.7.16; Apos. Con. 4:12:9; 5:1:5; 5:7:13; 6:11:30; etc. The closely-related μισθαποδότης also appears to be exclusively Christian; so BDAG, s.  v.  49 Note also Luke 6:20; 16:23; 18:13 (τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐπᾶραι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν).  50 Cf. further Gen 13:10; 2 Βασ 18:24; 1 Chr 21:16.  51 1 Kgs 8:22; 2 Chr 6:13; Ps 123:1; 141:2; 1 Esdr 4:58 (ἄρας τὸ πρόσωπον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν); Philo, Contempl. 66; Josephus, Ant. 11.162; Mark 6:41; 7:34; John 11:41; 1 Tim 2:8; Acts Phil. 83; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 7.12.1–2; b. Yeb. 105b; Gen. Rab. 33:3; etc.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

271

Despite the use of προσηύξατο, what follows is not really a prayer. Baruch is, at least in vv. 3–7, speaking to himself, with perhaps Abimelech overhearing him. God is neither directly addressed nor petitioned. One is reminded of Matt 11:25–30. Although this opens as a prayer addressed directly to God (“I thank you, Father”), it quickly gives way to the third person (“my Father,” “the Father”) and becomes an address to those around Jesus (vv. 27–30). 6:3. Baruch’s response to his encounter with Abimelech is overwhelming joy that takes the form of self-exhortation. First, he dramatically implores himself to prepare his heart: ἑτοίμασον σεαυτήν, ἡ καρδία μου.52 As the passage continues, it is clear that Baruch is to prepare himself for death and resurrection; cf. the language of T. Job 43:14–15, where the saints (οἱ ἅγιοι) are “prepared” (ἡτοιμάσθησαν) and rejoice, where their hearts exult (ἀγαλλιάσθωσαν αἱ καρδίαι) as the Lord draws near and they receive eschatological splendor. Σεαυτήν = ἡ καρδία: the heart is the real or true self, the psyche at its deepest level; it feels (cf. v. 5; Deut 28:47; Matt 22:37), wills (cf. v. 21; Jer 3:17), and thinks (cf. v. 10; Judg 5:16; Matt 9:4). Baruch next exhorts himself to rejoice: εὐφραίνου καὶ ἀγάλλου ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου; cf. v. 17: χαῖρε καὶ ἀγαλλῖω.53 The paired imperatives are conventional and have a liturgical ring. Similar formulations—most of them, however, with the Hellenistic ἀγαλλιάω rather than ἀγάλλω— include LXX 1 Chr 16:31 (εὐφρανθήτω ὁ οὐρανός, καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ γῆ); Ps 9:3 (εὐφρανθήσομαι καὶ ἀγαλλιάσομαι); 31:11 (εὐφράνθητε … καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθε); 66:5 (εὐφρανθήτωσαν καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθωσαν); 95:11 (εὐφραινέσθωσαν … καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθω); Isa 35:1 (εὐφράνθητι … ἀγαλλιάσθω); 49:13 (εὐφραίνεσθε … καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθω); Sib. Or. 3:785 (εὐφράνθητι … καὶ ἀγάλλεο); Acts Peter 41 (εὐφραινόμενοι καὶ ἀγαλλιῶντες).54 By contrast, ἀγάλλου ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου appears

LXX 1 Βασ 7:3 (ἑτοιμάσατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν; MT: ‫ ;)והכינו לבבכם‬Ps 56:8 (ἑτοίμη ἡ καρδία μου bis for ‫ ;)נכון לבי‬107:2 (ἑτοίμη ἡ καρδία μου; according to Schaller, “Greek Version,” 80, 4 Bar. 6:3 is a “free allusion” to LXX Ps 56:8 and 107:2); Ezek 38:7 (ἑτοιμάσθητι ἑτοίμασον σεαυτόν; MT: ‫ ;)הכן והכן לך‬Ecclus 2:17 (ἑτοιμάσουσιν καρδίας αὐτῶν); 18:23 (ἑτοίμασον σεαυτόν); Ps. Sol. 6:1 (ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἑτοίμη); 2 Bar. 85:11 (“prepare your souls”); Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. 16 (τὴν σαυτοῦ καρδίαν ἑτοίμασον). Ἑτοιμάζω: 2x: 6:3; 9:10 (ἡτοίμασαν ἑαυτούς); καρδία: 4x, 3x in ch. 6: 2:5; 6:3, 10, 21.  53 Εὐφραίνω: 1x; ἀγάλλω: 1x; but cf. ἀγαλλιάω in v. 17; σκήνωμα: 3x: 6:3 bis; 9:12.  54 Cf. also LXX Ps 117:24; Isa 12:6; 25:9.   52 Cf.

272

Commentary

to be without close parallel.55 Yet the sense is clear. The words that follow—τῷ σαρκικῷ οἴκῳ σου56—demonstrate that σκήνωμα, which usually means “tent” or “abode” in the LXX (cf. σκηνή), here means—as also in 9:12—“(physical) body,” the habitation for the ψυχή, the “soul.”57 The human body is like a tent: it holds within itself the inner person or soul. The anthropology is, in line with v. 17, dualistic, although σαρκικός does not seem to carry negative ethical implications.58 One may compare the γεῶδες σκῆνος of Wis 9:15 and the τὸ τοῦ σώματος σκήνος of Hippocrates, Septim. 52. Both οἶκος and οἰκία are otherwise used of the body.59 The qualification by σαρκικός, which may be from a Christian hand, is unusual, although Epiphanius, Pan. 29.3.7 has οἴκου τοῦ σαρκικοῦ, and Melito, Pass. 55, has πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐκ τοῦ σαρκίνου οἴκου ἐξηλαύνετο. The sense is the same as the ‫ גויה בשר‬of 1QpHab 9:2 and 4QpNah frags. 3–4 2:6, as well as the τὸ σῶμα (τῆς) σαρκός in Gk. 1 En. 15:9.60 Baruch next declares that his sorrow has been turned into joy: τὸ πένθος σου μετεστράφη εἰς χαράν.61 One wonders, given the heavy dependence of  55  56

Note, however, the construction in 1 Cor 7:20: “glorify God ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν.” Σαρκικός: 1x; the word, whose sense largely overlaps with σάρκινος (LXX: 5x), is

rare in secular Greek and is characteristic of Christian texts; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 7x; Josephus: 0x; οἶκος: 2x: 6:3; 7:27.  57 As also in Wis 9:15; Philo, QG 28 (“the human tent is made of bones of flesh, arteries, veins, nerves, ligaments and vessels of breath and of the blood”); T. Job 43:5 v.  l.; 2 Cor 5:4; 2 Pet 1:13–14; Gk. LAE 32:4 v.  l.; 42:6; Diogn. 6:8; Sent. Sext. 320; Tatian, Or. Graec. 15; Kore Kosmou 34; PGM 19a:49; Apoc. Sedr. 9:2–3; Apoc. Paul 15. Cf. Isa 38:12: “My dwelling is plucked up and removed from me like a shepherd’s tent; like a weaver I have rolled up my life; he cuts me off from the loom.” See further W. Michaelis, “σκήνωμα κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971), 383–84 (with secular examples); G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents illustrating Early Christianity Volume 4 (N.  S.  W., Australia: Macquarie University, 1987), 172; Wolff, “Neuen Testament,” 130–31.  58 Cf. Ign. Eph. 7:2: Jesus is “both flesh (σαρκικός) and spirit, born and unborn, God in man.” Contrast Democritus, frag. B 187: “It is right that people should value the soul rather than the body, for perfection of soul corrects the inferiority of the body” (σκήνεος).   59 See Matt 12:44; Luke 11:24; 2 Cor 5:1 (οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους); Justin, Dial. 40.1; Lucian, Gall. 17. Note also for comparison Job 4:19 (“those who live in οἰκίας of clay”); Philo, Praem 120 (“the body, the congenital οἰκία of the soul”); and the use of ‫ בית‬in b. Ber. 44b (“Woe to the house [= body] through which vegetables are always passing”).  60 Cf. also 95:5; 102:5; Ecclus 23:17; Col 1:22 (cf. 2:11); Gos. Barth. frag. 1 2.  61 Cf. LXX Est 4:17h (4 C 10: στρέψον τὸ πένθος ἡμῶν εἰς εὐωχίαν); 9:22 (ἐστράφη αὐτοῖς … ἀπὸ πένθους εἰς χαράν); Amos 8:10 (μεταστρέψω … εἰς πένθος); Gk.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

273

our text upon Jeremiah, whether Jer 31:13–14 = LXX 38:13–14 lies behind our text.62 This not only speaks of God turning mourning into joy (LXX: στρέψω τὸ πένθος αὐτῶν εἰς χαρμονήν; MT: ‫)והפכתי אבלם לששון‬, but the immediate LXX context uses words—παρθένοι, εὐφραινομένους—with counterparts in 4 Bar. 6:3–4. By “sorrow” Baruch refers to his emotional state since the destruction of Jerusalem. Such sorrow is past because of the promise of eschatological resurrection, which brings joy. The next clause is difficult. Baruch proclaims that “the Self-sufficient comes”: ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ ἱκανός.63 Ὁ ἱκανός (cf. αὐτάρκης) is a divine title in LXX Ruth 1:20–21; Job 21:15; 31:2; 40:2, all for ‫שדי‬.64 The title, which does not appear in the NT and was not popular with Christians,65 seems to assimilate the Jewish deity to Greco-Roman ideas; cf. Euripides, Heracl. 1345–46 (“the deity, if he really be such, has no wants”); Aristotle, Eth. eud. 7.12.1–2 (1244b: “God, who needs nothing, is like the man who is self-sufficient [ἱκανός]”); Philo, Leg. 3.181 (“God is in need of no one”); Cher. 181 (ἱκανός … μόνος καὶ αὐταρκέστατος ἑαυτῷ); Mut. 27 (God is ἑαυτῷ ἱκανόν). The Self-Sufficient One will “bring Baruch in his tabernacle”: καὶ αἰρεῖ σε ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου.66 To judge from the context, the sense is καὶ ἐγερεῖ σε ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, although αἴρω is not a verb one expects

LAE 39:2 (τὴν δὲ λύπην σου ἐπιστρέψω εἰς χαράν); John 16:20 (ἡ λύπη ὑμῶν εἰς χαρὰν γενήσεται); Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. γ (lib. 3) 32 and rec ε 44 (χαρὰν εἰς πένθος μετέστρεψεν). Πένθος: 1x; μεταστρέφω: 1x; χαρά: 1x.  62 So Delling, Lehre, 56–57. Cf. Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1751; Kaestli, “Influence,” 229 n. 23 (“possible”); Schaller, “Greek Version,” 80 (“thoroughly probable”).  63 Ἔρχεται γάρ: 3x: 6:3, 12; 8:9; ἱκανός: 1x.   64 Also Aq. Gen 17:1 (cf. Gen. Rab. 46:3: “Aquila translated it: ‘sufficient and incomparable’” [‫ ;)]אכסיוס ואנקוס‬Symm. Job 22:3; Theod. Job 21:15; and often in these versions. See Schaller, Paralipomena, 731. Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 318, translates ὁ ἱκανός with “Shadday.” The use of ἱκανός for ‫ שדי‬is explained by the influence of Greek philosophical tradition and by the mistaken surmise that ‫ שדי‬derived from ‫ש‬ + ‫=די‬ “who is sufficient.” See Georg Bertram, “ἹΚΑΝΟΣ in den griechischen Übersetzung des ATs als Wiedergabe von Schaddaj,” ZAW 70 (1958), 20–31. Later Greek Jewish literature, like LXX Job and Christian writings, prefers Παντοκράτωρ. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2679, cites, for comparison with 4 Baruch, Philo, Leg. 1.44; Cher. 46; and Mut. 46. In each case, however, although ἱκανός refers to God, it functions as an adjective, not as an independent title.  65 Neither BDAG nor Lampe offers an example of ἱκανός as a divine title. The word does, however, occurs in patristic descriptions of God; note e.  g. Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Luke PG 72:508: ἦν γὰρ ἱκανὸς Θεὸς ὢν ὁ λόγος.  66 Αἴρω: 12x; σκήνωμα: see above.

274

Commentary

in this connection. Perhaps the text is corrupt.67 In any case, the image of God “coming” (ἔρχεται) in connection with resurrection following mention of τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ (v. 2) recalls the common interpretation of Zech 14:4–5 as a prophecy of eschatological resurrection: “the Lord will come and all his holy ones with him.”68 Baruch—who is a “faithful steward” in 7:2—goes on immodestly to confess that he is free of sin: οὐ γὰρ γέγονέ σοι ἁμαρτία.69 This is evidence for an originally Jewish 4 Baruch. Indeed, one wonders whether our text might derive from an ‫ אל תקרי‬midrash—“Do not read this way but that way”—which suggested, for Jer 45:5, “read not ‫‘( שלל‬booty’) but ‫שלם‬,” so that Baruch is “complete,” “perfect”: ‫ונתתי לך את־נפשך לשלם‬. However that may be, Christians, from an early time, attributed sinlessness to Jesus alone.70 Judaism had no such issue; for others said to be “perfect,” “blameless,” or “without sin” see Gen 6:9 (Noah was “blameless in his generation”); Jub. 23:10 (“Abraham was perfect in all of his actions with the Lord and was pleasing through righteousness all of the days of his life”; cf. 15:3; Gen 17:1); 27:17 (Jacob “is upright in his way and is a perfect man”); Wis 4:13 (Enoch was “perfected in a short time”);10:5 (Wisdom “recognized the righteous man [Abraham] and preserved him blameless before God”); Ecclus 44:17 (“Noah was found perfect and righteous”); Pr. Man. 8 (“Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not sin”); T. Mos. 9:4 (“Never did [our] fathers nor their ancestors [the patriarchs presumably] tempt God by transgressing his commandments” (cf. Rashi on Gen 25:7); T. Abr. RecLng. 10:13–14 (“Abraham has not sinned”); T. Iss. 7:1–7: (“I [Issachar] am 122 years old, and I am not aware of having committed a sin unto death … There was no deceit in my heart; no lie passed through my lips … I acted in piety and truth all my days”); T. Reub. 4:4 (“from that time to this I [Reuben] have kept a careful watch and have not sinned”); 2 Bar. 9:1 (“Jeremiah, whose heart was found to be pure from sins”); 61:7 (the ­generation of Solomon “did not sin”); Deut. Rab. 11:10 (“I [Moses] have not sinned from my youth”); Hist. Rech. 11:2 (the Rechabites “are without sins and without evil and abominable thoughts”). This was a post-exilic literary motif. One said people were perfect or sinless or blameless in order to praise them and hold them up as models of piety and right behavior.  67

On the text-critical question see above, pp. 260–61. On this interpretation of Zech 14:4–5 see Allison, “Scriptural Background.”  69 Γίγνομαι: 25x; cf. the γίνεταί σοι of 6:6, 8; ἁμαρτία: see on 1:1.  70 Cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; the idea is probably implicit in Matt 3:14–15 and John 15:3. See Jeffrey S. Siker, Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).  68

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

275

The reference to Baruch’s sinlessness remains a bit odd, however, since what happens to him must stand for what happens to others who are not sinless. 6:4. Baruch continues to speak to himself in the third person, exhorting his faith to be encouraged or eased: ἀνάψυξον ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου, ἡ παρθενίκη μου πίστις καὶ πίστευσον ὅτι ζήσεις.71 The sense of the first verb is “to (be) refresh(ed)” or “to (be) cheer(ed)” or “to gain respite”; cf. the ἀνάπαυσις of 5:32.72 One may think either of anxiety about death being relaxed or, more likely, and with an eye on the larger context, of hope after the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon. Note the parallelism with v. 3: 6:3 ἀγάλλου     ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου 6:4 ἀνάψυξον ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου

The placement of μου between ἡ and πίστις is foreign to the style of the rest of the book,73 and the qualification of “faith” by “virginal”—the sense must be “pure” or “unadulterated faith” as opposed to faith that doubts74— betrays a Christian hand. The closest parallels are in Origen, Hom. Lev. 12:5 (fidei uirginalis et simplicis cultum) and in the Greek translation of a fifth century Armenian historian, Agathangelos, in his Hist. Armen. 63 (τὸν μαργαρίτην τῆς παρθενικῆς ἡμῶν πίστεως).75 Whether or not it makes sense for one of “virginal faith” to exhort himself to “believe,” the

  71

Ἀναψύχω: 1x; ἐν τῷ σκηνώματί σου: see on 6:3; παρθενικός: 1x; LXX: 2x; Gk.

Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x (cf. Sib. Or. 3:480; 5:395; Ps.-Phoc. 215); Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; although LXX Jeremiah and Lamentations together use παρθένος with metaphorical sense repeatedly, that is probably just a coincidence; πίστις: 3x: 6:4; 7:2; 9:13; πίστεω: 2x: 6:4; 7:17; in LXX Exod 4:5 and Job 9:16, πίστεω + ὅτι renders ‫ אמן‬+ ‫ ;כי‬ζάω: 3x: 6:4; 9:3, 11.  72 As in Euripides, Hel. 1094; LXX Exod 23:12 (of the sabbath); Gk. 1 En. 103:12; and Jos. Asen. 3:3. For metaphorical uses see P. Osl. 153.10; Rom 15:32 D; 2 Tim 1:16; Ign. Eph. 2:1; Trall. 12:2; Apos. Con. 3:13:1. See further Spicq, “ἀναψύχω,” TLNT 1 (1994), 120–21.  73 See p. 25, n. 94.  74 Cf. καθάρα + πίστις, as in Acts Andr. 58; Ps.-Didymus of Alexandria, Trin. PG 39.704; Theodore the Studite, Ep. 11; contrast Matt 14:31: ὀλιγόπιστε εἰς τί ἐδίστασας; Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1752, takes the meaning to be: a faith uncorrupted by idolatry.  75 Delling, Lehre, 9 n. 22, and Riaud, Paralipomènes, 189, who suppose the expression comes from a Jewish hand, can cite for comparison only Rev 14:4. This refers only to the virgins who follow the lamb and says nothing about faith, and it is Christian.

276

Commentary

object of his belief is that he will live, that is, be resurrected on the last day. Ζάω refers to resurrection elsewhere.76 In Hebrew, of course, the word for “resurrection,” ‫תחיה‬/‫ תחייה‬, derives from the verb ‫חיה‬, which means “live.” 4 Baruch, like m. Sanh. 10:1, holds that the resurrection of the dead is part and parcel of authentic faith.77 6:5. The proof of the resurrection for Baruch is not Scripture but what he exhorts himself to contemplate with his own eyes, Abimelech’s basket of figs: ἐπίβλεψον ἐπὶ τὸν κόφινον τοῦτον τῶν σύκων.78 Despite being sixty six years old, the figs bear every sign of being just picked: ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἑξηκονταὲξ ἔτη ἐποίησαν, καὶ οὐκ ἐμαράνθησαν, οὐδὲ ὤζεσαν ἀλλὰ στάζουσι τοῦ γάλακτος.79 In addition to not drying up—the LXX uses μαραίνω of vegetation drying up80—they do not sink, and they exude sap. The verb, ὄζω, appears in LXX Exod 8:14 of the land that stank after all the plague of frogs. More significantly, John 11:39 uses it of the smell of death; cf. also Plutarch, Phoc. 22 (ὄζεν νεκροῦ); Hippocrates, Prognos. 13 (θάνατον … ὄζει δυσῶδες). The analogy with the resurrection is imperfect because human bodies do, shortly after death, stink, and they eventually dry up and dissolve. This, however, does not matter. What counts, as v. 7 will make clear, is God’s power to act against the normal course of nature and to do the impossible. The miracle of the figs is not a flawless analogy but a sign.81 6:6. Baruch now makes the analogy explicit: οὕτως γίνεταί σοι ἡ σάρξ μου.82 Whether or not one hears an echo of MT Job 19:26 (“after my skin  76

See LXX Ezek 37:3–14; John 5:22; 11:25; Acts 25:19; Rev 20:4–5; Methodius, Res. 2:18; etc. Note also Rom 6:8: πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ.  77 This is one of the reasons Delling gave for associating our text with Pharisaic Judaism; see Delling, Lehre, 71–72.  78 Ἐπιβλέπω: 1x; κόφινος: see on 3:15; σῦκον: see on 3:15.  79 Ἰδοὺ γάρ: 3x: 4:1; 5:30; 6:5; ἑξηκονταὲξ ἔτη ἐποίησαν: see on 5:1; for ποιέω meaning “spend time” see 7:29; LXX Prov 13:23; Eccles 6:12; Acts 15:33; 18:23; 20:3; T. Job 21:1; Gk. LAE 31:2; Jas 4:13; etc.; μαραίνω: 1x; ὄζω: 1x; στάζουσι τοῦ γάλακτος: see on 5:1.  80 LXX Job 15:30; 24:24; Wis 2:8; cf. Herm. Sim. 9:1:7; 9:23:1.  81 Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 421, n. 6c, suggests that “the fig is an apt symbol for life, since it is full of seeds and ‘drips milk.’ The fig is often identified in Jewish literature as the forbidden fruit of Eden.”   82 Οὕτως: 7x: 6:6, 16; 7:11, 23, 24; 9:29, 32; γίγνομαι: 25x; σάρξ: 1x; γίνεταί σοι: see on v. 3; cf. Isa 47:15 (‫;)כן היו לך‬Ps.-Ephraem, Λόγοι παραινετικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατ ’ Αἰγύπτον μοναχούς 40 ed. Phrantzoles, 3:205 (οὕτως γίνεταί σοι χαρά).

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

277

has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God”), ἡ σάρξ μου (= ‫ )בשרי‬sounds biblical.83 The expression became popular with Christian writers. There is, however, a qualification: ἐὰν ποιήσῃς τὰ προσταχθέντα σου ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς δικαιοσύνης.84 Βaruch must keep the commandments delivered to him by the righteous angel. This does not refer to obeying Torah in general. If that were so, either “the righteous angel” would be Moses, or our text would reflect the idea that the law was given through an angel.85 Baruch’s words rather anticipate, a bit awkwardly, vv. 11–14: Baruch will gain his reward if he does what the angel, who has not yet appeared, instructs him to do concerning Jeremiah. This angel is the same as the “angel of the Lord” in v. 11. Whether he should be identified with “the great angel” of 4:1 or with the angel who guides Abimelech in 6:1 or with Michael86 (who is named only in 9:5) is unclear. The same problem attends 8:9, where the expression is anarthrous—ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης. One might think of Baruch’s guardian angel87 given that he answers the saint’s prayer and that ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης in Herm. Mand. 36 is the seer’s guardian angel.88 Verses 5–6, which refer to σάρξ, appear to assume a very literal view of resurrection. It is not the view of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15—“flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”—nor the ethereal view of Origen. It seems more in accord with 2 Maccabees 14 (“with his blood … completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them in both hands

 83

Cf. LXX Ps 15:9; 27:7; 62:2; 72:26; 83:3; 108:24; Dan 4:33b; John 6:51; Acts 2:26; T. Sim. 6:2.  84 Προστάσσω: 1x; ποιέω + passive participle of προστάσσω does not occur in the LXX or the NT; it was a common Greek idiom that later Jewish and Christian authors adopted; cf. Herodotus 9.104; Demosthenes, Fals. leg. 162; Philo, Sacr. 63; Josephus, Ant. 7.176; Jos. Asen. 24:15, 19; Acts Thom. 113; Origen, Cels. 5.1; T. Sol. 7:8; etc.; ἄγγελος: see on 3:2; δικαιοσύνη: 3x: 6:6; 8:9; 9:5, all three of an angel; for parallels to “angel of righteousness” see on 9:5.  85 Cf. Jub. 1:29–2:1; Gk. LAE preface; Acts 7:38, 53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2.  86 So Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1752 (allusion to Michael’s role in the giving of the law; cf. Jub. 1:27); Herzer, 4 Baruch, 101; Torijano, “Fourth Baruch,” 2672.  87 For this far-flung idea see Gen 48:16; Ps 34:7; 91:11–12; 1QH 5:20; 1 En. 100:5; Jub. 35:16–17; Tobit passim; T. Levi 5:3; T. Jos. 6:7; Philo, Gig. 12; QG 1.23; T. Job 43:10; LAB 11:12; 15:5; 33:1; 59:4; Matt 18:10; Heb 1:14; 3 Bar. 12–13; T. Adam 4:1; T. Jacob 2:5; b. Ta̔an. 11a; Midr. Ps. 55:3; PRE 15; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 48:16; etc.  88 In T. Abr. RecLng. 13:13, “the righteous angel” participates in the post-mortem judgment. In John of Thessalonica, Dorm. BVM A 5, ed. Jugie, p. 382, “the righteous angel” is the good angel who comes for the soul at death.

278

Commentary

and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again”), with the story of the empty tomb in the NT gospels, with the tale of the resurrected saints in Matt 27:51–53, with John 5:28–29 (“all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth”), with 2 Bar. 50:2 (“the earth will surely give back the dead at that time; it receives them now in order to keep them, not changing anything in their form. But as it has received them so it will give them back”), and with the bottom left panel of the northern wall of the Dura-Europos synagogue and its literal interpretation of Ezekiel 37 and Zech 14:4–5.89 6:7. Baruch elaborates the analogy: ὁ φυλάξας τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων, αὐτὸς πάλιν φυλάξει σε ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ.90 The one who, in the past, preserved the basket of figs will again, in the future, likewise preserve Baruch, or rather Baruch’s body “by his power”; cf. 7:12: ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ. For the idea of bodies being preserved or kept until the resurrection see 1 En. 51:1 (“the earth will give back what has been entrusted to it”); LAB 3:10 (“I … will raise from the earth those who sleep, and … destruction will restore what was entrusted to it”); 4 Ezra 7:32 (“the earth will give back those who sleep in it … and the treasuries will give back the souls that have been committed to them”); 2 Bar. 50:2 (“the earth will surely give back the dead at that time; it receives them now in order to keep them, not changing anything in their form. But as it has received them so it will give them back”; cf. 42:8); Midr. Ps. 1:20 (the earth declares: “when the holy one, blessed be he, requires it of me, I will return to him what he laid away with me, as it is said: ‘Your dead shall live’”).91 Baruch’s appeal to the figs (see on 3:15) recalls other attempts to defend resurrection through analogies drawn from nature—seed and plant in 1 Cor 15:35–38 and 1 Clem. 24:4–5, and the Phoenix in 1 Clem. 25:1–26:1. It is odd that the focus here is entirely on the figs. The miracle of Baruch’s preservation, which seems no less to the point, is passed over. Contrast the parasitic legend of the seven sleepers of Ephesus,92 in which the preserva 89  90  91

On the resurrection at Dura-Europos see Allison, “Scriptural Background.”

Φυλάσσω: see on 2:5; τὸν κόφινον τῶν σύκων: see on 3:15; πάλιν: see on 5:13: δυναμίς: see on 1:3.

For additional texts and discussion see Richard J. Bauckham, “Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead,” in The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (NovTSup 93; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1998), pp. 269– 89.  92 On this see above, p. 215, n. 16.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

279

tion of the sleepers becomes the proof of an anti-Origenist understanding of the resurrection; see Symeon the Metaphrast, Men. PG 115.445 (“for the light of life has arisen upon us, and the coming resurrection has been made visible in the world and shown to us in the bodies of the resurrected saints”); Jacob of Serug, Seven Sleepers ed. Guidi, p. 23 (“so that you might see and hold firm that the resurrection truly exists”). Although ἐν (τῇ) δυνάμει is common Greek, it would have a biblical ring for both Jews and Christians given the many passages in which it refers, as here, to divine power.93 In 1 Cor 15:43, Paul uses the idiom in connection with the resurrection: “It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.” 6:8. After his declaration about the resurrection, Baruch wants his friend to join him in prayer: ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ Βαρούχ, λέγει τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ· Ἀνάστηθι καὶ εὐξώμεθα.94 The imperative, ἀνάστηθι + καί + a second imperative,95 has a biblical feel.96 The prayer, which they will, in accord with common practice,97 offer while standing, is for God to make known to Jeremiah, who is so far away in Babylon, what has happened: ἵνα γνωρίσῃ ἡμῖν ὁ Κύριος τὸ πῶς δυνησώμεθα ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν φάσιν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα διὰ τὴν γενομένην σοι σκέπην.98 The request, which will  93

2 Esdr 11:10; Jdt 9:8; Ps 137:3; Bar 2:11; Mark 9:1; Rom 1:4; 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:5; 4:20; 2 Cor 6:7; 1 Pet 1:5.  94 Cf. Plutarch, Comp. Phil. Flam. 2.6 (ἐστῶτος καὶ προσευχομένου); Luke 22:46 (ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε); Acts Thom. 144 (ἀνέστη καὶ ηὔξατο); Vit. Pach.97 (ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἀνέστη καὶ ηὔξατο); Palladius, Hist. Laus. rec. G Vita 36.4 (στὰς καὶ προσευξάμενος); Apos. Con. 7:45 (ἑστάναι καὶ προσεύχεσθαι). Ταῦτα εἰπών: see on 1:1; ἀνίστημι: see on 1:1 and 9; εὐχόμαι: see on 2:3; ταῦτα εἰπών: see on 1:1; ἀνίστημι: see on 1:1 and 9; εὐχόμαι: see on 2:3.   95 Cf. ‫קומו‬/‫ קומי‬+ ‫ ו‬+ a second imperative, as in Judg 19:28; 2 Kgs 8:1; Mic 4:13.  96 Cf. LXX Gen 31:13; Exod 32:1; Judg 19:28 B (ἀνάστηθι καὶ ἀπέλθωμεν); 1 Βασ 23:4; 2 Βασ 13:15; 3 Βασ 12:24g-h; 17:9; 19:5; 20:18; 4 Βασ 8:1; 2 Esdr 10:3; Mic 2:10; Jon 1:2; 3:2; Jer 1:17; 13:4; 18:2; Ezek 3:22; also Jos. Asen. 14:8, 11; T. Abr. RecShrt. 1:2; 2:8; 3:6; 4:14; Acts 8:26; 9:6, 34; 26:16; 30:26.  97 Jews regularly prayed while standing; cf. 1 Sam 1:26; Neh 9:4; Jer 18:20; Matt 6:5; Mark 11:25; Josephus, Ant. 10.255; Str-B 1:401–402. Ἀνάστηθι is not here pleonastic.   98 Γνωρίζω: 1x; Κύριος: see on 1:4; for τό introducing an indirect question—common in Luke—see BDF § 267.2; cf. τὸ πῶς in Luke 22:4; Acts 4:21; πῶς: 5x: 6:8, 10, 12; 7:24 (ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς πῶς), 29; δύναμαι: see on 1:8; ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; φάσις: 7x: 6:8, 10 (ἀποστείλω … τὴν φάσιν); 7:5 (φάσιν … ἀποστείλῃς), 6, 9, 10, 11; LXX: 1–2 (2 Esdr 4:17; 4 Macc 15:25 ‫ ;א‬cf. Theod. Sus 55); Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 11x; Philo: 2x; NT: 1x; Josephus: 0x; cf. 2 Esdr 4:17 (ἀπέστειλεν … φάσιν); Βαβυλών: see on 2:7; σκέπη: 1x; cf. the use of σκεπάζω in v. 2; also Ps.-Ephraem,

280

Commentary

be immediately answered, is clearly for a miracle that will bypass the ordinary means of long-distance transport and get news to Jeremiah as soon as possible. In the event, however, Baruch’s letter, as characterized in what follows, surprisingly says nothing about Abimelech and his figs. 6:9. Fulfilling his own injunction, Baruch prays: καὶ ηὔξατο Βαροὺχ λέγων;99 cf. 9:2 (καὶ ηὔξατο … λέγων); Jer 32:16 (‫לאמר‬ … ‫ ;ואתפלל‬LXX 39:16: καὶ προσευξάμην … λέγων); Jon 2:2–3 (‫ויאמר‬ … ‫;)ויתפלל יונא‬ Tob 3:1 (καὶ προσευξάμην … λέγων); Origen, Exp. Prov. PG 17.188 (εὔχεται καὶ Δαυῒδ λέγων); Didymus of Alexandria, Fr. Ps. 550 (εὔχεται καὶ προφητεύει Ἀγαθύνον λέγων). His “strange prayer”100 opens with a complex string of divine names, the first being ἡ δύναμις ἡμῶν; cf. Ps 46:2 (MT: ‫עז‬ … ‫ ;אלוהים לנו‬LXX: ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν … δύναμις); Hab 3:19 (MT: ‫ ;יהוה אדני חילי‬LXX: Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς δύναμίς μου); Gos. Pet. 5:19 (Jesus cries: ἡ δύναμις μου, ἡ δύναμις).101 “The power” (=  ‫הגבורה‬, ‫ )גבורתא‬is well attested as a divine name.102 It expresses belief in God’s unsurpassed power or even God’s practical omnipotence.103 “Our power” is appropriate in the present context because Baruch is seeking for something he cannot do, that is, get news to Jeremiah quickly.104 That Christians generally preferred παντοκράτωρ over the independent ἡ δύναμις as a name conveying God’s power is consistent with, although it hardly establishes, a Jewish original for our line. There follows the wholly conventional ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν—this occurs over 100x in the LXX, most often for ‫—אלהינו‬and the wholly conventional Λόγοι παραινετικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατ ’ Αἰγύπτον μοναχούς 41 ed. Phrantzoles, 3:209: ἵνα ἐπιγνῶς τὴν γενομένην σοι.  99 Εὔχομαι: see on 2:3. 100

This is the characterization of Goodenough, Symbols, 8:140. comparable ἰσχύς μου occurs in LXX Ps 17:2 and Jer 16:19 (for ‫ חזקי‬and ‫עזי‬ respectively). Note also Aquila’s translation of Ps 22:1 apud Eusebius, Dem. ev. 10.9.9: ἰσχυρέ μου, ἰσχυρέ μου. 102 Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 1:49 (ὁ δυνατός); LAB 16:5 (Fortissimus); Sifre Num. 112; b. Šabb. 87a, 88b; b. ̔Erub. 54b; b. Hor. 8a; b. Yeb. 105b; Tg. Job 5:8; etc. See further Urbach, Sages, 1:80–96. 103 Cf. 2 Chr 25:8; Job 36:22; Ps 68:24; Isa 9:6; Jdt 9:14; 13:19; 2 Macc 3:28; 9:18; 3 Macc 5:7; 6:12; 1QM 11:4–5; 1QH 9:5; 1 En. 1:5–6; Philo, Mos. 1.111; Acts 8:10; b. Hag. 15a; PGM 4:640; and see further H. D. Betz, “Dynamis δύναμις,” in DDD, ˙ 267–70, and the lit. cited there. 104 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 107, sees a wider application: “That God is the Almighty was already clear in his judgment on Jerusalem and the people: now God uses his strength to save the people.” 101 The

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

281

vocative Κύριε.105 Although the two are often combined in the common Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν,106 perhaps it is significant that Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν recurs in Baruch’s prayer in the Book of Baruch: 2:12, 19, 27 (cf. also 3:6: Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν). In 4 Bar. 6:9, however, the fixed order is unexpectedly reversed: ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριε; contrast v. 20. The next phrase—τὸ ἐκλεκτὸν φῶς τὸ ἐξελθὸν ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ107— can be understood either as an additional title or as a predicate (“[who] is the elect light, etc.”).108 The words, which mark a rough transition from a second person address to a third person description, are difficult because, while the association or even equation of God with light—cf. 5:34: Θεὸς φωταγωγήσει—is common enough109 (and may recur in 9:3), the phrase, “the elect light,” seems to be without close parallel. Moreover, despite LXX Ps 17:27 (“with the ἐκλεκτοῦ you [God] will be ἐκλεκτός”), in Jewish and Christian texts God is not the elect one but the one who elects.110 Maybe then the adjective here has the sense of “pure” (cf. LSJ, s.  v. 2), as in LXX Exod 30:23 (σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς): God is pure light. Or maybe the phrase refers to Jesus Christ,111 who is, in multiple sources, both the elect one112 and light.113 Philonenko has suggested, less plausibly, that Jeremiah, who

105 106

Θεός: see on 1:1; Κύριος: see on 1:4. E.  g. LXX 4 Βασ 19:19; 1 Chr 29:16; 2 Chr 14:10; 20:10; Ps 98:8; Isa 26:12, 13; Dan 9:15, 17; NT: 0x.

107

Ἐκλεκτός: see on 1:1; φῶς: 7x, of God also in 6:12; 9:3, 16, 25; of Jesus Christ in 9:13; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ: 9x; στόμα: 4x: 6:9, 22; 7:28; 9:17 (“the mouth of his Christ”);

cf. BDF § 217.3 for the entire construction. the close association of divine strength with light in 1QH 12:23. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 421, n. 6e, suggests another possibility: “Our Power … (is) the chosen light which proceeds from your mouth.” 109 Exod 13:21; 2 Sam 22:29; 23:4; Ps 18:28; 27:1; 36:9; 90:8; Isa 2:5; 9:2; 10:17; 60:1–3, 19–20; Mic 7:8; Wis 7:26; 1QH 15:25 (“you are my everlasting luminary”); Philo, Somn. 1.75 (“God is light”); Abr. 70; Heres. 264; T. Zeb. 9:8; LAB 12:3, 9; Lat. LAE 28:2; T. Job 4:1; 1 John 1:5; Rev 21:23; 22:5; Odes Sol. 15:1–2 (“my joy is the Lord because he is my Helios”); Athenagoras, Leg. 31.3; Num. Rab. 15:5 (God is “the light of the universe”); etc. The notion of God’s “glory” (see on 3:15) is closely related. 110 There is, however, a parallel in the Mandean text, Ginza 15:17 (353): “O chosen one (Light), who has chosen himself.” See further Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” 96–97. 111 So Lampe, s.  v. ἐκλεκτός B. If so, and if one also attributes 5:34 and 9:3 to a Christian hand, then the light motif throughout 4 Baruch would be largely secondary. 112 E.  g. Luke 23:35; John 1:34 v.  l.; Justin, Dial. 48.3–49.1; Procopius of Gaza, Comm. Isa. PG 87.2:2064, 2472. 113 E.  g. Luke 2:32; John 1:4–9; 8:12; 9:5. Cf. the creedal φῶς ἐκ φωτός. 108 Cf.

282

Commentary

is God’s elect in 1:1, 4, 7; 3:4, 5; 7:15, is the light.114 It is also possible to equate the light with the law,115 especially given the following τὸ ἐξελθὸν ἐκ στόματος αὐτοῦ;116 cf. Ps 119:105 (“your law is a lamp to my feet”); Prov. 6:23 (“for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light”).117 A confident decision is not possible.118 The qualifying clause—τὸ ἐξελθὸν ἐκ στόματός σου—makes interpretation even more difficult.119 The problem is twofold. First, the image of light from a mouth is unusual, although perhaps it goes back to an interpretation of Gen 1:3 that identified God’s speech (“Then God said, ‘Let there be light’”) with the created light (“and there was light”); and maybe Odes Sol. 12:3 (“the true word is the mouth of the Lord and the gate of his light”) supplies a parallel.120 For Goodenough, the image “suggests the comparison of hearing and seeing implicit in the logos-phōs conception in both Philo and the fourth Gospel.”121 Second, God seems to be that which comes from God’s mouth. One can moderate the former problem by recalling not only the reception history of Gen 1:3 and those texts in which fire issues from God’s mouth122 but also by noting the suggestive parallelism of Hos 6:5: “I have 114

Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 165. Individuals can, in the biblical tradition, be called lights: 1Q28b 4:27 (the High Priest); 11Q5 27:2 (David); 1 En. 48:4 (Messiah); LAB 51:4 (Samuel); Matt 5:15 (Jesus’ disciples); John 5:35 (John the Baptist); Acts 13:47 (Paul); b. Ber. 28b (Johannan ben Zakkai); Gen. Rab. 2:3 (Abraham); etc. Note also that Baruch is “counselor of light” in v. 12. Although ΦΩΣ can mean “man” (φώς) as well as “light” (φῶς), so that one might suggest that 6:9 refers to “the elect man” = Jeremiah, everywhere else in our book the sense of the word is “light.” 115 Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 190; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2672. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 107, seems to identify the light with both God and the law. 116 Cf. Num 30:2 (“do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth”); Ps 119:105 (“the law of your mouth”); Isa 55:11 (“my word that goes forth from my mouth”); Ecclus 24:3 (wisdom declares: “I came from the mouth of the Most High”). 117 2 Baruch, which has so many points of overlap with 4 Baruch, speaks, in 77:15–16, of the law as a lamp. 118 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 107, finds it relevant that light is associated with return from exile; cf. Isa 40:5; 42:16; 60:1, 3; Bar 5:9. 119 Delling, Lehre, 32, finds the whole phrase so difficult that he is moved to ask if the Greek is a mistranslation of a Semitic original (although he offers no concrete suggestion). Schaller, Paralipomena, 732, deems the words secondary. 120 Cf. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 164. 121 Goodenough, Symbols, 8:140. He refers to the index of his own book, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935), s.  v., “light.” 122 Sam 22:9; Job 41:19; Ps 18:8; 4 Ezra 13:10, 27.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

283

slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light.” Further, our line is perhaps no stranger than Job 41:18: Leviathan’s “sneezings flash forth light.” The second problem, however, remains intractable. Maybe a Christian scribe, thinking of Christ as God’s word,123 ineptly altered the sentence. As it stands, it remains obscure and bears no relationship to the broader context.124 The hypothesis of a Christian origin would be consistent with the elaborate παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί σου τῆς ἀγαθότητός.125 Παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαί is characteristic of Christian texts (albeit in exhortations to Christians instead of in prayers to God126), and the same holds for “your goodness,” which occurs in prayers.127 Further, παρακαλοῦμεν τὴν σὴν ἀγαθότητα became liturgical.128 Nonetheless, a Jewish substratum is likely, for the use of στόμα in close connection with ἡ δύναμις as a divine name reminds one of rabbinic texts with the idiom, “from the mouth of the power,” ‫מפי הגבורה‬.129

123

Cf. John 1:1–18, where “the word” = “light”; 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13; Ign. Magn. 8:2; Diogn. 11:2–8; 12:9; etc. 124 According to y. Ta̔an. 68d (4:5), Akiba saw in Bar Kokhba the fulfillment of Num 24:17 (“a star shall come out of Jacob”); cf. Lam. Rab. 2:4 and Eusebius, H.  E. 4.6.2: Bar Kokhba made himself out to be “a star that had come down from heaven to give light to the oppressed.” Moreover, Jerome, Ruf. 3.31, preserves the strange tradition that Bar Kokhba “used to hold in his mouth a lighted straw and blow it out so as to appear to be breathing forth flames.” It is, however, hard to divine any real link between all this 4 Baruch. 125 Παρακαλέω: see on 1:4; δέω: see on 3:4; ἀγαθότης: 1x; LXX: 4x: Wis 1:1; 7:26; 12:22; Ecclus 45:23; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 7x; cf. T. Abr. RecLng. 14:14; T. Asher 3:1; T. Benj. 8:1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:18; Philo: 26x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x. 126 Chrysostom, Hom. in Gen. 1–67 PG 53:158; Theodore the Studite, Catech. magn. 2, 17; etc. 127 Cf. Didymus of Alexandria, Fr. Ps. 741a (παρακαλῶ μὴ ἀπορριφήναι ἀλλὰ συνεργεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγαθότητός σου); Acts Phil. 144 (ὁ Φίλιππος ηὔξατο … Κύριε … ἐχαρίσω δὲ ἡμῖν τὴν βουλὴν τῆς ἀγαθότητός σου); Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Ps. PG 80.1681 (δεηθῆναί σου τῆς ἀγαθότητος); Agathangelus, Hist. Arm. 42 (οἰκτείρησον οὖν ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῆς σῆς ἀγαθοτητος); Theodore the Studite, Ep. 21 (δεόμεθά σου τῆς ἀγαθότητος); etc. 128 See Bas. Lit. PG 31:1648. Schaller, Paralipomena, 732, cites the Introit to the Lit. Jas. ed. Mercier PO 26, p. 164. The phrase occurs also in Gregory Nazianzen, Ep. 219.3; Maximus the Confessor, Ascet. 37. 129 Cf. Mek. Amalek 1:175; Vayassa̔ 1:6–7; Sifre Num. 112; b. Šabb. 88b; b. ̔Erub. 54b; b. Yeb. 105b; ARN A 37:20; etc.

284

Commentary

Baruch continues adding to the much overblown address: τὸ μέγα ὄνομα, ὃ οὐδεὶς δύναται γνῶναι.130 Although the notion that God’s name is “great” is a HB/OT topos,131 that no one knows the name is not. One might relate our verse to later ideas about the Tetragrammaton, YHWH— ideas perhaps influenced in part by Plato’s belief that the human names for the gods are not what the gods name themselves (Crat. 400D-E).132 Despite the HB/OT, where the divine name is revealed (Exod 3:13–14; 6:2–3) and its proper use presupposed (cf. Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11), some held it damning to speak God’s name “with its proper letters” (m. Sanh. 10:1).133 1 En. 69:14 speaks of “the secret name,”134 and according to Philo, Mos. 2.114, it is “a name which only those whose ears and tongues are purified may hear or speak in the holy place, and no other person, nor in any other place at all.”135 PGM at points assumes that one can learn the secret of the great name(s) and use it (or them) for various ends; cf. e.  g. PGM 4:1610–11: “I call upon your holy and great and hidden names.”136 It remains doubtful, however, that such texts directly relate to ours, for it seems to teach, not that the name is an esoteric secret that might be learned or pronounced by only a few select individuals, but that no one is able to learn God’s true

Μέγας: 12x; ὄνομα: 3x: 6:9; 8:7 (“the name of our [Babylonian] god”), 8; οὐδείς: see on 5:13; δύναμαι: see on 1:8; γινώσκω: see on 2:9. 131 MT: ‫ ;גדול‬LXX: μέγας; cf. Josh 7:9; 2 Sam 12:22; 1 Kgs 8:42; 2 Chr 6:32; Ps 76:1; 99:3; Jer 10:6; 44:26; Ezek 36:23; Mal 1:12; Tob 11:14 ‫ ;א‬3 Macc 2:9; etc.; cf. Jub. 23:21; 1QM 11:2; 4Q451 frag. 1; 4Q542 1:1; 1 En. 53:2; 2 Bar. 5:1; m. Ta῾an. 3:8; 130

m. Sotah 1:4; CIG 3902:18; etc. “The great name” is also a refrain in PGM. Note ˙ also μεγαλύνω + ὄνομα (of God) in LXX Gen 12:2; 1 Clem. 10:3; etc. 132 Goodenough, Symbols, 8:140, however, wrote: the language “instantly recalls the god of Palmyra who was the Unnamed One above his paredroi (the two lower members of his trinity), the Sun and Moon.” 133 See the discussion in Urbach, Sages, 1:124–34. 134 Against Herzer, 4 Baruch, 109, this concerns not the name of the Son of man but the divine name; see Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2, 305–307. 135 Cf. m. Sotah 7:6; m. Tam. 3:8; 7:2; Sifre Num. 39. In m. Sanh. 10:1, those who pro˙ nounce the sacred name with its proper letters have no place in the world to come. Perhaps Midr. Ps. 91:8 (“Why is it that, when the sons of Israel pray in this world, they are not answered? It is because they do not know the ineffable name. But in the time to come, when the Holy One, blessed be he, will let them know his name … they will be answered”) belongs here too: it may presuppose, not that God’s name cannot be known in this world, but that, as a matter of contingent fact, most Israelites do not know it. 136 Cf. PGM 22b:20: “O God of gods, you who have the secret name.”

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

285

name.137 Closer are Philo, Mos. 1.75 (“no name at all can properly be used of me”); Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7:2 (“I praised the one who is not named”); 8:7 (“the one who is not named” dwells in the seventh heaven, along with “his chosen one, whose name is unknown, and no heaven can learn his name”); 1 Apoc. Jas. 24:20–22 (“he is unnameable and ineffable”); Eugnostos the Blessed 371–72 (God is “unnamed”); and PGM 12:239–40 (“Hear me Lord, whose hidden name is unspeakable”); 13:763–64 (“the hidden and unspeakable name—it cannot be uttered by human mouth”); 21:1 (“Hear me Lord, whose hidden name is unspeakable”).138 In any case, one might imagine that Baruch’s inability to speak God’s name matches his inability to get news to Jeremiah, and that God, by contrast, is δύναμις. Given that other elements of our verse are almost certainly Christian, one should keep in mind that some moved ideas about the Tetragrammaton to Jesus’ name. In Rev 19:12, Jesus “has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself.” Gos. Phil. 54:5–13 affirms that “one single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things.” According to Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:5, the Lord Christ is called “Jesus” in the world, but “you cannot hear his name until you have come up from the body.” This is similar to Acts Thom. 163: when Judas is asked for the name of his lord, he says: “You cannot hear his true name at this time … but the name which was bestowed upon him for a season is Jesus.”139 6:10. Baruch’s imploring preface—ἄκουσον τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ δούλου σου140—has a biblical feel, as do so many lines in Baruch.141 That Baruch is God’s “servant” makes him like Jeremiah; and the two are all the more alike in that they both call themselves servants while praying: 1:4 (q.  v.); 3:9; 6:10. The first part of the petition is for knowledge: γενοῦ γνῶσις

137

Cf. the eschatological hope in Isa 52:6: “my people shall know my name.” Haer. 1.21.3 (“the name of the unknown father of the universe”) is of unclear import. 139 Cf. also Gos. Truth 37:7–40:33. 140 Ἀκούω + φωνῆς: see on 3:8; δούλος: see on 1:4. 141 Cf. 1 Sam 28:22 (MT: ‫ ;שמע־נא גם־אתה בקול שפחתך‬LXX: ἄκουσον δὴ φωνῆς τῆς δούλης σου); 1 Kgs 8:30 (MT: ‫ ;ושמעת אל־תחנת עבדך‬LXX: εἰσακούσῃ τῆς δεήσεως τοῦ δούλου σου); Jdt 5:5 (ἀκουσάτω δὴ λόγον ὁ κύριός μου ἐκ στόματος τοῦ δούλου σου); also the much later Antiochus the Monk, Hom. 27 PG 89:1524: εἰσάκουσον, Κύριε, φωνῆς τοῦ δούλου σου. Cf. further Ps 5:3; 28:2; 64:1; 118:149; 130:2; 141:2. 138 Irenaeus,

286

Commentary

ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου.142 The circumlocution, which is verbal decoration and quite unnecessary, is seemingly not about knowledge in general or even religious knowledge in general; it is defined by what follows as knowledge of how to get news to Jeremiah.143 The expression has no close parallel,144 although it lines up with those biblical passages in which the human heart knows or has knowledge.145 Baruch follows with a general question: τί θέλεις ποιήσωμεν.146 It introduces, after the baroque introduction, the concrete request, which repeats the language of v. 8 (q.  v.), where Baruch instructed Abimelech regarding what to pray for: 8  γνωρίσῃ … πῶς δυνησώμεθα ἀποστεῖλαι τὴν φάσιν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰς

Βαβυλῶνα

10 γνῶσις … πῶς ἀποστείλω πρὸς Ἱερεμίαν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα τὴν φάσιν

ταύτην147

6:11. God answers every prayer of the righteous in 4 Baruch,148 and here the answer comes even before the prayer is over: ἔτι δὲ προσευχομένουτοῦ Βαρούχ.149 Over against Jeremiah, with whom God speaks face to face, Baruch talks with an angel: ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε, καὶ λέγει τῷ Βαρούχ.150 Whether the latter is the same angel as that in v. 1 is unclear, but he is clearly “the righteous angel” of v. 6 (q.  v.). An angel appearing as people pray is a Jewish and Christian topos. Note esp. the beginning of the present chapter, where an angel comes in response to Abimelech’s prayer: the same thing is happening again. 6:12. Although one might regard the prefatory Βαρούχ as a mistake due to dittography—v. 11 ends with Βαρούχ—there is a structural parallel near the book’s opening:

142 143

Γνῶσις: 1x; καρδία: see on 6:3.

Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 110. Paralipomena, 733, wonders whether the expression is a Semitism but cites no parallels. 145 Deut 8:5; 1 Kgs 2:44; 3:12; Prov 2:10; Jer 24:7; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:18; etc. 146 Θέλω: see on 3:7; cf. 3:7 (τί θέλεις αὐτὰ ποιήσωμεν;); Gk. LAE 29:2 (τί θέλεις ποιήσωμεν;); Matt 20:32 (τί θέλετε ποιήσω;). 147 On ἀποστέλλω + πρός see on v. 12. 148 Cf. 1:4–5, 6–10; 3:4–8, 9–10. 149 Ἔτι: see on 4:5; προσεύχομαι: see on 6:1. 150 Ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἦλθε: see on 6:1. 144 Schaller,

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

287

God to Jeremiah, 1:1:    Name + characterization (ὁ + ἐκλεκτός + divine genitive, μου) + imperative Angel to Baruch, 6:12:   Name + characterization (ὁ + σύμβουλος + divine genitive, τοῦ φωτός) + imperative

Why Baruch is distinguished as ὁ σύμβουλος τοῦ φωτός—“a phrase of dubious meaning”151—is puzzling, although the fulsome description is of a piece with the flowery redundancy of vv. 9–10. Presumably, σύμβουλος here means “counselor,”152 while φωτός probably refers to God, as seemingly in v. 9. Yet the sense cannot be that Baruch advises God. As Isa 40:13 asks, “Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as his counselor (LXX: σύμβουλος) has instructed him?” Is the meaning that Baruch speaks on behalf of God?153 Or do we have here a genitive of source—“counselor from the light (= from God)”—or a genitive of quality—“enlightening counselor”? One can also identify the light with the law (see on v. 9), so that Baruch is a counselor of Torah, that is, an agent or teacher or disseminator of the law;154 cf. 4 Macc 9:2: συμβούλῳ Μωυσεῖ. Whatever the right interpretation, the qualification of σύμβουλος by φωτός is likely due in part to a desire to repeat φῶς in short compass (vv. 9, 12 bis). The imperative, μὴ μεριμνήσῃς τὸ πῶς ἀποστείλῃς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν,155 serves as comfort: God will take care of the matter. The construction, μή + imperative of μεριμνάω + πῶς, appears to be confined to 4 Bar. 6:12; Matt 10:19; Luke 12:11; and Christian texts citing Matthew and Luke. The angel clarifies by explaining that an eagle will come early tomorrow: ἔρχεται

So Goodenough, Symbols, 8:140. Σύμβουλος: 1x; φῶς: see on v. 9. Arm 993 (= 920) turns “the counselor of light” into the angel. 152 As in LXX Isa 3:3; 19:11; 4 Macc 9:2; Arist. 264; Jos. Asen. 1:3; CMC 24:8; 32:14– 16. LXX Jeremiah does not use it of Baruch. Although the sense of “symbol for/of light” is attested for σύμβουλος + φῶς (e.  g. Philo, Leg. 3.167; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.24.164.4), that can have nothing to do with our line. Ps.-Gregory of Nyssa, Liber de cogn. dei PG 130.265, speaks of Jesus as “God’s counselor”; cf. Isa 9:6. 153 Cf. προφήτη τοῦ Κυρίου as in LXX 3 Βασ 18:22; 2 Chr 18:6; etc. Goodenough, Symbols, 8:140, takes the meaning to be that Baruch “shares in the councils of the light,” which would qualify him to teach. 154 So Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1752; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 100; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2672. 155 Μεριμνάω: 1x; πῶς: see on 6:8; ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; followed by πρός: 6:10, 12, 19 bis; 8:9; while the construction appears in classical Greek, it is esp. common in the LXX for ‫ שלח‬+ ‫אל‬: Gen 38:25; Num 24:12; Jer 21:1; etc. 151

288

Commentary

γὰρ πρός σε ὥρᾳ τοῦ φωτὸς αὔριον ἀετός.156 The agreement with the time of day when the Chaldeans entered Jerusalem (4:1) is perhaps a hint at reversal: the dawn that once brought an end now marks a beginning. When 7:1 narrates the arrival of the eagle, however, the time is not noted. The angel’s assurance—καὶ σὺ ἀποστείλῃς πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν—repeats the language of vv. 8 and 10 (q.  v.): the angel makes Baruch’s words his own. Implicit is the proverbial notion that eagles are swift,157 so the news will get to Jeremiah as soon as possible.158 In Jer 29:1, Jeremiah writes to the elders, the priests, the prophets, and all the people in Babylon. By contrast, Baruch’s letter is addressed solely to Jeremiah, even if it contains what he is to say to all. The prophet is the representative and leader of all those in exile. 6:13. The content of the angel’s message, that is, what the angel wants Baruch to write—γράψον οὖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι159—is unexpected. Baruch has asked for help only in getting news about Abimelech to Babylon. God, however, will make Baruch’s desire the opportunity to return “the sons of Israel” from exile. Like the letter in canonical Jeremiah, God promises return, and “a future with hope” (Jer 29:10–14). Note that λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ occurs often in the HB/OT, especially the Pentateuch.160 It is yet one more example of our author’s fondness for biblical language. That Baruch is to write a letter coheres with his image in Jewish tradition. In canonical Jeremiah, he is the prophet’s scribe. In the apocryphal Baruch, he composes a book to be read to the Jews in Babylon. In

Ἔρχεται γάρ: see on 6:3; ὥρα: see on 1:10; φῶς: see on 6:9; for φῶς used of dawn see Polybius 1.30.10; Plutarch, Cam. 34.4; LXX 4 Βασ 7:9; Isa 58:8; Theod. Dan 6:19; Wis 16:28; αὔριον: 1x; ἀετός: 15x; the noun is anarthrous only here; all subsequent occurrences refer to the bird already introduced. 157 Cf. Deut 28:49; 2 Sam 1:23; Jer 4:13; 48:40; Hab 1:8; Homer, Il. 24.292, 310 (ταχὺν ἄγγελον); Bacchylides, Epin. 5:18. 158 On the nature and symbolism of the eagle see on 7:2. 159 Cf. the command of the risen Jesus to write letters in Rev 1:19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14. Note also Herm. Vis. 5:5, where an angel commands the seer to write, and CMC 58:1–5: “what the angels revealed to him and said to write down for a memoir.” On letters from heaven in antiquity and early Christianity see Rudolf Stübe, Der Himmelsbrief: Ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Religionsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1918), 31–39. Γράφω: 4x: 6:13, 16, 17; 7:23—always with ἐπιστολή; ἐπιστολή: 11x; ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5 160 For ‫ דבר אל־בני ישראל‬see Exod 14:2, 15; Lev 1:2; 7:23; 15:2; 18:2; Num 5:6, 12; 15:38; Josh 20:2; Ezek 3:1; 33:2; etc. Λαλέω: 14x; τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ: see on 1:1. 156

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

289

2 Baruch, he writes letters both to the Israelites in Babylon and to the nine and a half tribes in the diaspora.161 In preparation for their return, the Israelites are to separate themselves from foreigners: ὁ γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν ξένος, ἀφορισθήτω;162 cf. Ezra 10:11 (“separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from foreign wives”); Neh 9:2 (“And the Israelites separated themselves from all foreigners”); LXX Isa 52:11 (“Depart, depart, go out from there and touch no unclean thing; go out from its midst; be separated [ἀφορίσθητε])”; Jub. 22:16 (“separate yourselves from the Gentiles and do not eat with them … And do not have associates of theirs”).163 That this prohibition is almost the exclusive content of what the angel says underlines its importance. The noun, ξένος, which several times translates ‫ ירכנ‬in the LXX, here refers to a non-Israelite.164 In the background is the holiness code, which draws a sharp distinction between the holy people of Israel, descended from Abraham, and all other people; cf. Lev 20:26: “You shall be holy to me; for I the Lord am holy, and have separated (LXX: ἀφορίσας) you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” This theologoumenon, which held intermarriage and cultural assimilation to negate holiness, is prominent in Ezra and Nehemiah, which recount the return of the exiles to Jerusalem;165 and many post-biblical texts—notwithstanding the Book of Ruth and the allowance made in Deut 21:10–14—expressly disapprove of intermarriage.166

161

Yet 2 Baruch relates the content of only one letter. On this problem see Bogaert, Baruch, 1:78–80. He rightly rejects the idea that Baruch’s letter in 4 Baruch preserves the letter not found in 2 Baruch. 162 γενόμενος: only here in 4 Baruch; ξένος: 2x: 6:13, 22; ἀφορίζω: 2x: 6:13, 14. 163 Note the continuity with Ezra and Nehemiah, where divorce “rests with each single individual to determine for himself whether he will comply with Ezra’s demand or disregard it”; so Julian Morgenstern, “Two Prophecies from the Fourth Century B.  C. and the Evolution of Yom Kippur,” HUCA 24 (1952), 10. 164 But Doering, “Diaspora Letters,” 62 n. 85, takes the meaning of ξένος to be “an apostate.” 165 Cf. esp. Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3; Ezra 9:1–10:5; Neh 10:28–31; 13:1–3, 23–27. The issue of mixed marriages is, in the Bible, associated with the return from exile, even if the details differ from 4 Baruch. 166 E.  g. Jub. 16:17–18; 20:4; 22:16–20; 25:1–10; 27:10; 30:7–17; 11QTemple 2:12–15; 57:15–19; 4QMMT frags. 6–13; 4Q542 1; 1 En. 6–11; Theodotus frag. 4 apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.22.4–6; T. Levi 9:10; 14:6; T. Jud. 11:3–5; 14:6; Philo, Leg. 3.29; LAB 9:5; 18:13–14; 21:1; 30:1; 43:5; 44:7; 45:3; T. Job 45:3; Jos. Asen. 7:5; 8:5; Acts 10:28; Josephus, Ant. 8.191; 18.345; b. ̔Abod Zar. 36b. See further Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Christian Frevel,

290

Commentary

Our author, who makes the demand for separation the chief content of the angelic revelation, was clearly against intermarriage in his own time and place. His was the view of Tob 4:12: “take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brothers.” The separation is to last fifteen days: ποιήσωσι ιεʹ ἡμέρας.167 The text assumes that uncleanness will persist for two weeks. Perhaps the appropriate parallel here is Lev 12:5 (“But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation”), so that, on the fifteenth day, the people will be clean. But a period of uncleanness lasting seven days is much more common,168 so Delling and Schaller think in terms of “Toraherschärfung.”169 That Baruch sends fifteen figs (7:8) along with the instructions about fifteen days may be a coincidence, or it may indicate the author’s fondness for the number. After the people have prepared themselves, God will lead them back to Jerusalem: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν, λέγει Κύριος.170 Not only is the concluding λέγει Κύριος biblical, being characteristic esp. of LXX Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Amos, but εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς with God as subject is associated with the exodus from Egypt and the return to the land after the Babylonian exile.171 There is in addition a likely allusion to LXX Jer 3:14:172 4 Bar  6:13           καὶ  … εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν, λέγει

            Κύριος

LXX Jer 3:14 λέγει Κύριος … καἰ   εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς Σιών

ed., Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period (LHB/OTS 547; London: T. & T. Clark, 2011). Hayes includes discussion of the rabbinic materials, which in general see no issue with marrying a Gentile convert. 167 Ποιέω: see on 6:5; ἡμέρα: see on 4:4. Arm 993 (= 920) makes it sixty-five days. 168 See Lev 12:2; 14:8–9; 15:13, 19, 24, 28; Num 19:11, 14, 16; 31:19; 11QTemple 49:6–7, 19–20; 50:4, 13. 169 Delling, Lehre, 44 n. 13; Schaller, Paralipomena, 733. 170 Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα: see on 3:8; εἰσάγω: 4x: 6:13; 7:22; 8:3, 9; πόλις: see on 1:1; πόλις ὑμῶν: 1x; λέγει Κύριος: 3x: 6:13, 14, 22. 171 LXX Exod 6:8; Ezek 36:24 (εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν γῆν ὑμῶν); 37:12. Cf. also Bar 5:6; T. Jos. 20:1 (εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς γῆν ἐπαγγελίας). 172 According to Schaller, “Greek Version,” 80, “the connection … is unmistakable.”

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

291

Note that λέγει Κύριος is on the lips of an angel also in LXX passages173 and that our chapter emphasizes the theme of God’s speech: 13 λέγει Κύριος 14 λέγει Κύριος 20 εἶπε Κύριος 22 λέγει Κύριος

The authoritative claim will, in ch. 7, be vindicated by the letter carrier’s resurrection of a corpse. 6:14. God, through the angel, declares that those who refuse to separate themselves from Babylon will not return with the others: ὁ μὴ ἀφοριζόμενος ἐκ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος, ὦ Ἰερεμία, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν;174 cf. LXX Lev 20:26 (ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν ὁ ἀφορίσας ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν); Isa 37:33 (λέγει Κύριος … οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν). Indeed, God—note the repetition from v. 13 of the authorizing formula, λέγει Κύριος—will punish those who mingle with outsiders by turning the Babylonians against them: ἐπιτιμῶ αὐτοῖς, τοῦ μὴ ἀποδεχθῆναι αὐτοὺς αὖθις ὑπὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνιτῶν, λέγει Κύριος.175 The warning is realized in ch. 8, which identifies the Samaritans as Israelites who wedded foreigners. It is natural, as just indicated, to identify “those who do not separate themselves from Babylon” with Israelites having foreign spouses. Idolatry, however, is also a concern of our book (7:25–26), and Herzer suggests that here the command to separate refers to the worship of foreign idols.176 In line with this, idolatry is a major matter of the book of Jeremiah and of another diaspora letter, the Epistle of Jeremiah.177 In any case, the Bible 173 174

LXX Gen 22:15–16; Judg 2:1; Zech 1:14, 16, 17; 3:7.

Ἀφορίζω: see on 6:13; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7; εἰς τὴν πόλιν: see on 4:1; οὐ μὴ … πόλιν, with its emphatic οὐ μή, recurs in 8:5. For the vocative ὦ before Jeremiah’s

name see on 5:30, and for God addressing Jeremiah by name see on 1:1. Ἐπιτιμάω: 1x; for this sense with God as agent see 3 Macc 2:24; 1 En. 98:5; ἀποδέχομαι: 1x; αὖθις: 1x; Βαβυλωνίτης: 3x: 6:14; 8:5, 6; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): only 4 Baruch; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; the form is rare, occurring otherwise in Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Isa. PG 70:762; multiple recensions of Ps.-Callisthenes’ History of Alexander the Great; and a few other late texts; λέγει Κύριος: see on 6:13. Note the disagreement between the singular ὁ ἀφοριζόμενος and the plural αὐτοῖς. 176 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 114. He cites Lev 19:4; 26:1; Deut 27:15; Ps 96:4–5; 97:7; Isa 42:8, 17; Jer 2:4–13; 4:1–2. Cf. also Deut 7:1–6; Judg 3:1–6; 1 Kgs 11:1–8. 177 Note also the polemic against idolatry in Jeremiah’s letter to Babylon in Tg. Jer. 10:11–12. 175

292

Commentary

closely links the prohibition of intermarriage with the problem of idolatry178 and since, in the second temple period, “intermarriage would have been relatively uncommon,” it is possible “that polemics against intermarriage may have served as rhetorical shorthand for denunciation of assimilation of all kinds.”179 The angel has said nothing about the miracles associated with Abimelech and his figs. Nor will Baruch’s letter to Jeremiah as set forth in the following verses narrate those marvels. This must be again for the sake of economy. The text implies that readers or hearers of ch. 7 will assume that Jeremiah knows what they know, especially given 6:10 (“How shall I send this news to Jeremiah in Babylon?”) as well as the fact that the figs the prophet receives would mean nothing unless accompanied by an explanation. 6:15. The line formally resembles 1:11 (q.  v.): 6:15 καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ ἄγγελος, ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Βαρούχ 1:11        ταῦτα εἰπῶν ὁ Κύριος,        ἀπῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰερεμίου180

6:16. This verse, which offers details that are strictly unnecessary, adds perhaps a “realistic touch.”181 Baruch, evidently without leaving the cave, sends Abimelech—the object must be supplied—into “the marketplace of the Gentiles”: ὁ δὲ Βαροὺχ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν ἐθνῶν.182 The implication of “the marketplace of the Gentiles,” which expresses a Jewish point of view, may be that Jerusalem is now in the hands of foreigners and defiled; cf. 7:32. That is, the public markets of Jerusalem—one envisages streets full of shops, perhaps not wholly unlike parts of modern Jerusalem—are gone, replaced by Gentile businesses. Note that, in 1 Esdr 2:18, returning Jews seek to repair Jerusalem’s market places.

178

Note e.  g. Exod 34:11–16; Num 25:1–9. Cf. Basser, “Weeping,” 192: “straying after foreign women and straying after foreign gods are linked concepts. Not only is one a metaphor for the other, but the one actually leads to the others.” 179 So Tracy M. Lemos, “Intermarriage,” in EDEJ, 769. 180 Cf. also Gk. LAE 43:9 (ταῦτα εἰπὼν ὁ ἄγγελος ἀνἠλθεν); Luke 1:38 (καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος); Acts 10:7 (ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ λαλῶν αὐτῷ); 12:10 (ἀπέστη ὁ ἄγγελος ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ). For ἄγγελος see on 3:2, and for ταῦτα εἰπών + subject + verb signifying departure see on 4:10. 181 So Herzer, 4 Baruch, 112. 182 Ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; ἀγορά: 1x; ἔθνος: 3x: 6:16; 7:32; 9:18;

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

293

Harris urged that “the market place of the Gentiles” refers to a once well-known area.183 After the second Jewish revolt, many Jews were sold into slavery at Terebinth (near Hebron), which was famous for the oak of Mamre associated with Abraham.184 Sozomen, H.  E. 2.4, reports on an annual festival there185 while Jerome refers to its marketplace (see n. 184); and Harris, appealing to a passage in the Chronicon Paschale,186 speculated that Hadrian himself established the fair at Terebinth, or at least that it was established immediately after the second war. He then went on: “If our supposition be correct that the book belongs to the close of the Hadrian War, it is certain that the thoughts of the writer must have turned to the market where the Jews were sold into slavery.”187 Bogaert followed Harris and called attention to rabbinic sources which refer to the fair of Botnah, which he identified with the fair at Terebinth.188

183 Harris, Baruch,

32–35 (borrowing a suggestion from F. J. A. Hort in a personal communication; cf. Harris, “Introductions,” 133). So too Mader, Mambre, 1:285; Riaud, Paralipomènes,130; Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 264 n. 58. 184 Gen 13:18; 18:1; 1QapGen 21:19; Josephus, Bell. 4.533; Ant. 1.196; etc. For the story of what happened there after the war see Jerome, Comm. Jer. 31:15 (“under Hadrian, innumerable men and women, people of all ages, were sold in the mercato Terebinth. And so it is impossible for Jews to visit this well-known marketplace”); Comm. Zech. 11:4–5 (“after Hadrian’s victory over the Jews, thousands were sold at the tabernacle of Abraham, where they now hold a market each year”). 185 “Here the inhabitants of the country and of the areas all around Palestine, the Phoenicians, and the Arabians assemble annually during the summer season to keep a brilliant feast; and many others, both buyers and sellers, resort there because of the fair.” Sozomen adds that “the Jews” attend the feast—Harris disputed this—and further that “the place is open country, and arable, and without houses, with the exception of the buildings around Abraham’s old oak and the well he prepared.” 186 Ed. Dindorff, p. 474: “Hadrian went to Jerusalem, and he took the Jews captive, and going to the place called Terenbinth he established a festival …” As Harris notes, there are problems here: this is dated to the year 119 CE, which is impossible, and the Chronicle has Hadrian himself in Palestine. 187 Harris, Baruch, 35. 188 y. ’Abod. Zar. 39d (1:4): “They forbid only the fair (‫—יריד‬the word can mean either ‘fair’ or ‘market’) at Botnah (‫)בוטנה‬, as it was stated: There are three fairs, the fair at Gaza, the fair at Acco, and the fair at Botnah. The clearest of them [that is, the most idolatrous] is the fair at Botnah.” Cf. Gen. Rab. 47:10. See further Bogaert, Baruch, 1:324–27, who (following Harris, Baruch, 34) identifies the place of the “oak” in 2 Bar. 77:18 with the marketplace of 4 Bar. 6:16. He does this in part because the passage about the three fairs is, in Gen. Rab. 47:10, immediately followed by lines about the appearance of God to Abraham (at Mamre) in Gen 18:1. Adolf Schlatter, Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians (BFCT 3; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1897), 29 n.

294

Commentary

While all this may be correct, doubts remain, for (i) no extant text calls the place at Terebinth “the market(place) of the Gentiles”; (ii) Baruch is, in our book, seemingly just outside Jerusalem, so one would expect Abimelech’s errand to be there or in the immediate vicinity; (iii) the Jewish edition of 4 Baruch may have appeared before the second Jewish war;189 (iv) if one wishes to look behind our story for post-70 circumstances, it is relevant that the Roman occupation of Jerusalem after 70 and the accompanying civilian settlements had Gentile shops;190 and (v) our line, as we have seen, requires no explanation beyond its immediate literary context. Upon arriving at the market, Abimelech is to purchase papyrus and ink and then take them back to the cave, where Baruch will write to Jeremiah: ἤνεγκε191 χάρτην καὶ μέλανα, καὶ ἔγραψεν ἐπιστολὴν περιέχουσαν οὕτως.192 Canonical Jeremiah is in the background. Not only does it speak of Baruch’s ability to write (Jer 36:4, 32; 45:1), but the book refers also to paper (LXX 43:2: λαβὲ σεαυτῷ χαρτίον βιβλίου καὶ γράψον; cf. v. 23) and ink (MT 36:18: “I [Baruch] wrote them with ink [‫ ]בדיו‬on the scroll”). If, moreover, Baruch writes to Jeremiah in Babylon, in Jer 29:1–23 the prophet writes to Jews in Babylon. Once again, then, the two figures are assimilated. There is, however, a notable difference in their letters. The prophet’s epistle encourages exiles to “build houses” and to “take wives and have sons and daughters” and to “seek the welfare” of Babylon (Jer 29:5–7). Baruch’s missive, by contrast, is all about heeding the imperative to separate from Babylon (vv. 13–14). Nonetheless, there is no theological conflict here. It is rather a question of different settings. Jeremiah offers guidance for life at 1, had already (on the basis of his understanding of ‫ הבטנה‬in t. Šeb. 5:11 and m. Šeb. 7:5) identified Botnah and Mambre. Cf. Mader, Mambre, 1:290: the ‫ בוטנה‬of y. ’Abod. Zar. 39d (1:4) and Gen. Rab. 47:10 is the equivalent of ‫בוטמא‬ = “terebinth.” 189 See the Introduction, pp. 57–66. 190 Cf. E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 346. 191 The subject, Abimelech, must again be supplied. 192 Cf. CMC 49:6–8: γράψον … ἐν χάρτηι. Φέρω: see on 3:15; χάρτης: 2x: 6:16; 7:11; the word here means “sheet of papyrus paper,” not “papyrus roll”; see BDAG, s.  v.; μέλας: 1x; for its natural conjoining with χάρτης see T. Abr. RecLng. 12:8; 2 John 12; 3 John 13; Synesius of Cyrene, Ep. 157; etc.; γράφω: see on 6:13; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:13; περιέχω: 1x; for the sense, “have as contents,” see LXX 1 Macc 15:1–2 (ἐπιστολάς … περιέχουσαι); 2 Macc 9:18 (ἐπιστολήν … περιέχουσαν δὲ οὕτως); Acts 15:23 v.  l. (ἐπιστολὴν … περιέχουσαν); 23:25 v.  l. (ἔγραψεν δὲ ἐπιστολὴν περιέχουσαν); BGU 4 1047 3:11 (ἐπιστολὰν περιέχουσαν); 1 19:10 = Chrest. Mitt. 85 (περιέχων … οὕτως); οὕτως: see on 6:6.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

295

the beginning of exile. Baruch sends instructions on what to do now that the time to depart has come. 6:17. The letter that ends the chapter—a letter that is thoroughly bound to its narrative context193 and could not circulate independently194—falls into three parts. Verses 17–19 address Jeremiah. Verses 21–22, which relate what Jeremiah should say, in effect address the exiles (“you did not keep,” “your heart was hardened,” “you were stubborn,” etc.). Verse 23, which closes the epistle, returns to addressing Jeremiah: “You will test them.” Despite the derogatory second person plurals in vv. 21–22, the letter also features the first person plural: “God has not abandoned us,” “the Lord had mercy upon our tears,” “the covenant he established with our fathers,” “the God of Israel, who brought us out of the land of Egypt.” These first person plurals unite Baruch and Jeremiah with the people, on whose behalf God is about to act. Baruch styles himself God’s “servant”: Βαροὺχ ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ γράφει τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ, ὁ ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος.195 This accords with the tradition of subordinates using “servant” or “slave” for themselves in epistolary prescripts.196 It also assimilates Baruch to Jeremiah; cf. 1:4. Γράφει is most naturally taken to imply that Baruch, who was known as a scribe (Jer 36:4, 18, 26, 27, 32; 45:1), wrote the letter with his own hand; cf. Bar 1:1: οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι … οὓς ἔγραψεν Βαρουχ.

193

Narratives often incorporate letters, whether fictional or not; cf. 2 Sam 11:14–15; 1 Kgs 21:9–10; 2 Kgs 10:1–3, 6; 2 Chr 2:11–16; Ezra 5:7–17; Jer 29:1–23; Add Esth 13 (B), 16 (B); 1 Macc 10:10–13; 8:23–32; 10:17–24, 25–45; 11:30–37; 12:5–18, 19–23; 14:20–23; 2 Macc 9:19–27; 11:16–21, 22–26, 27–33, 34–38; 3 Macc 3:12– 29; 7:1–9; Acts 15:23–29; 2 Bar. 78–86. 194 Contrast 2 Baruch 78–86, which circulated independent of its context. 195 Ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ: see on 1:4 and 6:10; γράφω: see on 6:13; αἰχμαλωσία: 1x; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7; cf. 1 Esdr 2:11 (ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος); Ps.-Justin, Quaest. et resp. ed. Morel, p. 417 (ἐν τῇ αἰχμαλωσίᾳ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.21.127.1 (ἡ αἰχμαλωσία εἰς Βαβυλῶνα). According to Taatz, Briefe, 79, the verb is unusual in a prescript. So also Klauck, Letters, 284. But note LXX Est 3:13a: “The Great king of Assyria τάδε γράφει.” Schaller, Paralipomena, 734, refers to a parallel in a Coptic ostracon printed in Deissmann, Light, 222: “I Samuel and Jacob and Aaron, we write to …” 196 Note e.   g. the judicial plea in the Hebrew Yavneh-Yam Ostracon from Mesad Hashavyahu: “Let my lord, the governor, listen to the word of his servant.” For examples from Aramaic letters see J.  A. Fitzmyer, “Notes on Aramaic Epistolography,” JBL 93 (1974), 211, 213. Δοῦλος is also prominent in the prefaces of NT letters: Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Tit 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 1.

296

Commentary

The letter opens with a call to rejoice: χαῖρε καὶ ἀγαλλιῶ; cf. the use of ἀγάλλω in v. 3: the time to mourn is over.197 One recalls that χαίρειν is exceedingly common in LXX letter openings and in Hellenistic letters in general.198 The combination here, however, is likely less a greeting than a call to rejoice,199 so that Jeremiah will be glad like Baruch; cf. v. 3: εὐφραίνου καὶ ἀγάλλου.200 The occasion is that God has not forsaken Baruch and Jeremiah—ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἀφῆκεν ἡμᾶς201—and perhaps, implicitly, all who have survived the entire exile, including Abimelech; cf. Jer 51:5: “Israel and Judah have not been widowed by their God, the Lord of hosts.” Although the statement could have ended there, Baruch specifies that God did not allow his servants to die in their grief over Jerusalem: ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τούτου λυπουμένους διὰ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐρημωθεῖσαν καὶ ὑβρισθεῖσαν.202 The formulation, ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τούτου, takes up a popular dualistic expression: at death the soul leaves the body.203

197

Χαίρω: 3x: 6:17; 7:2; 9:1; ἀγαλλιάω: 1x.

198 1 Esdr

6:8; 8.9; 1 Macc 10:18, 25; 11:30, 32; 12:6, 20; 13:36; 14:20; 15:2, 16; 2 Macc 1:1; 11:16, 22, 27, 34; Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas 1:1; BGU 1 24, 33, 50; O. Claud. 1 138, 141; etc. About two thirds of Greek papyrus letters open with χαίρειν. Cf. the opening word of Barnabas: χαίρετε (1:1). 199 Cf. Klauck, Letters, 284: “There are … other letter prescripts with the imperative χαῖρε, ‘be greeted,’ as here, instead of the infinitive χαίρειν, even though they are comparatively few. But they usually place the χαῖρε at the beginning, followed by an address to the recipient in the vocative [cf. e.  g. P.Oxy. 12.1492]. Here the order is the usual one of sender, addressee, greeting, but because the χαῖρε is immediately followed by the verb καὶ ἀγαλλιῶ, the unit must be translated as ‘rejoice and be glad,’ instead of, for example, ‘greetings and rejoice.’” 200 Cf. also LXX Hab 3:18 (ἀγαλλιάσομαι, χαρήσομαι); Tob 13:15 (χάρηθι καὶ ἀγαλλίασαι); 1 En. 97:13 (χαρήσονται καὶ ἀγαλλιάσονται); Matt 5:12 (χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε); 1 Pet 4:13 (χαρῆτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι); Rev 19:7 (χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν); Acts Thom. 107 (χαίρων καὶ ἀγαλλιῶν). 201 ὁ Θεός: see on 1:1; ἀφίημι: see on 2:3. 202 Ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τούτου: see on 4:9; σῶμα: 6:17; 9:11, 13; λυπἐω: see on 3:9; πόλις: see on 4:8; ἐρημόω: see on 4:6; the word often describes cities in the LXX: Isa 24:10; Jer 33:9; Ezek 29:12; etc.; ὑβρίζω: 2x: 5:23; 6:17; here the sense is “to treat shamefully,” as in 2 Macc 14:42; 3 Macc 6:9; T. Benj. 5:4; Matt 22:6. For πόλιν as its object see Sib. Or. 1:398; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 33.44. 203 Cf. Gk. LAE 31:1 (ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος); 32:4 (ἐξῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος); T. Abr. RecShrt. 4:9 (ἐξελθεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος); 7:19 (ἐξέρχομαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος); 8:13 (ἐξερχομένην ἐκ τοῦ σώματος); Corp. herm. Περὶ νοῦ κοινοῦ πρὸς Τάτ 12 (ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος); Acts Phil. 142 (ἐξέλθω ἐκ τοῦ σώματος; cf. 140; passio 36); Sallustius, Deis et mun. 12:6 (τοῦ σῶματος ἐξελθούσας; cf. 19:2); b. Yoma 20b (‫)שיוצאה מן הגוף‬, 21a (‫ ;)שיוצאה מן הגוף‬and the rabbinic use of ‫ יצא‬+ ‫נשמה‬, as

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

297

The idea of a letter written from an authority in Jerusalem to the diaspora goes back to Jeremiah 29, where the prophet writes what the LXX labels an ἐπιστολή to the exiles in Babylon. Other examples of what has been called the “’Diasporabrief”204 include Baruch 6 (= the Epistle of Jeremiah); 2 Macc 1:1–9, 10–2:18; canonical James; 2 Baruch 78–87; t. Sanh. 2:6; and Tg. Jer. 10:11. In accord with these other letters, ours features paraenetic elements, contains strong prophetic motifs, proffers encouragement, refers to the Torah, appeals to God’s merciful nature, promises a divinely-wrought deliverance, threatens judgment for the unrighteous205 and, on the whole, fits the characterization of diaspora letters offered by Lutz Doering: “attribution to an authoritative addressor; communication with Jews/Judeans in the Diaspora, usually in large areas and broadly addressed;206 contents dealing with instruction or exhortation; a purpose aiming at strengthening the unity and unique identity of the people of God; and … the leading role of Jerusalem.”207 6:18. Baruch has an explanation for God’s compassion: διὰ τοῦτο ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ὁ Κύριος ἐπὶ τῶν δακρύων ἡμῶν, καὶ ἐμνήσθη τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἔστησε μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακώβ.208 Tears and weeping are often mentioned in connection with the

in m. Šeqal. 6:2; b. Šabb. 105b. This sort of dualism also sometimes appears on burial inscriptions; see Richmond Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1968), 48–55, 304–313. 204 For this genre or subgenre see Franz Schnider and Werner Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTSD 11; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 34–41; Doering, “Diaspora Letters”; idem, Letters, 430–34; Klein, Bewährung, 115–81. 205 Paraenetic elements: Jer 29:5–28; Ep Jer 2–73; 2 Bar. 83:1–86:1. Prophetic motifs: Jer 29:5–28; Ep Jer 2–73; Jas 4:13–5:6; 2 Baruch 78–87. Encouragement: Jer 29: 11–14; 1 Macc 1:2–6; Jas 1:2–4; 5:7–11; 2 Bar. 78:2–7; 81:1–82:1; 85:3–9. Torah: 2 Macc 1:4; 2:2–3; Jas 1:25; 2:8–12; 2 Bar. 84:1–11. God’s merciful nature: 2 Macc 1:2, 24–25; Jas 1:5, 13, 17–18; 2 Bar. 78:3; 81:4. Divinely-wrought deliverance: Jer 29:10–14; 2 Macc 1:27–29; 2:7–8, 18; Jas 1:12; 2:5; 5:7–9; 2 Baruch 78–85. Judgment for the unrighteous: Jer 29:21–23; Jas 2:13; 3:6; 5:1–6; 2 Bar. 82:1–83:23; 85:9–15. 206 Although our letter is addressed formally to Jeremiah, part of its contents is for the exiles in general. 207 Doering, “Diaspora Letters,” 44. Cf. Whitters, Epistle, 86. 208 Διὰ τοῦτο: 2x: 6:18; 8:7; the expression seems superfluous; the translation of Sparks and Thornhill entails that it is governed by ἀγαλλιῶ in v. 17: “rejoice because the Lord has had compassion …”; σπλαγχνίζω: 1x; for God as the subject of this verb see T. Zeb. 8:1; T. Job 26:5; Gk. LAE 9:3; 27:2; Acts Paul 22; ὁ Κύριος: see on 1:4;

298

Commentary

destruction of Jerusalem and the exile.209 Baruch’s appeal to the covenant with the forefathers is conventional in three ways. First, the expression, “the covenant he established with our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” is a variation of a well-known if not precisely fixed formula; see Exod 2:24; Deut 9:5 (LXX: τὴν διαθήκην, ἣν ὤμοσεν τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν, τῷ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τῷ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τῷ Ἰακώβ); 4 Βασ 13:23; 2 Macc 1:2d.210 Second, references to God “remembering” a covenant are numerous in the literature.211 Third, God remembering in particular the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is elsewhere explanation of or the ground of hope for God’s deliverance of oppressed Israel; cf. esp. 2 Kgs 13:23 (“the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them; nor has he cast them from his presence until now”); Bar 2:34–35 (“I will bring them again into the land which I swore to give to their fathers, to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob … I will make an everlasting covenant with them to be their God and they shall be my people; and I will never again remove my people Israel from the land which I have given them”); CD 1:4–5 (“remembering the covenant of the forefathers, he left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed”); T. Mos. 4:5–6 (“God will remember them because of the covenant which he made with their fathers and he will openly show his compassion. And in those times he will inspire a king to have pity on them and send them home to their own land”; cf. 3:9); Jer. Apocr. 34:13 (“Remember the covenant which you made with our fathers, saying, ‘If your sons keep the covenant, I will humble their enemies’”).212 Within the current context, δάκρυον: see on 2:5; as the object of σπλαγχνίζω it is unusual; μιμνήσκω: see on 5:20; διαθήκη: 1x; ἵστημι: see on 3:2; πατέρων κτλ.: see on 4:9. 209 See 2:10; 4:5, 10; also Ps 137:1; Jer 31:9, 15; 50:4; Lam 1:2, 16; 2:18; 3:48; Bar 1:5. On weeping and mourning in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 19–21. 210 Cf. also the combination of ἵστημι + διαθήκη (cf. ‫ קום‬+ ‫ )ברית‬in LXX Gen 6:18; 9:11; 17:7, 9, 19; 21:27; Exod 6:4; Lev 26:9; Deut 8:18; 9:5; 28:69; 1 Chr 16:16–17; 1 Macc 2:27; Ecclus 17:12; 44:20; 45:7, 24; Bar 2:35. 211 Cf. Gen 9:15–16; Exod 2:24; 6:5; Lev 26:42, 45; Ps 105:8; 106:45; Ezek 16:60; CD 6:2; 4Q370 1:7; 4Q509 frags. 97–98 7; 1 Macc 4:10; 2 Macc 1:2; T. Mos. 3:9; LAB 19:2; Luke 1:72; t. Ber. 6:5; etc. The Hebrew idiom is ‫ זכר‬+ ‫ ;ברית‬cf. CD 1:4; 6:2 = 4Q267 frag. 2 7; 1Q34bis frag. 3 2:5; 4Q370 1:7. 212 Cf. 3:9–10; 4:2; 11:17; also Exod 2:24; 6:4–5; Ezek 16:60; 1 Macc 4:10; Ezekiel the Tragedian frag. 9 apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.29.10; Jub. 48:7–8; Apos. Con. 8:12:24–26. In Jer. Apocr. 16:14, the return from exile is explained with these words: “Afterward I shall have mercy upon them because of their fathers.” On the foundational nature of the covenant for Jews at the turn of the era and later see E. P.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

299

the appeal to the covenant God made with the fathers is particularly apt because the narrative about its instigation—Gen 15:13–14, 18–21—has God promising to the patriarch’s descendants deliverance from oppression and return to the land.213 6:19. The purpose of this verse—ἀπέστειλε γὰρ πρός με τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἶπέ μοι τοὺς λόγους τούτους, οὓς ἀπέστειλα πρός σε214—is to authorize Baruch’s message, to establish its authority. If he is sending a message to Jeremiah that contains the words of a divinely-commissioned angel (see on v. 11), then Jeremiah must take heed. The verse may also be designed to help readers or hearers who might wonder about the connection between vv. 13–14 and vv. 17–23. In the former, the angel tells Baruch what to write to Jeremiah. In the latter, we read what Baruch wrote, and there is little overlap between the two—although the imperative in v. 21 to listen to what comes from Jeremiah’s mouth presumably includes the directions of the angel in vv. 13–14. One guesses that our author, whose narrative is often compressed, wished to avoid needless redundancy215 and at the same time wanted to make it clear that Baruch obeyed the angel and wrote what he had been told to write.216 The phrase, τοὺς λόγους τούτους, οὓς ἀπέστειλα, has a biblical feel;217 cf. LXX Exod 4:28 (τοὺς λόγους κυρίου, οὓς ἀπέστειλεν); 4 Βασ 19:16 (τοὺς λόγους … οὓς ἀπέστειλεν); Isa 37:4

Sanders, “Covenantal Nomism Revisited,” in Comparing Judaism and Christianity: Common Judaism, Paul, and the Inner and Outer in Ancient Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2016), 51–83. 213 Note also Exod 6:4; Jub. 15:9–10; LAB 9:4 (God did not “establish a covenant with our fathers in vain”). 214 Ἀποστέλλω + πρός: see on 6:12; ἄγγελος: 11x; ἀποστέλλω + ἄγγελον + πρός was a common secular idiom used in connection with an authority sending a messenger, an idiom that the LXX adopted, but which is here uncharacteristically used of God sending an angel; yet cf. 4 Ezra 4:1 (angelus qui missus est ad me); 7:1 (angelus qui missus fuerat ad me). 215 The short Greek recension and slav T1 go further and exclude the contents of vv. 13–14 and 17–23 almost entirely. Similarly, both arm 144 and 345 omit the detailed contents of the letter and speak only of getting to Jeremiah news of the “wonderful” thing that has happened to Abimelech. 216 But Herzer, 4 Baruch, 111, sees more here: “That the final content of Baruch’s letter goes beyond this instruction (6:17–23) demonstrates once again that Baruch is the ‘advisor’ or ‘counselor’ as regards the law, since he clarifies and interprets the angel’s instructions.” 217 The Hebrew equivalent would be: ‫הדברים האלה אשר שלחתי‬. There appear to be no close parallels outside of Jewish and Christian texts.

300

Commentary

(τοὺς  λόγους … οὓς  ἀπέστειλεν), 17 (τοὺς  λόγους, οὓς  ἀπέστειλεν); and esp. Jer 36:1 (οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι … οὓς ἀπέστειλεν—this introduces the letter Jeremiah sent to Babylon); 50:1 (πάντας  τοὺς  λόγους  κυρίου,  οὓς  ἀπέστειλεν … πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους). 6:20. The verse, like that before it, underscores Baruch’s authority. His words are God’s words—οὕτοι οὖν εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι, οὓς εἶπε Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ218—the words of the God who delivered Israel from Egypt: ὁ ἐξαγαγὼν ἡμᾶς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης καμίνου.219 The first few words have a strong biblical flavor and recall the common LXX formula, τάδε λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ;220 cf. also Exod 35:1 (MT: ‫ ;אלה הדברים אשר־צוה יהוה‬LXX: οὕτοι οἱ λόγοι, οὓς εἶπεν Κύριος); Deut 1:1 (MT: ‫ ;אלה הדברים אשר דבר‬LXX: οὕτοι οἱ λόγοι, οὓς ἐλάλησεν); and Jer 30:4 (MT: ‫ ;אלה הדברים אשר דבר יהוה‬LXX 37:4: οὕτοι οἱ λόγοι, οὓς ἐλάλησεν Κύριος).221 Also biblical—indeed, it is a recurrent refrain in the HB/OT—is the reference to God leading Israel out of Egypt.222 The characterization of Egypt as a furnace, which underlines the severity of exile, is yet another scriptural topos; cf. Deut 4:20 (“brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt”); 1 Kgs 8:51 (“your people … you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace”); Jer 11:4 (see below). Moreover, the complex title, “the Lord, the God of Israel,” is associated with the deliverance from Egypt in Judg 6:8 (“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘I led you up from Egypt’”); 1 Sam 10:18 (“Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘I brought you up from Egypt’”); and Bar 2:11 (“O Lord God of Israel, who didst bring thy people out of the land of Egypt”). Λόγος: see on 5:21; Κύριος ὁ Θεός: see on 6:9; Ἰσραήλ: see on 1:1. Ἐξάγω: 1x; γῆ: see on 3:8; Αἴγυπτος: 1x; μέγας: 12x; κάμινος: 2x: 6:20, 21. 220 Exod 5:1; Josh 7:13; Judg 6:8; 2 Βασ 12:7; Isa 17:6; Jer 7:3; 9:14; 11:3; 16:9; 19:3; 24:5; Ezek 43:18; etc. Cf. further 1 Βασ 10:18 (τάδε εἶπεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ λέγων, Ἐγὼ ἀνήγαγον τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ); 2:20 (τάδε εἶπεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ); 2 Chr 34:23 (εἶπεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ); Jer 32:15 (εἶπεν Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ); 34:4; 36:4; 37:2; 39:28, 36; 40:4; 41:13; 46:16; 51:2, 25. 218 219

221

Schaller, “Greek Version,” 81, thinks a reference to Jer 37:4 “is obvious.” the Pentateuch: Exod 3:10–12; 6:13; 13:9, 14, 16; 14:11; 17:3; 18:1; 29:46; Num 20:16; 23:22; 32:1, 4; Lev 11:45; 19:36; 22:33; 23:43; 25:38, 42, 45; 26:13, 45; Deut 4:20, 37; 6:21; 16:1; 26:8. From Jeremiah: 2:6; 7:12, 25; 11:4, 7; 16:14; 23:7; 31:32; 32:21; 34:13. Cf. Bar 1:19, 20; 2:11. Other instances include Josh 24:6; 1 Sam 8:8; 10:18; 12:6, 8; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; 12:28; 2 Kgs 17:7, 36; Neh 9:18; Ps 80:8; 81:10; Ezek 20:10; Dan 9:15; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 4 Ezra 3:17. The refrain is also employed outside the HB/OT: 11QTemple 54:16; Aristobulus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.8; Sib. Or. 3:255; Acts 7:36; 13:17; Heb 8:9; 2 Bar. 75:7; etc.

222 From

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

301

It adds to the new exodus theme, because implicit is the promise: as God acted then, so God is about to act now. Additionally conventional was the first person plural with reference to the deliverance from Egypt, as in Exod 13:14: “brought us out of Egypt.”223 Notwithstanding all of these analogies, Jeremiah supplies the closest parallel. 11:3–4 uses the formula, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel,” and this is followed by “I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace” (MT: ‫ ;הוציאי־אותם מארץ־מצרים מכור הברזל‬LXX: ἀνήγαγον αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐκ καμίνου τῆς σιδηρᾶς). In addition, the immediate context refers to the covenant, διαθήκη: vv. 1, 3, 7. Maybe our text is, as so often elsewhere, intended to echo Jeremiah.224 Whether or not that is the case, there are three layers of meaning here, each reinforcing the other. First, there is the deliverance from Egypt, which God performed for the sake of the covenant with the patriarchs. Second, there is the about-to-be-narrated deliverance from Babylon, accomplished for the same reason. Third, there would be, for a second century CE Jewish audience, the imagined future liberation from on-going Roman oppression. The memory of the first two rescues would make it easier to hope for yet one more miraculous deliverance. 6:21. The divine indictment contains three roughly synonymous generalizations, the first being that Israel did not keep Torah: ὅτι οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε τὰ δικαιώματά μου.225 This takes up a stereotypical warning or accusation in HB/OT texts226 and recalls earlier indictments in 1:1; 2:2–5. Note the 223

See also Exod 13:16; 32:1, 23; Num 20:16; 21:5; Deut 1:27; 6:21; 26:8; Josh 24:17; Jer 2:6. 224 So Schaller, Paralipomena, 735; idem, “Greek Version,” 81–82—positing secondary influence from LXX Deut 4:20. 225 Φυλάσσω: see on 2:5; δικαίωμα: 1x. The combination of these two words derives from the Hebrew ‫ שמר‬+ ‫ ;חקה‬see MT Exod 13:10; Lev 18:4, 5; 19:19; 1 Kgs 3:14; etc. For φυλάσσω + δικαίωμα in the LXX see Gen 26:5 (ἐφύλαξεν … τὰ δικαιώματά μου); Exod 15:26; Deut 4:40; 26:17; 30:16; 4 Βασ 17:13 (φυλάξατε … τὰ δικαιώματά μου); Ps 104:45; 118:5 (τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὰ δικαιώματά σου), 8; Prov 2:8; Ezek 11:20 (τὰ δικαιώματά μου φυλάσσωνται); 20:19 (τὰ δικαιώματά μου φυλάσσεσθε); Bar 4:13 (A: δικαιώματά δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐφυλάξαν); etc. Although the idiom, alien to secular Greek, occurs only once in the NT (Rom 2:26), it became quite popular with later Christian authors. Τὰ δικαιώματά μου is also biblical; see, in additional to the texts just cited in Greek, LXX Lev 25:18; Ps 49:6; 88:32. It occurs 13x in LXX Ezekiel. 226 As in Lev 19:19; 20:22; Deut 8:11; 28:45; 1 Kgs 9:6; 11:33; Ps 89:30–31; 4 Ezra 9:32; 13:42; etc.

302

Commentary

second person plural: Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech are not included in the accusation. The next generalization is that the collective heart of the people was sinfully exalted—ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία ὑμῶν227—another biblical topos; cf. Deut 8:14; 17:20 (μὴ ὑψωθῇ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ); 2 Chr 26:16; 32:25–26; Jer 48:29 (LXX: ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ); Ezek 28:2 (ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία σου), 5 (ὑψώθη ἡ καρδία σου), 17; Hos 13;6; Dan 8:25; T. Dan 10:5.228 The third generality is that Israel has been “stiff-necked,” that is, stubborn: ἐτραχηλιάσατε ἐνώπιόν μου.229 This is yet one more common grievance, typically expressed in the LXX with σκληροτράχηλος or σκληρύνω + τράχηλος (for ‫)קשה־ערף‬.230 For a similar combination of complaints see 1 Esdr 1:48 (“he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart and transgressed the laws of the Lord, the God of Israel”) and note the verbal parallel in Ps-Basil, Comm. Isa. 14.291: ὁ τραχηλιάσας ἐνώπιον τοῦ Παντοκράτορος. Although the verb, τραχηλιάω, is almost exclusively ecclesiastical,231 it does occur in LXX Job 15:25, which is conceptually close to 4 Bar. 6:21: ἔναντι δὲ Κυρίου Παντοκράτορος ἐτραχηλίασεν. Is there an allusion to this text?232 God, in response to Israel’s failure, was provoked to anger and, in wrath, delivered the people to a foreign nation: ἐθυμώθην καὶ ἐν ὀργῇ παρέδωκα ὑμᾶς τῇ καμίνῳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα;233 cf. LXX Exod 4:14 (θυμωθεὶς ὀργῇ; also 32:10; Deut 11:17); Exod 32:11 (θυμοῖ ὀργῇ); Num 11:1 (ἐθυμώθη ὀργῇ);234 Jos. Asen. 4:9 (ἐθυμώθη ἐν ὀργῇ); 23:9 (ὀργῇ θυμοῖ). The use of παραδίδωμι in connection with Babylon is distinctively Jeremian235 and 227

Ὑψόω: 1x; καρδία: see on 6:3. Hebrew idiom is ‫ רום‬or ‫ גבה‬+ ‫לב‬, as in Deut 8:14; 2 Chr 26:16; 32:25–26. Cf.

228 The

Ps 131:1; Prov 16:5; 18:12; Ezek 28:2, 17; 4Q436 frag. 1 2:3; 4Q485a frag. 1a-b 2:4. Ὑψόω + καρδία appears to be foreign to secular Greek. 229 Τραχηλιάω: 1x; Lampe, s.  v., gives the first sense as “arch the neck proudly like a horse or bull”; ἐνώπιον: see on 1:4. 230 Cf. Exod 32:9; 33:5; 34:9; 2 Chr 30:8; Neh 9:16; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15; Bar 2:30. Note also Jer. Apocr. 27:8: “this stiff-necked people.” 231 Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x. 232 Schaller, “Greek Version,” 82, here posits dependence upon LXX Job 15:25. The use of ἐνώπιον in agreement with 4 Baruch in quotations of Job 15:25 in Origen, Comm. John 32.3.33; Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Job ed. Henrichs 23; and Macarius Magn., Apocr. 2.21, supports the suggestion. 233 Θυμόω: 1x; ὀργή: 1x; παρέδωκα ὑμᾶς: see on 1:5; κάμινος: see on 6:20; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7. 234 So also 11:10; Josh 7:1; Judg 10:7; 4 Βασ 1:18d; 23:26; 1 Chr 13:10; Isa 5:21. 235 See LXX Jer 21:10; 39:4, 36; 44:17.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

303

so especially apt here. The description of Babylon as a furnace matches the description of Egypt as a furnace in v. 20. The parallel works all the better if one recalls the tradition that took Gen 15:7 (“I am the Lord who took you [Abraham] out of Ur [‫ ]אור‬of the Chaldeans”) to mean that God rescued Abraham from the fire (‫ )אור‬of the Chaldeans, that is, from a furnace like that into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were cast.236 The use of ὀργή and of the theme of God’s wrath here falls in line with a rich Jewish tradition.237 Many passages speak of a divine wrath in response to sin, but one which turns out to be temporal; and after it is expended, and after the people repent, mercy returns and deliverance comes. Particularly interesting is Ps 105:40–48, which lines up with the plot of 4 Baruch: “the anger of the Lord was kindled against his people … he gave them into the hand of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them. Their enemies oppressed them … Nevertheless he regarded their distress, when he heard their cry. He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love. He caused them to be pitied by all those who held them captive. Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations.” Lamentations, because of its traditional ascription to Jeremiah, is also of interest in this connection. Although the first two chapters repeatedly underline the theme of wrath (see esp. 2:1–4), ch. 3 marks a turn, with the writer affirming that “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases,” that “his mercies never come to an end” (3:22), and that “the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love” (3:31–32). 4 Baruch holds the same message; cf. Jer 3:12: “I am merciful, says the Lord; I will not be angry forever.” 6:22. Moving from the past (v. 21) to the near future, God, through his servant Jeremiah—λέγει Κύριος, ἐκ στόματος Ἰερεμίου τοῦ παιδός μου238— offers a stark alternative. The wording recalls 2 Chr 36:12 (“Jeremiah the

236 Dan 3:19–30;

see LAB 6:3–18; Tg. Neof. 1 Gen. 11:31; 15:7; Gen. Rab. 38:13; Neh 9:7 vg. 237 See R. V. G. Tasker, The Biblical Doctrine of the Wrath of God (London: Tyndale, 1951); H. M. Haney, The Wrath of God in the Former Prophets (New York: Vantage, 1960); Hermann Kleinknecht et al., “ὀργή κτλ.,” TDNT 5 (1967), 382–447; and esp. Thomas Dixon, “Wrath in Romans: God’s Punishment or the Salvation of Israel?” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2016). 238 Λέγει Κύριος: see on 6:13; στόμα: see on 6:4; παῖς: 1x; cf. the use of δοῦλος in 1:4; 3:9; 6:10, 17. For παῖς of prophets see LXX 2 Chr 36:5b; 1 Esdr 8:79; Jer 33:5; 42:15; 51:4; Bar 2:20, 24; Dan 9:6, 10; Josephus, Ant. 5.340; 10.98.

304

Commentary

prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord”); 1 Esdr 1:28 (“did not heed the words of Jeremiah the prophet from the mouth of the Lord”), 47 (“did not heed the words that were spoken by Jeremiah the prophet from the mouth of the Lord”). In 4 Baruch, however, the phrase, “mouth of the prophet/s,”239 has likely affected the formulation, even though it calls Jeremiah not a prophet—contrast Jer 37:2 (“the words of the Lord which he spoke through Jeremiah the prophet”)—but rather “servant”; cf. 1:4; 3:9 (both δοῦλος); Jdt 5:5 (ἐκ στόματος τοῦ δούλου σου); 4 Ezra 2:18 (“my servants Isaiah and Jeremiah”). What follows is a prophecy whose outcome depends upon the response to it: ἐὰν οὖν ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου;240 cf. LXX Exod 19:5 (ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς; so too 23:22); Deut 13:19 (ἐὰν ἀκούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς Κυρίου);241 1 Βασ 12:15 (ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς Κυρίου); Ps 94:7 (ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε); Jer 7:23 (ἀκούσατε τῆς φωνῆς μου; also in 11:4); Bar 2:22 (ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς Κυρίου). Such contingent prophecy, with two antithetical prospects, is typical of Jeremiah and so is especially fitting here.242 The promise is that God will bring back those who obey: ὁ ἀκούων, ἀναφέρω αὐτὸν ἐκ τῆς Βαβυλῶνας.243 This presupposes v. 13: “Let the 239 240 241

As in 1 Kgs 22:22, 23; 2 Chr 18:21, 22; Zech 8:9; Acts 3:18.

Ἀκούω: 20x; our author likes the definite article + a participial form of this verb: 6:22 (bis), 23; 8:3 (bis); φωνή: 14x; for ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς see on 3:8.

Cf. also Deut 15:5; 28:1, 2, 15. Jer 12:14–17 (“if they learn diligently the ways of my people.. then they will be built up in the midst of my people. But if any nation will not listen, then I will pluck it up, pluck it up and destroy it, says the Lord”); 7:5–7 (“For if you truly amend your ways and your doings … then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever”); 17:24–27 (“But if you listen to me, says the Lord … then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings who sit on the throne of David … But if you do not listen to me … then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched”); 26:3–6 (“It may be they will listen, and every one turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the evil which I intend to do to them because of their evil doings. You shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord: If you will not listen to me … and heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently … then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth’”). See Jörg Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (BTS 31; 2nd ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997), 75–86. 243 Ἀκούω: 20x; the meaning, “obey” is well-attested; cf. LXX Exod 6:12; Deut 18:15, 18; 2 Chr 28:11; Ps. Sol. 2:8; Matt 18:15–16; Mark 9:7; Luke 16:29; John 5:25; 8:47; Acts 28:28; ἀναφέρω: 3x: 6:22; 9:1, 2; cf. 1 Esdr 2:11 (ἀνηνέχθη … ἅμα τοῖς ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα—although the subject is San242 Cf.

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

305

alien who is among you be removed.” The corresponding warning is that those who fail to obey will be foreigners to both Jerusalem and Babylon: ὁ δὲ μὴ ἀκούων, ξένος γενήσεται τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος;244 cf. the antitheses in Deut 18:1, 15 (“And if you obey the voice of the Lord … But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord”); Matt 7:24–27 (“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them … And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them”). The words echo v. 14 (q.  v.): “The one who does not separate himself from Babylon, O Jeremiah, will not enter the city. And I shall punish him.” Chapter 8 will narrate the realization of both promise and threat. The obedient will return to Jerusalem, so that v. 13 will be fulfilled: “I shall lead you to your city.” The disobedient, upon being turned away by the Babylonians, will establish Samaria, so that v. 14 will be fulfilled: “The one who does not separate himself from Babylon … will not enter the city. And I shall punish him, so that he will not be welcomed in turn by the Babylonians.” That the exiles in Babylon should obey Jeremiah was traditional. According to 2 Macc 2:1–3, as the people were being deported, he gave them the law and told them not to forget the commandments or let them depart from their hearts. Ep Jer 1:1 introduces a letter “that Jeremiah sent to those who were to be taken to Babylon as exiles … to give them the message that God has commanded him.” 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C relates that the prophet went to a river near Babylon and “commanded them what they should do in the land of [their] captivity [, that they should listen] to the voice of Jeremiah concerning the words which God had commanded him” (4Q385a frags. 18 i a-b).245 6:23. The letter ends abruptly, without farewell or other appropriate epistolary closing. It seems obvious that readers or hearers are to imagine that

abassaros); Βαβυλών: see on 2:7. Ἀναφέρω can mean “bring back to the point of origin” (GELS, s.  v. 4, citing LXX Gen 31:39). According to Schaller, Paralipomena, 736, the choice of this verb reflects Jerusalem’s height. Cf. the use of ἀναβαίνω in 3 Βασ 12:28; 4 Βασ 18:17; etc. On the anacolouthon (ὁ ἀκούων ἀναφέρω αὐτόν), which is likely Semitic even though there are classical parallels, see BDF § 466:4. Cf. esp. Rev 2:26 (ὁ νικῶν … δώσω αὐτῷ); 3:13 (ὁ νικῶν ποιήσω αὐτόν), 21 (ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ). 244 δὲ μὴ ἀκούων: cf. 6:23 and 8:3; ἀκούω: see n. 240; φωνή: see n. 240; ξένος: see on 6:13; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7. 245 Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 26:6, where Jeremiah goes to the Euphrates and laments before the people: “All that has come upon you is the consequence of your not hearkening to the words of the prophecy that God uttered through me.”

306

Commentary

it is only an excerpt, especially as Baruch says nothing about the figs that Jeremiah will receive. The final words of the letter are addressed to God’s proxy, Jeremiah, who will test the people when they come to the Jordan: δοκιμάσεις δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου.246 There Jeremiah will replay events from the life of Moses and Joshua; see on 8:2. One might suppose, as do Kraft and Purintun, that here ἐκ = “by means of.”247 In this case, the river could be a border, an obstacle, which some will not be allowed to cross. As it turns out, however, those with foreign wives do, despite Jeremiah’s admonition, cross the Jordan (8:4–8). They are turned away only when they reach Jerusalem.248 So, if the text has not been rewritten, maybe ἐκ is not here instrumental but rather means “nearby” or “at.”249 In any case, and as it turns out, nothing supernatural will be involved: Jeremiah and Baruch, it seems, will simply learn at the Jordan who refuses to forsake their foreign wives: ὁ μὴ ἀκούων φανερὸς γενήσεται.250 See the commentary on 8:4–6. At this point, however, things remain cryptic—and all the more so because the closing words remain obscure: τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖόν ἐστι τῆς μεγάλης σφραγῖδος.251 The language is unusual,252 although ch. 8 will reveal that the Jordan is a “marker”253 or “certification”254 in the sense

246

Δοκιμάζω: 1x; ὕδωρ: see on 3:8; Ἰορδάνης: 4x: 6:23; 8:2, 4, 5. For “the water(s) of

the Jordan” see Josh 3:8, 13, 15, 33; 4:18, 23; 1 Macc 9:45; Lat. LAE 6:3; Gk. LAE 29:13. See further K. H. Rengstorf, “Ἰορδάνης,” TDNT 6 (1968), 608–623. The Jordan plays a small role in Jer. Apocr. 10:12 and 24:7, but there is no connection with the river’s significance in 4 Baruch. 247 As in 1:6; cf. LXX Exod 30:26; Hab 2:4; Luke 16:9; Josephus, Vita 142. 248 In the short recension, however, the division does take place at the Jordan. 249 As in LXX Exod 14:19, 22; Ps 109:1; Zech 4:11; 5:3; Jos. Asen. 16:12; Luke 1:11. Contrast Herzer, 4 Baruch, 118 n. 108. 250 Cf. LXX Gen 42:16 (τοῦ φανερὰ γενέσθαι); 1 Macc 15:9 (φανερὰν γενέσθαι); 2 Macc 1:33 (φανερὸν ἐγενήθη); Let. Aris. 132 (φανερὰ γίνεται); 2 Cor 14:25 (φανερὰ γίνεται). Ἀκούω: cf. 6:22 and 8:3; φανερός: 1x. 251 Σημεῖον: see on 5:12; μέγας: 12x; σφραγίς: see on 3:8. 252 Cf. however τοῦτο τὸ σημεῖον in LXX Gen 9:12, 17; 4 Βασ 20:9; Isa 38:22. “Sign” and “seal” are synonymous in Rom 4:11. 253 For this sense of σημεῖον see LXX Gen 4:15; Ezek 9:4; BDAG, s.  v. 1. On the Jordan as a border and natural boundary see K. H. Rengstorf, “Ἰορδάνης,” TDNT 6 (1968), 610–11. 254 For this sense see BDAG, s.  v. 4, and cf. esp. 1 Cor 9:2: “you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.”

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

307

that, at the river, those obeying Jeremiah will make themselves publicly known.255 While the use of “seal” in connection with water and the association of Jesus’ baptism with the Jordan would likely move Christian readers or hearers to wonder whether our line has something to do with Christian baptism,256 neither σημεῖον nor δοκιμάζω was standard baptismal language.257 Moreover, how would an allusion to baptism function in this context? As Jones observes: “it seems difficult … to think of the Jordan as a

255 4 Baruch

shows no interest in the Euphrates, which is surprising given that river’s role in the HB/OT, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch; see Shayna Sheinfeld, “The Euphrates as a Temporal Marker in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,” JSJ 47 (2016), 104–118. 256 Cf. Harris, Baruch, 14 (“the meaning of it all is that the Christians, who are evidently not affected by the imperial edict [of Hadrian after the second revolt], for they took no part in the rebellion, have suggested to Jews that by becoming Christians by way of baptism they can evade the force of the edict, and no longer be strangers to Jerusalem”); Bogaert, Baruch, 1:206–208 (“the passage of the Jordan is certainly the symbol of baptism”); Elgvin, “Editing,” 297; Nir, Destruction, 228–36. Contrast Wolff, Jeremia, 45 n. 1. Taatz, Briefe, 78, regards the baptismal interpretation as overinterpretation. The association of Christian baptism with the Jordan goes back to the story of Jesus’ baptism: Matt 3:13; Mark 1:9. See K. H. Rengstorf, “Ἰορδάνης,” TDNT 6 (1968), 613–14, 619–23. Note the symbolism in On Bap. A 41: “the first [baptism] is the forgivenenss [of sins. We] are brought [from those] by [it into] those of the right, [that is,] into the [imperishability which is] the Jo[rdan. But] that place is [of] the world. So, we have [been sent] out [of the world] into the Aeon. For [the] interpretation of John is the Aeon, while the interpretation of that which [is] the Jord[an] is the descent which is [the upward progress,] that [is, our exodus] from the world [into] the Aeon.” For “seal” in connection with baptism note Herm. Sim. 8:6:3; 9:16:2–4; 9:17:4; Ep. Apost. 41; Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 83; Quis div. 42; Ps.-Clem., Rec. 6.8; Acts Paul 3:25; Acts Thom. 131; Gos. Eg. 4:66:5, 25; 4:78:5; Acts Xanth. Polyx. 28:5; Eusebius, Vit. Const. 4.62; Three Forms 48:30; and see further Lampe, s.  v., σφραγίς C; William Heitmüller, “Σφραγίς,” in Neutestamentliche Studien Georg Heinrici zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (14. März 1914) dargebracht von Fachgenossen, Freunden und Schülern (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1914), 40–59; and G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit: A Study of the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers (London: SPCK, 1967). Note Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 1.2–3, where baptism is, variously, the “mystical seal,” the “seal of salvation,” the “wondrous seal,” the “spiritual seal,” and the “saving seal.” According to Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 422, n. 6g, our line is “probably a reference to Christian baptism”; yet he adds, without explanation, that the language here (as also in vv. 4, 9) “is reminiscent of Gnosticism.” 257 Nir, Destruction, 233, however, calls attention to Aphraates, Dem. 7.19–21, where the waters of baptism are “the waters of testing.” Cf. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 162–63. For critical discussion of the parallel see Herzer, “Schrift,” 32–33.

308

Commentary

sign of any initiatory rite, for all, literally, pass it, though not all are admitted into Jerusalem.”258 Or should one infer that the last phrase in ch. 6 is an infelicitous Christian addition?259 It is striking that, although 6:23 leaves the impression that a winnowing will occur at the Jordan, it actually occurs in Jerusalem (8:5–6). One also wonders how a reference to circumcision, which some have read into our line,260 might function.261 The rabbis occasionally use Hebrew ‫חותם‬ = σφραγίς to refer to circumcision,262 and one might deem the language here covenantal (cf. 6:18; Neh 9:38): those who are faithful to the covenant with the fathers are those who have not married foreigners, and their response to Jeremiah at the Jordan will be the sign or proof of their righteousness. Still, “this is the sign of the great seal” would be a very roundabout way of saying that, and the Jordan was not otherwise associated with circumcision. Herzer offers yet another possibility. Connecting 6:23 with 3:8 (“the one sealing you with seven seal in seven ages”), he finds an eschatological sense: “the time of the people’s salvation begins with the crossing of the Jordan, the last of the ‘seven seals’ and thus the ‘great seal’. The ‘seal’ of the first time of creation corresponds to the ‘great seal of the time of salvation.”263 Yet one need not give the same sense to “seal” in 258 Jones,

Jewish Reactions, 149 n. 8. Cf. Harris, Baruch, 14: “It is possible that these words may be a later interpolation.” 260 Stone, “Baruch,” 276; Nickelsburg, Literature, 316 (“the sign of the great seal at the Jordan … could be circumcision”); Riaud, Paralipomènes, 29–30; Klauck, Letters, 285 (“this could refer to circumcision and the resulting obligation to keep the law”). Nickelsburg adds, however, that, on the level of Christian redaction, the seal is baptism (315). 261 Those who associate 4 Baruch with the Bar Kokhba period might draw some connection with the idea that a ban on circumcision preceded the revolt; but the historical evidence for such a ban appears to be weak; cf. Aharon Oppenheimer, “The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: A Reconsideration,” in The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, ed. Peter Schäfer (TSAJ 100; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 55–69. 262 See G. Fitzer, “Σφραγίς κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971) 947–48, and cf. the (presumabaly very ancient) blessing traditionally recited at circumcision: “Blessed are you O Lord who … his offspring sealed with the sign (‫ )וצאצאיו חתם באות‬of the holy covenant” (t. Ber. 6:13; y. Ber. 14a (9:3); b. Šabb. 137b). Note already Rom 4:11; also Barn. 9:6: “the people were circumcised as a seal (σφραγῖδα).” But as Piovanelli, “Default Position,” 244, observes, “seal” is, in rabbinic literature, “never used on its own as a technical term for circumcision”; rather, “it is always followed by a specification, such as, ‘the seal of Abraham (in the flesh).’” 263 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 116. He is followed by Doering, Letters, 259; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2673. 259

Chapter 6:  Baruch’s Letter to Jeremiah

309

both verses, especially given the distance between them. In the end, 6:23 leaves one nonplussed.264 Despite the difficulty of offering a satisfactory interpretation, the idea of a new exodus remains clear. Just as God once took the Israelites out of Egypt (cf. v. 20) and led them through the desert, after which they crossed the Jordan and entered the land, so now will God lead the exiles out of Babylon and through the desert, after which they will cross the Jordan and enter Jerusalem. In the words of Nickelsburg, “the author likens the return from Babylon to the Exodus, and Jeremiah’s role is analogous to those of Moses and Joshua. The ordeal at the Jordan may be intended as a parallel to the circumstances at Gilgal (Josh 5:2–9).”265

264 Cf.

Schaller, Paralipomena, 736. Goodenough, Symbols, 8:139, supposes that the crossing of the Jordan must be allegorical—like Philo’s allegories of the passage of the Red Sea or of the crossing of the Jordan to reach the Cities of Refuge—but he refrains from offering details. Kohler, “Haggada,” 411, speculates that originally the sign was leprosy upon the forehead; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 32:20. Against Philonenko, “Simple observations,” little commends relating “the great seal” to Mandaean baptismal texts. See the criticism of Herzer, 4 Baruch, 116–17; idem, “Schrift,” 28–31. PGM 4:3039–40 refers to “the seal which Solomon placed on the tongue of Jeremiah.” This seal is presumably an amulet (cf. G. Fitzer, “Σφραγίς κτλ.,” TDNT 7 (1971), 947 n. 72) and, although the Jordan is mentioned in the larger context (3053–54), the magical papyrus is unlikely to have anything to do with our text. 265 Nickelsburg, Literature, 316. Wolff, Jeremia, 50, and Herzer, 4 Baruch, 117, likewise think of Joshua 3; but Herzer also finds significant links with Ezek 36:24–25.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch 7:1. And Baruch arose, and he went out of the tomb. 7:2. And he found the eagle sitting outside of the tomb. And the eagle, responding in a human voice, said to him: “Hail, Baruch, faithful steward.” 7:3. And Baruch said to him, “You, who of all the birds of heaven speaks, are elect, for this is manifest from the ray (streaming) from your eyes. 7:4. Reveal to me, then: What are you doing here?” 7:5. And the eagle said to him, “I was sent here so that whatever message you wish (to send), you might send (it) through me.” 7:6. And Baruch said to him, “Are you able to carry this message to Jeremiah in Babylon?” 7:7. And the eagle said to him, “For this (purpose) indeed was I sent.” 7:8. And Baruch, taking the letter and fifteen figs from Abimelech’s basket, tied them around the neck of the eagle and said to him: 7:9. “I say to you, king of birds, go in peace with health, and transport the message for me. 7:10. Do not be like the raven which Noah sent forth and which did not return to him on the ark. Instead be like the dove which, on its third trip, brought news to the righteous one. 7:11. You, in like fashion, take this good message to Jeremiah and those with him, that it might be well with you. Take this papyrus to the elect people of God. 7:12. Even if all the birds of heaven surround you and seek to fight with you, persevere! May the Lord give you strength! And do not turn to the right or to the left, but go straight as an arrow. Go in the might of God, and the glory of the Lord will be with you in every path you take.” 7:13. Then the eagle flew off, having the letter around his neck, and he went away to Babylon; and he came to rest upon a wooden post outside of the city, in a deserted place. But he remained silent until Jeremiah and others of the people (of Israel) came along. 7:14. For they were going forth to bury a dead man outside of the city. For Jeremiah had requested of Nebuchadnezzer, “Grant me a place, where I might bury the dead of my people.” And he gave it to him. 7:15. As they were coming out with the dead man and wailing, they passed in front of the eagle, and the eagle cried out in a loud voice, saying: “I say to you, Jeremiah, the elect of God: Depart (and) gather the people, that they might come to this place in order to hear the letter which I have brought to you from Baruch and Abimelech.” 7:16. When Jeremiah heard (this), he glorified God. And going away he gathered the people, including women and children, and he came to where the eagle https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-018

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

311

was. 7:17. And the eagle descended upon the dead man, and he came back to life. This happened in order that they might believe. 7:18. And all the people marveled at what had happened, saying, “Is this not the God who appeared to our fathers in the wilderness through Moses, and who now has appeared to us through this eagle?” 7:19. And the eagle said, “I say to you, Jeremiah, come and unfasten this letter, and read it to the people.” Then unfastening the letter, he read it to the people. 7:20. When all the people heard it, they wept and threw dust on their heads and said to Jeremiah: 7:21. “Deliver us and tell us what we should do, so that we might enter our city again.” 7:22. Jeremiah answered and said to them: “Act in conformity with all that you have heard in this letter, and the Lord will bring us to our city.” 7:23. And Jeremiah wrote a letter to Baruch, as follows: “My beloved son, do not be negligent in your prayers, (but) pray for us that he (God) might successfully direct our way until we come forth from the jurisdiction of this lawless king. For you were found righteous before God, and he did not allow you to come here with us, lest you see the mistreatment that has befallen the people under the Babylonians. 7:24. For it is like when a father’s only son is handed over to punishment. Those who see his father and console him protect his father, so that he will not see how his son is punished and be all the more devastated by grief. For in like manner God had mercy upon you and did not allow you to go to Babylon, so that you would not behold the mistreatment that has befallen the people. For ever since we arrived here, our grief has, these sixty-six years, not ceased. 7:25. For often when I left (the city) I found some of the people who had been hung up by Nebuchadnezzar the king weeping and saying, ‘Have mercy upon us, O God Sabaoth.’ 7:26. When I heard these things, I would grieve and cry a double lamentation, not only because they were hung up, but because they called upon a foreign God, saying, ‘Have mercy upon us.’ And I would remember feast days which we celebrated in Jerusalem before we were exiled; 7:27. and when I remembered, I would groan, and I would return to my house in agony and in tears. 7:28. Now then pray in the place where you are, you and Abimelech, for this people, that they might give heed to my voice and to the injunctions of my mouth, and that we might come forth from here. 7:29. For I say to you that the entire time we have spent here, they have held us fast, saying, ‘Recite for us a song from the songs of Zion, and the song of your God.’ And we have said to them, ‘How shall we sing to you (since we are) in a foreign land?’” 7:30. And after these things, he (Jeremiah) tied the letter around the neck of the eagle and said: “Go in peace. May the Lord take care of us both.” 7:31. And the eagle flew off, and he went to Jerusalem, and he carried the letter and delivered

312

Commentary

it to Baruch. And, after untying it, he read and kissed it, and he cried when he heard of the grief and the mistreatment of the people. 7:32. But Jeremiah, taking the figs, gave them to the sick among the people. And he continued to teach them to keep their distance from the defilements of the Gentiles of Babylon. 7:1. Καὶ ἀνέστη Βαροὺχ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου. 7:2. Καὶ εὗρεν τὸν ἀετὸν καθεζόμενον ἐκτὸς τοῦ μνημείου. Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ἀνθρωπίνῃ φωνῇ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός· Χαῖρε, Βαρούχ, ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πίστεως. 7:3. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαροὺχ ὅτι, Ἐκλεκτὸς εἶ σὺ ὁ λαλῶν ἐκ πάντων τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἐκ τῆς γὰρ αὐγῆς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου δῆλόν ἐστι. 7:4. Δεῖξόν μοι οὖν, τί ποιεῖς ἐνταῦθα; 7:5. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός· Ἀπεστάλην ὧδε, ὅπως πᾶσαν φάσιν ἣν θέλεις, ἀποστείλῃς δι’ ἐμοῦ. 7:6. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ· Εἰ δύνασαι σὺ ἐπᾶραι τὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα; 7:7. Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός· Εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἀπεστάλην. 7:8. Καὶ ἄρας Βαροὺχ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ δεκαπέντε σῦκα ἐκ τοῦ κοφίνου τοῦ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ἔδησεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ, καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· 7:9. Σοὶ λέγω, βασιλεῦ τῶν πετεινῶν, ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ μεθ’ ὑγείας, καὶ  τὴν φάσιν ἔνεγκόν μοι. 7:10. Μὴ ὁμοιωθῇς τῷ κόρακι, ὃν ἐξαπέστειλε Νῶε καὶ οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ἔτι πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν· ἀλλὰ ὁμοιώθητι τῇ περιστερᾷ, ἥτις ἐκ τρίτου φάσιν ἤνεγκε τῷ δικαίῳ. 7:11. Οὕτως καὶ σὺ, ἆρον τὴν καλὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται. Ἆρον τὸν χάρτην τοῦτον τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐκλεκτῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 7:12. Ἐὰν κυκλώσωσί σε πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ βούλωνται πολεμῆσαι μετὰ σοῦ, ἀγώνισαι· ὁ Κύριος δώῃ σοι δύναμιν. Καὶ μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιά, μήτε εἰς τὰ ἀριστερὰ, ἀλλ’ ὡς βέλος ὕπαγον ὀρθῶς. Ἄπελθε ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἔσται ἡ δόξα Κυρίου μετὰ σου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ πορεύσῃ. 7:13. Τότε ὁ ἀετὸς ἐπετάσθη, ἔχων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν τῷ τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, καὶ ἀνεπαύσατο ἐπί τι ξύλον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως εἰς τόπον ἔρημον. Ἐσιώπησε δὲ ἕως οὗ διῆλθεν Ἰερεμίας, αὐτὸς καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς τοῦ λαοῦ. 7:14. Ἐξήρχοντο γὰρ θάψαι νεκρὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως. Ἠιτήσατο γὰρ Ἰερεμίας παρὰ τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ, λέγων· Δός μοι τόπον ποῦ θάψω τοὺς νεκροὺς τοῦ λαοῦ μου. Καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ. 7:15. Ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ κλαιόντων μετὰ τοῦ νεκροῦ, ἦλθον κατέναντι τοῦ ἀετοῦ. Καὶ ἔκραξεν ὁ ἀετὸς μεγάλῇ φωνῇ λέγων· Σοὶ λέγω, Ἰερεμία ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἄπελθε, σύναξον τὸν λαὸν καὶ ἔλθωσιν ἐνταῦθα ἵνα ἀκούσωσι ἐπιστολῆς ἣς ἤνεγκά σοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Βαροὺχ καὶ τοῦ Ἀβιμέλεχ. 7:16. Ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰερεμίας, ἐδόξασε τὸν Θεόν· καὶ ἀπελθὼν συνῆξε τὸν λαὸν σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις, καὶ

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

313

ἦλθεν ὅπου ὁ ἀετός. 7:17. Καὶ κατῆλθεν ὁ ἀετὸς ἐπὶ τὸν τεθνηκότα, καὶ ἀνέζησε. Γέγονε δὲ τοῦτο, ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν. 7:18. Ἐθαύμασε δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι, λέγοντες ὅτι, Μὴ οὗτος ἔστι ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ὀφθεὶς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ διὰ Μωϋσέως, καὶ νῦν ἐφάνη ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἀετοῦ τούτου; 7:19. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀετός· Σοὶ λέγω Ἰερεμία, δεῦρο λῦσον τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, καὶ ἀνάγνωθι αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ· λύσας οὖν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, ἀνέγνω αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ. 7:20. Ἀκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαός, ἔκλαυσαν καὶ ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔλεγον τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ· 7:21. Σῶσον ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τί ποιήσωμεν, ἵνα εἰσέλθωμεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν. 7:22. Ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰερεμίας εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Πάντα ὅσα ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἠκούσατε, φυλάξατε, καὶ εἰσάξει ἡμᾶς Κύριος εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν. 7:23. Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴν ὁ Ἰερεμίας τῷ Βαροὺχ οὕτως λέγων· Υἱέ μου ἀγαπητέ, μὴ ἀμελήσῃς ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς σου δεόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ὅπως κατευοδόσῃ τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν ἄχρις ἂν ἐξέλθωμεν ἐκ τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ ἀνόμου βασιλέως τούτου. Δίκαιος γὰρ εὑρέθης ἐνάντιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν σε εἰσελθεῖν ἐνταῦθα μεθ’ ἡμῶν, ὅπως μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τὴν γενομένην τῷ λαῷ ὑπὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνίων. 7:24. Ὥσπερ γὰρ πατὴρ, υἱὸν μονογενῆ ἔχων, τούτου δὲ παραδοθέντος εἰς τιμωρίαν· οἱ ἰδόντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ παραμυθούμενοι αὐτὸν, σκέπουσιν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ πῶς τιμωρεῖται αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς καὶ πλείονα φθαρῇ ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης. Οὕτως γάρ σε ἐλέησεν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ οὐκ εἴασέν σε ἐλθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τοῦ λαοῦ. Ἀφ’ ἧς γὰρ εἰσήλθομεν ἐνταῦθα, οὐκ ἐπαύσατο ἡ λύπη ἀφ’ ἡμῶν, ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη σήμερον. 7:25. Πολλάκις γὰρ ἐξερχόμενος ηὕρισκον ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ κρεμαμένους ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονόσορ βασιλέως, κλαίοντας καὶ λέγοντας· Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ. 7:26. Ἀκούων ταῦτα, ἐλυπούμην καὶ ἔκλαιον δισσὸν κλαυθμόν, οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἐκρέμαντο, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐπεκαλοῦντο θεὸν ἀλλότριον, λέγοντες, Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. Ἐμνημόνευον δὲ ἡμέρας ἑορτῆς ἃς ἐποιοῦμεν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ πρὸ τοῦ ἡμᾶς αἰχμαλωτευθῆναι, 7:27. καὶ μνησκόμενος ἐστέναζον, καὶ ἐπέστρεφον εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ὀδυνώμενος καὶ κλαίων. 7:28. Νῦν οὖν δεήθητι εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου εἶ, σὺ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, ὅπως εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ τῶν κριμάτων τοῦ στόματός μου καὶ ἐξέλθωμεν ἐντεῦθεν. 7:29. Λέγω γάρ σοι ὅτι ὅλον τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἐποιήσαμεν ἐνταῦθα, κατέχουσιν ἡμᾶς λέγοντες ὅτι, Εἴπατε ἡμῖν ᾠδὴν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Ζιών, καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν. Καὶ ἀντελέγομεν αὐτοῖς, Πῶς ᾄσωμεν ὑμῖν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας ὄντες; 7:30. Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδησε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ, λέγων· Ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ. Ἐπισκέψηται ἡμᾶς ἀμφοτέρους ὁ Κύριος. 7:31. Καὶ ἐπετάσθη ὁ ἀετὸς, καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἤνεγκεν τὴν

314

Commentary

ἐπιστολὴν καὶ ἔδωκε τῷ Βαρούχ. Καὶ λύσας ἀνέγνω, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτήν, καὶ ἔκλαυσε ἀκούσας διὰ τὰς λύπας καὶ τὰς κακώσεις τοῦ λαοῦ. 7:32. Ἰερεμίας δὲ ἄρας τὰ σῦκα διέδωκε τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ. Καὶ ἔμεινε διδάσκων αὐτοὺς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς Βαβυλῶνος. Textual Notes 7:2. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer, following A B, omit καὶ εὗρεν τὸν ἀετὸν καθεζόμενον ἐκτὸς τοῦ μνημείου. But, with Kraft-Purintun and Piavanelli, the reading of C P eth, with support from slav N T2 and partial support from arm 144 345,1 is likely original: a scribal eye moved from the first τοῦ μνημείου καί to the second τοῦ μνημείου καί. 7:11. Instead of τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ, C has τοῖς δεσμίοις αὐτοῦ. Kraft-Purintun: σὺν αὐτῷ δεσμίοις. // A B: τὸν χάρτην τοῦτον. Piovanelli follows C eth arm 993 (= 920) slav T2: ταύτην τὴν χαράν. Either reading could be original, and it is unclear whether the variation is due to a deliberate correction or an inadvertent mistake. // C arm 993 (= 920), followed by Kraft-Purintun, has καί between τῷ λαῷ and τῷ ἐκλεκτῷ.2 This makes “the elect” independent and a reference to Jeremiah. Does the change refelct a supercessionistic view? 7:12. Following the mention of the birds of heaven, Harris and Piovanelli—the latter suggesting that the phrase may show hostility, real or imagined, toward some potential readers of the book—follow the text of C eth: πάντες οἱ ἐχθροὶ τῆς ἀληθείας.3 But the words strike one as an allegorizing expansion. // On grammatical grounds, Schaller suggests reading δώσει instead of δώῃ (AB) or δώσῃ (C). He cites for comparison LXX Ps 67:36: δώσει δύναμιν. // Harris, Herzer, and Piovanelli omit καὶ ἔσται ἡ δόξα κτλ., which is in A B P arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2 and printed in Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Was a whole line accidentally dropped? // 7:14. Herzer omits ἔξω τῆς πόλεως (cf. Piovanelli),4 which appears in A B and is printed in Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Whether it was added or omitted is impossible to tell, but its presence is consistent with our author’s penchant for repetition in close quarters (see v. 13); and he otherwise uses ἐξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: 1:1, 7. // Both Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun   1

In arm 144 345, the eagle sits in a tree; cf. 7:13. In 993 (= 920), the eagle comes out of the tomb in which Baruch has been.   2 Cf. slav T2: “to Jeremiah and the people.”   3 Cf. Philo, Conf. 48 (ἀληθείας ἐχθρός); Ebr. 164. The expression became exceedingly popular with the church fathers, beginning with Origen, and is probably here a Christian addition.   4 So also Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” 83–84.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

315

print τοῦ βασιλέως Ναβουχοδονόσορ (so A B)5 and ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ βασιλεύς (so A B P arm 993 [= 920]). If original, Jeremiah’s authority before the king would be stressed. // 7:15. Herzer prints ὧδε instead of ἐνταῦθα (A B); but the latter appears also in 7:4, 23, 24, and 29, and our author loves to repeat words. // Kraft-Purintun print ἔκραξεν μεγάλῇ φωνῇ ὁ ἀετὸς λέγων. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer omit μεγάλῇ φωνῇ, and Piovanelli’s translation ignores it. Yet it may be original: (i) arm 993 (= 920) presupposes a Greek text with μεγάλῇ φωνῇ or φωνῇ μεγάλῇ, as do some Ethiopic mss.;6 (ii) our author otherwise likes κράζω + μεγάλῇ φωνῇ or φωνῇ μεγάλῇ + λέγων (2:2; 5:32; 9:8); (iii) P’s ἀνθρωπίνῃ φωνῇ (cf. arm 345) could be a revision of μεγάλῇ φωνῇ and in any case is another witness to φωνῇ; and (iv) in context, the notice is needed so that the bird can be heard above the crowd of wailing mourners. // Given vv. 18 (πᾶς ὁ λαός) and 20 (πᾶς ὁ λαός), τὸν λαὸν ἅπαντα (Harris; so C eth; cf. Piovanelli) may be original. // Instead of ἐπιστολῆς (A B P arm 993 [= 920]), Herzer prints, and Piovanelli translates, τοῦ καλου κηρύγματος (so eth, and C with τοῦ Θεοῦ). Is this not a Christian expression, inspired perhaps by Isa 52:7?7 7:18. After Μωϋσέως and in addition to καὶ νῦν … τούτου, C eth have καὶ ἐποίησεν ἑαυτὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀετοῦ. Harris prints this, and Piovanelli and Schaller accept the longer reading as original. Did an eye skip from the first καί to the second? It is, however, hard to make sense of the peculiar phrase.8 There does not seem to be any parallel to the biblical God turning into an eagle or appearing under such a form,9 and what would one then make of 7:9–12, where Baruch instructs and exhorts the eagle? One does not instruct or exhort God. Nonetheless, maybe the words reflect an imaginative reading of Exod 19:4 (“I bore you on eagles’   5 So

also Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” 83–84. Slav N has “the king” while Slav T2 has “Nebuchadnezzar.”   6 See Piovanelli, “Ricerche,” 229.   7 Cf. (the exceedingly late) Gennadius Scholarius, Refut. err. Jud. ed. Jugie et al., p. 281 (τῷ καλῷ κηρύγματι); Orat. et Pan. 6.3 (τοῦ καλοῦ κηρύγματος); Quaest. theol. q. 3 ed. Jugie et al., p. 382 (τοῦ καλοῦ κηρύγματος).   8 Note, however, the striking parallel in Ap. John 2:23:26–27: “I appeared in the form of an eagle” (Mpsmat Nouaetos = “in the form of an eagle”); cf. 3:30:17–18; BG 61:1–2.   9 Perhaps, however, one should note the distant parallel in Phil 2:6, where the divine being takes the “form” of a human being (σκήματι … ὡς ἄνθρωπος; cf. T. Zeb. 9:8) as well as texts where Jesus Christ appears as or is symbolized by an eagle: Hippolytus, Antichr. 61; Acts Phil. 3:5–6; Acts Xanthip. et Polyx. 17–18; Cyril of Alexandria, Exp. Ps. PG 69:853; Anastasius of Sinai, Hex. 12 ed. Baggarly and Kuehn 6:143.

316

Commentary

wings and brought you to myself”)10 and/or Deut 32:11–12 (“Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, the Lord alone did lead him”). 7:19. Σοὶ λέγω Ἰερεμία: so A B followed by Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Harris and Herzer: τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ; cf. Piovanelli. Our book favors σοὶ λέγω, which occurs otherwise in 4:3; 5:17; 7:9, 15. 7:20. Harris and Herzer: ἀκούσας οὖν ὁ λαός (so C). Kraft-Purintun: καὶ ἀκούσας ὁ λαός. A B have ἀκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαός (which Ceriani prints); this lines up with 7:16 (ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰερεμίας), 18 (πᾶς ὁ λαός); and 9:9 (ἤκουσε δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαός). // 7:22. Harris and Herzer omit Κύριος, which Ceriani and Kraft-Prunintun print following A B. Even if it is omitted, the sense of the sentence requires reading God into the last clause. 7:23. Heininger reads τοῦ Θεοῦ (so J U but not C) after δεόμενος.11 7:24. Heininger raises the possibility that ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ πῶς τιμωρεῖται and ἀφ’ ἧς γάρ κτλ., which are in C but not B J T U, are secondary.12 7:25. C L have σαβαώθ. The short Greek recension, the Armenian, and the Slavonic versions are of no help as they are here abbreviated. Harris, who influentially conjectured an original Ζάρ (= Heb. ‫זר‬, “strange,” “foreign”), listed the Ethiopic variants this way: “mss. aeth Zar, Sorot, Sarot.” Herzer has this: “Ζαρ eth … ethb Zör, ethb(mg) Sorot, ethc Sarot.” The critical editions of Kraft-Purintun and Herzer print Ζάρ. As Piovanelli observes, however, Dillmann’s apparatus (based on only three witnesses) shows (for ms. a) Sor, not Zar.13 In addition, Piovanelli is almost certainly right to regard Sor as an abbreviated form of Sorot and the latter as a variant of Sarot, which appears in the best Ethiopic witnesses. Sarot in turn is readily explained as a corruption: ΣΑΒΑΩΘ became ΣΑΡΑΩΘ and then ΣΑΡΩΘ.14 This seems the best solution; see the commentary below and note that, in 9:3, the ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος of Isa 6:3 appears without Isaiah’s following Κύριος σαβαώθ.15 This makes sense if Lord Sabaoth is, in 4 Baruch, a rejected title. 7:23. A B have a very different version of Jeremiah’s letter: “Jeremiah wrote an epistle to Baruch and Abimelech in the presence of all the people, concerning the tribulations that had befallen them, how they had been captured by the king of the  10

Cf. Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” 90. Heininger, “Brief,” 89–90.  12 Heininger, “Brief,” 83–84.  13 For what follows see Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 268; idem, “Traduzione etiopica,” 146–47, 196. See Dillmann, Chrestomathia, 11 n 5; note also the list of eth readings in Doering, Letters, 260 n. 227.  14 So also Heininger, “Brief.” Doering, Letters, 260, remains undecided on the issue.  15 It is restored in arm 144.  11

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

317

Chaldeans, and how each had seen his father bound, and (how) a father had seen (his) son handed over to punishment. Those wanting to console the father covered his face so that he would not see his son punished. And God protected you and Abimelech so that you would not see us being punished.”16 7:27. Heininger reads ἀνεστέναζον καὶ ὑπέστρεφον instead of ἐστέναζον καὶ ἐπέστρεφον and at the end (against C) drops καὶ κλαίων.17 7:29. Instead of ἀντελέγομεν (A B), Heininger reads ἐλέγομεν (so U; cf. T: ἐλέγωμεν).18 C G J: λέγω(ο)μεν. // C: πῶς ᾄσωμεν ὑμῖν (cf. eth). B T U: πῶς ᾄσωμεν τὴν ὡδὴν Κυρίου. One can hardly decide whether the latter is original or assimilation to LXX Ps 136:4. 7:31. Harris and Herzer omit καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλέμ (cf. Piovanelli), which is in A B (the latter without εἰς). Did an eye skip from the καί in καὶ ἦλθεν κτλ. to the καί in καὶ ἤνεγκεν κτλ.? Commentary Chapter 7 falls into three main parts. Verses 1–12 recount the meeting between Baruch and the eagle divinely commissioned to carry a letter to Jeremiah. Verses 13–22 tell of the reception of that letter in Babylon and of the response to it. Verses 23–31 narrate the contents, sending, and reception of Jeremiah’s subsequent letter to Baruch. Verse 32 is then a brief addendum that relates what Jeremiah did with the figs of v. 8 and summarizes, in a way that prepares for ch. 8, the prophet’s teaching. I. Baruch and the Eagle (1–12) A. Setting of the scene (1) B. Conversation between the eagle and Baruch (2–7) i. The eagle speaks (2) ii. Baruch speaks (3–4) iv. The eagle speaks (5) v. Baruch speaks (6) vi. The eagle speaks (7) C. Baruch ties the letter and some figs to the eagle’s neck (8) D. Baruch charges the eagle (9–12) II. Jeremiah and the exile in Babylon (13–22) A. Flight of eagle (13a) B. Encounter of eagle and Jeremiah (13b–15a) C. Command of eagle to Jeremiah to gather the people (15b)

 16 For

discussion of this variant see Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 283–86 (with a full of listing of additional variants); Herzer, 4 Baruch, 119.  17 Heininger, “Brief,” 85–86.  18 Heininger, “Brief,” 87.

318

Commentary

D. Gathering of people (16) E. Resurrection of corpse (17) F. Response of people (18) G. Public reading of Baruch’s letter (19–22) i. The eagle commands Jeremiah to read (19a) ii Jeremiah reads the letter (19b) iii. The people respond with repentance and ask for guidance (20–21) iv. Jeremiah orders them to obey the injunctions in the letter (22) III. Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch (23–31) A. Contents of the letter (23–29) i. Request for prayer (23) ii. Parable of father and son and its interpretation (24) iii. Crucifixion and apostasy of some exiles (25–26a) iv. Jeremiah’s memories of Jerusalem (26b–27) v. Second request for prayer (28) vi. Application of Psalm 137 (29) B. Jeremiah’s charge of the eagle (30) C. Flight of eagle and reception of letter (31)

The chapter as a whole is characterized by much repetition. The introductions to the lines spoken in vv. 3–7 are mechanically repeated: 7:3 7:5 7:6 7:7

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαροὺχ    Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ    Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός·

The actions of Baruch and Jeremiah in vv. 8–9 and 30 respectively mirror each other: 6:8–9 τὴν ἐπιστολήν … ἔδησεν   εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ         εἶπεν … ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ 7:30 ἔδησε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν         εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ        λέγων   ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ

Additional phrases more or less repeat themselves: 6 ἐπᾶραι τὴν           φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ 11 ἆρον   τὴν καλὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ 6 εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 13 εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 24 εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 9 σοὶ λέγω βασιλεῦ τῶν πετεινῶν 15 σοὶ λέγω Ἰερεμία ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ 19 σοι λέγω Ἰερεμία

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

319

19a λῦσον         τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, καὶ ἀνάγνωθι αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ 19b λύσας οὖν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν,                                   ἀνέγνω    αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ 21 εἰσέλθωμεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν 22 εἰσάξει ἡμᾶς       εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν 23       μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τὴν γενομένην τῷ  λαῷ 24b ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ 24c ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν         τοῦ λαοῦ

The same is true of individual words. Once the author uses a word, he enjoys repeating it for a bit: • ἀκούω 7:15, 16, 20, 22, 26, 31 • ἀπέρχομαι 7:9, 12, 13, 15 bis, 16, 30 • ἀποστέλλω 7:5 bis, 7 • γάρ 7:3, 7, 14, 23, 24 bis, 25, 29 • ἐκλεκτός 7:3, 11, 15 • ἐλεέω 7:24, 25, 26 • ἐνταῦθα 7:4, 15, 23, 24, 29 (nowhere else in 4 Baruch) • ἐξέρχομαι 7:1, 14, 23, 25, 28 • ἐπιστολή 7:8, 13, 15, 19 bis, 22, 23, 30, 31 • κάκωσις 7:23, 24, 31 • κλαίω 7:15, 20, 25, 26, 27, 31 • λαός 7:11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 bis, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28 • λύπη 7:24 bis, 31 • ὅπως 7:5, 23 bis, 28 (nowhere else in 4 Baruch) • φάσις 7:5, 6, 9, 10, 11 • φέρω 7:9, 10, 15, 31 Chapter 7 offers neither an objective synopsis nor a detailed overview of daily life in Babylon. It rather piles miserable circumstance upon miserable circumstance in order to emphasize the utter wretchedness of exile: • Verses 14–15 introduce a funeral with people wailing. • Verse 20 relates that, upon hearing Jeremiah, the people sought to repent, which implies their need for repentance. • Verse 23 declares that the people live under the jurisdiction of a “lawless king.” • Verses 23–24 speak of the people’s “mistreatment” in terms recalling the time of slavery in Egypt. • Verse 24 likens their state to that of a son being punished. • The same verse speaks of their unceasing grief. • Verses 25–26 recount the crucifixion of Jews. • Verses 25–26 have those Jews weeping and calling upon a foreign God.

320

Commentary

• Verse 26 has Jeremiah grieving and crying “a double lamentation.” • The same verse has the prophet reminiscing about what life used to be like in Jerusalem. • Verse 27 has Jeremiah groaning and returning to his house in agony and in tears. • Verse 28 expresses the desire to leave Babylon. • Verse 29 relates that the people cannot sing Psalms. • Verse 31 has Baruch crying when he learns of “the grief and the mistreatment of the people.” • The final verse refers to “the defilements of the Gentiles” around them. It is telling that, in v. 28, Jeremiah asks Baruch to pray, not that “we might come to Jerusalem,” but that “we might come forth from here.” It is the negative, the heartache of exile, that dominates this section of 4 Baruch. There is nothing akin to Ep Jer 1:7, where the exiles are assured that God’s “angel is with you” and “watching over your lives,” or to Sifre Num. 84 and Mek. Pisha 14, which teach that when the people “were exiled to Babylon, the ˙ Shekinah went into exile with them.” 4 Baruch says nothing like this and, despite 5:32 (God is “the repose of the souls of the just in every place”), it paints life in exile as unremittingly wretched. The contrast with the rejoicing in ch. 6 leaves a powerful impression. This part of 4 Baruch is, for the informed reader or hearer, strongly intertextual. According to the chorus in v. 18, the miracle of resurrection “in a deserted place” (vv. 13) is worked by “the God who appeared to our fathers in the desert through Moses” (v. 18). This explicit comparison is part of a larger new exodus typology: Israel leaves Babylon for Jerusalem, just as Israel once left Egypt for the promise land, and Jeremiah is a prophet like Moses.19 Beyond the new exodus typology, v. 10 briefly summarizes the story of Noah sending birds forth from the ark (Gen 8:6–12), and v. 29 rewrites the first part of Psalm 137 while vv. 26–27 probably allude to it. There are, in addition to all this, places where Jeremiah is made to sound like the canonical Jeremiah (see e.  g. on vv. 26 and 28) as well as numerous biblical phrases and idioms which do not reinforce any typology but simply give the narrative a biblical feel; these include ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται (see on v. 11), μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ, μήτε εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά (see on v. 12), and ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ πορεύσῃ (see on v. 12).

 19

Cf. Deut 18:15–18 and see above, pp. 21–22.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

321

The accounts of Baruch sending his letter to Jeremiah and of Jeremiah sending his letter to Baruch have a very close parallel in 2 Bar. 77:18–26; 87:1: 77:18. And it happened … I, Baruch, came and sat down under the oak … 19. And I wrote two letters. One I sent by an eagle to the nine and one half tribes. The other I sent by means of three men to those in Babylon … And I summoned the eagle and said to him: 21. “The Most High has created you that you should be higher than all birds. 22. And now go, and do not delay in any place, and do not go into a nest, and do not sit on any tree until you have traversed the breadth of the many waters of the Euphrates and have gone to the people who live there, and set before them this letter. 23. For remember that, at the time of the flood, Noah received the fruit of an olive tree from a dove when he he sent it out from the ark. 24. But also ravens cared for Elijah, bringing him food as they had been commanded. 25. Also Solomon, in the time of his kingdom, commanded a bird wherever he wanted to send or seek for anything, and it obeyed him as he commanded it. 26. And now, do not hesitate, and do not turn to the right or to the left. But fly and go by a straight way, that you may preserve the command of the Mighty One, as I have told you …” 87:1. When I finished all the words of this letter … I folded it and sealed it carefully and bound it to the neck of the eagle. And I let it go and sent it away.

In both texts, Baruch writes a letter to the diaspora; he sends it via an eagle who understands his words; his charge to the bird refers to Noah sending out a dove, and a raven is also mentioned; Baruch tells the bird not to go to the right or the left but to go straight; Baruch addresses him as higher than all birds in 2 Baruch and, in 4 Baruch, he calls him “king of birds”; the scribe characterizes God as “the Mighty One” in 2 Baruch whereas in 4 Baruch he asks the Lord to give the eagle “strength” and bids him to go “in the might of God”; and in both instances Baruch binds the letter around the eagle’s neck. There are, however, also differences, even beyond the fact that there is next to no overlap among the three letters. In 2 Baruch, Baruch summons the bird. In 4 Baruch, an angel prophesies the arrival of the eagle, who is sent by God. Only 2 Baruch refers to Elijah and Solomon, and while it mentions a raven, it is not in connection with Noah. Furthermore, if, in 4 Baruch, Baruch sends a letter to Jeremiah in Babylon, in 2 Baruch two letters are mentioned; one is sent via three men to exiles in Babylon, the other by the eagle to the nine and a half tribes who are somewhere else. Finally, whereas, in 2 Baruch, the eagle does nothing but receive a charge and carry the letter, in 4 Baruch he speaks at great length, carries figs as well as a letter, and raises a dead person. If, as many have thought, 4 Baruch depends upon 2 Baruch, then here our author has, by putting sentences in the mouth of the eagle and turning him into a miracle worker, made his story more fable-like. On this hypothesis, his redaction reveals that his interest is not in repeating

322

Commentary

2 Baruch but in mining it for details that he can revise and transform for his own purposes.20 Yet the evidence does not point unambiguously in one direction. Nothing excludes the possibility that, in the present instance, both texts made use of a common legend or a writing that no longer exists. If ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ is the earliest reading in v. 25, as Piovanelli has argued, it almost certainly comes from a Christian. Beyond that, one might discern a Christian hand in the ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πίστεως of v. 2 and in the εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἀπεστάλην of v. 7, although, as the commentary shows, such judgments are hardly necessary. For the rest, 4 Baruch 7 appears to be Jewish.21 The passionate interest in the plight of Jewish exiles in the diaspora, the reference to Israel as “the elect people of God” (v. 11), the remembrance of feasts in Jerusalem (v. 26), the concern with marriages to Gentiles (v. 32), and the two places where the HB may lie behind the narrative (see on vv. 25, 32) are all consistent with, and indeed more than suggestive of, a Jewish original. Goodenough was sure that, in the original version of 7:12, the words of Baruch—“even if all the birds of heaven surround you and seek to fight with you, persevere. May the Lord give you strength!”—must have been the introduction to an event recounted later.22 That is, the story included an episode in which birds attacked the eagle on his flight to Babylon. Perhaps there was such an episode, but it may never have appeared in a written version of 4 Baruch: our book repeatedly fails to narrate events it seemingly assumes. Related to this, while the Paraleipomena also speaks of Israel going to Babylon (4:5), of the return flight of the eagle to Baruch (7:31), of the trip from Babylon to the Jordan (8:1–2), of the return of the disobedient to Babylon (8:6–7), and of the journey to Samaria of those the Babylonians turn away (8:8), in no instance does it say anything concrete about the journey. The space between Israel and Babylon is, in 4 Baruch, a

 20

This is the judgment of Bogaert, Baruch, 1:189–92, and Herzer, 4 Baruch, 120, 122. Yet see Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” for the hypothesis that vv. 14–15a and 17–18 are from a later Gnostic hand which took return from exile to stand for the salvific exodus from this world. He compares the insertion of a resurrection story in the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark. In his later article, “Brief,” he urges that Jeremiah’s letter (7:23–31)—which displays no formal features of a letter and fails to respond to Baruch’s epistle—is secondary. In an earlier form of the text, v. 32 directly followed v. 22.  22 Goodenough, Symbols, 8:139.  21

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

323

blank.23 Our text is the antithesis of a travelogue, nothing like Xenophon’s Anabasis. 7:1–2. Baruch has seemingly spent the entire time of exile in a tomb, in a liminal space. This reflects the liminal state of all Israel during the exile: it has been in mourning for decades. Baruch—Abimelech has exited the stage—rises, leaves the tomb, and discovers the eagle: καὶ ἀνέστη Βαροὺχ καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου καὶ εὗρεν τὸν ἀετόν.24 The definite article in τὸν ἀετόν refers back to 6:12: “when light dawns tomorrow, an eagle will come to you.” It seems, then, that an evening has passed. This has happened without notice. One would expect “And when the day dawned, Baruch got up” or some such. It is hard not to see symbolic significance in the choice of language used to recount Baruch’s movement.25 Given that our book endorses the resurrection of the body (6:4–7) and will soon recount a miraculous return to life (7:17), ἀνέστη … καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου seems deliberately allusive; cf. LXX Isa 26:19 (ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις); Matt 27:52–53 (ἐξελθόντες ἐκ τῶν μνημείων); John 5:28–29 (οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις … ἐκπορεύσονται … εἰς ἀνάστασιν); Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:36 (τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνοιχθήσονται καὶ οἱ νεκροί ἀναστήσονται).26 The correlation between Baruch and the literally dead is reinforced by the circumstance that he has, on a narrative level, done nothing but sit and weep for sixty-six years. He has been as though dead. As he leaves the tomb, however, he enters into new life and so foreshadows not only the return from exile but the eschatological resurrection of the dead. The eagle is outside of the tomb, obviously waiting for Baruch, just as he will wait for Jeremiah in v. 13: καθεζόμενον ἐκτὸς τοῦ μνημείου.27 On

 23

Contrast Jer. Apocr. 30:10–21, which depicts in detail the miseries of the trek to Babylon: garments and shoes wear out; hair grows long; it is hot and dusty; the water is bitter; etc.  24 Ἀνέστη … καὶ ἐξῆλθεν: see on 1:1; μνημεῖον: see on 4:11; εὑρίσκω: 9x; ἀετός: see on 6:12. The use of καί to begin a new paragraph or turn in a story is not characteristic of Greek texts and is likely a Semitism; cf. Maloney, Semitic Interference, 67–68.  25 So too Wolf, “Heilshoffnung,” 155–56; idem, “Jerusalem,” 155–56; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 119.  26 For ἀνίστημι with reference to resurrection see BDAG, s.  v., 2. Note also the use of ἀνίστημι, ἐξέρχομαι, and μνημεῖον in the story of Jesus raising Lazarus: John 11:17, 23, 24, 38, 44.  27 Καθέζομαι: see on 4:11; for the sense, “be situated,” see BDAG, s.   v. 2; cf. LXX Job 39:27 (γὺψ δὲ ἐπὶ νοσσιᾶς αὐτοῦ καθεσθείς); Acts Phil. 3:5 (εἶδεν ὁμοίωμα

324

Commentary

what he sits—one might envisage a rock or a tree branch28—is not said. In v. 13 he rests on a post or tree. What resonances might the eagle have carried for an ancient audience? (i) The appearance of an eagle to inaugurate the return from Babylon might be especially fitting given that the Pentateuch famously likens God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt to the actions of an eagle:29 Exod 19:4 (“I bore you on eagles’ wings”); Deut 32:11 (“like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, the Lord alone did lead them”). Verse 18 makes the exodus typology explicit. (ii) Readers or hearers with a Greek education would have known the eagle as the messenger of Zeus.30 In 4 Baruch, however, the eagle, from the implied reader’s point of view, serves the true God, the God of Israel.31 (iii) The eagle was on Roman standards and symbolized the power of Rome; cf. Josephus, Bell. 3.123: the eagle “precedes every legion, because it is the king and bravest of all birds; it is regarded by them [the Romans] as the symbol of empire and an omen of victory, no matter who their adversaries may be.”32 So if the eagle, in 4 Baruch, serves not Babylon (which stands for Rome; see on 2:7) but exiled Israel, perhaps that is a way of hinting that Rome is about to come to its end. (iv) Goodenough imagines that, in 4 Baruch, “the eagle is indeed the light-being who brings life” and is akin to “the solar eagle … so often found on the Syrian graves” and on a few Jewish tombs.33 Although this reads too much into the text, Riaud may

ἀετοῦ καθεζόμενον μέγα); Aesop, Fab. 273 (ἀετὸς ἐκαθέζετο … θηρεῦσαι); ἐκτός:

1x. Cf. Artemidorus, Onir. 2.20: ἀετὸν … ἐπὶ πέτρᾳ καθεζόμενον ἢ ἐπὶ δένδρῳ.   29 Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 112–13. The Hebrew word in Exod 19:4 and Deut 32:11 is ‫נשר‬, which probably meant “vulture” originally. But a long interpretive tradition, going back to the LXX, took the word to refer to the eagle. See Christoph Berner, “Eagle I. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 7 (2013), 105–106.  30 Cf. Homer, Il. 8.245–52; 24.292–93, 310–11; Od. 2.143–47; Callimachus, Hymni 1:67–69; Aristophanes, Aves 512–15; Anth. pal. 9.223, 265.  31 Cf. LAB 48:1, where God says: “I will command my eagle” (aquile mee). Here the Jewish God sounds like Zeus.  32 Cf. 5.48; Pliny, N.  H. 10.5. 1QpHab 3:8–15 takes Hab 1:8–9 (“they fly like an eagle swift to devour. They all come for violence”) to be a prophecy of the Kittim = Romans, and in the vision of the eagle 4 Ezra 11–12, the eagle represents Rome. Cf. also perhaps T. Naph. 5:6. Whether the great golden eagle Herod set over the main gate to the temple, an eagle which offended some Jews, was intended to be a symbol of Rome is unclear; see Josephus, Bell. 1.650–55; Ant. 17.151–63.  33 Goodenough, Symbols, 8:141–42—within the context of a long discussion of the symbolism of the eagle in Judaism (8:121–42).  28

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

325

not be wrong in seeing the eagle as a symbol of immortality, as the eagle can be on non-Jewish tombs.34 In 7:17, Baruch’s eagle raises a dead man. T. Jud. 25:4–5 prophesies, in the context of resurrection, that “the eagles of Jacob shall fly with joy.” The section on the eagle in the Physiologus (red. prim.) 6 recounts the myth that, when it grows old, it flies toward the sun, which burns its wings and restores its sight, after which it descends into water and is made new.35 Acts Andr. Matt. 17 recounts a vision in which eagles take disciples to paradise. And eagles occur in Jewish funerary art, even though some experts see them as nothing more than “decorative.”36 The eagle speaks in a human voice—καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ἀνθρωπίνῃ φωνῇ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός—which means in a human language;37 cf. Herodotus, Hist. 2.55–57 (φωνῇ ἀνθρωπηίῃ/ἀνθρωπηίῃ φωνῇ recurs three times in connection with a dove speaking; see below); Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. β 3:17 (two trees prophesy Alexander’s death ἀνθρωπίνῳ στόματι); Gk. frag. Jub. 3:28 (ἀνθρωπίνῃ φωνῇ, of the speech of animals before the fall); T. Abr. RecLng. 3:3 (a cypress prophesying Abraham’s death cries out ἀνθρωπίνῃ φωνῇ); CMC 10:8–11 (cut trees cry out ἀνθρωπείᾳ φωνῇ). We have here the same folktale motif as in Homer, Id.  34 Riaud,

Paralipomènes, 112. M: ἀνακαινίζεται καὶ νέος γίνεται. Cf. Eusebius, Ps. 102.5 PG 23.1265; Ps.-Eusebius, Hex. PG 18.732; Athanasius, Exp. Ps. 102:5 PG 27.432D; Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps. 101–107 PG 55.642. In Christian sources, this myth is tied to Ps 103:5: “your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.”  36 So Hachlili, Jewish Art, 334; cf. idem, Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art:New Discoveries and Current Research (HdO 1, Ancient Near East 105; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 447–55. The meaning of eagles on ornamental lintels over doorways in later synagogues remains unclear; see Hachlili, Jewish Art, 206–208. According to Kohler, “Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” 410, the eagle in 4 Baruch is “one of the fabulous eagles of Persia—the Simurg, who serves as messenger and as a riding-bird to King Solomon in the Midrash, as it does for the kings of Persian folk-lore; he is gifted with divine wisdom and speech, and also with the power of immortality, or resurrection.” Yet apart from its ability to speak and understand, nothing said about our eagle makes it akin to the mythological Persian Simorg-. Equally implausible is the suggestion of Nir, Destruction, 218, that the eagle comes from Matt 24:28 and “represents Christ”; cf. the texts cited in n. 9.   37 Καὶ ἀποκριθείς … εἶπεν: see on 1:4 and cf. v. 22. The expression—a Semitism or Septuagintism (cf. ‫ ויען‬+ subject + ‫—)ואמר‬is favored by the synoptic writers; cf. LXX Gen 18:27; Num 23:26; Josh 24:16; Job 1:7; Dan 5:13; Tob 5:1, 10; 1 Macc 15:33; 1 En. 15:1; Gk. LAE 21:4; 28:2; T. Job 4:1; T. Abr. RecShrt. 5:3; 7:19; 8:2; 9:7; 10:12; 11:1; Matt 11:4; Mark 14:48; Luke 1:35; etc. See further P. Joüon, “Respondit et dixit,” Bib 13 (1932), 309–14, and BDF § 420. Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” 71, sees here evidence of a Hebrew original. Ἀνθρώπινος: 1x; φωνή: see on 2:2.  35 Ms.

326

Commentary

19.407–417, where a horse addresses Achilles, in Gen 3:1–5, where a snake speaks to Eve, and in Num 22:28–30, where a donkey speaks to Balaam. There are, furthermore, talking eagles in a few of Aesop’s Fables (e.  g. “The Eagle and the Arrow,” “The Eagle and the Kite”), and Herodotus, Hist. 2.55, tells this story: “two black doves had come flying from Thebes in Egypt, one to Libya and one to Dodona; this last settled on an oak tree and spoke in a human voice (φωνῇ ἀνθρωπηίῃ), declaring that there must be there a place of divination from Zeus. The people of Dodona understood that the message was divine, and thus they established the oracular shrine. The dove that went to Libya bade the Libyans, so they say, to make an oracle of Ammon.” There are also speaking birds in Anth. pal. 7.161 (the eagle of Zeus); Eccles 10:11 (“a bird of the air may carry your voice, or some winged creature tell the matter”—although this is metaphorical); and Rev 8:13 (an eagle cries with a loud voice, “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth”). This last is similar to 4 Ezra 11:7–9 (which belongs to a vision, not a narrative history): “the eagle … uttered a cry to his wings, saying, ‘Do not all watch at the same time; let each sleep in his own place, and watch in his turn; but let the heads be reserved for the last.’” For modern readers, a talking animal is a sign of 4 Baruch’s fictional character. What ancient Jewish and Christian readers or hearers might have thought of the matter is unclear, for although there were certainly skeptics,38 many appear to have believed that, at least before the fall, animals could speak;39 and presumably few Jews reckoned the tale in Num 22:28–30 to be unhistorical; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.109: the donkey, “according to God’s will, broke out in a φωνὴν ἀνθρωπίνην and reproached Balaam.”40 The eagle, who without introduction knows Baruch by name, and who in what follows speaks in a very formal manner, calls him to rejoice— χαῖρε, Βαρούχ—just as Baruch’s letter calls Jeremiah to rejoice (6:17).41

 38 See

the discussion of Philo, Conf. 7–9, in Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 87–92.  39 Cf. Jub. 3:28; Philo, Opif. 156; Josephus, Ant. 1.41.  40 It is unclear what Christian hearers and readers might have made of the stories of talking animals in the apocryphal Acts, stories such as that of the talking lion in a Coptic fragment of the Acts of Paul (see Rodolphe Kasser, “Acta Pauli 1959,” RHPR 40 [1960], 45–57), or the talking donkey in Acts Thom. 78–79, or the talking lamb and leopard in the newly discovered material in Acts of Philip 12. One guesses, however, that responses may not have been uniform, and that they varied depending upon a story’s perceived genre and clues that accompanied oral recitation.  41 Χαίρω: see on 6:17.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

327

As in 5:18 (“Baruch, the public reader”) and 6:17 (“Baruch, the servant of God”), so here too: Baruch’s personal name is followed by a title, this time ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πίστεως.42 The appellation might betray a later hand. Not only are the two other uses of πίστις in 4 Baruch Christian,43 but the religious use of οἰκονόμος, although attested apart from Christian texts,44 is most common in the latter,45 presumably in part because of its appearance in the parable of the faithful steward (Luke 12:42: ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος). Note also 1 Cor 4:2 (ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ) and CMC 63:9–10 (οἰκείοις τῆς πίστεως). Nonetheless, the precise Hebrew equivalent, ‫גזבר נאמן‬, occurs in b. B. Bat. 9a (“even if one has in his house a faithful steward”), and the plural, ‫גזברין נאמנים‬, appears in b. Ta̔an. 29a, in an alternative version of the legend—the returning of the keys of the temple—recounted in 4 Bar. 4:3–4.46 As to the sense, τῆς πίστεως could be objective, as in 1 Cor 4:1 (“stewards of the mysteries”) and 1 Pet 4:10 (“stewards of God’s varied graces”); it would then mean “the faith,” that is, religious belief or teaching.47 If so, the phrase would almost certainly be Christian.48 It is no less likely, however, that we have here a so-called Hebrew genitive, or a genitive of quality, so that the sense is “faithful steward”; cf. 4:4 (ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους); 8:9 (ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης); and again Luke 12:42 (ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος)

  42

Οἰκονόμος: 1x; it became a Hebrew loanword: ‫ ;איקונומוס‬πίστις: see on 6:4; πίστις:

3x: 6:4; 7:2; 9:13. See on 6:4—which refers to Baruch’s “virginal faith“—and 9:13.  44 See John Reumann, “‘Stewards of God’—Pre-Christian Religious Application of οἰκονόμος in Greek,” JBL 77 (1958), 339–49.  45 Cf. BDAG, s.  v., 3; Lampe, s.  v., 1.   46 See above, p. 182, and cf. the close parallel in ARN B 7:19: “for we were not faithful stewards (‫)אפטרופים נאמנים‬.” Note also perhaps the Greek common to T. Jos. 2:1 and 11:6: ἐπίστευσέ μοι τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ.  47 So Bogaert, Baruch, 1:216; Piovanelli, Paralipomeni, 321 (“amministratore della fede”); Herzer, 4 Baruch, 121 (“because Baruch’s faith has been brought back to life in the light of the saving news, and so has not disappeared, the title … likely is characterizing Baruch as one who keeps faith despite the crisis, who is responsible in faith”). Note Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 4:1; Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 1:19; 1 Pet 4:10; Jude 20. Cf. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 422 n. 7a: “This use of ‘the faith’ to mean correct doctrine is similar to the use of the term in the Pastoral Epistles. See e.  g. 1 Tim 3:9; 4:1.”  48 Contrast Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 131–33. He finds an objective genitive here and takes 4 Baruch as evidence that Jews used οἰκονόμος to designate the function of a religious authority.  43

328

Commentary

and the rabbinic texts cited in the previous paragraph.49 In this case, one wonders about the relationship of 7:2 to 4:3–4. In the latter, Jeremiah, adopting the third person plural, declares: “we have not been found worthy to guard them, for we have become false stewards (ἐπίτροποι τοῦ ψεύδους).” Does 7:2 mean that, after sixty-six years of sitting in a cave, Baruch has become worthy and so faithful again? Or—more plausibly—was Baruch, whom 6:3 dubs “sinless,” excluded all along from the confession in 4:3–4? Or do such questions demand too much of our text? 7:3. Baruch responds to the talking eagle not with incredulity but praise, declaring that the eagle is—like Jeremiah (see on 1:1), Israel (7:11), and Jerusalem (1:5)—“chosen” or “elect”: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαροὺχ ὅτι, Ἐκλεκτὸς εἶ σύ.50 The implicit subject is God—“chosen (by God)”— and the implicit purpose of the selection is the bird’s mission on behalf of Baruch. It is fitting that this elect bird will fly to the elect Jeremiah with a message about the elect people and their return to the elect city. Baruch goes on to remark on two extraordinary attributes of the eagle, although it is—rather awkwardly—only the second that reveals his chosen status. The first attribute is that this eagle, alone of all the birds of heaven, speaks: ὁ λαλῶν ἐκ πάντων τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.51 Whether ἐκ πάντων κτλ. goes with ὁ λαλῶν (as in the translation above) or with ἐκλεκτός (cf. the translation of Robinson: “chosen from all the birds of heaven”) is unclear. The expression, πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, is Septuagintal (cf. ‫ )כל־עוף השמים‬and associated with the creation narrative.52 The second attribute is the light or ray that comes from his eyes: ἐκ τῆς γὰρ αὐγῆς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου δῆλόν ἐστι;53 cf. Pliny, N.  H. 10.3: the haliaetus (a type of eagle) has a “bright and piercing eye.” Our text probably assumes the once popular idea that the eyes of both animals and humans give off a subtle ray or light, and that under occasional circumstances, or with exceptional individuals or supernatural beings, this ray or light can become visible; cf. Sophocles, Ajax 69–70 (“I divert the beam [αὐγάς] proSo Delling, Lehre, 26; Schaller, Paralipomena, 737. Cf. Compare 3 Βασ 21:31; LXX Dan 3:6; Matt 5:22; 18:9; Luke 16:9; 18:6; Acts 9:15; Tg. Jer 4:9 (‫)נביי שקרא‬. See further BDF § 165 and Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 14–15.  50 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5; ἐκλεκτός: see on 1:1.  51 Λαλέω: 14x; πετεινός: 3x: 7:3, 9, 12; οὐρανός: see on 3:2.  52 Cf. LXX Gen 1:30; 2:19, 20; Ps 49:11; Isa 18:6; Jer 4:25; Ezek 31:6, 13; 32:4; 38:20; Dan 4:21.  53 Αὐγή: 1x; ὀφθαλμός: see on 6:2; δῆλος: 1x.   49

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

329

ceeding from his eyes”); Euripides, Andr.  1180 (“What loved one shall I have the joy of casting rays [αὐγάς] upon?”); 1 En. 106:2 (“when he opened his eyes he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright”), 5 (“and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious”), 10 (“his eyes are like the rays of the sun and he opened his eyes and thereupon lighted the whole house”); Jos. Asen. 14:9 (“his eyes like a flame of the sun”).54 7:4. Earlier, in 6:12, an angel told Baruch that an eagle will come to him, and that the scribe will be able thereby to communicate with Jeremiah. So it is surprising when, in 7:4, Baruch asks the eagle to make known to him why he is there: δεῖξόν μοι οὖν, τί ποιεῖς ἐνταῦθα;55 The question is strictly unnecessary, as are the next three verses. Perhaps, however, they reflect the storyteller’s delight in recording rational speech from a bird. 7:5. The eagle, who seems fully informed, responds that he has been sent: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός· Ἀπεστάλην ὧδε.56 His theological claim makes him sound like an angel.57 One need not identify him as such, however, despite the fact that angels and Cherubim look like eagles in several sources,58 and despite the fact that the Falasha Tĕ᾽zĕa-za Sanbat (ed. Halévy, p. 17) knows of “an angel, a great eagle named Ta-ni.” The unnamed subject of the passive verb is God, and the eagle’s purpose is to convey whatever Baruch wishes to communicate: ὅπως πᾶσαν φάσιν ἣν θέλεις, ἀποστείλῃς δι’ ἐμοῦ.59 Note the wordplays: ἀπεστάλην … ἀποστείλῃς // πᾶσαν φάσιν.

 54

For additional texts and discussion see Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Intl., 1997), 135–48.  55 Δείκνυμι: see on 1:10; τί + ποιέω: see on 3:7; ἐνταῦθα: 5x, all in this chapter: 7:4, 15, 23, 24, 29.  56 Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; ὧδε: see on 3:12.  57 Cf. Dan 10:11; Luke 1:19; 4 Ezra 4:3; T. Abr. RecLng. 7:11; Apoc. Sedr. 2:3.  58 Cf. Ezek 1:10; 10:14; Rev 4:8; 3 En. 2:1 (Schäfer, Synopse 3 = 884); 24:11 (Schäfer, Synopse 37 = 903); 26:3 (Schäfer, Synopse 41 = 907); 44:5 (Schäfer, Synopse 62 = 928). Note also that, in Homer, Il. 24.292 and 310, the eagle that Zeus sends is his ταχὺν ἄγγελον, although here the sense is: his “swift messenger.” Cf. Anth. pal. 9.233: Ἀγγελίην πὰρ Ζηνὸς ἐπεὶ φέρεν ἠεροδίνης  αἰετός, οἰωνῶν μοῦνος ἐνουράνιος.  59 Ὅπως: 4x and, like ἐνταῦθα, all in this chapter: vv. 5, 23 bis, 28; φάσις: see on 6:8; θέλω: see on 3:7.

330

Commentary

7:6. Baruch responds by asking another question, even though he must already know the answer, for the angel in 6:12 said to him, “an eagle will come to you, and (through him) you will send (a message) to Jeremiah.” The scribe nonetheless inquires whether the eagle has the ability to carry the message on the papyrus all the way to Babylon, to Jeremiah: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βαρούχ· Εἰ δύνασαι σὺ ἐπᾶραι τὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ εἰς Βαβυλῶνα;60 7:7. The introductory καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἀετός completes the mechanical repetition begun in v. 3 (q.  v.); see above, p. 318. Instead of saying, in plain language, that he knows not only the way to Babylon but also how to find Jeremiah once he gets there, the eagle, using the divine passive,61 makes a succinct, theological assertion: εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἀπεστάλην.62 In other words, he has been sent precisely for the purpose of doing what Baruch wants done. The sentence, which repeats the ἀπεστάλην of v. 5, reminds one of statements attributed to John the Baptist and Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: John 1:31 (διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθεν); 12:27 (διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθεν); 18:37 (εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα). We may have a Christian hand here, as in Gk. Mart. Ascen. Isa. ed. Bettiolo et al. 2:7 (= 7:6): εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἀπεστάλην (an angel is the speaker).63 Note, however, the parallel in Ps.-Apollodorus, Bib. 3.16: διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθεν εἰς Ῥόδον. 7:8–9. Accepting the eagle’s testimony, Baruch binds two things to his neck: ἔδησεν αὐτὰ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ;64 cf. Jeremiah’s action in v. 30 (ἔδησε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ) and the close parallel at the conclusion of 2 Bar. 87:1: “when I finished all the words of this letter … I folded it and sealed it carefully and bound it to the neck of the eagle.” The mechanical parallelism is typical of our author. Baruch first ties the letter to the bird: ἄρας … τὴν ἐπιστολήν.65 An ancient reader or hearer might be reminded of the use of homing pigeons to carry messages.66 Next, Baruch also somehow attaches to the bird Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; δύναμαι: see on 1:8; ἐπαίρω: see on 5:34; φάσις: see on 6:8; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7.  61 See n. 23 on p. 37.  62 Εἰς τοῦτο: 1x; ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10.  63 Cf. also the declaration of Michael in CMC 59:6–9: τούτου χάριν πρὸς σὲ ἀπεστάλην. This is not independent of Christian tradition.  64 Δέω: 2x: 7:8, 30; τράχηλος: 3x: 7:8, 13, 30; ἀετός: see on 3:12.  65 Αἴρω: 12x; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:13.  66 Cf. Ps.-Anacreon, Ode 15(9); Varro, Rust. 3.7; 2 Bar. 77:25.  60

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

331

figs from Abimelech’s basket: καὶ δεκαπέντε σῦκα ἐκ τοῦ κοφίνου τοῦ Ἀβιμέλεχ.67 This might not seem implausible given the large prey that eagles sometimes carry in their talons.68 The number fifteen (which is omitted in 7:32) bears no obvious significance.69 Is it just a round number that came to mind because of the use of “fifteen” in 6:13 (“fifteen days”)? In the fascinating pictorial representation of 4 Baruch in the eleventh-century Theodore Psalter (British Museum Addit. 19352 fol. 36r.),70 the figs—at least twenty—are threaded on a grayish blue necklace around the eagle’s neck, as though they are a string of sun-dried figs. The letter scroll is attached by a red ribbon to its left foot.71 The eagle is in flight with its wings dramatically spread.72 We have already seen that the figs in our story have their origin in a haggadic reading of Jer 24:1–10.73 This matters because Jer 24:5 reads: “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom [‫ ]אשר‬I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans.’” One wonders whether a deliberately tendentious reading took ‫ אשר‬to refer to the figs, not the exiles, in which case the sense would be: “Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah—(the figs) which I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans.” Having tied the letter and the figs to the eagle, Baruch charges him—καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ—in formal language, opening with σοὶ λέγω and a flatter-

 67  68

Δεκαπέντε; cf. 6:13; σῦκα ἐκ τοῦ κοφίνου: see on 3:15.

There were even legends about eagles carrying human beings into the sky or heaven; cf. Ahiqar 7:6 syr; Eccles. Rab. 2:15 (Solomon rode a large eagle); and see Steven L. Bridge, “Where the Eagles are Gathered.” The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology (JSNTS 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 77–80.  69 In the short Greek recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 314), the number is ten.  70 The image can be viewed online at: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref= add_ms_19352_f001r#. For discussion see Sirarpie Der Nersessian, L’Illustration des psautiers grecs du Moyen Age II. Londres, Add. 19.352 (Paris: Klincksieck, 197), 26–27, 84–85; Crostini, “Psalter.” The latter, in discussing why 4 Baruch illustrates Psalm 33, neglects to observe that the next page (36v) depicts the seven sleepers of Ephesus right beside LXX Ps 32:18–19: “Behold, the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him, those who hope in his mercy, to rescue their souls from death.” Riaud, “Personnage,” 171–72, also overlooks this obviously crucial fact.  71 For the Greek caption beside the eagle see p. 67, n. 238.  72 The conjecture of Crostini, “Psalter,” that the Theodore Psalter may reflect otherwise unattested textual variants for 4 Baruch does not persuade.  73 See the discussion above, p. 174.

332

Commentary

ing appellation: βασιλεῦ τῶν πετεινῶν.74 The title—like the similar “king of beasts” for the lion75—is quite well-attested; cf. Aeschylus, Ag. 113 (οἰωνῶν βασιλεύς); Pindar, Isthm. 6.50 (ἀρχὸν οἰωνῶν μέγαν αἰετόν); Ol. 13.21 (οἰωνῶν βασιλεύς); Pyth. 1:3 (ἀρχὸς οἰωνῶν); Ezekiel the Tragedian apud. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.29.16 (βασιλεὺς δὲ πάντων ὀρνέων— of the Phoenix, which could be compared with the eagle; cf. Herodotus 2.73); Josephus, Bell. 3.123 (βασιλεύς … οἰωνῶν ἁπάντων); Acts Thom. 111 (“an eagle, the king of all birds”);76 Eusebius, Ps. 102:5 PG 23.1625 (ὁ ἀετὸς τῶν ὀρνέων ἐστὶ βασιλικώτατον);77 Hesychius of Jerusalem, Comm. Od. 2.11 (ἀετός … βασιλεὺς πάντων τῶν πετεινῶν); Anastasius of Sinai, Hex. 12 ed. Baggarly and Kuehn 6:143 (βασιλεῖ τῶν πετεινῶν … τῷ μεγέλῳ ἀετῷ); b. Hag. 13b (‫)מלך שבעופות נשר‬.78 Note the parallel in ˙ the eagle who is to carry his message that he is 2 Bar. 77:21: Baruch tells “higher than all birds.” Baruch bids the eagle, as he gets ready to carry the letter, to go in peace and with health: ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ μεθ’ ὑγείας, καὶ τὴν φάσιν ἔνεγκόν μοι.79 Jeremiah will do much the same in v. 30 (with ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ); cf. also the similar v. 12. The wish to “go in peace” derives from the old Jewish expression, ‫ ילך‬+ ‫ ;בשלום‬cf. 2 Sam 3:22 (LXX: ἀπεληλύθει ἐν εἰρήνῃ), 23 (ἀπῆλθεν ἐν εἰρήνῃ); T. Sol. D 4:11 ed. McCown, p. 93 (ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ).80 On the parallel in LXX Prov 4:27b see below, on v.

 74

Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ: see on 2:9; σοὶ λέγω; see on 4:3; βασιλεύς: see on 1:5; πετεινός:

3x: 7:3, 9, 12. hist. animal. epitome subj. Aeliani Timothei al. ecl. 2.163; Physiologus (red. prim.) 1:1; etc.  76 The context for this is interesting given the context in 4 Baruch: “The letter was a letter which the king had sealed with his right hand against the wicked, the people of Babel and the rebellious demons of Sarbûg. It flew in the form of an eagle, the king of all birds. It flew and alighted beside me and became all speech.”  77 The same phrase occurs in Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps. 101–107 PG 55.642.  78 Cf. also Sib. Or. 3:611 (“a great king will come from Egypt, a blazing eagle”); the eagles on the depictions of the stone steps of the thrones of Solomon and Ahasuerus at Dura Europos; and the description of Solomon’s throne in Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2 (“twelve lions of gold stood upon” the throne, “and opposite them were twelve eagles of gold; a lion opposite an eagle and an eagle opposite a lion”).  79 Φάσις: see on 6:8; φέρω: see on 3:15 and cf. v. 10; ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; εἰρήνη: 2x: 7:9, 13; ὑγίεια: 1x.  80 Although Greek sources reproducing the idiom more often use imperatival forms of ὑπάγω, πορεύομαι, and βαδίζω over imperatival forms of ἀπέρχομαι; cf. LXX Exod 4:18; Judg 18:6; 1 Βασ 1:17; 20:42; 2 Βασ 15:9; Jdt 8:35; Tob 10:12 S; Jub. 12:29; Mark Adv. Jud.; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36; Jas 2:16; Acts Phil. 93; etc.  75 Aristoph.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

333

12. The wish for health was, like the wish for peace, conventional in letter openings and closings.81 Here, however, it is a wish for a traveler, as in Tob 5:17 ‫( א‬ὑγιαίνοντες ἀπελευσόμεθα); 8:21. Instances of the common joining of “peace” and “health” include Plato, Resp. 372D (ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ ὑγιείας); Timaeus Tauromenitanus, frag. 22 (τὴν δ’ εἰρήνην τῆι ὑγιείαι); Polybius, Hist. 12.26.6 (τὴν δ’ εἰρήνην τῇ ὑγιείᾳ); 1 Clem. 61:1 (δός, Κύριε, ὑγίειαν, εἰρήνην).82 7:10. After bidding the bird peace and health, Baruch exhorts him by recalling Gen 8:6–12. According to the latter, Noah, wanting to know whether the flood was beginning to recede, sent forth a raven. It did not return. He then sent out a dove. The dove returned because it had no dry ground on which to land. When Noah sent it forth again, it returned with a fresh olive leaf in his mouth. This signaled the appearance of dry land. When he sent the bird a third time, it failed to come back. Our narrative enjoins the eagle not to imitate the raven: μὴ ὁμοιωθῇς τῷ κόρακι, ὃν ἐξαπέστειλε Νῶε καὶ οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ἔτι πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν.83 This might mean no more than that Baruch wishes the eagle to return to him, bringing news from Jeremiah. Yet it might also, even though Scripture nowhere disparages the raven, assume his bad character. The raven was an unclean bird (Lev 11:15; Deut 14:14); Philo took Noah’s raven to be a “symbol of evil” (QG 1.35); Acts Xanth. Polyx. 18:2 asserts that “the raven was not obedient to the just Noah but loved despicable things”;84 and Gen. Rab. 33:5 records the tradition that the raven argued with Noah.85 Whatever the case, the line in 4 Baruch mixes elements from the episode of the raven in LXX Gen 8:6–7 with elements from the episode of the dove in 8:8–11:86

 81

Cf. 2 Macc 1:10; Let. Aris. 41; 3 John 2; P.Oxy. 2 292:11; BGU 1 343. Dicaearchus, frag. 49; LXX Isa 9:5; Ecclus 1:18; Athenaeus, Deipn. 4.14; Porphyry, Abst. 4.2.  83 Ὁμοιόω: 2x: 7:10 bis; κόραξ: 1x; ἐξαποστέλλω: 1x; Νῶε: 1x; ἀποστρέφω: 1x; κιβωτός: 1x.  84 This goes on immediately to contrast the raven with “the eagle that rose up” = Jesus Christ.  85 On negative appraisals of the raven see David Marcus, “The Mission of the Raven (Gen 8:7),” JANES 29 (2002), 71–80.  86 On the use of the LXX here see Schaller, “Greek Version,” 83.  82 Also

334

Commentary

4 Bar. 7:10 τῷ κόρακι ὃν ἐξαπέστειλε Νῶε       καί            οὐκ 

ἀπεστράφη

LXX Gen 8:6–7 Νῶε …   ἀπέστειλεν τὸν κόρακα … καί … οὐχ 

ὑπέστρεψεν87

LXX Gen  8:10–11          ἐξαπέστειλεν ἀνέστρεψεν LXX Gen  8:12          ἐξαπέστειλεν … καί     οὐ … ἐπιστρέψαι 4 Bar. 7:10 πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν LXX Gen 8:9 πρὸς ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν

Probably implicit is the idea that, just as the dove brought news to Noah of the end of divine wrath and the beginning of a new world, so the eagle will bring news to Jeremiah of the end of God’s wrath and the beginning of a new life in Jerusalem. The eagle is to imitate the dove: ἀλλὰ ὁμοιώθητι τῇ περιστερᾷ, ἥτις ἐκ τρίτου φάσιν ἤνεγκε τῷ δικαίῳ.88 This does not harmonize with scripture, which says that, when the dove was sent a third time, “it did not return to him any more” (Gen 8:12). Our text has altered the old story for its own end. An intertextually knowledgeable audience might have taken the contradiction to be yet another sign of our book’s fictional nature. In any event, the description of Noah as “righteous” goes back to Genesis and became quite popular.89 Having this virtue makes him, in our book, like Abimelech (5:30) and Baruch (7:23). 7:11. As it was with Noah and the dove, so should it be with Baruch and the eagle: οὕτως καὶ σύ.90 The bird should do Baruch’s bidding, that is, take his letter to Jeremiah and, it is implied, and as happens, return as well: ἆρον τὴν καλὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ. With the exception of καλός,91 the language mines earlier verses; cf. 6:8

 87  88

Ἀπέστρεψεν is attested as a variant. Περιστερά: 1x; τρίτος: 1x; cf. Philo, QG 2.44; φάσιν ἤνεγκε: this comes from

v. 9, q.  v.; it enhances the parallel between Baruch and eagle and Noah and the dove; δίκαιος: see on 5:30. Against Bogaert, Baruch, 1:191–92, who suggests that the opposition of dove and raven in 4 Baruch reflects a “perspective dualiste,” see Herzer, Paralipomena, 70 n. 137; idem, 4 Baruch, 122 n. 14.  89 Cf. Gen 6:9; 7:1; Ezek 14:14, 20; Jub. 10:17 (cf. 7:20); 1 En. 67:1; 106:18; Wis 10:4; Ecclus 44:17; 4 Ezra 3:11; Sib. Or. 1:280; Philo, Post. 48; Gig. 3; Mut. 189; Her. 260; QG 2.33; LAE 3:4; Josephus, Ant. 1.75; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:5; Justin, Dial. 138.1; etc.  90 The expression occurs in LXX 3 Βασ 22:4; Jos. Asen. 12:8. Οὕτως: see on 6:6.  91 Καλός: 1x. Cf. P.Oxy. 4 805 (καλαὶ φάσεις; pre-Christian); Dorotheus the Astrologer, frags. ed. Pingree, p. 355 (καλαῖς φάσεσι). Note the Christian v.  l. of C in v. 15: τοῦ καλοῦ κηρύγματος.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

335

(τὴν φάσιν τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ), 10 (πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν … τὴν φάσιν ταύτην); 7:6 (ἐπᾶραι τὴν φάσιν ταύτην τῷ Ἰερεμίᾳ); cf. also 2 Bar. 77:12 (“write to our brothers in Babylon a letter of doctrine and a scroll of hope, so that you may strengthen them”). The good news in 4 Baruch is the end of exile, the forthcoming return to Jerusalem for the obedient.92 Previous references to Baruch’s letter have referred to Jeremiah alone (6:8, 10, 12, 17; 7:6); but as that letter contains words for all Israel (6:13– 14, 20–22), the addition of “those with him” is here appropriate, and it anticipates the conclusion, τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐκλεκτῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ.93 Israel is (only here in 4 Baruch) dubbed “elect” or “chosen.” Israel’s status as God’s “chosen” people was a foundational Jewish theologoumenon,94 and the exile does not undo this.95 The promise to the eagle is that, if he carries the papyrus to its destination, it will go well with him: ἆρον τὸν χάρτην τοῦτον … ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται.96 Ἵνα κτλ. is a refrain in the Pentateuch,97 where it is memorably associated with the command to obey parents: Exod 20:12 = Deut 5:16 (LXX: ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται).98 The corresponding Hebrew is: ‫( למען ייטב לך‬cf. 11QTemple 53:7; 65:5). The next verse will also borrow biblical language. 7:12. The exhortation of the eagle who understands human language continues with Baruch imploring him to stay his course even if (for reasons unexplained)99 other birds—hyperbolically “all the birds of heaven” (the phrase comes from v. 3, q.  v.)—surround him and seek to fight: ἐὰν κυκλώσωσί σε πάντα τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ βούλωνται

 92

Cf. Jer. Apocr. 35:6: “tell him (Jeremiah) the surpassing good news; send him to the kings of the Babylonians that he may redeem my people.”  93 Λαός: see on 1:5; ἐκλεκτός: see on 1:1; cf. v. 15: ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ.  94 Cf. Deut 7:6; 14:2; 1 Kgs 3:8; 1 Chr 16:13; Ps 33:12; 105:6, 43; Isa 41:8; 43:20 (τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν, λαόν μου; cf. 1 Pet 2:9); 44:1; 45:4; 49:7; 65:9; 4 Ezra 6:54; 15:53, 56; Tob 8:15; Jub. 19:18; T. Mos. 4:2; LAB 39:7; Sifre Deut. 312; Num. Rab. 3:2; etc. See further Urbach, Sages, 1:525–41; A. Labahn, “Die Erwählung Israels in exilischer und nachexilischer Zeit,” ETL 75 (1999), 395–406.  95 Cf. Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1755: “the title, ‘elect people,’ is here given to the exiles.”  96 Χάρτης: see on 6:16; ἆρον comes from the beginning of v. 11; εὖ: 1x.  97 Deut 4:40; 5:16; 6:18; 12:25, 28; 22:7.  98 Cf. Philo, Det. 52; Spec. 2.261; Eph 6:3.  99 The real-life background is the common sight of smaller birds, in defense of their nests, attacking hawks and eagles.

336

Commentary

πολεμῆσαι μετὰ σοῦ, ἀγώνισαι.100 Whether such in fact happens, so that the bird has to persevere and struggle against attackers on his way to Babylon, matters not for the story, which recounts nothing of his journey. Baruch nonetheless prays that the Lord might give him strength for his long flight: ὁ Κύριος δώῃ σοι δύναμιν.101 To wish someone strength for a journey was conventional; cf. 1 Sam 28:22. Here, however, the strength comes from God. This is a HB/OT topos; cf. Deut 8:17–18 (LXX: Κυρίου … σοι δίδωσιν ἰσχύν); 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 28:11 (Κύριος ἰσχὺν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ δώσει); Jdt 13:7; Bar 1:12 (δώσει Κύριος ἰσχὺν ἡμῖν).102 Perhaps Christians would have heard a liturgical ring; cf. Apos. Con. 7:42: Κυρίου … δώσῃ … δύναμιν. The imperative not to turn to the right or the left—μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιά, μήτε εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά103—like the prayer that it may go well with the eagle (see on v. 11), is distinctively biblical; cf. LXX Deut 5:32 (οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖτε εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά); Josh 1:7 (οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς … εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά); 23:6 (μὴ ἐκκλίντε εἰς δεξιὰν ἢ εὐώνυμα).104 Indeed, the precise Greek equivalent (with μήδε instead of μήτε) occurs in LXX Prov 4:27 (for ‫)אל־תט־ימין ושמאול‬, and the parallel is all the more notable in that LXX Prov 4:27 is not only preceded and followed by imperatives to go “straight” (25: ὀρθά; 26: ὀρθάς; 27b: ὀρθάς) but also accompanied by a promise that God will “guide your journeys ἐν εἰρήνῃ” (27b). 4 Baruch has evidently imitated Proverbs, and an intertextually astute audience might have recalled the end of Proverbs 4.105 Whatever the answer, the injunction to go straight as an arrow—ἀλλ’ ὡς βέλος ὕπαγον ὀρθῶς106—supplies a synonymous parallel. The similar 2 Bar. 77:26 (“Do not hesitate and do not turn to the right or to the left. But fly and go by a straight way”) shows dependence upon a common source or tradition or the influence, direct or indirect, of one text upon the

100

Κυκλόω: see on 1:3; βούλομαι: 2x: 7:12; 9:29; πολεμέω: 1x; ἀγονίζομαι: 1x. Cf. Col 1:29: ἀγωνιζόμενος … ἐν δυνάμει. Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 170, sees a connection with Jer 12:9: “are the birds of prey all around her?”

Κύριος: see on 1:4; δίδωμι: see on 3:15; δύναμις: see on 1:3 and note further below. 102 Cf. also Menander, Sent. e papyris 9r (καιρὸς δὲ πᾶσι Κύριος δύναμιν διδοῖ); Acts Thom. 97 (Κύριε … σὺ δός μοι δύναμιν); PGM 22b:16 (ὁ Κύριος … δόντα δύναμιν). 103 Ἐκκλίνω: 1x; δεξιός: 1x; ἀριστερός: 1x. 101

104

Cf. also Num 22:26; Deut 2:27; 17:11, 20; 28:14; 2 Sam 2:19; 14:19; 2 Kgs 22:2; 2 Chr 34:2; 1 Macc 5:46; 4Q504 1–2 2:14. 105 Schaller, “Greek Version,” 83, considers “the link to LXX Proverbs to be certain.” 106 Βέλος: 1x; ὑπάγω: 1x; ὀρθός: 1x.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

337

other. Unlike the rest of the charge, the order to go straight as an arrow has no biblical background. It rather takes up a secular simile; cf. Aeschylus, Prom. Lyom. ed. Nauck frag. 200 (ὀρθὸν ἰθύνοι βέλος); Julius Africanus, Cesti 1:20 (ὀρθοῖς βέλεσι); Nonnus, Dionys. 25.517 (ὀρθὸν … βέλος). The directive to go in the power of God—ἄπελθε ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ107—repeats in effect Baruch’s earlier prayer, “May the Lord give you strength!” The repetition is in line with the author’s emphasis upon divine power, which is foundational for the doctrine of resurrection; see on 6:6–7. Although “the power of God” is well attested in Jewish sources,108 “in/by the power of God” became a favorite of Christians.109 Baruch’s final words to the eagle amount to a blessing: καὶ ἔσται ἡ δόξα Κυρίου μετὰ σου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ πορεύσῃ.110 This incorporates yet another biblical idiom, one associated esp. with Deuteronomy and Kings; cf. Gen 28:15 (LXX: ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ πάσῃ, οὗ ἐὰν πορευθῆς); Deut 1:31 (LXX: πᾶσαν τὴν ὁδόν, ἣν ἐπορεύθητε; MT: ‫ ;)בכל־הדרך אשר הלכתם‬Josh 24:17 (LXX: ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ὁδῷ ᾗ ἐπορεύθημεν; MT: ‫;)בכל־הדרך אשר הלכנו‬ 2 Kgs 21:21 (LXX: ἐν πάσῃ ὁδῷ, ᾗ ἐπορεύθη; MT: ‫)בכל־הדרך אשר הלך‬.111 The parallel with 3:15 is close if one there understands “glory” to refer to the divine presence that will accompany Abimelech on his journey.112 7:13. Despite Baruch’s dramatic charge to the eagle about his forthcoming flight, the journey is recounted without incident, or rather not recounted at all. We are told only that the bird took off with the letter around its neck and arrived in Babylon: τότε ὁ ἀετὸς ἐπετάσθη, ἔχων τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν τῷ τραχήλῳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.113 The similar v. 31a is equally succinct and colorless. All attention is on what happens after the bird—who clearly enjoys divine guidance since Baruch has hardly given him, or could give him, precise directions on where to find Jeremiah—

107

Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; δύναμις: see on 1:3; Θεός: see on 1:1.

108 See

Jdt 13:19; Wis 7:25; 2 Macc 3:24, 38; 11:13; Let. Aris. 13; T. Abr. RecLng. 17:11. 109 Cf. 1 Cor 2:5; 2 Cor 6:7; 1 Pet 1:5; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.11.50.3; etc. 110 Δόξα: see on 3:15; ἡ δόξα Κυρίου is common in the LXX for ‫ כבוד יהוה‬and is associated esp. with the Pentateuch and Ezekiel; ὁδός: see on 3:15; πορεύω: see on 5:6. 111 Also Deut 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 18:9; Josh 22:5; 30:16; 1 Kgs 8:58; 16:26; 22:43; 2 Kgs 22:2; Jer 7:23. 112 Chibici-Reveneanu, Herrlickeit, 413, suggests finding a new exodus motif here. 113 Τότε: 3x: 5:32; 7:13; 9:30; ἀετός: see on 6:12; πετάννυμι: 2x: 7:13, 31; ἔχων … αὐτοῦ: see on 7:8; ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7. Cf. 3:11 (ἄπελθε … εἰς Βαβυλῶνα); 5:24 (ἀπελθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα).

338

Commentary

lands in an isolated spot: εἰς τόπον ἔρημον.114 He does not enter the pagan city,115 and our book does not offer details about daily life inside the city of Babylon, only glimpses of misery.116 In the background is the exodus tradition that God appeared to Israel in the desert; cf. v. 18.117 The eagle rests upon a wooden post outside the city: ἀνεπαύσατο ἐπί τι ξύλον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.118 Although ἐπί ξύλον/υ was (because of Deut 21:22) used with reference to Jesus’ crucifixion,119 nothing suggests a Christian hand. It may be, however, that the eagle rests upon a post used for crucifixions; see v. 25. The image of a lone bird on a post in a deserted place creates a feeling congruent with the isolation of the exile, as does the notice that he was silent. The location also heightens the parallel between what is about to happen and what happened in Moses’ day; cf. v. 18, where the people infer, after the eagle resurrects a dead man, that the God who appeared to the fathers in the desert has now appeared likewise to them. The eagle keeps quiet only until Jeremiah and others—presumably a procession of mourners—appear: ἐσιώπησε δὲ ἕως οὗ διῆλθεν Ἰερεμίας, αὐτὸς καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς τοῦ λαοῦ.120 How the bird identifies the prophet— who by now must be quite aged121—goes unsaid, but his immediate and certain recognition contributes to the miraculous and even fairy-tale like charΤόπος: see on 5:7; ἔρημος: 3x: 7:13, 18; 8:8. See further on 3:9, on the link between “Jeremiah” and ἔρημος. The expression recurs in 8:8, of Samaria; also in LXX Dan 4:25. The more common order is εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, as in Matt 13:14; Mark 1:35; Luke 4:42; T. Abr. RecLng. 12:9; Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. β 1.14 (ἔξω τῆς πόλεως εἰς ἔρημον τόπον). 115 Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 193: the eagle, who is to reveal God, cannot enter the pagan city. On p. 112 he underlines the parallel with the exodus: in the time of Moses, revelation came in the desert, not an Egyptian city. 116 See further above, p. 319. 117 On the significance of this theme see W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974), 75–90. Although Jer 31:2 speaks of “grace in the wilderness,” that passage is not directly connected with ours. 118 Ἀναπαύω: see on 5:1; ξύλον: 1x; πόλις: see on 1:1. In 2 Bar. 77:22, Baruch tells the eagle not to “sit on any tree” until arriving in Babylon. If the author of 4 Baruch had heard 2 Baruch, perhaps this element comes from the latter, although it is employed differently. 119 Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24; Barn. 12:1; Ps.-Athanasius, Pass. PG 28.228; Ep. Ps.-Dionysius ad Tim. 9:10; etc. 120 Σιωπάω: 2x: 7:13; 9:23; ἕως οὗ: see on 3:10; διέρχομαι: 1x; ἄλλος: see on 5:2; λαός: see on 1:5. 121 Even if he was young when Jerusalem was conquered—according to Jer. Apocr. 26:4, he was under 20—sixty-six years have passed. 114

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

339

acter of the legend. That Jeremiah is with the people—and not, like Baruch, a sort of anchorite—shows that he has obeyed the divine commandment delivered to him in 3:11: “go with the people to Babylon and remain with them, proclaiming to them good news until I return them to the city.”122 7:14. This verse is set-up for v. 17, where the eagle lands upon a dead man, who then revives. Burial outside of a city’s walls—ἐξήρχοντο γὰρ θάψαι νεκρὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως—corresponds with both Gentile custom and later Jewish law.123 Our text makes Jeremiah responsible for obtaining from the Babylonian king a burial plot for Jews: ᾐτήσατο γὰρ Ἰερεμίας παρὰ τοῦ Ναβουχοδονόσορ, λέγων· Δός μοι τόπον ποῦ θάψω τοὺς νεκροὺς τοῦ λαοῦ μου. Καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ.124 Jeremiah’s status as leader here is notable. He, like a king, calls the people “my people,” as he does in the closely related Pesiq. Rab. 26:6,125 and he appears to be responsible for conducting their burial services. All this is consistent with the inference that our book presents him as the High Priest.126 He is in any case the acknowledged leader of the community in exile—what Jewish tradition came to call the ‫ ראש גלות‬or exilarch. Riaud rightly sees here another parallel with Moses: Jeremiah stands with his people and deals with Nebuchadnezzar just as Moses stood with his people and dealt with Pharaoh.127 7:15. The eagle waits for Jeremiah to appear, obviously anticipating, with his supernatural knowledge, that he will soon arrive; cf. v. 1. When this happens—ἀπερχομένων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ κλαιόντων μετὰ τοῦ νεκροῦ,128 ἦλθον κατέναντι τοῦ ἀετοῦ—he cries loudly: ἔκραξεν ὁ ἀετὸς μεγάλῇ φωνῇ λέγων;129 cf. Rev 8:13 (ἀετοῦ … λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ); 4 Ezra 11:7 (aquila … emisit vocem). He seeks to be heard above the wail-

122

Contrast Jer. Apocr. 31:21; 35:1, where Jeremiah stays in a tomb outside of Babylon, praying for the people. 123 Cf. Cicero, Leg. 2.23.58; the Lex Ursonensis 74–74; Luke 7:12; m. B. Bat. 2:9; t. Neg. 6:2; Sem. 14.9–10; ARN A 4:32. Ἐξέρχομαι + ἔξω τῆς πόλεως: see on 4:3; θάπτω: 3x: 7:14 bis; 9:32; νεκρός: 3x: 7:14 bis, 15; πόλις: see on 1:1. 124 Αἰτέω: 1x; Ναβουχοδονόσορ: see on 5:21; δίδωμι: see on 3:15; τόπος: see on 5:7; λαός: see on 1:5. 125 Cf. 1 Sam 15:30; 2 Kgs 3:7; 1 Chr 28:2; 2 Chr 18:3. 126 See further on 2:1; 9:2; and p. 183. 127 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 193. Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 124 n. 27. In the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, he shares this role with Ezra. 128 Schaller, Paralipomena, 739, puts a comma before μετά, not after νεκροῦ. 129 Ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; κλαίω: see on 2:5; νεκρός: see on 7:14; κατέναντι: 1x; ἀετός: see on 6:12; ἔκραξεν … μεγάλῇ φωνῇ λέγων: see on 2:2.

340

Commentary

ing crowd. The bird addresses Jeremiah with σοὶ λέγω, using the same formal, solemn expression with which Baruch addresses the eagle in v. 9 (q.  v.).130 Although he shows deference by confessing that Jeremiah is God’s elect—ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ—he nonetheless commands him: the prophet is to go and gather the people. The next verse will recount Jeremiah’s obedient response with the same vocabulary: Command of eagle Action of Jeremiah

ἄπελθε, σύναξον τὸν λαόν131 ἀπελθὼν συνῆξε τὸν λαόν

Given the explicit reference to Moses and the desert in v. 18, this is probably an exodus motif, with Jeremiah as a new Moses. In Num 21:16 (LXX: συνάγαγε τὸν λαόν) and Deut 4:10 (“Assemble the people for me, and I will let them hear my words”), Moses is commanded to gather the people. The vadens congrega populum of 4 Ezra 14:23 also belongs to a new Moses typology.132 The purpose of Jeremiah gathering the people is so that they can hear the letter he has carried so far: ἔλθωσιν ἐνταῦθα ἵνα ἀκούσωσι ἐπιστολῆς ἣς ἤνεγκά σοι; cf. 7:22.133 Although 1 Macc 10:7 (ἀνέγνω τὰς ἐπιστολὰς εἰς τὰ ὦτα παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ) appears to be the closest biblical parallel, one wonders whether there is perhaps an echo of Deut 31:12: “Assemble the people—men, women, and children as well as the aliens residing in your towns—so that they may hear” (LXX: ἵνα ἀκούσωσιν). Whether that is so or not, when the people leave the city, their temporary departure from their pagan neighbors and their city foreshadows what Jeremiah will soon demand: permanent severance from the Babylonians. It is striking that the eagle will not enter the city but remains outside, and that the people have to come to him. One wonders whether there is a theological idea behind this, akin to what we find in Mek. Pisha 1:35–42, ˙ Aaron in in its commentary on Exod 12:1 (“the Lord spoke to Moses and the land of Egypt”): “This means outside the city. You say it means outside

also v. 19. Heininger, “Totenerwartung,” 88, observes that σοὶ λέγω occurs on Jesus’ lips in the resurrection stories in Mark 2:11; 5:41; Luke 7:14. 131 Cf. LXX Joel 2:16: συναγάγετε λαόν. Ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ: see on 1:1; ἀπέρχομαι: 17x; συνάγω: 2x: 7:15, 16; λαός: see on 1:5. 132 See Allison, New Moses, 62–64. 133 Ἐνταῦθα: see on 7:4; ἀκούω: 20x; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:13; φέρω: see on 3:15. Cf. also Aeschines, Falsa leg. 134 (τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἠκούετε); Libanius, Decl. 21.1.10 (ἤκουσαν τῆς ἐπιστολῆς); Ep. 559.3 (ἀκηκόαμεν ἐπιστολῆς); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 1–2 Amm. 11 (ἀκούσας τῆς ἐπιστολῆς); Aelius Aristides, Εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον ed. Jebb, p. 385 (ἀκούετε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς). 130 Cf.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

341

of the city; perhaps it means within the city? Since, however, it says ‘And Moses said to him, “As soon as I am gone out of the city I will spread forth my hands to the Lord”’ (Exod 9:29), should we not apply the argument of kal vahomer? If with regard to prayer, the less important, Moses would ˙ outside of the city, it is but a logical inference that with regard utter it only to the divine word, the more important, he would speak it to him only outside of the city. And why, indeed, did he not speak with him within the city? Because it was full of abominations and idols.” The specification of the letter as being “from Baruch and Abimelech” is a bit surprising. In ch. 6, Abimelech’s only connection with the letter appears to be obtaining papyrus and ink (v. 16). The letter, moreover, is there explicitly said to be from “Baruch the servant of God” (v. 17). Here, however, the author anticipates the combination of proper names he repeats (with Baruch always in first position) in 8:5; 9:7, 8, 22, 25, 28, 32; and the mention of Baruch and Abimelech must add to Jeremiah’s emotional response.134 7:16. Jeremiah, seemingly without hesitation, takes the eagle’s information and imperative at face value. Unlike the Zechariah of Luke 1:18, who asks, “How will I know that this is so?,” Jeremiah raises no question and exhibits no doubt. He rather straightaway glorifies God: ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰερεμίας, ἐδόξασε τὸν Θεόν.135 Although δοξάζω + τὸν Θεόν is a well-attested idiom,136 4 Baruch’s Greek has perhaps a Lukan ring; cf. Luke 2:20; Acts 11:18 (ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα … ἐδόξασαν τὸν Θεόν); 13:48; 21:20 (οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεόν); but note also T. Sol. 2:5 (ἤκουσα … ἐδόξασα τὸν Θεόν); 15:12 (ἀκούσας ταῦτα ἐδόξασα τὸν Θεόν); 18:41 (ἀκούσας … ἐδόξασα τὸν Θεόν). In accord with the eagle’s imperative, and although it requires interrupting a burial service and leaving the deceased on the ground (cf. v. 17), Jeremiah departs and gathers the people: ἀπελθὼν συνῆξε τὸν λαόν (see on v. 15). They return with him: ἦλθεν ὅπου ὁ ἀετός.137 New, however, 134 According

to Herzer, 4 Baruch, 119–20, here and in v. 28 “Abimelech” seems secondary. His explanation is “the author’s intention to integrate the Abimelech material into the older story motif of 2 Baruch.” 135 Δοξάζω: 3x: 7:16; 9:13 bis—all followed by τὸν Θεόν; Θεός: see on 1:1; ἀκούω: 20x. 136 Cf. LXX Dan 3:51; T. Job 16:4; T. Abr. RecLng. 15:5; T. Jos. 8:5; Matt 9:8; Mark 2:12; John 21:19; Rom 15:9; 1 Cor 6:20; 1 Pet 4:16; Acts Paul 5; etc. See further on 9:13. 137 Ὅπου: 3x: 6:1; 7:16, 28; ἀετός: see on 6:12.

342

Commentary

is the notice that the returning crowd includes women and children: σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις.138 Might this be yet another exodus motif? According to Exod 12:37, the number of souls in the wilderness was “six hundred thousand men on foot ‫לבד מטף‬.” This last appears to mean “beside women and children” (cf. Mek. Pisha 14:30–31); and both Philo, Mos. 1.147, and Josephus, Ant. 2.317, when˙ they count the people in the wilderness, refer to women and children (Josephus: γυναιξὶν ἅμα καὶ τέκνοις).139 7:17. The eagle, seemingly of its own accord, now lights upon the dead man: κατῆλθεν ὁ ἀετὸς ἐπὶ τὸν τεθνηκότα.140 The deceased, who has evidently been laid out on the ground while Jeremiah has gone off to gather the people, springs back to life: ἀνέζησε;141 cf. Luke 15:24 (“my son was dead and ἀνέζησεν”); Liv. Proph. Elisha 17 (“as he touched Elisha’s bones, the dead man ἀνέζησεν”); Acts Thom. 23 (“your brother is ἀνέζησεν”; “being vexed I died, and now ἀνέζησα”); Acts Andr. Matt. 32 (“Andrew prayed and all [the dead] ἀνέζησαν”); Chariton, Call. 3.8.9 (τέθνηκα, ἀνέζηκα). Although stories of resurrection are well attested,142 ours is notable in featuring an animal as the means of resurrection.

138

Γυνή: 4x: 7:16; 8:2 bis, 4; τέκνον: 3x: 5:31; 7:16; 8:7. Matt 14:21, where χωρὶς γυναικῶν καὶ παιδίων is part of a new Moses/new

139 Cf.

exodus typology; see Allison, New Moses, 238–41.

140

Κατέρχομαι: see on 5:24; ἀετός: see on 6:12; θνῄσκω: 2x: 7:17; 9:9 (also τεθνηκότα). In arm 144 and 345, the eagle beats the dead man’s face with its wings.

Philonenko, “Simples observations,” 170, calls attention to the parallel in the spell in PGM 4:210–15: “After you have said this three times, there will be this sign of divine encounter … A Sea falcon flies down and strikes you on the body with its wings, signifying this: that you should arise.” This is part of Philonenko’s case that the eagle is related to the Egyptian myth where Isis, under the appearance of a falcoln, revives Osiris by flapping wings. For problems with this thesis see Schaller, Paralipomena, 739; Herzer, “Schrift,” 35–36; idem, 4 Baruch, 122–23. Difficulties also beset the proposal of Heininger, “Totenwerweckung,” that the eagle, in the current revised form of 4 Baruch, represents a gnostic savior and that the resurrection of the dead man symbolizes the salvific awakening of the enlightened gnostic. Against this see Herzer, 4 Baruch, 125 n. 29. 141 Ἀναζάω: 1x; LXX: 4x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 3x; Philo: 4x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 0x. On the history of this word see Deissmann, Light, 97–98. 142 Note 1 Kgs 17:17–24 (cf. Liv. Proph. Elijah 17); 2 Kgs 4:18–37; Mark 5:21–24, 35–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–44; Acts 9:36–43; Apuleius, Metam. 2.21–30; Lucian, Philops. 26; Diogenes Laertius 8.67; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.45; Heliodorus, Aeth. 6.14–15; Augustine, Civ. 22.8; b. ̔Abod. Zar. 10b; b. Meg. 7b; Gregory the Great, Dial. 2.11, 32. Given the history of interpretation of the canonical

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

343

The miracle is narrated in the briefest possible fashion. Its point is to foster faith in the discouraged exiles and to add authority to the letter the eagle carries.143 As Herzer writes: “The eagle shows itself through the resurrection miracle to be a symbol of … life. The traditional associations of the eagle with renewed strength (Isa 40:31) and youthful joy (Ps 103[102]:5) are thereby programmatically placed before the return of the people.”144 The point of the miracle—γέγονε δὲ τοῦτο, ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν145— with its ἵνα + πιστεύω construction, sounds Johannine; cf. esp. John 11:42, where Jesus, in connection with raising Lazarus from the dead, declares, “I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe (ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν) you did send me.”146 It would, however, be unwise to insist on a Christian hand here, even though the possibility cannot be excluded. The more likely intertext is Exod 4:4–5, where God instructs Moses on how to work a miracle with his staff, so that the people may believe (LXX: ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν) that “the Lord, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”147 This not only contains ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν, but 4 Baruch goes on to make the connection with Exodus explicit in the next verse: “Is this not the God who appeared to our fathers in the desert through Moses, and who now has appeared to us through this eagle?” Both texts speak of Moses, of the πατέρες, of God “appearing” (LXX: ὦπται; 4 Baruch: ὀφθείς, ἐφάνη), and recount a miracle involving an animal (a serpent in Exodus, an eagle in 4 Baruch).148 Within its broader context, 7:17 hearkens back to the miracle of the figs in ch. 5, which in ch. 6 is construed as evidence of eschatological resurrection. We now have a second miracle that reveals the possibility of bodies coming back to life. Beyond that, 7:17 points forward, to the ending of our book in its current form. For in ch. 9, Jeremiah will lie dead for three days,

texts in this list, one should not assume that a resurrection would be, to an ancient hearer or reader, yet one more sign of our narrative’s fictional nature. 143 Cf. the short Greek recension (ed.Vassiliev, p. 315): the miracle enabled everyone to know that the letter is from God. 144 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 125. 145 Γίγνομαι: 25x; πιστεύω: 2x: 6:4; 7:17. 146 Cf. also John 6:29; 9:36; 11:15; 13:19; 20:31; 1 John 3:23. 147 Cf. Delling, Lehre, 12 n. 37; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 29; Schaller, “Greek Version,” 84. 148 Contrast Chibici-Reveneanu, Herrlickeit, 414 n. 261, who, comparing Acts Thom. 30, thinks that the combination of resurrection, glory (ἐδόξασε), and belief reflects the influence of John 11:40–42.

344

Commentary

only to have his soul return to his body after three days. Our book then offers three different miracles that augur the raising of bodies on the last day. Although the eagle has carried the figs, and although they are miraculous proof of divine intervention (5:27–32), they play no role here. The reason presumably is that a basket of figs accompanied by a letter would prove nothing. The two things rather need authorization, which the eagle accomplishes by raising the dead man. In chs. 6 and 9, the eschatological resurrection of bodies is in view. In ch. 7, however, one may think of resurrection as being, in addition, a symbol in line with the original intention of Ezekiel 37. In the latter, resurrection is a metaphor for the future gathering together in the land of the currently dispirited and scattered exiles. Such an idea would well suit 4 Baruch 7.149 7:18. In response to the miracle, the people marvel: ἐθαύμασε δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι.150 This is a standard motif in miracle stories; cf. Matt 9:33 (ἐθαύμασαν οἱ ὄχλοι λέγοντες); Mark 5:20 (πάντες ἐθαύμαζον); Luke 9:43 (πάντων δὲ θαυμαζόντων); Vit. Sym. Styl. Jr. 218 (πάντας θαυμάζοντας ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι).151 The πᾶς magnifies the wonder: all, not just some, are amazed. Also standard in miracles stories is an acclamation, including acclamation from a crowd; cf. Matt 12:23, which like our verse takes interrogatory form: “And all the people were amazed and said, ‘Can this be the Son of David?’”152 In the first half of the compound question, the people wonder whether the God of the exodus has appeared to them: λέγοντες ὅτι, μὴ153 οὗτος ὁ Θεὸς ἔστι ὁ ὀφθεὶς154 τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ διὰ 149 150 151

So too Lee, “Development,” 411–12.

Θαυμάζω: 1x; λαός: see on 1:5; πᾶς + ὁ λαός: see on 5:18; γίγνομαι: 25x.

Also LXX Dan 3:91; Tob 11:16; Matt 8:27; 12:23; 15:31; 21:20; Luke 11:14; Acts 2:7, 12; 3:12; Lucian, Philops. 12; Abdic. 5. Discussion in Theissen, Miracle Stories, 69–71. 152 Cf. also Mark 1:27; 4:41; Luke 4:36; 8:25; Acts 2:7. On the acclamation in miracle stories see Theissen, Miracle Stories, 71–72, 152–71. 153 Schaller, Paralipomena, 740, citing BDF § 427.2 and, for comparison, Matt 12:23 (μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ); 26:25; John 4:29 (μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ), and 33, observes that μή here introduces an open question; it does not entail a negative answer. 154 Cf. LXX Gen 31:13 (ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ὀφθεὶς σοι); Justin, Dial. 57.3 (οὗτος ὁ τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὀφθεὶς Θεός). Note also 1QapGen 22:27 (‫ )אתחזיו אלהא לאברם‬and the use of ὤφθη + dative in LXX theophanies (e.  g. Gen 12:7; 17:1; 26:2; 3 Βασ 3:5; 9:2; 2 Chr 3:1) and NT christophanies (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; 26:16; 1 Cor 15:15:8). On the senses of the verb see Gudrun Guttenberger, “Ὤφθη. Der visuelle Gehalt der frühchristlichen Erscheinungstradition und mögliche Folgerungen für die Entstehung und Entwicklung

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

345

Μωϋσέως;155 cf. LXX Exod 16:10: εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, καὶ ἡ δόξα Κυρίου ὤφθη. Note the close structural parallel in Acts: 4 Bar 7:18 ὁ Θεὸς … ὀφθεὶς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν Acts 7:2 ὁ Θεὸς … ὤφθη τῷ       πατρὶ        ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ

Also close is 4 Ezra 9:29: “o Domine, in nobis ostendens ostensus es patribus nostris in deserto.” In 4 Baruch, as in 4 Ezra, one thinks first of all of Exodus 19, of the theophany that accompanied the giving of Torah on Sinai.156 Acclamations in miracle stories often declare the identity of the divinity performing the miracle; cf. 1 Kgs 18:39 (“The Lord indeed is God; the Lord indeed is God”); 2 Kgs 5:15 (“I know there is no God in all the earth except in Israel”); LXX Bel 18 (“You are great, Bel, and there is no deceit in him”), 48 (“The Lord God is great and there is no other”); Acts Paul 38 (“There is one God and he has saved Thecla”). In the second half of the sentence, the people wonder whether this God has not now appeared to them: νῦν ἐφάνη ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἀετοῦ τούτου.157 Not only does this chorus of acclamation become the context for reading Baruch’s letter, but it is a key to the entire narrative, for it prods readers to expect additional parallels between the exodus from Egypt and the exodus from Babylon; see above, pp. 21–22, 320. It is also important to observe that, although Moses is mentioned only here, our book presents Jeremiah as a new Moses. Clearly the text assumes intertextually savvy readers or hearers.158 John 6:1–14 offers a formal parallel. Here Jesus feeds the five thousand in the wilderness. The event is designed to recall, among other things, the story of Moses and the manna, as is confirmed by the following dialogue, which compares and contrasts Jesus and Moses (6:22–58). This explains the response of the crowd: “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into

des frühchristlichen Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu,” BZ 52 (2008), 40–63, 161– 73. 155 Ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5; Θεός see on 1:1; ὁράω: 2x: 7:18; 9:18; πατήρ: 13x; ἔρημος: see on v. 13; Μωϋσῆς: 1x. 156 So too Schaller, Paralipomena, 740. 157 Νῦν: see on 1:3; φαίνω: 2x: 5:31; 7:18; ἀετός: see on 6:12. The verb is used in Greek literature of the gods appearing to human beings: Homer, Il. 20.131; Od. 16.161; Herodotus, Hist. 3.27; Plutarch, Them. 30.1; Per. 13.8; etc. Cf. LXX Num 23:3, 4; Josephus, Ant. 8.196; 10.177; also the use of ἐπιφαίνω in LXX Gen 35:7; Jer 36:14; Zeph 2:11; 1 Clem. 59:4; etc. T. Sim. 6:5 is Christian. 158 One may compare the Moses typology in Matthew: although it is extensive and important, it remains entirely implicit; see Allison, New Moses.

346

Commentary

the world” (v. 14). Since this is an allusion to the expectation of a prophet like Moses based on Deut 18:15, 18, the basic narrative pattern is the same as in 4 Baruch 7: a spectacular miracle in the wilderness moves people to recall what happened in the time of Moses. 7:19. As in vv. 15–16, Jeremiah—addressed again with the formal σοι λέγω Ἰερεμία159—reflexively obeys the eagle. When told—καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἀετός—to untie the letter and read it to the people—δεῦρο λῦσον τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, καὶ ἀνάγνωθι αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ—the prophet does exactly that.160 The correlation underlines the perfect harmony between command and execution: The eagle’s imperative λῦσον         τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, καὶ ἀνάγνωθι αὐτὴν

τῷ λαῷ

Jeremiah’s response λύσας οὖν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν,              ἀνέγνω    αὐτὴν

τῷ λαῷ

This sort of mechanical correlation occurs in other texts; see above on v. 15 and note the correlation between an angel’s imperative to Joseph and Joseph’s response in Matt 2:20–21: Command     ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε    τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ

πορεύου εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ

Response  ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς παρέλαβεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ

εἰσῆλθεν   εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ

Although Jeremiah 36 famously associates Jeremiah with a scroll, that chapter does nothing to help us decide whether λῦσον τὴν ἐπιστολήν refers to Jeremiah unfastening the rolled papyrus from around the eagle’s neck (cf. v. 8) or to him untying the scroll itself so he can read it161—although the latter seems more probable given that λύω was often used in such a connection.162 More important are the possible intertextual echoes. Given the new exodus setting (see v. 18), the image of Jeremiah reading divinely-revealed com-

159 160

Σοι λέγω: cf. v. 15 and see on 4:3. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ recurs only in 8:2; δεῦρο: 1x; λύω: 3x: 7:19 bis, 31; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:13; ἀναγιγνώσκω: 3x: 7:19 bis, 31—in each case following λύω; λαός: see on 1:5.

161 Schaller,

Paralipomena, 740, opts for the second alternative. Josephus, Bell. 1.668 (τὴν ἐπιστολὴν λύσας … ἀνεγίνωσκεν); Lucian, Ver. hist. 2.35 (λύσας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀνεγίνωσκον); Vit. Aesop G 92 (οἱ δὲ λύσαντες τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἀνεγίνωσκον); also Thucydides, Hist. 1.132.5; Plutarch, Alex. 8.5; Pyrrh. 6.4; and 2 Bar. 87:1 (“when I finished all the words of this letter … I folded it and sealed it carefully, and bound it to the neck of the eagle”).

162 Cf.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

347

mandments (see 6:13–14) to the people in a deserted place (τόπον ἔρημον) might recall Exod 24:7, where Moses reads the book of the covenant to Israel ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. One might also think of Jeremiah 36, where Baruch reads Jeremiah’s prophecies in the hearing of all the people, or of 51:61, where Jeremiah orders that his words be read to the exiles in Babylon. Despite, moreover, the difference from Jeremiah 36, maybe ἀνέγνω αὐτὴν τῷ λαῷ is allusive. In the canonical text, the prophet orders Baruch to read from his scroll “in the hearing of all the people” in the temple and “in the hearing of all the men of Judah who come out of their cities” (36:6); and the narrative recounts that he did so, “in the hearing of all the people” (vv. 10, 13). The LXX, in this chapter (43), uses ἀναγινώσκω nine times and λαός six or seven times, and they are brought into immediate connection in vv. 6, 10, 13, and 14. Our narrative here recounts the unexpected. Throughout 4 Baruch (and in contrast to 2 Baruch), Jeremiah is the chief authority and Baruch is his assistant. This lines up with the HB/OT, where Baruch is Jeremiah’s scribe. In chs. 6–7, however, it is not Baruch who reads Jeremiah’s words—the scenario in Jeremiah 36—but Jeremiah who reads Baruch’s words. One wonders, given that Baruch is in the land and Jeremiah in exile, whether our book or traditions behind it were influenced by the idea, taught in Mek. Pisha 1:42–44, that “before the land of Israel had been especially chosen, all ˙lands were suitable for divine revelation; after the land of Israel had been chosen, all other lands were eliminated.”163 7:20. Upon hearing the letter—ἀκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαός164—whose contents the reader knows from 6:13–23 and which are not repeated here, the crowd responds just as Jeremiah and Baruch responded earlier to the destruction of Jerusalem: Jeremiah in 2:1  ἐπέθηκε      χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ Jeremiah and Baruch in 2:10; 3:3, 14 κλαίοντες, ἔκλαυσαν, ἔκλαυσαν αὐτοῦ … Baruch in 4:6 ἐπέθηκε       χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν

              καὶ ἔκλαυσε The people in 7:20 ἔκλαυσαν καὶ ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν165 163

On this passage and the idea it illustrates see W. D. Davies, “Reflections on the Spirit in the Mekilta: A Suggestion,” in Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 72–83. But one should note that, in 8:1–2, God speaks to Jeremiah outside the land. 164 Cf. Inf. Gos. Thom. rec. 1 6: ἀκούσαντες δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαός. Ἀκούω: 20x; λαός: see on 1:5. 165 See further the commentary on 2:1 and 5. On weeping and mourning in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 19–21.

348

Commentary

7:21. When the people cry out to be saved,166 they are asking God, through Jeremiah, to deliver them from the bondage of Babylon. Comparable are 1 Sam 4:3 (“may [the Lord] come among us and deliver us from the power of our enemies”); 7:8 (“may [the Lord] deliver us from the hand of the Philistines”); (2 Kgs 19:19: “O Lord our God, save us” [‫ ;הושיענו‬LXX: σῶσον ἡμᾶς]); and above all 1 Chr 16:35 (“Save us [‫ ;הושיענו‬LXX: σῶσον ἡμᾶς], O God of our salvation, and gather and deliver us from among the nations”) and Ps 106:46 (“Save us [‫ ;הושיענו‬LXX: σῶσον ἡμᾶς], O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations”). In these last two texts, Israel asks for deliverance from exile. Maybe it is not too much to see here, as elsewhere in our chapter, the shadow of Moses. If the people call out to Jeremiah to save them, Moses was remembered as the one who “saved” Israel: Artapanus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27.21–22 (Moses διασώσαντα the Jews); LAB 9:10 (“I will work signs through him and save [salvabo] my people”); Acts 7:25 (God gave σωτηρίαν through his hand); Gregory of Nyssa, Laud. Bas. 21 (“Moses σώζει the people”); etc. The people desire above all to return to Jerusalem: εἰσέλθωμεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν.167 They recognize that God’s turning to them hinges upon their turning to God, and to this end they look to Jeremiah: ἀπάγγειλον ἡμῖν τί ποιήσωμεν;168 cf. the response of the crowd to Peter’s Pentecost sermon: ἀκούσαντες … εἶπον … τί ποιήσωμεν; (Acts 2:37). The theology is that of Deut 6:18, where doing what is right is the precondition for taking possession of the land. “The city” is Jerusalem in Judea, not the upper Jerusalem of 5:34. 7:22. When Jeremiah responds, his words—ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰερεμίας εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· πάντα ὅσα ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἠκούσατε, φυλάξατε, καὶ εἰσάξει ἡμᾶς Κύριος εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν169—sound biblical, perhaps indeed Pen-

Σῶσον ἡμᾶς; σῴζω: 1x. Εἰσέρχομαι: 16x, 10x with εἰς; πάλιν: see on 5:13; εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν: see on 4:8. Cf. Mark 2:1 (εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καφαρναούμ); 3:1 (εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς); Chrysostom, Hom. Acts PG 60:231 (εἰσῆλθε πάλιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν). 168 Ἀπαγγέλλω: see on 1:9; τί + ποιέω: see on 3:7. 169 Ἀποκριθείς … εἶπεν αὐτοῖς: see on 1:4 and 7:2; cf. LXX Gen 40:18 (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν αὐτῷ); 42:22 (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ῥουβὴν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς); Inf. Gos. Thom. rec. 3 6:2a (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἰωσὴφ εἶπεν αὐτῷ); Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. β 1:23 (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος εἶπεν αὐτοῖς); πάντα ὅσα: 3x: 7:22; 9:23, 25; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:13; ἀκούω: 20x; φυλάσσω: see on 2:5; εἰσέρχομαι: see on v. 21; εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν: see on 4:8. 166 167

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

349

tateuchal, even if no single text is in the background: cf. Exod 23:22 (LXX: “if you heed attentively [ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε]) to my voice and do all that [πάντα ὅσα] I command you, and keep [φυλάξητε] my covenant”); Deut 5:27 (“hear all that the Lord our God will say; and speak to us all that the Lord our God will speak to you, and we will hear and do it”); 7:12 (LXX: “when you hear [ἀκούσητε] all [πάντα] these statutes and keep [φυλάξητε] and do them”); 8:1 (LXX: “All [πάσας] the commandments that I command you this day you will be watchful [φυλάξεσθε] to do, so that you may … enter and possess the land”); 17:10 (LXX: φυλάξῃ … πάντα ὅσα); 30:2–3 (“obey his voice in all that I command you this day … then the Lord … will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you”). Cf. also the promise of return from exile in LXX Jer 3:14: ἐπιστράφητε … εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς Ζιών. Note that ἠκούσατε, φυλάξατε, and εἰσάξει ἡμᾶς κτλ. take up words from Baruch’s letter; cf. 6:13 (εἰσάξει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑμῶν), 21–22 (ἐφυλάξατε … ἀκούσητε … ἀκούων … ἀκούων). 7:23. Jeremiah writes to Baruch—ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολήν … οὕτως λέγων—in Jerusalem in order to inform him of events of which he has, because God has spared him, no knowledge.170 The letter, although explicitly characterized as such, “actually lacks all letter features, unless one counts the focus on a recipient and the direct address as sufficient.”171 The prophet’s affection for the scribe—who regards him as “father” (see on 2:2)—is apparent in his address, υἱέ μου ἀγαπητέ.172 Readers might infer that Jeremiah’s love for Baruch is akin to Abraham’s love for his son Isaac.173 A Christian might think of God’s affection for Jesus, who is ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός in several NT texts.174 The expression, however, need not carry theological weight.175

170 There

is a formal analogy of sorts in Jeremiah 29, which not only contains a letter sent from Jerusalem to Babylon but also refers to one sent (by Shemaiah of Nehelam) from Babylon to Jerusalem. Ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολήν … οὕτως λέγων: see on 6:13; οὕτως: see on 6:6. Ἔγραψε … λέγων (= ‫ כתב‬+ ‫ )לאמר‬is a Semitism; cf. 2 Βασ 11:15; 4 Βασ 10:6; 1 Macc 11:57; Luke 1:63; Acts Thom. 2. 171 So Klauck, Letters, 287. 172 Υἱός: 11x; ἀγαπητός: 1x. 173 Cf. Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Jub. 18:2; T. Abr. RecLng. 4:1 (υἱέ μου ἀγαπητέ); Irenaeus, Haer. 4.5.4. 174 Matt 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 2 Pet 1:17; cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 6:16: υἱέ μου ἀγαπητέ. 175 Cf. Antiphanes, frag. 260; Plutarch, Mor. 94A; CMC 74:15.

350

Commentary

Before recounting his miserable history, Jeremiah asks for Baruch’s prayers: μὴ ἀμελήσῃς ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς σου δεόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.176 The prophet will, in v. 28, approach his conclusion with the same request. Whether or not the formulation, with ἀμελέω + προσευχή, is Christian,177 the request, “Pray for us,” appears in Jewish as well as Christian literature.178 Perhaps it is worth noting that Baruch has, in our book, already shown himself to be a man of prayer: 6:2–11. The purpose of the prayer is, in the first place, ὅπως κατευοδόσῃ τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν.179 Given what immediately follows, this is a request that God ensure a journey without incident.180 Yet given that κατευοδόω often carries moral and spiritual associations in the LXX and that 4 Baruch does not separate the political from the religious, the petition must include religious good fortune as well; cf. esp. LXX Ps 36:7 (κατευοδουμένῳ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ αὐτοῦ); Prov 17:23 (οὐ κατευοδοῦνται ὁδοί); Ign. Magn. 13:1 (κατευοδωθῆτε σαρκὶ καὶ πνεύματι).181 The next clause, ἄχρις ἂν ἐξέλθωμεν ἐκ τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ ἀνόμου βασιλέως τούτου, marks a break from the canonical accounts of the return from exile.182 In the Bible, Cyrus, king of Persia, decrees that the exiles should go free,183 and in Isaiah, he is God’s “anointed” (45:1), a “shepherd” who will “fulfill” God’s “purpose” (44:28). In 4 Baruch, however, the king at the time of the return remains “lawless.”184 There is nothing analogous to Ezra 6:22: “the Lord had … turned the heart of the king of Assyria to them.” Indeed, nothing indicates that the king at the end of the exile is someone other than the king at the beginning of the exile. With176

Ἀμελέω: 1x; προσευχή: 2x: 1:2; 7:23; δέω: see on 3:4. the Physiologus (2 Byz. red.) 21 (ἀμελήσῃ τῆς προσευχῆς); Ps.-Athanasius, Sem. PG 28.168 (ἀμελεῖς εἰς προσευχάς); Basil of Seleucia, Or. 21 PG 85:256 (τῆς προσευχῆς οὐκ ἠμέλησαν); Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 178 (ἀμελῶν τῆς προσευχῆς).

177 Cf.

178

E.  g. Jer 37:3; 42:2, 20; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1; Heb 13:18.

Ὅπως: see on 7:5; κατευοδόω: 1x; LXX: 8x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 2x (cf. T. Jud. 1:6); Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; ὁδός: see on 3:15. 180 Cf. LXX A Judg 18:5 (κατευοδοῖ ἡ ὁδὸς ἡμῶν); also Gen 24:40 (εὐοδώσει τὴν ὁδόν σου). 179

181 182 183

Also LXX Ps 1:3; 44:5; 67:20; 1 Macc 2:47; T. Jud. 1:6.

Ἄχρι: 1x; ἐξέρχομαι + ἐκ: see on 1:1; πρόσταγμα: 2x: 7:23; 9:26; ἄνομος: 1x; βασιλέυς: see on 1:1.

See 2 Chr 36:22–23; Ezra 1:1–4; 6:1–5. 4 Macc 9:3 (τύραννε παρανομίας); Justin Martyr, Dial. 77.4 (Herod was of ἄνομον character); Sib. Or. 12:58 (Caligula did many ἄνομα). Siegert, Einleitung, 616, suggests that “the lawless king” stands for Hadrian.

184 Cf.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

351

out information beyond our text, one would naturally infer that Nebuchadnezzar, whom LXX Dan 3:32 calls “an unjust king, the most wicked in the world,” is, in 4 Baruch, king throughout; cf. 5:21; 7:14, 25. One would, furthermore, never guess that a pagan king had anything to do with the people’s departure and return to the land. Indeed, our text speaks of the people leaving “secretly” (7:17). All this probably reflects an anti-Roman stance. While the author may have seen his own time as analogous to that of the exilic period, there was for him no parallel between Cyrus—who ended the exile, decreed the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and was remembered favorably in Jewish tradition—and the then-current Roman emperor, whether Trajan or Hadrian or some other. Nor was there any analogy in his own time to the transition of power from Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians to Cyrus and the Persians.185 Beyond this, since our author wished to highlight parallels between the era of Moses and the era of Jeremiah, since Pharaoh remained unrepentant until the end,186 and since the exodus was God’s sole doing, the introduction of a friendly Cyrus would work against the typology.187 The description of Baruch indicates that God prevented him from going to Babylon because he did not want him to witness what happened there: οὐκ εἴασεν σε εἰσελθεῖν ἐνταῦθα μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὅπως μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τὴν γενομένην τῷ λαῷ ὑπὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνίων.188 All this recalls earlier verses that characterize Abimelech: 3:9 (“I do not want him to see the destruction and desolation of the city”); 5:30 (“O my son, you are a just man, and God did not want to show you the desolation of the city”). The resemblance makes sense given that both Abimelech and Baruch remain in the land through divine intervention. Also of immediate relevance for understanding the clause is the story of the exodus, for ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν … τῷ λαῷ ὑπὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνίων (words which the next verse will echo) is modeled upon Exod 3:7, which

185

Cf. Jones, Jewish Reactions, 164: “in 4 Baruch there is not a whiff of any change in the status of the Babylonian conquerors. This mirrors the situation of post-70 Judea. Rome had not been overthrown by any foreign power and was consequently still a presence.” 186 Note that Pharaoh is “lawless” in 3 Macc 6:4; Acts Paul frag. 8 187 Contrast Apoc. Jer. 32–37, where Nebuchadnezzar dies and Cyrus takes his place and abets Israel’s departure from Babylon. 188 Ἐάω: 2x: 7:23, 24; εἰσέρχομαι: 16x; ἐνταῦθα: see on 7:4; ὅπως: see on v. 5; εἶδον: 24x; κάκωσις: 3x: 7:23, 24, 31; γίγνομαι: 25x; λαός: see on 1:5; Βαβυλώνιος: 1x, but see on 2:7.

352

Commentary

in the LXX reads: ἰδὼν εἶδον τὴν κάκωσιν τοῦ λαοῦ μου τοῦ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ.189 Note the common structure: Exod 3:7 ἴδῃς         τὴν κάκωσιν …      τῷ λαῷ …                    τῶν Βαβυλωνίων 4 Bar. 7:23 ἰδὼν εἶδον  τὴν κάκωσιν  τοῦ λαοῦ …  ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ

This verse from Exodus (which takes up Exod 2:5), was well known. Both Ezekiel the Tragedian apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.29.8, and Acts 7:34 quote it, and additional sources allude to it or rewrite it.190 4 Baruch does not interpret Exod 3:7 but rather borrows language in such a way as to suggest to informed readers or hearers: this story is like that one. The statement that Baruch—who is sinless in 6:3 and a faithful steward in 7:2—“was found” righteous “before” God—δίκαιος γὰρ εὑρέθης191 ἐνάντιον τοῦ Θεοῦ—has a biblical feel.192 Given that 7:10 labels Noah δίκαιος, one might think of Baruch as being like Noah in particular; cf. LXX Gen 7:1 (δίκαιον ἐναντίον μου); Ecclus 44:17 (Νῶε εὑρήθε … δίκαιος); Didymus of Alexandria, Gen. ed. Doutreleau and P. Nautin, p. 181 (Noah εὑρέθη ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ δίκαιος). However that may be, our text assumes that God “hears the prayers of the righteous” (Prov 15:29).193 7:24. This simile explains why God kept Baruch from going to Babylon. The situation is analogous to that of a father with an only son: ὥσπερ γὰρ πατὴρ, υἱὸν μονογενῆ ἔχων.194 One recalls not only NT parables in also LXX Exod 3:17 (τὴν κάκωσιν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων); Deut 16:3 (ἄρτον κακώσεως). In these two instances, as in Exod 3:7, κάκωσις translates ‫עני‬.

189 Cf.

190 E.  g.

Deut 16:3; 1 Sam 9:16; Est 8:6; T. Naph. 4:2; Philo, Q.  E. 2.2; Josephus, Ant. 2.268; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.12.4. 191 With the formulation cf. 4:4 (εὑρέθημεν ἄξιοι); also Ecclus 44:20 (εὑρέθη πιστός); 1 Cor 4:2 (πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ); 2 Pet 3:14 (ἀμώμητοι … εὑρεθήναι); 1 Clem. 9:3 (δίκαιος εὑρεθείς), 4 (πιστός εὑρεθείς); Ps.-Clem. 2.52.2 (δίκαιος εὑρεθείς). 192 Cf. LXX Gen 18:3 (εὗρον χάριν ἐναντίον σου; so also 30:27; 33;15); Exod 33:13 (εὑρηκὼς χάριν ἐναντίον σου); Job 32:1 (δίκαιος ἐναντίον αὐτῶν), 2 (δίκαιον ἐναντίον Κυρίου); Bar 1:12 (εὑρήσομεν χάριν ἐναντίον αὐτῶν). Δίκαιος: see on 5:30; εὑρίσκω: 9x; ἐνάντιος: 2x: 5:11; 7:23. 193 Cf. Jas 5:16 and recall that “the prayer of the righteous” became a fixed expression: CD 11:21; Mek. Vayassa̔ 1:94; b. Yeb. 64a; b. Yoma 29a; b. Suk. 14a; etc. 194 Cf. Romanos the Melodist, Cant. 54.7 (ὥσπερ γὰρ πατήρ) and the use of ὥσπερ γάρ in the similes in Matt 24:27, 37; 25:14; Luke 17:24. Note also that ὥσπερ … οὕτως occurs in the similes in Matt 12:40; 24:27, 37; Luke 17:24. Delling, Lehre, 10 n. 20, compares the abrupt ‫ ל‬in the openings to rabbinic parables and cites Str-B 2:7–8. Ὥσπερ: 1x; πατήρ: 13x; υἱός: 11x; μονογενής: 1x. Arm 993 (= 920) is very different here: Jeremiah wrote “how the fathers suffered and were comforted by their

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

353

which a father with a son represents God but also similar rabbinic parables.195 Nothing requires divining a Christian hand here despite the use of μονογενής with reference to a son.196 (i) Μονογενής (cf. ‫)יחיד‬197 with υἱός is not confined to Christian sources.198 (ii) The father does not, unlike in the Christian parallels, represent God. Here rather Baruch is like a father, exiled Israel like a suffering son.199 (iii) Likening one’s lamentation to mourning for an only son is a HB/OT topos.200 (iv) Rabbinic sources contain many parables featuring fathers and sons.201 (v) Our parable is quite close to Sifre Num. 105: “It is like a king who said to the tutor of his son: Chastise my son, but not until I have gone away, for the father was full of pity for his son.” Here too we have a son who represents an Israelite (with whom God is angry) being punished and the father not seeing the punishment.202 The remark that the son—who must be specially loved (cf. 3:8) in virtue of being “only begotten”203—is handed over (not to death but) to

children, and how the children suffered, and their fathers on seeing their sufferings covered their faces.” 195 E.   g. Mark 12:1–12; Luke 15:11–32; Mek. Beshallah 5:16–30; Shirata 3:65–73; ˙ Sifre Deut. 312; Num. 86, 87. Cf. also the parable (with interpretation) in Apoc. Sedr. 6:1–6. 196 John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Mart. Polyc. 20:1; Diogn. 10:2; etc. Cf. Heininger, “Brief,” 92. 197 The LXX uses μονογενής for ‫ יחיד‬in Ps 21:20; 24:16; 34:17. 198 Cf. Ps. Sol. 18:4 (of Israel); Josephus, Ant. 1.222; 20.20; 4 Ezra 6:58 (unigenitum— of Israel); T. Sol. 20:2 (?); Plutarch, Lyc. 31.4. Note also the non-christological use of μονογενής in LXX Judg 8:17; 11:34; Tob 8:17; Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17. 199 Perhaps the metaphor is, however, more fitting given the texts in which Israel is God’s “son”: Exod 4:22–23; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1. 200 Cf. Jer 6:26 (“O my poor people, put on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; make mourning as for an only child [‫ ;)”]יחיד‬Amos 8:10 (“I will make it like the mourning for an only son [‫ ;)”]יחיד‬Zech 12:10 (“they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child [‫)”]היחיד‬. 201 In addition to the texts cited in n. 195 see Sifre Deut. 19, 45, 305, 345, 352; Sifre Num. 91; etc. Cf. also the simile in T. Mos. 11:12: “How can I be guardian of this people, as a father is to an only son? (tamquam pater unicum filium).” 202 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 128 n. 48, appealing to Marc Philonenko, “Un titre messianique de Bar Kokheba,” TZ 17 (1961), 434–35, raises the possibility that, if Bar Kokhba was known as ὁ μονογενής, then maybe 4 Baruch offers a contrast: “not the Messiah but the entire people are God’s beloved.” 203 In the LXX, both ἀγαπητός and μονογενής translate ‫יחיד‬, and both Greek words are used of Isacc; see LXX Aq Symm Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Josephus, Ant. 1.222; 20.20; Heb 11:17. Note also LXX Judg 11:34 (αὕτη μονογενὴς αὐτῷ ἀγαπητή) and Plutarch, Mor. 423A (μονογενῆ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν). Early Christians used

354

Commentary

punishment (τούτου δὲ παραδοθέντος εἰς τιμωρίαν) recalls the use of παραδίδωμι in 1:5; 2:7; 3:6; 4:6, 7; and 6:21, where God “hands over” Jerusalem and its people to the Babylonians.204 The next two phrases—οἱ ἰδόντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ παραμυθούμενοι αὐτὸν, σκέπουσιν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ, and ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ πῶς τιμωρεῖται αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς καὶ πλείονα φθαρῇ ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης—likewise recall earlier verses, in this case, 3:9 (“I do not want him to see [ἵνα ἴδῃ] the destruction and desolation of the city, but rather (want him) not to be grieved [λυπηθῇ]”), 10 (“I will protect [σκεπάσω] him until I return the people to the city”); 5:30 (“God did not want to show you the desolation of the city”); and 6:8 (“to send tidings to Jeremiah in Babylon about your preservation [σκέπην]”).205 The implicit comparison becomes explicit with οὕτως γάρ.206 God has shown mercy to Baruch by not allowing him to go to Babylon and thus sparing him from seeing the evil that has happened there: σε ἐλέησεν ὁ Θεὸς καὶ οὐκ εἴασέν σε ἐλθεῖν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τοῦ λαοῦ.207 Note the incorporation of previous phrases and the correlation between parable and application: 7:23       μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν τὴν γενομένην τῷ  λαῷ 7:24, parable ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃ 7:24, application ἵνα μὴ ἴδῃς τὴν κάκωσιν            τοῦ λαοῦ

For the exodus associations see on v. 23. The final clause in v. 24 contrasts Baruch’s fate with the fate of the people as a whole. Whereas he has been spared grief—although this sweeping generalization overlooks his extreme distress in 2:2–10; 3:14; 4:6–11;

both words of Jesus, and they came to be paired often: Irenaeus, Haer. 4 Gk frag. 3; Eusebius, Dem. ev. 4.4.1; etc. 204 Παραδίδωμι: 11x; τιμωρία: 1x. Cf. T. Jos. 3:1 (τιμωρίαις παραδοῦσα); Josephus, Ant. 2.149 (πρὸς τιμωρίαν παρέδωκεν); Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. 43.24.4 (πρὸς τιμωρίαν παραδούναι); 60.13.2 (ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ παρεδίδου). 205 Εἶδον: see on 2:2; πατήρ: 13x; παραμυθέομαι: 1x; LXX: 1x (2 Macc 15:9); Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 4x (cf. T. Job 28:2; 34:2; 34:6); Philo: 0x; NT: 4x; Josephus: 10x; σκέπω: 1x; πρόσωπον: 1x; πῶς: see on 6:8; τιμωρέω: 1x; υἱός: 11x; πλείων: 1x; φθείρω: 1x; λύπη: 3x: 7:24 bis, 31. 206 Οὕτως: see on 6:6. Cf. the common ‫ כך‬in rabbinic parables and οὕτως in the applications and interpretations of synoptic parables: Matt 13:40, 49; 18:35; Mark 13:29; Luke 12:21; 15:7, 10. 207 Ἐλεέω: 4x, 3x in this immediate context: 2:5; 7:24, 25, 26; Θεός: see on 1:1; εἶδον: see on 2:2; κάκωσις: see on v. 23; λαός: see on 1:5; ἐάω: 2x: 7:23, 24; ἔρχομαι + εἰς: 7x: 7:24, 31; 8:5, 8; 9:14, 18, 19; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

355

the characterization would be more appropriate with reference to Abimelech208—they have constantly grieved in Babylon: ἀφ’ ἧς γὰρ εἰσήλθομεν ἐνταῦθα, οὐκ ἐπαύσατο ἡ λύπη ἀφ’ ἡμῶν.209 Tacked on at the end is the duration of the grief, sixty-six years: ἑξήκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτη σήμερον.210 Perhaps σήμερον indicates that this letter was written on the ninth of ’Ab.211 7:25. This verse, like the next, elaborates on the causes of grief. Jeremiah testifies to two things. The first is that the king has often hung up some of Jeremiah’s people: πολλάκις γὰρ ἐξερχόμενος ηὕρισκον ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ κρεμαμένους ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονόσορ βασιλέως.212 The image is probably of people being crucified—“the most pitiable of deaths” according to Josephus, Bell. 7.203—outside the city walls.213 The verb, (ἀνα)κρεμάννυμι, can denote crucifixion,214 and Greek-speaking Jews understood the

208 This

may in part explain why A and B, in vv. 23–26, name Abimelech as well as Baruch.  209 Εἰσέρχομαι: 16x; ἐνταῦθα: see on 7:4; παύω: 1x; λύπη: 3x: 7:24 bis, 31; οὐκ ἐπαύσατο ἡ λύπη ἀφ’ ἡμῶν seems to be unparalleled. 210 For “sixty-six” see on 5:1 and, for σήμερον, see on 5:5. 211 See n. 32 on p. 140. 212 Ναβουχοδονόσορ βασιλέως: see on 5:21; πολλάκις: 1x; ἐξέρχομαι: 22x; εὑρίσκω: 9x; λαός: see on 1:5; κρέμαμαι: 2x: 7:25, 26. Cf. Jer. Apocr. 24:12 (Nebuchadnezzar “made them hang their young men before him”); 26:15 (he “let down the young men who were hung up”). For the use of ἐκ + genitive plural to denote “a few” or “some” see on 7:25. 213 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 10.33.8; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.120.559; John 19:17–20; Heb 13:12; Josephus, Bell. 5.449. 214 As in Herodotus, Hist. 7.194; 9.120; Luke 23:39; Acts 5:30; 10:39; Josephus, Bell. 7.202; Ant. 11.267; Mart. Pet. 9; Acts Andr. 16; Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. a 2.21.26; etc. According to Gunnar Samuelson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (WUNT 2/310; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), many texts are ambiguous, that is, it is unclear what hanging or suspension means in them; cf. Arrian, Anab. 6.17.2; Diodorus Siculus 17.46.4; Plutarch, Caes. 2.2; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.119.553; 1.120.159; 2.90.377; 3.3.9; 4.29.126. He summarizes his conclusions regarding the verb κρεμάννυμι on p. 285: it means “‘to suspend’ in general. With the prefix ανα it is mainly used in the sense ‘to suspend someone (dead or alive) on something.’” But according to John Granger Cook, Crucifixion in the Mediterranena World (WUNT 327; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2014), 2, “when the context of an account of suspension does not indicate any other mode of execution (including impalement) besides crucifixion, then it is fair to assume that crucifixion is the mode of death, given the linguistic usage in texts of the Roman era.”

356

Commentary

κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου of LXX Deut 21:23 to refer to that means of execution.215 As in the NT passion narratives and most ancient literature, none of the gruesome details are related: it suffices to allude to a horror many had witnessed.216 No cause for the torture and executions is given, and sympathetic hearers or readers may imagine that it is partly or wholly gratuitous, without cause and without trial; cf. v. 23: the king is lawless. Although Jews remembered Nebuchadnezzar as having slaughtered many (cf. Lam. Rab. 2:2), our text may reflect the memory of Roman crucifixions that took place in 70 CE and later. Note Sifre Deut. 221: “to be hanged alive … is the practice of the (Roman) government.”217 Given the use of Psalm 137 later in this chapter (see on vv. 26 and 29), and given our book’s imaginative, tendentious use scripture for haggadic ends elsewhere, Ps 137:2—which is rewritten in Jer. Apocr. 31:12—is intriguing: “on the poplars [or: willows] in its midst we hung up (MT: ‫;תלינו‬ LXX: ἐκρεμάσαμεν) our instruments (MT: ‫ ;כנרותינו‬LXX: τὰ ὄργανα).”218 One wonders whether the Hebrew, which features the verb used of crucifixion in Deut 21:22–23 (in the forms ‫ ותלית‬and ‫)תלוי‬, was tendentiously construed so as to find a reference to people rather than harps being hung up in Babylon. Perhaps someone suggested: “Read ‫ תלינו‬not as ‘we hung up’ but

215

Cf. Philo, Spec. 3.151–52; Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13; Josephus, Bell. 4.317; Justin, Dial. 89–90; t. Sanh. 9:7; also the use of ‫ תלה‬in 4QpNah frags. 3–4 1:7; 11QTemple 64:8–9; m. Sanh. 6:4; and (of Jesus’ execution) b. Sanh. 43a. See further Joseph A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 125–46, and Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015), 108– 120. On crucifixion in general see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit: Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums,” ANRW II.25.1 (1982), pp. 648–793; and Chapman, Crucifixion; also Samuelson and Cook as in n. 214. 216 Cf. John Granger Cook, “Crucfixion. I. Greco-Roman Antiquity,” EBR 5 (2012), 1086: “It is a very fair assumption that the readers of the NT lived in a world where crucifixion was ubiquitous.” 217 Cf. Philo, Flacc. 72–85; Josephus, Vita 420–21; Bell. 2.75, 306–308; 3.321; 5.289, 449–51; Mek. Bahodesh 6. 4Q385a frag. 15, part of 4QJeremiah Apocryphon C, ˙ contains the phrase, ‫“( תלוי על העץ‬hung upon the tree”). Unfortunately, the original context is lost, and whether it had anything to do with the Babylonian exile is unknown. 218 The Coptic Jer. Apocr. 31:14 cites this line in connection with a description of life in Babylon; see below.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

357

as ‘they hung us up.’”219 Another possibility is that the Hebrew of Ps 137:3 lies behind our legend. The NRSV translates: “For there our captors asked us for songs.” The word here rendered “captors” is the rare ‫( ותוללינו‬which, whatever it means, creates a word-play with ‫)תלינו‬, and Kugel suggests that someone read this as “those who hung us.”220 Either suggestion would also explain the parallels in Jer. Apocr. 24:12 (Nebuchadnezzar “made them hang their young men before him”) and 26:15 (“he let down the young men who were hung up”).221 The second horror Jeremiah witnessed was that, while the victims of crucifixion hung on their crosses, they cried out for mercy not to the God of Israel but to the God Sabaoth: κλαίοντας καὶ λέγοντας· Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ.222 The petition to God, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, appears in the Psalms (Ps 122:3), in other Jewish sources, and in Christian texts.223 Here, being addressed to a false god, it is intended to be profoundly offensive, and “the entire misery of the exile and its threat to Israel’s faith identity are captured in this snapshot.”224 A scripturally literate reader might realize, however, that Jeremiah foresaw this sin: “I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your ancestors have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night, for I will show you no favor.”225 The chief sin of Israel in Jeremiah is the pursuit of “other gods.” If, instead of “Sabaoth,” one reads, with most modern scholars, Ζάρ, what could be the meaning? The word is otherwise unattested in all of Greek literature. One could derive it from the Hebrew ‫זר‬, a word meaning “strange, foreign.”226 This was the suggestion of Kilpatrick, who found 219 This

is no stranger than Massekhet Kelim 11, which cites Ps 137:2 in connection with the legend that treasures of gold and silver from Israel were hidden in the wall of Babylon under the great willow tree on whose branches the exiles used to hang their lyres. See Davila, “Treatise of the Vessels,” 56–57. 220 Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 192–93. 221 Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1757, less plausibly, wonders whether Lam 5:12 (“Princes are hung up [LXX: ἐκρεμάσθησαν] by their hands; no respect is shown to the elders”) lies in the background. Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 741. On crucifixion and Jewish interpretation of Lam 5:12 see Chapman, Crucifixion, 157–62. 222 Κλαίω: see on 2:5; ἐλεέω: see on 7:24; Θεός: see on 1:1; σαβαώθ: 1x. 223 E.  g. LXX Isa 33:2; Ecclus 36:1; 3 Macc 6:12; Acts John 42; Acts Phil. 133; Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Zech. 2.46. In the NT, the plea is directed to Jesus: Matt 9:27; 20:30, 31; Luke 17:13. 224 So Klauck, Letters, 287. 225 Cf. Deut 28:36: “The Lord will bring you … to a nation that neither you nor your ancestors have known, where you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone.” 226 Cf. Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1757: “autre que Iahvé.”

358

Commentary

here evidence for a Hebrew original of 4 Baruch. He thought that, in 7:25, ‫ אל זר‬was rendered ὁ θεὸς Ζάρ whereas in 7:26 it was translated θεὸν ἀλλότριον;227 cf. Ps LXX 43:21 (θεὸν ἀλλότριον for ‫;)אל זר‬228 80:10 (θεῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ for ‫)אל זר‬.229 Another option would be to see Ζάρ as related to “Zoroaster”/“Zarathustra” (Greek: Ζωροάστρης) and as preserving a distorted memory of the deity the Persians supposedly worshipped. Yet another possibility would be that Ζάρ derives from or is a shortened form of “Nebechadnezzar,” whose name in Hebrew ends in ‫צר‬.230 On this view—which is not foreign to the context:231 those hanging on crosses beg Nebechadnezzar to rescind the order of crucifixion—the king is made out to be a deity, and one might draw a parallel with honors paid to the Caesars.232 The Greek Ζάρ does not, however, match the final letters—σορ— of Ναβουχοδονόσορ. In any event, if Ζάρ ever stood in a Greek text, informed readers or hearers could have found a bi-lingual word-play if they thought Ζάρ represents ‫זר‬ = ἀλλότριος (v. 26); or they could have found irony if they took Ζάρ to mean ‫צר‬ = “enemy” or ‫זר‬ = “forbidden,” or if they supposed that these people were calling upon “Zar” instead of ‫צור‬ = Rock.233 It is, however, unlikely that the conjectured Ζάρ ever stood in any Greek text. Piovanelli has best explained the textual data. He argues that σαβαώθ—which has the support of C and L and is, notably, missing after the ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος in 9:3—is original.234 Yet even if he is wrong, C and L have σαβαώθ, so one needs to ask what someone would have made of that reading. The LXX transliterates ‫=( צבאות‬ “hosts,” “armies”)

227

See Kilpatrick, “Acts VII. 52.” Cf. Delling, Lehre, 53. This has sometimes been read as a Psalm from the exile; cf. Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 195. 229 One can also understand θεὸς Ζάρ as the equivalent of ‫ אל זר‬without positing a Hebrew original; see Schaller, “Greek Version,” 58–59; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 128–29. 230 So König, “Reste der Worte,” 332 n. 2, citing Dillmann as support. Doering, Letters, 260, leaves this possibility open. 231 Bogaert, Baruch, 1:219 n. 2, objects that “the context of persecution” excludes König’s hypothesis. One fails to see why. Victims pleading with their judge to change his mind, and in the process flattering him as a god, is hardly incredible. 232 However the Romans themselves understood the imperial cult—see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)—the polemic in Revelation shows how many pious Jews and Christians would have viewed it. 233 Cf. 1 Sam 2:2; Ps 18:2; Isa 26:4; etc. 234 See above, p. 316. Heininger, “Brief,” 72–76, also argues in favor of C here. 228

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

359

with σαβαώθ over sixty times—the vast majority in Isaiah—in the phrase, Κύριος σαβαώθ (= ‫)יהוה צבאות‬.235 Because v. 26 identifies the god whom people beg for mercy as a foreign god, one doubts that a Jew could have written σαβαώθ here. Piovanelli, while observing that 4 Baruch, which emphasizes the resurrection of the physical body, is at odds with most gnostic anthropologies, suggests that its author could nonetheless be a Christian who distinguished between the false God Sabaoth and the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.236 He further offers that our book may polemicize against Jews, especially Christian Jews, who engaged in what the author took to be obsolete Jewish practices.237 This author would like to add another suggestion. The key to 7:25 may lie in magical texts, and our line may polemicize against people perceived as syncretistic. Although early Christian literature, like the Pseudepigrapha,238 generally shies away from σαβαώθ,239 it and the Hebrew it transliterates are common in magical texts,240 and Origen wrote that Sabaoth was “frequently employed in incantations” (C. Cels. 5.45). Moreover, some of these texts, such as the Magical Papyri, are highly syncretistic and, among other things, employ both Babylonian names (e.  g. the underground goddess Ereschigal) and Jewish names, including Sabaoth. One could take the assimilating Jews in 4 Baruch 7 to be comparable. Beyond this, while the LXX

235 Josh

6.16; Zech 13.2; etc.; cf. 1QpHab 10:7; 4Q358 2.8; 3.3. See further T.  N.  D. Mettinger, “Yahweh Zebaoth,” in DDD, 920–24, and the lit. cited there. Note that “Lord Sabaoth” has positive sense in the Coptic Jer. Apocr. trans. Mingana and Harris, p. 181. 236 For sources in which Sabaoth is not the highest God see Piovanelli, “Default Position,” 246 n. 44; also Francis T. Fallon, The Enthronement of Sabaoth: Jewish Elements in Gnostic Creation Myths (NHS 10; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Cf. the Manichaean statement in Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 11:4: “this name Sabaoth, which in your eyes is great and distinguished, he [Mani] says is the nature of man and the father of lust.” 237 Cf. Piovanelli, “Sommeil,” 82–83; idem, “Default Position,” 246–49. Bogaert, Baruch, 1:219–20, tentatively suggests a link with Marcionites. 238 With the exception of Sib. Or. 1:304, 316. Philo and Josephus also avoid the expression. 239 It occurs in Jas 5:4; Rom 9.29 (a citation of LXX Isa 1.9); 1 Clem. 34:6 (a quotation of LXX Isa 6.3); Sib. Or. 2:239 (part of a Christian interpolation). 240 Cf. CIJ 673; 674; 717; T. Sol. 1:6, 7; 5:9; 18:16; PGM 2:15; 3:76; 4:981, 1377, 1485; Noy, JIWE, 1:212 (# 159); Ameling, IJO 533 (Magica 4); etc. For ‫ צבאות‬and variants on magical amulets and bowls see Naveh and Shaked, Amulets, 40, 56, 94, 96, 102, 164, 180; Isbell, Incantation Bowls, 52.

360

Commentary

prefers Κύριος Θεὸς σαβαώθ or (much more often) Κύριος σαβαώθ,241 several magical texts have the precise form in our text, ὁ θεὸς σαβαώθ.242 If “Sabaoth” is indeed from a Christian hand, one can only guess what might have stood in a Jewish precursor. One possibility is that an earlier version of 4 Baruch had the people calling upon Baal and Astarte, which is what they do in the Jeremiah Apocryphon.243 7:26. Jeremiah continues to recount his lamentations, observing that, whenever he learned of the things v. 24 relates, he grieved and uttered a “double lamentation”: ἀκούων ταῦτα, ἐλυπούμην καὶ ἔκλαιον δισσὸν κλαυθμόν.244 While λυπέω καὶ κλαίω was wholly conventional,245 the qualification of κλαυθμός by δισσός seems without parallel. Is the latter the author’s version of κλαίω κλαυθμῷ?246 Or, as Kugel suggests, does it represent an interpretation of Ps 137:1’s ‫—גם־בכינו‬not just “we wept” but “we wept and we wept”?247 In any case, (i) κλαυθμός occurs in the LXX Jeremiah literature248 and (ii) v. 26 revises the lament of v. 25. Thus οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἐκρέμαντο brings forward the κρεμαμένους of v. 25, and ἐπεκαλοῦντο θεὸν ἀλλότριον, λέγοντες, Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς repeats the ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς of the same verse.249 Θεός + ἀλλότριος appears in the LXX, in the singular and, most often, in the plural, for ‫אלהים אחרים‬.250 The expression was a favorite of Jeremiah, which helps explain its occurrence here: 4 Baruch’s Jeremiah

Only LXX Isa 44:6 has the simple Θεὸς σαβαώθ. Mag. Pap. ed. Daniel and Mattomini 27:2; Pap. Paris Suppl. gr. 574; T. Sol. 11:6 (ms. P); 24:2 (ms. Q); 10:53 (ms. C). 243 Jer. Apocr. 1:6; 2:13; 4:5; 7:3; etc. Cf. Jer 7:18; 11:13; 44:17, 18. 244 Ἀκούων ταῦτα: only here; ἀκούω: 20x; λυπέω: see on 3:9; κλαίω: see on 2:5; δισσός: 1x; κλαυθμός: 3x: 7:26; 9:9 bis. 245 Cf. Teles, Περὶ ἀπαθείας ed. Hense, p. 59; Tob 7:6; Jos. Asen. 18:3; Plutarch, Mor. 545F; Herm. Vis. 1:2:4; Acts Thom. 161. 246 As in LXX Gen 46:29; 4 Βασ 20:3; Isa 30:19; 38:3; Jer 22:10; T. Job 39:6; Jos. Asen. 9:2; etc. 247 Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 193. The sense then for Kugel is this: “Yes, I did weep a double weeping, not only because of their hanging us … but because those who were hanged cried out to a foreign god.” 248 Jeremiah: 7x; Lamentations: 1x; Baruch: 2x. 249 Μόνος: 2x: 7:26; 9:2; κρέμαμαι: 2x: 7:25, 26; ἐπικαλέω: 1x; θεός: see on 1:1; ἀλλότριος: 2x: 7:26, 29; ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς: see on 7:25. For ποιέω meaning “celebrate” see GELS, s.  v., 10. Cf. LXX 2 Chr 7:9 (ἐποίησεν ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἑορτήν); 2 Esdr 18:18 (ἐποίησεν ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἑορτήν). 250 Deut 31:16; 32:12; 3 Βασ 9:9; Ps 43:21; 80:10; etc. 241

242 Suppl.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

361

sounds like the canonical Jeremiah.251 Furthermore, Jeremiah, as already noted, prophesied apostasy for the exiles: “I will hurl you out of this land into a land which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods day and night” (16:13).252 Note also that θεὸν ἀλλότριον lines up with the γῆς ἀλλοτρίας of v. 29. The prophet’s mourning is augmented by his memory of the feast days which he, with Baruch, used to celebrate: ἐμνημόνευον δὲ ἡμέρας ἑορτῆς ἃς ἐποιοῦμεν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ πρὸ τοῦ ἡμᾶς αἰχμαλωτευθῆναι.253 That a particular feast is in view is not said.254 Similar dirges occur in Lamentations; cf. 1:4 (“The roads to Zion mourn, for none come to the appointed feasts; all her gates are desolate”); 2:6 (“He has broken down his booth like that of a garden, laid in ruins the place of his appointed feasts; the Lord has brought to an end in Zion appointed feast and sabbath”). Note also Jer 51:50 (“Remember the Lord from afar, and let Jerusalem come into your mind”) and 4Q179 frag. 1 1:10–11 (“All her palaces are desolate … and those who used to come to the festival are not in them”). One thinks even more, however, of Psalm 137, the theme of which is remembering Jerusalem in Babylon; cf. v. 1 (“By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept [ἐκλαύσαμεν], when we remembered [μνησθῆναι] Zion”), 5–6 (“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember [μνησθῶ] you”). That this text is in view is plausible given its clear use in v. 29.255 7:27. Jeremiah next draws a poignant contrast between the past in Jerusalem that he fondly recalls (μνησκόμενος) and his misery in Babylon: μνησκόμενος ἐστέναζον … ὀδυνώμενος καὶ κλαίων.256 All of this adds pathos. So too does the remark that he returned to his own home: ἐπέστρεφον εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου.257 The meaning is that there was nothing

251

Cf. LXX Jer 1:16; 5:19; 7:6, 9, 18; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 19:4, 13; 22:9; 25:6. Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 742. The LXX, however, does not use here ἀλλότριος; it rather has θεοῖς ἑτέροις for ‫אלהים אחרים‬. 253 Μνημονεύω: 1x; cf. the use of μιμνήσκω in v. 27; ἡμέρα: see on 4:4; ἑορτή: 1x; ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6; αἰχμαλωτεύω: see on 1:1. 254 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 195, envisages the Feast of Booths. Schaller, Paralipomena, 742, thinks rather of festival days in general; cf. Let. Aris. 88. 255 So too Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 192. 256 Μιμνήσκω: see on 5:19; στενάζω: 1x; ὀδυνάω: 1x; κλαίω: see on 2:25. 257 Ἐπίστρέφω: see on 3:10; οἶκος: 2x: 6:3; 7:27; cf. LXX B Judg 18:26 (ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ); 20:8 (ἐπιστρέψομεν ἀνὴρ εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ); Job 7:10 (ἐπιστρέψῃ εἰς τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον). 252

362

Commentary

for Jeremiah to do. That is, he was helpless to change anything. All he could do was go home. 7:28. Jeremiah again (cf. v. 23) seeks to enlist the prayers of Baruch and Abimelech:258 νῦν οὖν δεήθητι … σὺ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου;259 cf. 2:5 and the (negative) formulation in LXX Jer 7:16 and 11:14: σὺ μὴ προσεύχου περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου. Not only is the language Jeremian— over a quarter of the LXX’s uses of λαὸς οὗτος occur in Jeremiah (30x)— but so too is the content. Jeremiah 37:3 and 42 contain requests (both to Jeremiah) for prayer for a community. Furthermore, in Bar 1:13, the exiles in Babylon send a letter to the priests in Jerusalem with this plea: “Pray also for us to the Lord our God, for we have sinned against the Lord.” One might infer that Jeremiah covets the prayers of his companions because they are especially just (5:30; 7:23), and because he imagines that the prayer of the righteous has great power in its effects; cf. Jas 5:16. Yet the texts says nothing about their character; it notes only their location: εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου εἶ.260 This refers to Jerusalem, so perhaps the text presupposes that prayers in the Land or near the site of the temple are more efficacious than other prayers.261 The prayer is for two things—(i) leaving Babylon (ἐξέλθωμεν ἐντεῦθεν) and (ii) the means to that end, obedience to Jeremiah.262 Leaving Babylon is obviously for the purpose of getting to Jerusalem, but nothing is here said about the latter because here the focus is on the negative.

258 According

to Herzer, 4 Baruch, 119, “mentioning Abimelech is … problematic within Jeremiah’s letter, since the verbs in 7:28 assume that only one person is being addressed, which suggests that a secondary revision has occurred. The context also fits better with one addressee. The phrase ‘you and Abimelech’ thus seems to be an addition, as does the mention of Abimelech in 7:15.” Perhaps; yet grammatically there is no problem; cf. Acts 16:31 (σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκος σου) and see BDF § 135. 259 Νῦν οὖν: see on 1:3; δέω: see on 3:4; λαός: see on 1:5; λαοῦ τούτου: see on 2:5. 260 Τόπος: see on 5:7; ὅπου: 3x: 6:1; 7:16, 28; εἰς τὸν τόπον ὅπου: see on 6:1. Given the local use of εἰς (BDF § 205), there is no need to wonder whether the preposition could mean “to” in the sense of “toward Jerusalem.” 261 See see on v. 15 and cf. Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1756. 262 Ἐξέρχομαι: 22x; ἐντεῦθεν: 1x. Cf. LXX Gen 42:15 (ἐξέλθητε ἐντεῦθεν); Exod 11:1 (ἐξαποστελεῖ ὑμᾶς ἐντεῦθεν); 13:3 (ἐξέλθατε … ἐξήγαγεν … ἐντεῦθεν); Jer 2:37 (ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελεύσῃ).

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

363

The formulation—ὅπως εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ τῶν κριμάτων τοῦ στόματός μου263—which recalls 6:22 (“If then you heed my voice, says the Lord, from the mouth of Jeremiah my servant—the one who heeds I will bring him out of Babylon”), has a biblical ring; cf. LXX Num 14:22 (εἰσήκουσάν μου τῆς φωνῆς); Judg 2:2 (εἰσηκούσατε τῆς φωνῆς μου), 20 B (εἰσήκουσαν τῆς φωνῆς μου); 6:10 (εἰσηκούσατε τῆς φωνῆς μου); 1 Chr 16:12 = Ps 104:5 (τὰ κρίματα τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ; MT: ‫ ;)משפטי־פיו‬Ps 118:13 (τὰ κρίματα τοῦ στόματος σου; MT: ‫)משפטי־פיך‬.264 Indeed, εἰσακούσωσιν τῆς φωνῆς μου occurs in LXX Exod 4:1 (for ‫ ;ישמעו בקלי‬cf. 3:18; 4:8), on the lips of Moses, in connection with his leadership of the exodus. So again Jeremiah is like the law-giver. Just as Israel left Egypt by following Moses, so will Israel leave Babylon by following Jeremiah, the prophet like Moses. The assumption is that words from Jeremiah’s mouth are God’s words; cf. Jer 1:9 (“I have put my words in your mouth”); 15:19 (“you shall be as my mouth”). 7:29. Jeremiah concludes his letter with an emphatic declaration that the whole time they have lived in Babylon, the foreigners have held them fast: λέγω γάρ σοι ὅτι ὅλον τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἐποιήσαμεν ἐνταῦθα, κατέχουσιν ἡμᾶς.265 Herzer takes the sense to be: “prevented us from leaving.” Kraft-Purintun similarly translate: “they have kept us in subjection.” This could be correct; cf. LXX Judg 13:16 B: “If you detain (κατάσχῃς) me, I will not eat any of your loaves.” There is, however, another possibility. The first meaning of the verb is “to hold fast,” so maybe the picture is a bit like that in Zech 8:23: “In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.’” That is, maybe the picture is of individual Babylonians grabbing individual Jews and asking them, in a mocking fashion, to sing their religious texts. In Ps 137:3, the request to sing a song of Zion belongs to the trope of mocking one’s defeated enemy.

263

Ὅπως: see on v. 5; εἰσακούω: 1x; φωνή: 14x; cf. ἀκούω + φωνή in 6:10, 22; 9:12; κρίμα: 1x; στόμα: see on 6:9.

264 Cf.

also 4Q385a frag. 18 8: “[that they should] listen to the voice of Jeremiah concerning the things which God had commanded him.” 265 Ὅτι recitativum: see on 1:5; ὅλος: 1x; χρόνος: 2x: 5:20; 7:29; κατέχω: 2x: 3:2; 7:29. For ποιέω meaning “spend time” see on 6:5. For ὅλος + χρόνος see Origen, Comm. Matt. 14.9; Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 6.67; Themistius, In Arist. phys. paraph. ed. Schenkl vol. 5/2, pp. 202, 231

364

Commentary

The words of the Babylonians—εἴπατε ἡμῖν ᾠδὴν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Σιών, καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν266—borrow from LXX Ps 136:3: “There our captors asked us for words of odes (ᾠδῶν), and those who led us away for a hymn: ‘Sing to us some of the odes of Zion’” (αἴσατε ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Σιών; MT: ‫)שירו לנו משיר ציון‬.267 In response, the words of the captives—introduced by ἀντιλέγω, which occurs only here in 4 Baruch—take up LXX 136:4: 4 Bar. 7:29 πῶς ᾄσωμεν ὑμῖν            ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας ὄντες268 LXX Ps 136:4 πῶς ᾄσωμεν τὴν ᾠδὴν Κυρίου ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας MT Ps 137:4 ‫איך נשיר את־שיר־יהוה על אדמת נכר‬

There is a close parallel to our line in Midr. Ps. 137:4: “Nebuchadnezzar asked the sons of Israel: ‘Why do you sit and weep?’ and he called the tribe of Levi and said: ‘Get yourselves ready! I desire that while we are eating and drinking, you stand up and strike your harps before me as you used to strike them before your God.’ The Levites looked at one another and said: ‘Is it not grievous enough for us that we brought about the destruction of his temple? Must we now stand to strike up a song for the pleasure of this dwarf?’” This late text goes on to add another tale, that the Levites said not “We shall not sing” but “How can we sing?” because they were manacled and their thumbs were crushed.269 Clearly Ps 137:3 (“there our captors asked of us songs, and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’”) led to haggadic elaboration. Kugel may rightly unpack 4 Baruch’s application: remembering “the ‘days of festivity which we celebrated in Jerusalem before our captivity’ [v. 26], and being thus keenly aware of the proper use to which these songs were put in Zion, the answer given by Jeremiah and his countrymen to the Babylonian demand can only be ‘How can we sing for you’ songs that were made for celebrating

266 267

ᾨδή: 3x, all in this verse; Σιών: 1x; Θεός: see on 1:1.

On 4 Baruch’s use of the LXX here see Schaller, “Greek Version,” 84–85. He observes that LXX’s ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν agrees with 4 Baruch over against the MT’s singular, ‫משיר‬. 268 Πῶς: see on 6:8; ᾄδω: 1x; γῆ: see on 3:8; ἀλλότριος: 2x: 7:26, 29. On ᾄδω in Jewish Greek sources see Ralph Brucker, “A Sample Article: ᾄδω,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature, ed. Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten (WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 1–16. 269 The targum instead has the Levites biting their thumbs off with their teeth so they cannot play.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

365

the holy festivals we kept in Jerusalem now that we are now longer there, ‘being in a foreign land’?”270 Herzer and Torijano regard v. 29 as secondary.271 The former urges that v. 28, with its request for Baruch’s prayers, lines up with the similar request in the opening of the letter (v. 23) and offers a more satisfying conclusion, and further that 4 Baruch does not otherwise feature literal citations of Scripture. Torijano affirms that “literal quotations” are rare in early Jewish literature and that the exilic setting could have prompted the insertion of a biblical verse. Against all this, (i) the biblical text is reworked. Verse 29, which is not formally introduced as Scripture, does not feature a “literal” quotation.272 Even if it did, just a few verses earlier, 4 Baruch quotes LXX Prov 4:27 verbatim: μὴ ἐκκλίνῃς εἰς τὰ δεξιά, μήτε εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά (7:12). (ii) Ps 137—which, according to b. Git. 57b, prophesies both the first and second destruction of the temple (cf.˙ Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 17:2)— seems to have influenced vv. 25–26 of ch. 7; (iii) 4 Baruch otherwise borrows from and alludes to Scripture at every turn. (iv) In view of 6:12–14 (the angel’s words as to what Baruch should write) and 17–23 (Baruch’s letter), one can hardly insist that Jeremiah’s letter should follow epistolary convention or end in an expected fashion. (v) Pesiq. Rab. 26:6;273 Midr. Ps. 136:4 (quoted above); and Jer. Apocr. 31:12–14274 offer similar uses of Ps 137:1 in narratives about Jeremiah and the exile. 4 Baruch here takes up a traditional application of Psalm 137.

270 Kugel,

Potiphar’s House, 192. He takes the “for you” to mean: “it is not the singing of a song of the Lord in a foreign land that is the problem, but singing a song ‘for you’—for you Babylonians instead of for our God.” 271 Herzer, Paralipomena, 124, 127; idem, 4 Baruch, 120, 129–30; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2675. Contrast Schaller, Paralipomena, 743. 272 Εἴπατε ἡμῖν ᾠδὴν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Σιών, καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν is hardly a quotation of αἴσατε ἡμῖν ἐκ τῶν ᾠδῶν Σιών. It is instead an elaboration (the singular accusative ᾠδήν is new, and καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν has no parallel in the LXX) as well as revision (εἴπατε for αἴσατε) of it. The same holds true for πῶς ᾄσωμεν ὑμῖν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλοτρίας ὄντες: this revises the biblical line by inserting ὑμῖν, dropping τὴν ᾠδὴν Κυρίου, and adding ὄντες. 273 “When the exiles … saw that Jeremiah was leaving them, all of them broke out weeping with loud lamentation and cried out, saying, ‘Our father Jeremiah, in truth, will you abandon us?’ There they sat down and wept, for thus it is written, ‘By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.’” 274 “The sons of Israel were hanging their harps on the willow trees, resting themselves until the time when they were to work. The Chaldeans said to them, ‘Sing us one of the songs that you sing in the house of God in Jerusalem.’ But they sighed, saying, ‘How can we sing the song of our God in a strange land?’”

366

Commentary

Whereas Psalm 137 ends up on a note of bitter revenge—“daughter of Babylon, you devastator. Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” (vv. 8–9)—4 Baruch notably does not go in this direction. All focus is upon the Israelites, upon their obedience, their apostasy, and their return to Jerusalem.275 Whatever the explanation, our narrator, with the brief exception of 4:8 (“you will not have life”), has no interest in depicting the punishment of the pagans. He writes nothing akin to Jer 25:12 (“Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation”); 50:18 (“I am bringing punishment on the king of Babylon and his land”); or 51:35–37 (“The violence done to me and to my kinsmen be upon Babylon … Thus says the Lord … ‘I will … take vengeance for you. I will dry up her sea and make her fountain dry; and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins’”). This lack of interest in revenge better suits a date for the Jewish original not immediately after the first revolt and not immediately before or during the second revolt. Given the quotation of Ps 137 and allusions to it, it is important to note that some attributed the Psalm to Jeremiah, as appears from variants of the superscription.276 Davidic authorship was evidently thought problematic because the psalm is clearly about the Babylonian exile.277 4 Baruch, by putting words from this psalm into Jeremiah’s letter, probably assumes the tradition of Jeremian authorship. Indeed, Kugel may be correct that the “the act of inserting a paraphrase of part of it [Ps 137] as a ‘letter’ sent back to Baruch is essentially an attempt to define this psalm and say what it was, a kind of report by Jeremiah himself, well into the exile, both looking back on Jewish sufferings and looking forward to the coming redemption … Our author seeks both to corroborate its Jeremianic authorship and situate it historically, providing a plausible scenario for its composition.”278

275 Cf.

Jones, Jewish Reactions, 154: “4 Ezra and 4 Baruch are much more concerned with the fate of the conqueror than 4 Baruch, in which there is not a single vision of the punishment to befall the destroyer of Jerusalem.” 276 These include Ἰερεμίου; ἀλληλουϊὰ διὰ Ἰηερεμίου; τῷ Δαυὶδ Ἰερεμίου; Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυὶδ Ἰερεμίου; τῷ Δαυὶδ διὰ Ἰερεμίου; see A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta X. Psalmi cum Odis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931), 319–20. The Clementine Vulgate has: Psalmus David, Jeremiae. On the reasoning behind this tradition see Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 176–77. 277 Which is why some Jewish interpreters turned it into a prophecy; see Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 174–75. 278 Kugel, Potiphar’s House, 195.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

367

7:30. After composing his letter to Baruch,279 Jeremiah ties it around the neck of the eagle. The line is nearly identical with 7:8 (q.  v.), which has to do with Baruch’s sending of his letter: 30 ἔδησε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν             εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ 8          τὴν ἐπιστολήν … ἔδησεν … εἰς τὸν τράχηλον τοῦ ἀετοῦ

The request to “go in peace“—ἄπελθε ἐν εἰρήνῃ—is exactly the same as in v. 9. Otherwise, however, the two charges to the eagle are different. Baruch’s admonition is much longer and more theologically elaborate. This is presumably due to its coming first in the narrative. Our author, having once composed a long charge, evidently was not inclined to do so again. Yet Jeremiah says something to the eagle that Baruch does not: ἐπισκέψηται ἡμᾶς ἀμφοτέρους ὁ Κύριος.280 The words reproduce a biblical idiom; cf. LXX Gen 21:1 (Κύριος ἐπεσκέψηατο); Exod 13:19 (ἐπισκέψεται ὑμᾶς Κύριος); Num 27:16 (ἐπισκεψάσθω Κύριος); Deut 11:12 (Κύριος … ἐπισκοπεῖται); Jer 15:15 (Κύριε … ἐπισκεψαί με); Zech 10:3 (ἐπισκέψεται Κύριος).281 7:31. The opening words—καὶ ἐπετάσθη ὁ ἀετός, καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ282—are close to v. 13 and suggest that the second trip is much like the first. The notice that the eagle took the letter—καὶ ἤνεγκεν τὴν ἐπιστολήν—and gave it to Baruch—καὶ ἔδωκε τῷ Βαρούχ—is perfunctory.283 Since the bird has no hands, the sense of the second verb, δίδωμι, must be something like “deliver” or “present.”284 After Baruch unties and reads the letter, all the emphasis falls upon his overwhelming emotional response: λύσας ἀνέγνω, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτήν, καὶ ἔκλαυσε.285 cf. Chariton, Chaer. 8.5.13 (τὴν ἐπιστολήν

Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα: see on 3:8. Ἐπισκέπτομαι: 1x; Κύριος: see on 1:4; ἀμφότερος: 2x: 6:2; 7:30. 281 Cf. also T. Levi 23:5 (ἐπισκέψηται ὑμᾶς Κύριος); T. Benj. 6:6 (Κύριος ἐπισκέπτει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ). 282 Πετάννυμι: 2x: 7:13, 31; ἀετός: see on 6:12; ἔρχομαι + εἰς: see on v. 24; Ἰερουσαλήμ: 279 280

see on 4:6.

283 284 285

Φέρω: 11x; ἐπιστολή: see on 6:17; δίδωμι: see on 3:15; καταφιλέω: 2x: 6:2; 7:31; κλαίω: see on 2:5. For these meanings see GELS, s.  v., 1, 18.

Λύσας ἀνέγνω: see the discussion on v. 19, where Jeremiah performs the same actions; καταφιλέω: 2x: 6:2; 7:31; κλαίω: see on 2:5.

368

Commentary

κατεφίλησεν); Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. 51.12.3 (ἔκλαε καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς κατεφίλει). Kissing and weeping are naturally paired.286 In the present context, the combination recalls 6:2, where Baruch and Abimelech kiss and cry upon their reunion. Here, however, Baruch cannot kiss his friend, Jeremiah, because he is far away. He can only kiss the paper with his words. Yet this expression of affection for his long-gone companion—he is also presumably relieved that his own letter has gotten through—is mixed with agony, because the letter tells a story of woe: ἀκούσας διὰ τὰς λύπας καὶ τὰς κακώσεις τοῦ λαοῦ.287 The reader immediately recalls the content of Jeremiah’s letter in vv. 23–29, especially as λυπή, κάκωσις, and λαός all occur there more than once.288 7:32. The chapter ends with two footnotes regarding Jeremiah and Babylon. One underlines his compassion for the sick. The other emphasizes his role as teacher of Torah. The first footnote has the prophet distributing figs from Abimelech’s basket: ἄρας τὰ σῦκα διέδωκε τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ.289 Verse 8 (q.  v.) gives their number as fifteen (cf. also 6:13). The Greek is very close to, and is designed to recall, 3:15, where Jeremiah commands Abimelech to give figs to the sick, as well as to 5:25, where Abimelech recalls what the prophet told him to do: 3:15 τὰ σῦκα  διέδωκε τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ 5:25     σῦκα  δίδου   τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ 7:32      σῦκα ἵνα δίδωμι      τοῖς νοσοῦσι τοῦ λαοῦ

Abimelech never discharged his task. Maybe the reason, from the point of view of the narrative, is so that Baruch could later send them to Babylon.290 In any case, the symbolism, if any, of the figs, and the significance of the number fifteen—the latter seems miniscule over against the population

286 Cf.

Gen 29:11; 33:4; 45:15; 50:1; Ruth 1:9; 1 Sam 20:41; Tob 7:6; also Luke 7:38; Acts 20:37; T. Abr. RecShrt. 6:2; Chariton, Chaer. 5.10.5; Claudius Aelianus, Var. hist. 13.34. 287 Ἀκουέω: 20x; λυπή: 3x: 7:24 bis, 31; κάκωσις: 3x: 7:23, 24, 31; λαός: see on 1:5. 288 Verses vv. 23, 24, 25, 28. On the echo of the exodus in τὰς κακώσεις τοῦ λαοῦ see on v. 23. 289 Αἴρω: 12x, of the basket of figs also in 3:15; 5:7; σῦκον: see on 3:15; δἰδωμι: see on 3:15; νοσέω: 3x: 3:15; 5:25; 7:32; λαός: see on 1:5. 290 Although he could in theory have distributed some but not all, leaving fifteen or more.

Chapter 7:  Jeremiah’s Letter to Baruch

369

of the exile291—remain unclear.292 According to Herzer, the figs symbolize God’s will to save “the whole people.”293 Kaestli suggests a metaphorical interpretation related to Tg. Ps. 126:1: “When the Lord restores the exiles of Zion, we shall be like the sick who are cured.”294 See further on 3:15 and 7:8, and for the relationship to Jer 24:1–10 see pp. 174 and 331. Nothing is said about the results. This is understandable. Neither a statement to the effect that some or many were healed nor a statement that none were healed would suit the narrative. On the one hand, it would be against the tenor of the story for Jeremiah to do something that is ineffective. On the other hand, a remark that people were healed would be discordant with the author’s desire to depict life in Babylon in unremittingly negative terms.295 The second footnote has to do with what Jeremiah taught: καὶ ἔμεινε διδάσκων296 αὐτοὺς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι ἐκ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν ἐθνῶν τῆς Βαβυλῶνος.297 His message, which sets the scene for the next chapter, coheres with the angelic admonition in 6:12–14: “Let the alien who is among you be removed … The one who does not separate himself from Babylon, O Jeremiah, will not enter the city.” The exiles are to be in Babylon but not of it. The word, ἀλίσγημα, which means “pollution” or defile-

291

Whether or not the numbers in 2 Kgs 24:24–16 and Jer 52:28–30 are accurate, they would have left ancient hearers or readers with the impression that there were thousands upon thousands of Jews in Babylon. 292 Klauck, Letters, 288, supposes that the sick are “presumably a metaphor for the exiles as such.” Nir, Destruction, 218 n. 41, suggests that an eschatological interpretation of Mic 5:5 (“seven shepherds and eight princes of men”) is in the background. 293 So Herzer, “Direction,” 18. 294 Kaestli, “Influence,” 228. 295 Nonetheless, the short Greek recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 315) affirms that as many as ate the figs were healed: ἰάσατο ἅπαντες ὅσοι μετέλαβον ἐξ αὐτῶν. Cf. Klauck, Letters, 288: getting the figs “apparently helps them.” 296 Cf. the constructions in 3:11 (μεῖνον … εὐαγγελιζόμενος—of Jeremiah); 4:11 (ἔμεινεν … καθεζόμενος); 5:15 (καὶ ἔμεινε λυπούμενος); 9:1 (ἔμειναν δὲ … χαίροντες); also Jud 7:5 (ἔμενον φυλάσσοντες); Tob 8:20 ‫( א‬μενεῖς ἔσθων καὶ πίνων); Gk. frag. Jub. 10:21 (ἔμειναν οἰκοδομοῦντες), 24 (ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖ κατοικῶν). 297 Μένω: see on 2:10; διδάσκω: 1x; ἀπέχω: 1x; ἀλίσγημα: 1x; ἔθνος: see on 6:16. Note that, in contrast to the use of ἔθνος in the Christian ending, here it is pejorative and implicitly set over against a favorable understanding of Israel; cf. GELS, s.  v.; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7. On priests as interpreters and guardians of the law see Junghwa Choi, Jewish Leadership in Roman Palestine from 70 CE to 135 CE (AJEC 83; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 44–60.

370

Commentary

ment,” is rare.298 It occurs only here in the Gk. Pseudepigrapha and does not appear in the LXX, Philo, or Josephus. Nonetheless, the use here may have been conventional; cf. Acts 15:20 (ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων—the only occurrence of ἀλίσγημα in the NT); Apos. Con. 6:12 (ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν ἐθνῶν).299 But one could also, given these two parallels, urge that the last line of ch. 8 is from a Christian hand.300 In any case, while ἀλισγημάτων, in its present context, must include mixed marriages, the connotations may extend beyond that, to other kinds of perceived religious pollution. Jones indeed thinks that intermarriage with the Babylonians symbolizes any and all “Jewish adoption of Babylonian [= Roman] practices.”301 Where the actions in v. 32 take place is unclear. Does Jeremiah teach and give figs to the sick in the wilderness? Or does v. 32 recount what happens once everyone returns to the Babylon? Or does Jeremiah distribute the figs in the desert and then return to the city to teach? Whatever the answers, what matters above all is that God has miraculously appeared in the desert (v. 18), and God’s prophet is commanding the people: the salvific past is being replayed.302

The cognate verb, ἀλισγέω (= “destroy the purity of”), is better-attested. Note LXX Dan 1:8; Mal 1:7, 12; Ecclus 40:29; Ps.-Athanasius, Virg. 6; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 2 PG 35.472; Cyril of Alexandria, Os.-Mal. ed. Pusey, 2:557, 559, 602. The hapax συναλισγέω occurs in Let. Aris. 142 apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.9.13. For discussion see Delling, Lehre, 46–47. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2675–76, is wrong to assert that ἀλίσγημα “occurs only here [4 Bar. 7:32] and in Acts 15:20” and that ἀλισγέω “appears only in Jewish texts.” 299 Note also, from a much later time, Nicetas David, Laud. Dan. proph. 6, which concerns Daniel and his companions in Babylon: τῶν ἀλισγημάτων μὲν καὶ ἀκαθαρσιῶν ἀπείχοντο τῶν ἐθνῶν. 300 So Bogaert, Baruch, 1:204. Yet the textual variants—A substitutes πραγμάτων for ἀλισγημάτων; arm 144 and slav T1 omit the clause, as does the short Greek recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 315); eth has: “the doing of activity of the Babylonians”—show that some later Christians did not find the clause helpful. 301 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 164. Cf. p. 166: “intermarriage with the Babylonians is a well-chosen symbol for Herodian and other Jewish cooperation with the Roman conquerors.” 302 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 124, cites Ezek 20:10–20, which in part reads: “I led them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live” (vv. 10–11). 298

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans 8:1. Now the day came when God led the people out of Babylon. 8:2. And the Lord said to Jeremiah, “Arise, you and the people, and come to the Jordan, and (there) say to the people, ‘Let the one who wants the Lord leave behind the practices of Babylon, even the men who took from them (the Babylonians) wives and the women who took from them (the Babylonians) husbands.’ 8:3. And let those who heed you cross over, and bring them up to Jerusalem. But those who do not heed you, do not lead them to it.” 8:4. And Jeremiah spoke these words to the people, and arising they went to the Jordan to cross, and he continued to speak to them the words which the Lord had said to him. But half of those who were married did not want to obey Jeremiah but said to him: “We will never leave our wives behind, but we will bring them back with us to our city.” 8:5. They then crossed the Jordan and came to Jerusalem. And Jeremiah and Baruch and Abimelech stood firm, saying, “None who is joined to the Babylonians will enter this place.” 8:6. And they said to each other: “Let us arise and return to Babylon, to our city.” And they departed. 8:7. But when they arrived at Babylon, the Babylonians went out to meet them and said: “You cannot enter our city because you hate us, and (because) you secretly departed from us. Therefore you will not come in among us. For we took an oath with one another in the name of our god, to welcome neither you nor your children, because you secretly departed from us.” 8:8. Upon learning this, they turned away, and they went to a deserted place far from Jerusalem, and they built for themselves a city, and they named it Samaria. 8:9. And Jeremiah sent (a message) to them, saying: “Repent. For the righteous angel comes, and he will lead you to your exalted place.” 8:1. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα, ἐν ᾗ ἐξέφερε ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος. 8:2. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν· Ἀνάστηθι, σὺ καὶ ὁ λαός, καὶ δεῦτε ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην, καὶ ἐρεῖς τῷ λαῷ· Ὁ θέλων τὸν Κύριον καταλειψάτω τὰ ἔργα τῆς Βαβυλῶνος, καὶ τοὺς ἄρρενας τοὺς λαβόντας ἐξ αὐτῶν γυναῖκας, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας τὰς λαβούσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρας. 8:3. Καὶ διαπεράσωσιν οἱ ἀκούοντές σου, καὶ ἆρον αὐτοὺς εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ· τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἀκούοντάς σου, μὴ εἰσαγάγῃς αὐτοὺς εἰς αὐτήν. 8:4. Ἰερεμίας δὲ ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα· καὶ ἀναστάντες ἦλθον ἐπὶ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-019

372

Commentary

τὸν Ἰορδάνην τοῦ περᾶσαι, λέγων αὐτοῖς τὰ ῥήματα ἃ εἶπε Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν. Καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν γαμησάντων ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ Ἰερεμίου, ἀλλ’ εἶπον πρὸς αὐτόν· Οὐ μὴ καταλείψωμεν τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλ’ ὑποστρέφωμεν αὐτὰς μεθ’ ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν. 8:5. Ἐπέρασαν οὖν τὸν Ἰορδάνην καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. Καὶ ἔστη Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, λέγοντες ὅτι, Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κοινωνῶν Βαβυλωνίταις οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην. 8:6. Καὶ εἶπον πρὸς ἑαυτούς· Ἀναστάντες ὑποστρέψωμεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα εἰς τὸν τόπον ἡμῶν. Καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν. 8:7. Ἐλθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, ἐξῆλθον οἱ Βαβυλωνῖται εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν λέγοντες· Οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐμισήσατε ἡμᾶς, καὶ κρυφῇ ἐξήλθετε ἀφ’ ἡμῶν· διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ εἰσελεύσεσθε πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Ὅρκῳ γὰρ ὡρκίσαμεν ἀλλήλους κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, μήτε ὑμᾶς μήτε τέκνα ὑμῶν δέξασθαι, ἐπειδὴ κρυφῇ ἐξήλθετε ἀφ’ ἡμῶν. 8:8. Καὶ ἐπιγνόντες ὑπέστρεψαν, καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τόπον ἔρημον μακρόθεν τῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ, καὶ ᾠκοδόμησαν ἑαυτοῖς πόλιν, καὶ ἐπωνόμασαν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Σαμάρειαν. 8:9. Ἀπέστειλε δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς Ἰερεμίας, λέγων· Μετανοήσατε· ἔρχεται γὰρ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, καὶ εἰσάξει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸν τόπον ὑμῶν τὸν ὑψηλόν. Textual Notes 8:4. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer follow C eth in reading ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα. Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun instead print ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, which appears in A B arm 993 (= 920) slav N T2. Because LXX Num 11:24 has ἐλάλησεν (Moses) πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα, and because our text is here full of parallels between Jeremiah and Moses, one guesses that πρὸς τὸν λαόν is original. If not, a later hand has enhanced the Moses typology. Note that ὁ λαός occurs 3x in vv. 1–2. // In the middle of v. 4, C goes its own way, omitting the rest of the book and ending with this: “‘And half of those who were married I will take, and with them I will establish an eternal covenant, that I will be their God and that they will be my people, and I will not remove my people Israel from the land that I gave them.’ ‘O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, a distressed soul and a melancholy spirit has cried out to you, “Hear, O Lord, and show mercy because you are a God of mercy and show mercy, for we sin before you; for you are the one ever enthroned while we ever perish. Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hearken to the prayer of perished Israel and to the sons of those who sin before you, who did not hearken to the voice of their God, so that evils clung to us. Do not remember the injustices of our fathers but remember your hand and your name in this time.”’ And it came to pass after the fulfilment of the seventy years, when the Persians began

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

373

to rule, in the first year of Cyrus, king of the Persians, that the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah was accomplished. The Lord raised up the spirit of Cyrus, king of the Persians, and he declared a proclamation in all his kingdom together with this written decree: ‘Thus says Cyrus, the king of the Persians: “the Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the (earth) and has shown me favor that I might build for him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judea. Whoever then is from his people, let his Lord be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judea, and let him build the house of the God of Israel. This is the Lord who has encamped in Jerusalem.”’ And king Cyrus brought forth the holy vessels of the Lord which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem and … put in his idols’ temple. Cyrus the king of the Persians brought all of them forth and gave them to Mithridates, his treasurer. Because of this (?) they were given to Sarabaros, the governor of Judea, along with Zerubbabel, who also asked Darius, king of the Persians, for the rebuilding of the temple. For there was one who hampered the work in the time of Artaxerxes, as Ezra reports. In the second year, Zerubbabel the (son) of Rathalael and Joshua the (son) of Jehozadak, and their brothers and the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity, arrived at the temple of God in Jerusalem, in the second month, and they founded the house of God at New Moon, in the second month after their arrival in Judea and Jerusalem, when Haggai and Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the last of the prophets, prophesied. And Ezra went up out of Babylon, being most-gifted as a scribe in the law of Moses. He indeed had great knowledge in teaching all the people the ordinances and injunctions, in the time of Artaxerxes. And they celebrated an inaugural feast for the house of God, by singing and blessing the Lord for the raising of the house of God.” It is wholly unlikely that this is the original ending. (i) It is confined to one ms. (ii) It concludes the book by uncharacteristically turning attention away from Jeremiah, Baruch, and Abimelech. (iii) It displays no stylistic features distinctive of the rest of the book. (iv) It, unlike 4 Baruch as a whole, is largely a concatenation of lines from the Bible, more particularly “a collage of quotations” from Baruch and 1–2 Esdras.1 What then explains this   1 So

Piovanelli, “Paralimpomeni,” 326. See esp. LXX 1 Esdr 1:54–55; 2:1–5, 10–12, 15–25; 5:54–59; 6:1–2, 16–19; 7:1–3; 8:1–3, 7; 2 Esdr 1:1–3, 7–8; 3:8–11; 4:7– 24; 5:14; 6:16; 7:1–6, 10; Bar 2:35; 3:1–5 and the helpful notes of Schaller, Paralipomena, 745. For extended discussion see Robert Hanhart, Ein unbekannter Text zur griechischen Esra-Überlieferung, (NAWG I. Philologische-historische Klasse 1995 nr. 4 MSU 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1995), who investigates the relevance of C’s addition for the textual history of 1 and 2 Esdras.

374

Commentary

alternate ending? Perhaps it was added because an exemplar had been accidentally truncated and a scribe, feeling compelled to add something, unimaginatively added sentences from the Bible. There are many examples of ancient mss. losing their endings.2 Commentary Despite its brevity, ch. 8 recounts events that occur in four different places: 1–3 Babylon 4   the Jordan 5–6     Jerusalem 7 Babylon 8–9       Samaria

The journeys are not described. The narrator moves from place to place in an instant. Despite all the movement, the chapter mostly recounts short speeches: 2–3 (4) Words of Jeremiah 4    Words of the disobedient 5 Words of Jeremiah 6    Words of the disobedient 7     Words of the Babylonians Words of Jeremiah 9

Chapter 8, which seems inspired to great extent by Ezra 9–10 and its interdiction of mixed marriages, links up with the previous narrative by relating the fulfillment of the prophecies in 6:13–14 (“‘Let the alien who is among you be removed, and let fifteen days go by; and after that I shall lead you to your city,’ says the Lord. ‘The one who does not separate himself from Babylon, O Jeremiah, will not enter the city. And I shall punish him, so that he will not be welcomed in turn by the Babylonians,’ says the Lord”) and 22 (“the one who heeds I will bring him out of Babylon. But the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon”). In addition, the chapter, which is full of biblical locutions (see on vv. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8), further develops the theme of Jeremiah as a new Moses in the midst of a new exodus; see the commentary on vv. 1–4, 7. New is the attention paid to those who disobey Jeremiah, and they are the focus of the chapter. Although descended from Abraham, they have

  2 See

Clayton N. Croy, The Mutilation of Mark’s Gospel (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003), 138–44.

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

375

foreign spouses, and they become the progenitors of the Samaritans. Such interest in the Samaritans and in the problem of Jews marrying Gentiles is yet one more sign of a Jewish original. In line with this, it is telling that arm 144 and 345 omit all of the material having to do with intermarriage and the Samaritans.3 At the same time, and as the commentary below will argue, there is a good chance that v. 9, with its promise of reward for repentance, is a Christian insertion. Modern scholars have debated the date of the split between Jews and Samaritans.4 Some, following the lead of Josephus and the church fathers, have taken 2 Kgs 17:24–41 as an account of Samaritan origins.5 Others have thought the turning point was the erection of a temple on Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period.6 Many, however, now contend that the destruction of the temple on Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus (see Josephus, Ant. 13.254–56) occasioned or accelerated schism. Whatever the historical truth, 4 Baruch’s fanciful etiology, which “lacks any historical foundation,”7 (i) fails to harmonize with 1 Kgs 16:24, which has King Omri founding and naming the city of Samaria long before the exile; (ii) under  3 At

the same time, the Samaritans also fail to appear in the Coptic Jeremiah Apocryphon, which has so many parallels with 4 Baruch and which may be mostly Jewish. See the Introduction, pp. 46–52.   4 See esp. R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (London: Basil Blackwell, 1975); Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans (Leiden: Brill, 1987); Magnar Kartveit, The Origins of the Samaritans (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009). On the different Jewish opinions from second temple and rabbinic times see Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Time of the Second Temple and the Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977), 354–73.   5 But “it is now generally accepted by biblical studies that the events recounted in 2 Kings 17 do not constitute the Ursprungslegende (myth of origin) of the Samaritans.” So Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2016), 30. For Josephus on the Samaritans see esp. Ant. 19.288–91; 11.19–30, 88–94, 114–19, 174–83, 340–47; 12.257–64; 20.134–36; and Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence,” in Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, held on Sunday-Monday, October 14–15, 1990, ed. Menachem Mor (SJC 3; Omaha, NE: Creighton University Press, 1992), 23–45; Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (TSAJ 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Josephus sometimes sees the Samaritans as Jews and at other times speaks about them differently.   6 See Josephus, Ant. 9.288–91; 11.302–347.   7 So Schaller, Paralipomena, 746.

376

Commentary

stands the Samaritans to be a mix of Israelites and foreigners so that they are Jews of a sort (cf. those rabbinic texts which debate whether to treat them more as Jews than as Gentiles);8 (iii) presents them as being disobedient to God’s commands as spoken through Jeremiah; (iv) associates them with an exodus from Babylon;9 (v) depicts them as unwelcome in both Jerusalem and Babylonia; (vi) has them founding a city named “Samaria”; and (vii) holds forth the possibility of reward for their repentance (v. 9). Although this presentation is not closely paralleled anywhere else, it could be in part dependent upon a reading of 2 Kgs 17:24–41 akin to that in Josephus (although Josephus is on the whole more polemical).10 In the biblical passage, some who settle Samaria come from Babylon (17:24); they settle in “cities”; they combine the Jewish world with a non-Jewish world because they worship “the Lord” yet also other deities; and they do not heed (LXX 4 Βασ 17:40: οὐκ ἀκούσεσθε; cf. 4 Bar. 8:3–4) God’s commandments.

m. Dem. 3:4; m. Ned. 3:10; m. Qidd. 4:3; t. ̔Abod. Zar. 2:8; t. Ter. 4:14; y. Ber. 11a (7:1); b. Qidd. 75b; etc. For overviews of the problem of the Samaritans in rabbinic lit. see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Samaritans in Tannaitic Halakhah,” JQR 75 (1985), 323–50; Moshe Lavee, “The Samaritans may be Included—Another Look at the Samaritan in Talmudic Literature,” in Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies, ed. Menachem Mor and Friedrich V. Reiterer (SJ 53; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 147–73. There is no one view, and there was probably no one view at any particular time.   9 Josephus, Ant. 10.183–85: when the ten tribes were exiled from the north, it was settled by “the nation of Chuthaeans, who had formerly lived in the interior of Persia and Media and who were then, moreover, called Samaritans because they assumed the name of the country in which they were settled.” Cf. Ant. 9.279, 288–91. Josephus and 4 Baruch agree as to the geographical origin of the Samaritans; they do not agree on their Jewish ancestry. But in Ant. 11.302–347, which is about the building of the Samaritan temple, the issue of mixed-marriages plays a role. See Van der Horst, “Samaritan Origins,” 169–71.  10 For a detailed comparison of 4 Baruch and 2 Kgs 17:24–41 see Riaud, Paralipomènes, 30–31. On the interpretation of 2 Kgs 17 in early Judaism see Ferdinand Dexinger, “Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samarian Example,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Volume Two: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, ed. E. P. Sanders with A.  I. Baumgarten and Alan Mendelson (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 86–114. On the relationship between 4 Baruch and Josephus on the subject of the Samaritans see Herzer, 4 Baruch, 137, who concludes: “Direct reference to Josephus in 4 Baruch is unlikely, if not impossible. Assuming that Josephus did not depend uniquely on Nehemiah but used other traditions about the founding of the Gerizim temple, the similarities between his work and 4 Baruch allow one to assume that a similar process lies behind 4 Bar. 8.”   8 See

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

377

According to Torijano, “4 Baruch does not show an anti-Samaritan bias, since it depicts the Samaritans as related to Israel.”11 Being “related to Israel” does not, however, guarantee anything. The sectarians at Qumran polemicized against certain Jerusalem priests and denied them salvation even though the latter were “related to Israel,” and some rabbis polemicized against the Sadducees and denied them salvation even though the latter were “related to Israel.” Torijano appears to be following Herzer, whose argument is more expansive: 4 Baruch is “not anti-Samaritan. Granted, the narrative confirms the status quo, but it also provides a way for moving beyond the status quo: trust in God’s promise. The unity of God’s people is of greater import than the divisive disobedience, which can be overcome by the prophetic promise.”12 This judgment may hold for the text as it stands, especially given that Jeremiah’s concluding words can be thought of as unconditional: the righteous angel “will lead you to your exalted place.”13 Perhaps our author would have been happy to apply Neh 9:31 to the Samaritans: “in your great mercies you did not make an end of them or forsake them, for you are a gracious and merciful God.” Still, v. 9 may be a Christian addition, and since it is the only potentially positive note about the Samaritans, the Jewish original of 4 Baruch may have been wholly negative. Furthermore, even if v. 9 is Jewish, the possibility that the Samaritans will someday repent does not rewrite the preceding narrative. The text does not leave one with a positive impression of the Samaritans, even if it does not deny hope for their future. Readers might even identify the Samaritans with those who cry out to a foreign god in ch. 7: both groups disobey divine directives. In leading exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem, in demanding that Israelites not have foreign spouses, and in functioning as a new Moses, the Jeremiah of 4 Baruch 8 essentially steps into the biblical role of Ezra, who was also a priest.14 How two different people—Ezra and Jeremiah—could do the same thing might have been a problem for readers or hearers who took

 11

Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2676. Contrast Stuhlmacher, Evangelium, 177 n. 2: 4 Baruch displays an “antisamaritanische Tendenz.”  12 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 138; on p. xxviii he cites rabbinic texts with a more or less favorable attitude toward the Samaritans. Cf. the positive estimates of Riaud, Paralipomènes, 131–32, and Kaestli, “Influence,” 219.  13 This is how Herzer, 4 Baruch, 138, reads the text: “It seems that the author of 4 Baruch believed that the Samaritans would repent, since there is no further announcement of judgment against them.”  14 Relevant here are those texts that depict Ezra in Mosaic terms; see Allison, New Moses, 62–65.

378

Commentary

4 Baruch to be an historical narrative. It would not have been a problem for those who took it to be a piece of edifying, entertaining fiction. 8:1. The straightforward theological statement that the day came when God brought the people out of Babylon—ἐγένετο δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα, ἐν ᾗ ἐξέφερε ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος15—is modeled on similar lines about the deliverance from Egypt; cf. esp. LXX 1 Βασ 8:8 (ἡμέρας ἀνήγαγον αὐτοὺς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου); 2 Βασ 7:6 (ἡμέρας ἀνήγαγον ἐξ Αἰγύπτου τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ); 2 Chr 6:5 (τῆς ἡμέρας ἧς ἀνήγαγον τὸν λαόν μου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου). So the words contribute to 4 Baruch’s new exodus typology. The assertion is wholly theological. Nothing is said about Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, or the political situation in Babylon.16 Even Jeremiah earns no mention until the next verse. Nor do we learn precisely how much time has passed between the end of ch. 7, with its ἔμεινε διδάσκων αὐτούς, and the beginning of ch. 8, with its ἐγένετο δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα.17 All that matters in 8:1 is God, the sole agent of deliverance. For the moment, then, all concrete details fall away. 8:2. The deliverance from Babylon comes, as in some rabbinic texts,18 by the hand of Jeremiah, who is a new Moses and akin to Moses’ successor, Joshua. As God once spoke to those two, so now God speaks to the prophet, who in turn speaks to the people: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος πρὸς Ἰερεμίαν … καὶ ἐρεῖς τῷ λαῷ.19 Again like his forerunners, he leads the people out of captivity and to the river Jordan: δεῦτε ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην.20 Jeremiah is also like Moses and Joshua in that he confronts the people the common ‫ ;ויהי היום‬also Job 20:14: ‫ ;היום אשר … בו‬Acts 9:43 (ἐγένετο δὲ ἡμέρας). Ἐγένετο: see on 1:1; ἡμέρα: see on 4:3; ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα occurs in 3:1, ἡμέρας ἐν ᾗ in 4:3; ὁ Θεός: see on 1:1; ἐκφέρω: 1x; λαός: see on 1:5; Βαβυλών:

  15 Cf.

see on 2:7. the story in the Jeremiah Apocryphon, where Cyrus plays an important role, and the biblically-inspired text in C; see above, pp. 372–73.  17 The short recension assumes the passing of only a few days; see 6:16 (ed. Vassiliev, p. 314), where Baruch’s letter to Jeremiah declares that God will lead the Israelites out of Jerusalem in a few days (ὀλίγαι ἡμέραι).  18 E.  g. b. ̔Arak. 33a and b. Meg. 14b.  19 Κύριος: see on 1:4 and further below; ἐρῶ: 2x: 8:2; 9:20; λαός: see on 1:5.  20 Δεῦτε: 2x: 8:2; 9:21; Ἰορδάνη: see on 6:23. In 4Q385a frag. 18 and 4Q389 frag. 1, Jeremiah exhorts the exiles at the River Sur, and according to Pesiq. Rab. 26:6, although he followed the exiles, he turned back at the Euphrates. Whatever the tradition-history behind 4 Baruch— Kohler, “Haggada,” 410, suggested a Christian hand substituted the Jordan for a Babylonian stream—and whether or not one finds  16 Contrast

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

379

with a choice by exhorting them to desire God and abandon foreign ways and spouses: ὁ θέλων τὸν Κύριον καταλειψάτω τὰ ἔργα Βαβυλῶνος21 καὶ τοὺς ἄρρενας τοὺς λαβόντας ἐξ αὐτῶν γυναῖκας, καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας τὰς λαβούσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρας;22 cf. Deut 7:3 (“You shall not make marriages with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons”); 30:15–20 (“If you obey the commandments … you shall live and multiply … But if your heart turns away … you shall perish”); Josh 24:14–15 (“choose this day whom you will serve”).23 Jeremiah enjoins women24 as well as men to forsake their Babylonian spouses, so some see our text as akin to Mark 10:11–12 and 1 Cor 7:10–11, which reflect a social world in which women could initiate and obtain a divorce.25

baptism in the references to the Jordan, Jewish tradition did associate Jeremiah and the exiles with a river.   21 The summary of 4 Baruch in Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r has: καταλεῖψαι τὰ τῆς Βαβυλῶνος ἔργα. Cf. further Theod. Dan 2:49; 3:12 (τὰ ἔργα τῆς χώρας τῆς Βαβυλῶνος); Acts Phil. 142 (πολλαὶ γὰρ γυναῖκες καταλείψωσιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ γάμου); Tanh. (Buber) Nitstsavim 1 (‫ ;)במעשיהם של בבל‬Midr. Ps. 137:11 ˙ (‫ ;)כמעשה בבל‬also the disparaging use of ἔργα/ἔργον in 1 En. 10:16; T. Ash. 6:5; T. Levi 19:1; T. Dan. 6:8; T. Naph. 2:6; John 8:41; Rom 13:12; Gal 5:19; Rev 2:6. BDAG, s.  v. ἔργον 1cβ, notes that, when used alone, the noun can mean “an evil or disgraceful deed.” Does ‫( רפה‬hiphil) + ‫מעשי‬, as in Ps 138:8, lie behind our text?  22 The Greek is elliptical. Schaller, Paralipomena, 743–44, translates: “(That goes for) the men, who have taken wives from them, and (for) the women, who have taken husbands from them.” Θέλω: see on 3:7. While ὁ θέλων τὸν Κύριον appears to have no precise parallel, θέλω often has the sense, “be favorably disposed toward”; cf. LXX Deut 21:14; Tob 13:6; 1 Μacc 4:10; 3 Macc 5:11; Ps 17:20; 21:9; 40:12; Matt 27:43; and esp. LXX Mal 3:1: ὁ ἄγγελος … ὃν ὑμεῖς θέλετε. Καταλείπω: see on 3:12; Κύριος: see on 1:4; ἔργον: 1x; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7; ἄρσην: 1x; λαμβάνω: see on 3:8; γυνή: see on 7:16; ἀνήρ: 1x. On the Jewish tradition of opposing intermarriage see on 6:13. Instead of referring to “the men who took from them (the Babylonians) wives and the women who took from them (the Babylonians) husbands,” the short recension speaks of “the rulers of the Babylonians who took wives from your nation and the women of the Babylonians who joined together with your people” (ed. Vassiliev, p. 315).  23 For additional parallels see on 6:13.  24 Women otherwise play no role in 4 Baruch, whose main characters are all men. The book displays a patriarchal outlook.  25 Cf. Schaller, Paralipomena, 744; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 131; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2676. The problem of whether, in some Jewish circles, women could divorce men has been much debated of late. For an introduction to the discussion and literature see Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 27A; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009), 706–707.

380

Commentary

The situation in 4 Baruch, however, is not that of a settled community with documents and law courts. Jeremiah seems rather to be asking faithful Jews to abandon their spouses on the spot, without further ado. A connection with divorce law seems strained.26 The parallels between Jeremiah and Moses extend beyond the common themes to the very wording. The opening clause rewrites the set phrase, καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν, which occurs often in the LXX Pentateuch.27 Moreover, the following words—ἀνάστηθι, σὺ καὶ ὁ λαός28— have a close parallel in LXX Exod 33:1: καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν, Πορεύου ἀνάβηθι ἐντεῦθεν σὺ καὶ ὁ λαός σου, οὓς ἐξήγαγες ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου. Note also Judg 9:32 A: ἀνάστηθι νυκτὸς σὺ καὶ ὁ λαός. Even καὶ ἐρεῖς τῷ λαῷ might be thought Mosaic; cf. LXX Exod 19:15 (καὶ εἶπεν τῷ λαῷ); Num 11:18 (God to Moses: καὶ τῷ λαῷ ἐρεῖς). 8:3. The prophet can, according to the word of the Lord, expect two disparate responses. First, some—the next verse will say half of those married— will obey his directions, and these should be allowed to cross the Jordan and enter Jerusalem: διαπεράσωσιν οἱ ἀκούοντές σου, καὶ ἆρον αὐτοὺς εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.29 Here ἀκούω means “obey,” as in 6:22 (q.  v.). A hearer or reader who identifies Jeremiah as a prophet like Moses will likely recall Deut 18:15, 18, with its emphatic ‫אליו תשמעון‬ = αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε.30 That Deut 18;15, 18 goes on to speak of the one who does not heed the prophet (LXX 18:19: μὴ ἀκούσῃ) and who will, as a result, face divine judgment, supports finding an allusion to that text. Second, others will disobey, and Jeremiah must not lead them into the city: τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἀκούοντάς σου, μὴ εἰσαγάγῃς αὐτοὺς εἰς αὐτήν.31 The words, which recall the contrast of 6:22 (ὁ ἀκούων … ὁ δὲ μὴ ἀκούων), exhibit antithetical parallelism: οἱ          ἀκούοντές σου, καὶ ἆρον        αὐτοὺς εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ τοὺς δὲ μὴ ἀκούοντάς σου, μὴ εἰσαγάγῃς αὐτοὺς εἰς αὐτήν

Paralipomena, 745, observes that καταλείπω is not a common term for divorce.  27 Exod 4:4; 6:1; 7:1; 33:1; Lev 16:2; 18:1; Num 3:40; 7:4; Deut 31:14, 16; etc.  28 Ἀνίστημι: see on 1:9; λαός: see on 1:5.  29 Ἀκούω: 20x; cf. Luke 10:16 (ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν); διαπεράω: 1x; LXX: 9x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 1x; NT: 6x; Josephus: 2x; αἴρω: 12x; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6.  30 Cf. the NT texts that allude to Deut 18:15, 18: Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35.  31 Cf. LXX 2 Chr 25:23: εἰσήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. Εἰσάγω: see on 6:13.  26 Schaller,

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

381

The following verses will focus on those who disobey. 8:4. The opening clause rewrites LXX Num 11:24: 4 Bar. 8:4 Ἰερεμίας δὲ    ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα32 LXX Num 11:24 Μωυσῆς … ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν τὰ ῥήματα Κυρίου

Cf. also Num 14:39: ἐλάλησεν Μωυσῆς τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα πρὸς πάντας υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ. Once again Jeremiah is like Moses. The journey from Babylon to the Jordan, however, is wholly passed over; contrast the interest in wilderness wanderings in the Pentateuch and our book’s interest in the eagle’s flight in 7:12. The narrative jumps from Babylon to the Jordan in an instant, ignoring the desert trek and the crossing of the Euphrates: καὶ ἀναστάντες ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην τοῦ περᾶσαι.33 The next clause—λέγων αὐτοῖς τὰ ῥήματα ἃ εἶπε Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν34—seems redundant. Kraft-Purintun deal with the problem by inserting καί before λέγων and then striking the καί before τὸ ἥμισυ: “As he told them the words that the Lord had spoken to him, half of those who had taken spouses from them did not wish to listen to Jeremiah.” Robinson’s translation is similar, yet there seems to be no textual support for their reading.35 Herzer has the text followed herein and translates: “And they arose and came to the Jordan to cross over, and he (again) told them the words that the Lord had spoken to him.” This associates λέγων κτλ. with what precedes, not with what follows.36 This seems the best guess: the text emphasizes Jeremiah’s repeated exhortations. At this point we learn that, in accord with v. 3, half of the married men—καὶ τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν γαμησάντων ἐξ αὐτῶν—were unwilling to obey Jeremiah, who is clearly in charge of everything: οὐκ ἠθέλησαν ἀκοῦσαι

 32

Λαλέω: see on 1:5; λαός: see on 1:5; ῥῆμα: see on 1:9. Hellanicus ed. Jacoby frags. 5b, 42b (ἐξαναστάντες ἦλθον εἰς); T. Job 28:2 (ἀναστάντες ἦλθον πρός); Mark 10:1 (ἀναστὰς ἔρχεται εἰς); Luke 15:20 (ἀναστὰς ἦλθον πρός). Ἀνίστημι: 12x; Ἰορδάνης: see on 6:23; περάω: 2x: 8:4, 5; the verb is

 33 Cf.

also used of crossing the Jordan in Josephus, Ant. 17.171. Gen 24:66; Exod 34:1; Deut 10:2; Isa 59:21; John 6:63; 14:10; 17:8. Ῥῆμα: see on 1:9; Κύριος: see on 1:4; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ = ‫ הדברים אשר‬is probably a biblicism.  35 Cf. the translation of Riaud, Paralipomènes, 155: “Quand Jérémie leur dit les paroles que le Seigneur lui avait dittes, la moitié de ceux qui avaient épousé des femmes étrangères ne voulut pas écouter Jérémie.” The punctuation of the Greek text he prints, however, does not accord with his translation.  36 So too the Hebrew translation of Licht; cf. Sparks and Thornhill: “and they got up to go to the Jordan to cross over, and he repeated to them what the Lord had told him.”   34 Cf.

382

Commentary

τοῦ Ἰερεμίου.37 This refers not to half—an approximation of a number not given—of all the married men but, as the context establishes, to half of those married to foreign women.38 These men, expressing a natural human sentiment, declare that they will not permanently forsake their wives: οὐ μὴ καταλείψωμεν τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.39 They will rather, notwithstanding Jeremiah’s order, return with their wives to Jerusalem, which they call “our city”: ἀλλ’ ὑποστρέφωμεν αὐτὰς μεθ’ ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν.40 The expression in the event becomes ironic, because Jerusalem is not their city. That they can quickly shift, in v. 6, to calling Babylon “our place,” reveals their hypocrisy as well as lack of a true home. Their disobedience demonstrates, in effect, that they serve a foreign god; cf. 7:26. They are like the Samaritans of 2 Kgs 17:29–40, who “would not listen but continued to practice their former custom” (MT v. 40). It appears from v. 5 that, despite disagreeing with Jeremiah, those with foreign wives cross the river with everyone else and continue west to Jerusalem. It is only once there that they are turned back. It remains puzzling how this comports with the reference in 6:23 to the Jordan as a means of testing, and it is not at all clear why Jeremiah does not dismiss them at the Jordan but instead waits until they all arrive at Jerusalem. The short Greek recension dissolves the problem by having the future Samaritans turned back at the Jordan. Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174r-v has some with foreign spouses turned back at the Jordan while others of their kind continue to Jerusalem. Perhaps our text assumes this scenario without relating it. Herzer rather supposes that “the identification of the disobedient on the banks of the Jordan has a purifying and cleansing effect on the people as a whole, and it forms the basis for the later dismissal of all who will not obey.”41

 37

Ἥμισυς: 1x; γαμέω: 1x; θέλω: see on 3:7; ἀκούω: see on v. 3.

 38 Riaud,

Paralipomènes, 65, implausibly wonders whether we have here a reminiscence of Neh 13:24 (“half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but the language of each people”); cf. 2 Esdr 23:24.  39 Καταλείπω: see on 3:12; the word is taken from Jeremiah’s order in v. 2; γυνή: see on 7:16; cf. LXX Isa 54:6: γυναῖκα καταλελειμμένην; αἰών: 3x: 8:5; 9:13, 25.  40 Ὑποστρέφω: see on 5:13 (ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν); εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν: see on 4:8. But A B P arm 993 (= 920) reflect a different interpretation: εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. On this variant see Klauck, Letters, 288 n. 22.  41 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 132. On p. 133 he writes: “Jeremiah cannot prevent them from continuing to Jerusalem, which is surprising, considering the significance of the Jordan. However, what becomes clear at the Jordan is confirmed before the gates of the city. Together with Baruch and Abimelech, Jeremiah turns the disobedient away.”

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

383

8:5. Although Jeremiah has not opposed anyone crossing the Jordan— ἐπέρασαν οὖν τὸν Ἰορδάνην—and while he allows all to approach Jerusalem—ἦλθον εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ—he and his companions draw the line there: καὶ ἔστη Ἰερεμίας καὶ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, λέγοντες ὅτι, Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κοινωνῶν Βαβυλωνίταις οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην.42 This marks the execution of 6:23: “If then you heed my word, says the Lord, from the mouth of Jeremiah my servant—the one who heeds I will bring him out of Babylon. But the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon.” The narrative here is frustratingly compressed. Why narrate at length, in ch. 6, the emotional reunion of Baruch and Abimelech and yet, in ch. 8, relate nothing at all about how Jeremiah, returned from exile,43 met up with Baruch and Abimelech?44 Further, how are we to imagine three men preventing entry to a city which had multiple gates? And why do those with foreign spouses put up no argument after traveling all the way from Babylon? They have already, it seems, disobeyed the prophet (see 7:32), so why depart meekly here? Do they imagine that they will have no happy future in a city where everyone else follows his commands?

Cf. LXX Dan 6:6: πᾶς ἄνθρωπος … οὐ μὴ εὔξηται. Περάω: see on 8:4; Ἰορδάνης: see on 6:23; for Jerusalem see on 4:6; ἵστημι: see on 3:2; for ὅτι recitativum see on 1:5; πᾶς ἄνθρωπος: 1x; κοινωνέω: 1x; Βαβυλωνίτης: 3x: 6:14; 8:5, 7; οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν is from the angelic direction in 6:14, q.  v.; ἔρχομαι + εἰς: see on 7:24. The basic meaning of κοινωνέω is “share (in common),” the sense assumed in most translations of 4 Baruch. Depending on the context, it can shade over into “have sexual relations with”; cf. Plato, Leg. 784B (κοινωνῇ γυναικί); Jos. Asen. 7:5 (κοινωνῆσαι αὐτῇ). The verb can, however, like the related κοινόω, connote defilement; cf. BDAG, s.  v. 3. Is that the case here?  43 That Jeremiah crosses the Jordan and enters the land makes him different from Moses, who was not permitted to do those things. The narrative, however, makes nothing of this contrast and does nothing to suggest a greater than Moses theme.  44 Arm 345 supplies the lack: “and when Baruch and Abimelech saw them [Jeremiah and the exiles], they took hold of Jeremiah’s feet and did obeisance. And they kissed each other.” Cf. Jer. Apocr. 40:3–6: “When Jeremiah saw Ebedmelech … he … embraced him (and) kissed him. Jeremiah answered (and) said to him: ‘Ebedmelech, behold, how great is the honor for him that takes pity on me. Because of this God has protected you (and) you did not see the destruction of Jerusalem, nor did they take you into captivity. All who hear concerning you will take pity. Now when Jeremiah had said this, he set Ebedmelech on the chariot, (and) he was honored by him all the days of his life.”  42

384

Commentary

While these questions have no answers, Jerusalem was known as “the holy city,”45 and evidently some Jews thought that it should be “be holy and clean from everything with which an impurity is connected, and through which they can become unclean. Everything in it shall be clean and everything which enters it shall be clean” (11QTemple 47:3–6). Does 4 Baruch imply the extreme view that Gentiles have no place in the holy city? It might be relevant, given that vv. 8–9 identify these people with the Samaritans, that according to m. Nid. 4:1, “the daughters of the Samaritans are menstruants from their cradle.” In any case, while Jeremiah does not disallow the disobedient from crossing the Jordan—how this harmonizes with v. 3 is unclear—he will not let them enter the city; cf. Josephus, Bell. 1.229 and Ant. 14.285, where a High Priest seeks to prevent foreigners from entering Jerusalem during a festival when Jews are in a state of ritual purity; also Ant. 12.145. 8:6. Acceding to Jeremiah’s authority, those married to foreigners depart and state their plan: καὶ εἶπον πρὸς ἑαυτούς· Ἀναστάντες ὑποστρέψωμεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα εἰς τὸν τόπον ἡμῶν. Καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν.46 Καὶ εἶπον πρός is the equivalent of ‫ ויאמרו‬or ‫ וידברו‬+ ‫אל‬, as in Josh 21:2; Judg 18:25; 2 Sam 19:42; 2 Kgs 19:3; etc.; and ἀναστάντες ὑποστρέψωμεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα has a close parallel in LXX Gen 35:3: ἀναστάντες ἀναβῶμεν εἰς Βαιθήλ.47 Εἰς τὸν τόπον ἡμῶν48 also has a biblical feel as εἰς τὸν τόπον with a possessive personal pronoun is common in the LXX for ‫ל‬ +‫מקום‬  + possessive personal pronoun.49 The assertion, “Let us arise and return to Babylon, to our city,” is doubly ironic, first because Jerusalem would be their city if they were faithful Jews and, secondly, because Babylon, as they shall soon learn, is not their city. They seem a bit like the Israelites in the wilderness when they thoughtlessly looked back with fondness on their days in Egypt (Num 11:5, 18, 20). Given the description of how the exiles have been treated (ch. 7), desir-

 45  46  47

Neh 11:1; Isa 52:1; Tob 13:9; 2 Macc 1:12; Matt 4:5; etc.

Ἀνίστημι: 12x; ὑποστρέφω: see on 5:13; Βαβυλών: see on 2:7; τόπος: see on 5:7; πορεύω: see on 5:6.

Cf. LXX Josh 18:4; also Luke 24:33, which Eusebius, Qu. Marin. Suppl. PG 22.1000, quotes in the form: καὶ ἀναστάντες ὑπέστρεψαν … εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ.  48 Cf. Apophth. Patr. (anonymous collection ed. Nau) 201: καὶ ἀναστὰς ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ.  49 Cf. Gen 18:33 (ἀπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ); Num 24:25 (ἀποστραφεὶς εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ); 1 Βασ 26:25 (ἀνέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ); 2 Βασ 19:40 (ἐπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ); etc.

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

385

ing to return to Babylon is irrational. More importantly, they do not know their own identity: Babylon is not “their” place.50 The author of 4 Baruch would have agreed with the assessment in Ecclus 50:26: the people who dwell in Shechem are foolish. 8:7. The most striking stylistic feature of this verse is the repeated use of ἔρχομαι and –ἔρχομαι compounds + preposition: ἐλθόντων …   εἰς    ἐξῆλθον …   εἰς     εἰσέλθητε  εἰς   ἐξήλθετε       ἀφ’     εἰσελεύσεσθε          πρὸς   ἐξήλθετε       ἀφ’

Note also the twofold repetition of κρυφῆ ἐξήλθετε ἀφ’ ἡμῶν.51 Nothing is said about the long return trip to Babylon, which Riaud appropriately dubs an “anti-exode.”52 All attention is on what happens when the disobedient get there: ἐλθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, ἐξῆλθον οἱ Βαβυλωνῖται εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν.53 Ἐξέρχομαι + εἰς συνάντησιν is a biblicism, appearing often in the LXX for ‫ יצא‬+ ‫לקראת‬, as in Judg 20:31 (ἐξῆλθον οἱ υἱοὶ Βενιαμίν εἰς συνάντησιν τοῦ λαοῦ); cf. Prot. Jas. 18:14 (ἐξῆλθεν αὐτὸς εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν).54 Our verse narrates the fulfillment of 6:22: “the one who does not heed will become a stranger to both Jerusalem and Babylon.” The Babylonians prevent the returning exiles with foreign spouses from entering their city: οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν … διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ εἰσελεύσεσθε πρὸς ἡμᾶς.55 The language corresponds to v. 5, where Jeremiah prevents the same group from entering Jerusalem. So the same thing happens twice:

 50

Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 108. first time following ὅτι, the second time following ἐπειδή; for the latter see on 1:1.  52 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 108.  53 Ἐλθόντων … Βαβυλῶνα: see on 2:7; ἐξέρχομαι: 22x; Βαβυλωνίτης: 3x: 6:14; 8:5, 7; συνάντησις: 1x.  54 Cf. also Gen 14:17; 30:16; Exod 4:14; 18:7; Num 20:18; Jos. Asen. 5:3; 19:4; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:4. Εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτῶν by itself is also a biblicism; cf. LXX Josh 9:11; Judg 6:35; 2 Βασ 5:23; 1 Macc 3:17; 5:39; 6:48; 9:32; Acts Phil. 13:1.  55 Cf. LXX Isa 37:33: οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην. Εἰσέρχομαι: 16x, 10x with εἰς; πόλις: see on 4:8; διὰ τοῦτο: 2x: 6:18; 8:7.  51 The

386

Commentary

8:5, at Jerusalem οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ  εἰς τὴν πόλιν ταύτην 8:7, at Babylon οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν

These people belong to neither city, so just as their journey to Jerusalem is for nothing, so too their return. Here, however, the explanation for the rejection—“you hated us”56—is different. The accusation takes up the widespread topos of the supposed Jewish hatred of non-Jews and moves it to the Samaritans.57 In its immediate context, the explanation is peculiar. Who would not hate those who inflicted upon them the miseries of 7:24–29? There is a second reason for not allowing the returnees to enter Babylon: κρυφῇ ἐξήλθετε ἀφ’ ἡμῶν.58 Ἐξήλθετε ἀφ’ ἡμῶν would be sufficient motivation of itself, so κρυφῇ seems to be emphasized, and all the more as it occurs twice in this verse. 4 Baruch appears to be alone in depicting a stealthy exit from Babylon,59 and how the Israelites could have managed such without the knowledge of its inhabitants goes unsaid. Scripturally informed readers or hearers, if they judged 4 Baruch to be history, would be especially puzzled because, in the Bible, Cyrus grants permission for the Jews to depart. The literary explanation is, however, clear. Whether or not there was a tradition that the departure from Egypt was clandestine,60 the exodus famously occurred at night (Exod 12:34), and if, in 4 Baruch, the exodus from Babylon is a covert escape, it too must occur in the dark. Once more, then, the new escape is like the old escape. The unyielding resolve of the Babylonians is indicated by their declaration that they have taken an oath in the name—undisclosed (contrast  56

Ἐμισήσατε ἡμᾶς; μισέω: 1x.

 57 Relevant

texts include Pompeius Trogus apud Justin, Epitome 2.15; Diodorus Siculus, 34.1.1–4; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.309; 2.121, 258; Ant. 11.212; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1. See further Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, N.  J.: Princeton University Press, 1993), 123–76; Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1997).  58 Κρυφῇ: 2x: 8:7 bis; ἐξέρχομαι + ἀπό: see on 4:10.  59 In Jer. Apocr. 37:1–16 (which is here closer to the HB/OT), the departure is a public event that takes place with the full knowledge and approval of Cyrus the king.  60 For this possibility, which may be implicit in Exod 14:5 (“when the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled”), see Julian Morgenstern, “The Despoiling of the Egyptians,” JBL 68 (1949), 1–28; George W. Coats, “Despoiling the Egyptians,” VT 18 (1968), 450–57. 4 Bar 8:7, which Riaud, “Paralipomènes,” 1719, and Herzer, 4 Baruch, 131, see as an allusion to Exod 14:5, seems to be evidence for such a tradition.

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

387

7:25)—of their god: ὅρκῳ γὰρ ὡρκίσαμεν ἀλλήλους κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν;61 cf. LXX Exod 13:19 (ὅρκῳ γὰρ ὥρκίσεν Ἰωσὴφ τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραήλ); Theod. Dan 4:5 (κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ μου = Aramaic ‫ ;)כשם אלהי‬Theophilus, Autol. 2.8 (ἐξορκίζονται κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ); PGM 4:289–90 (ὁρκίζω σε κατὰ τοῦ ἀμιάντου ὀνόματος τοῦ θεοῦ); 7:242 (ὁρκίζω σε, δαίμων, κατὰ τῶν β’ ὀνομάτων σου Ἀνούθ; cf. 7:246).62 Its content is that they will not allow those who earlier left ever to return: μήτε ὑμᾶς μήτε τέκνα ὑμῶν δέξασθαι.63 This obviously includes the foreign spouses. The inclusion of children means that descendants are also barred. These people are now without a home or land. 8:8. Once they recognize that they are strangers forever to Babylon, those with foreign spouses turn aside and, peaceably it appears, go elsewhere: καὶ ἐπιγνόντες ὑπέστρεψαν.64 The place they arrive at—once again the details of a long, hard journey are skipped—has two features. First, it belongs to a deserted, that is, unpopulated, area: ἦλθον εἰς τόπον ἔρημον.65 The use of τόπον ἔρημον, which means “a desert place,” is striking, for fertile valleys surround Samaria.66 Perhaps the meaning is closer to “a deserted place,” as in LXX Jer 41:22: nobody is there when the newcomers arrive. Or maybe the real topography is beside the point: the physical desolation is a symbol of the Samaritans’ religious state.67 Second, it is “far from Jerusalem”—μακρόθεν τῆς Ἰερουσαλήμ68—even though Samaria is only about 42 miles away. Evidently the point—perhaps “less a geographical statement than a value judgment”69—is that it is far   61

Ὅρκος: 1x; ὁρκίζω: 1x; ὄνομα: 3x: 6:9; 8:7, 8; Θεός: see on 1:1. For ὁρκίζω + ὅρκῳ see, in addition to LXX Exod 13:19 (for ‫)השבע השביע‬, also Hippolytus, Haer. 9.23.3; Nilus of Ancyra, Comm. Cant. 59:1. More common is ὀμνύω + ὅρκῳ, as in

Gk. 1 En. 6:4; T. Jud. 22:3; Acts 2:30; etc. On the dative with a cognate verb, which recalls the Hebrew infinitive absolute, see BDF § 198.6. 4 Baruch also uses the cognate object in 9:2, 21.  62 Cf. also PGM 7:443; 12:84; 36:259; Supplementum Magica ed. Daniel and Maltomini papyrus 46:12; 47:14; 49:32; 54:4, 30; 98:6.  63 Τέκνον: 3x: 5:31; 7:16; 8:7; δέχομαι: 1x.  64 Ἐπιγινώσκω: 2x: 5:7; 8:8; ὑποστρέφω: see on 5:13 and cf. v. 6 and 2 Pet 2:21: ἐπιγνοῦσιν ὑποστρέψαι.  65 Ἔρχομαι + εἰς: see on 7:24; εἰς τόπον ἔρημον: see on 7:13.  66 Cf. Jer 31:5; 41:5; Mic 1:6.  67 Does our text assume or imply that all Samarians, that is, those who live in Samaria, are also Samaritans, that is, adherents of a particular religion?  68 Μακρόθεν: 1x; Ἰερουσαλήμ: see on 4:6.  69 So Delling, Lehre, 51. Cf. Riaud, Paralipomènes, 109; Schaller, Paralipomena, 746.

388

Commentary

enough removed to have a life of its own and to leave Jerusalem undefiled. The city which they establish they name “Samaria”: ᾠκοδόμησαν ἑαυτοῖς πόλιν, καὶ ἐπωνόμασαν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Σαμάρειαν.70 Once more, the language is biblical: ἐπονομάζω + τὸ ὄνομα + genitive pronoun + name of person or place is the LXX’s rendition of ‫ קרא‬+ ‫ שם‬+ pronomial suffix + name of person or place.71 Note also LXX A Judg 21:23 (ᾠκοδόμησαν ἑαυτοῖς πόλεις); 1 Kgs 16:24 (“and he called the name of the city that he built Samaria, after the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill”); and the sequence in Gen 4:17 (MT: ‫ ;ויהי בנה עיר ויקרא שם העיר כשם בנו חנוך‬LXX: καὶ ἦν οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἐνώχ); Judg 1:26 (MT: ‫ ;ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז‬LXX: ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐκεῖ πόλιν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Λουζά). As Herzer correctly observes, “the Samaritans as a Torah-observant group would of course have rejected mixed marriages, too.”72 They also would hardly have included Babylonians in their genealogy. One cannot, however, expect polemic to be fair. 8:9. The chapter ends with a brief appendage. At some point, the author tells us, Jeremiah sent a message to the Samaritans: ἀπέστειλε δὲ πρὸς αὐτοὺς Ἰερεμίας, λέγων.73 How this was done—contrast 6:12; 7:13, 31—is unsaid. And no response is noted. The content alone matters: μετανοήσατε.74 The imperative serves as a conditional:75 if you repent, then the righteous angel will come and will lead you to “your high place”: ἔρχεται γὰρ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, καὶ εἰσάξει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸν τόπον ὑμῶν τὸν ὑψηλόν.76  70

Baruch mentions only the city; nothing is said of the temple that Josephus and others say was there. Οἰκοδόμεω: 1x; πόλις: 45x; ἐπονομάζω: 1x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 2x; cf. Sib. Or. 3:141; ὄνομα: 3x: 6:9; 8:7, 8; Σαμάρεια: 1x; our author does not use Σεβαστός, the name Herod gave the city after he rebuilt it.  71 See Gen 4:25; 5:2, 3, 29; 26:21, 22; 30:11.  72 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 132.  73 Ἀποστέλλω: see on 3:10; ἀπστέλλω + πρός: see on 6:12.  74 Μετανοέω: 1x. The same second person plural aorist imperative occurs in LXX Isa 46:8; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Apoc. Ezek frag. 2 apud Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 1.10.91; 1 Clem. 8:3; Poimandres 1:28.  75 See on 6:22. Why Young, “Story,” 397, turns the conditional into a future fact—“the Samaritans, with their Chaldaean wives, even have a place in Jerusalem eventually”— is unclear. Contrast arm 993 (= 920): “But they did not listen to him.” Moreover, the call to repent is, in context, precisely the demand to forsake foreign spouses, so there is no textual justification for imagining that those foreigners will ever be welcomed.  76 Ἔρχεται γάρ: see on 6:3; ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης: see on 6:6; εἰσάγω: see on 6:13; τόπος: see on 5:7; ὑψηλός: 1x. Arm 993 (= 920) has “remove” instead of

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

389

While it is clear that the Samaritans “have the same origins as the Jews and are ‘only’ separate because of their disobedience,”77 the verse remains difficult. What and where is “your high place”? That angels can be guides is a known topos,78 yet where this angel is going to lead the Samaritans, if they repent, remains problematic. Also doubtful is the identity of “the righteous angel”; see on 9:5. As in 6:6, one can only guess. Is he “the great angel” of 4:1, or the angel who guides Abimelech in 6:1, or some third angel, or are they all one and the same? Is he perhaps Michael, who in 9:5 is the “righteous archangel” who “leads in the righteous”?79 Or, since there is no article before ἄγγελος, is he just an unspecified, generic angel? If the concluding verse is original and Jewish, it displays an open-minded, conciliatory attitude different than the prejudice Josephus and many other texts reflect.80 In this case, perhaps the sense is that, on the last day, the Samaritans will repent—that is, turn from disobedience to obedience81— and as a result return to their true “high place,” Jerusalem (which is of course elevated).82 Maybe the biblical texts which condemn the “high

“lead.” Might this be original? In that case, the Samaritans need to repent because God will take their holy place from them.  77 So Herzer, 4 Baruch, 135.  78 Cf. Philo, Mos. 1.166; Apoc. Elijah 5:2–5; Hist. Rech. 1:3.  79 So e.  g. Delling, Lehre, 13; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 31, 65, 109; Schaller, Paralipomena, 747.  80 Cf. Ecclus 50:25–26; Jub. 30:5; T. Levi 5:3; 7:2; Matt 10:5–6; Luke 9:52–56; John 4:9; 8:48; Josephus, Bell. 2.232–33; Ant. 9.291; 12.156; 18.30; etc.  81 Cf. 4 Ezra 7:133. Van der Horst, “Samaritan Origins,” 168–69, notes that the rabbinic tractate Makkektot Qetannot holds forth the possibility of a Samaritan con˙ verting to the Jewish community. See further Riaud, Paralipomènes, 109–110, who urges that 4 Baruch, in presenting Jeremiah as the prophet like Moses, appeals to the Samaritan hope for a new Moses (later known as Taheb). On this hope see Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), 250–54.  82 So Riaud, Paralipomènes, 1759, and Schaller, Paralipomena, 747, both citing Gen 22:2 (“Take your son, your only son Isaac whom you love, and go to the land of Mori’ah [LXX: τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν; cf. Jub. 18:2] and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains”). For Riaud, “the elevated place is Jerusalem, more precisely the mount of the temple, identified by 2 Chr 3:1 with Mount Moriah” (so too Jub. 18:13; Josephus, Ant. 1.226) and not, as Samaritan tradition held, Mount Gerizim (Tibat Marqa 95b–96a). But note also the use of ὑψηλός in LXX 2 Esdr 19:25 (πόλεις ὑψηλάς); Jdt 2:24; 3:6 (τὰς πόλεις τὰς ὑψηλάς); Prov 18:19 (πόλις … ὑψηλή). Kohler, “Haggada,” 414, also tries to forge a link with Mount Moriah: τόπος ὑψηλός “is the Septuagint translation of the name Morijah,” so 4 Baruch “hints at the great punishment coming over all the heathen peoples at the

390

Commentary

places” of Samaria83 are in the background, and/or biblical prophecies that see the reunion of the northern tribes with the southern tribes.84 Or maybe the exalted place would have a double sense for a Jewish audience— both Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem.85 The line is, however, more likely to be Christian.86 (i) The call in v. 9 stands in tension with what has come before and, if the chapter ended at v. 8, one would sense nothing amiss; cf. how Gen 10:9 concludes the story of Babel (“its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth”); how Gen 26:33 concludes the story of Isaac and Abimelech (“He called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day”); and how Judg 1:26 concludes the story of conquest of Bethel (“the man went to the land of the Hittites and built a city, and called its name Luz; that is its name to this day”). (ii) A Christian informed by NT texts that speak positively of Samaritans87 could have envisaged the Samaritans repenting and becoming Christian.88 (iii) The structure of the final words is the same as that of a well-known line in Matthew: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε·   ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανων Matt 4:17 μετανοεῖτε·   ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανων 4 Bar 8:9 μετανοήσατε· ἔρχεται γὰρ ἄγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης

All three lines have an imperatival form of μετανοέω + verb with the sense of “arrive” or “come” + explanatory γάρ + nominative noun + genitive article + descriptive genitive. Should one detect Matthean influence here? (iv) Both μετανοέω and ὑψηλός are hapax legomena for our book.

final war around Jerusalem, where they, the half-heathen Jews, will share the fate of all idol-worshippers, unless they repent.”   83 Kgs 13:32; 2 Kgs 17:9; 23:19. Or does 4 Baruch reflect the knowledge that Mount Gerizim is a towering geographical feature? Cf. 4Q372 frag. 1 12, which likely refers to the Samaritan’s temple as “a high place … on a high mountain” (‫)במה על הר גבה‬.  84 E.  g. Ezek 37:15–28; Zech 8:13; 9:13–15.  85 Cf. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 133.  86 Cf. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 423, n. 8b (“The Christian redactor has changed the original Jewish polemic against the Samaritans into a promise of exaltation”); Evans, Writings, 34. Lee, “Development,” regards the line as secondary but Jewish.  87 E.  g. Luke 10:25–37; 17:11–19; John 4:4–42; Acts 1:8; 8:4–25.  88 For Christian ideas about the Samaritans see Reinhard Pummer, Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samaritanism: Texts, Translations and Commentary (TSAJ 92; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

Chapter 8:  The Origin of the Samaritans

391

Yet even when one decides that the words are likely Christian, their meaning remains obscure. One possibility is that “your high place” is heaven, the place where God ὁ ὕψιστος dwells,89 that is, the upper Jerusalem of 5:34, and that “righteous angel” is either the angel who comes at death to take souls to heaven90 or perhaps even Jesus himself. Peter, in Gos. Thom. 13, calls Jesus “a righteous angel,” and other texts characterize him in angelic terms;91 cf. John 14:3, which presumably refers to Jesus taking his own to heaven when they die: “when I go and prepare a place (τόπον) for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” Further, τόπος refers to God’s heaven, which is often characterized as “high,”92 in 1 Clem. 5:4 (“place of glory”), 7 (“the holy place”); Herm. Sim. 5:6:7; Origen, Princ. 4.3.8 (of the heavenly Jerusalem and its environs); and elsewhere (Lampe, s.  v., 2); and heaven is “the exalted place” (τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ τόπου) in T. Job 49:2; note also Origen, Frag. Luke 174: ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὡς ὑψηλότερον καὶ τόπου κρεῖττον τὸ θεῖον. One might then draw a parallel with John 4:21–23: “the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father … The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.”93 Nonetheless, the possessive (“your high place”) is per-

 89 For

God dwelling in heaven see Job 16:19; Ps 148;1; Ecclus 43:9; Luke 2:14. For

ὕψιστος as a divine attribute or title see LXX Gen 14:14; Num 24:16; Theod.

Dan 5:18; Gk. 1 En. 9:3; Philo, Legat. 278; T. Sim. 2:5; Jos. Asen. 9:1; Acts 16:17; CIJ 690; JIGRE 9, 22; etc.  90 Relevant Jewish texts include 1 En. 71:5; Gk. LAE 37:4–6; T. Job 52:5–6; T. Ash. 6:5; b. Ketub. 104a; Tg. Cant. on 4:12; Deut. Rab. 11:10; also Str-B 2:223–25. Christian texts include Luke 16:22; Hermas, Vis. 2.2:7; Sim. 9:27:2; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7:23; Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. 42.16; Tertullian, An. 53; Cult. fem. 2.13; Acts Perpet. Fel. 11; Hist. Rechab. 14:3–4; T. Isaac 2:1; 7:1–2; T. Jacob 5:13; Eusebius, Comm. Ps. PG 23.404C. See further Jean Danielou, The Angels and their Mission according to the Fathers of the Church (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1957), 95–105.  91 E.  g. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:27–32; Justin, Dial. 127.4; Clement of Alexandria, Paid. 1.7; Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 14.5. See further Joseph Barbel, Christos Angelos: Die Anschauung von Christus als Bote und Engel in der gelehrten und volkstümlichen Literatur des christichen Altertums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Ursprungs und der Fortdauer des Arianismus (BRKA 3; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1941); Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology.  92 Cf. Job 22:12; 25:2; Ps 113:4; Luke 2:14; etc.  93 Cf. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha, 55: “Perhaps the promise to the Samaritans in 8:9 may be connected with Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman in John 4:21.”

392

Commentary

haps a bit odd. One would rather expect “the high place” or “God’s high place” or some such. The previous paragraph assumes that Christian hearers or readers of ch. 8 would think of it as an etiology of the Samaritans. Given, however, that our text is highly symbolic—the Babylonians represent the Romans, for example, and the first destruction of the temple stands for the second destruction—one could entertain the possibility that the Samaritans are also a symbol. According to Piovanelli, 4 Baruch’s criticism of the Samaritans reflects an “orthodox” Christian outlook akin to that of Justin Martyr and Hegesippus, who thought of the church as the true inheritance of Israel. The Samaritans represent Christians—perhaps “syncretistic gnostics”—who were, in the eyes of the author of 4 Baruch, reluctant to give up certain pagan beliefs and practices.94 One could also think of the people living in the city of Samaria as being, for Jewish readers, symbolic. According to Jones, 4 Baruch 8 is not really about the Samaritans. Shechem would have been the appropriate city to name if one were making a statement about that group because it was their chief city.95 4 Baruch instead focuses on the polis Samaria. The explanation, for Jones, is its pagan associations. 4 Baruch’s message is to avoid all contact with the Babylonians, who stand for Rome, and the Samaritans represent Jews who have failed to avoid all alliance with, and so implicitly have offered support for, Rome and things Roman.96

 94 Piovanelli,

“Paralimpomeni,” 270–71. By contrast, Harris, Baruch, 15, suggested that the Samaritans represent Ebionites who, according to him, met hostility at the hands of non-Christian Jews and Gentile Christians.  95 Against this, however, Shechem was destroyed by John Hyrcanus and was a ruin when 4 Baruch was composed.  96 Jones, Jewish Reactions, 142–72. Cf. p. 144: 4 Baruch “is directed at an audience trying to come to terms not so much with the loss of Jerusalem to the Romans, but with the troubling tendency of some Jewish leaders who continued to sympathize with Rome in the aftermath of the catastrophe. For the author there can be no common ground between Jew and Roman.” Doering, Letters, 256, is right to observe that, on Jones’ thesis, “it remains unclear why the non-separatists are not readmitted to ‘Babylon,’ signifying Rome (or rather Roman domination). The Samaritan hypothesis was better able to account for the ‘third’ category formed by these, being neither part of the Jewish people nor accepted into the Gentile world.”

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom 9:1. Those with Jeremiah remained, rejoicing and offering sacrifices on behalf of the people for nine days. 9:2. On the tenth day, Jeremiah alone offered sacrifice, and he prayed a prayer, saying, 9:3. “Holy, holy, holy, the incense of the living trees, the true light that enlightens me until I am taken up to you. For your mercy I pray, for the sweet voice of the two Seraphim 9:4. I pray, for another sweet-smelling incense (I pray). 9:5. And my meditation is Michael, the righteous archangel, the one opening the gates to the righteous, until he gathers in the righteous. 9:6. (For all this) I pray you, Lord, Almighty over all creation, the unbegotten and incomprehensible, in whom every judgment has been hidden before it comes to pass.” 9:7. After saying these things, and while standing in the area of the altar with Baruch and Abimelech, he became like one of those handing over his soul. 9:8. And Baruch and Abimelech remained weeping and crying with a great voice, “Woe to us because our father Jeremiah, the priest of God, has left us and gone away.” 9:9. All the people heard their weeping, and they all ran to them, and they saw Jeremiah lying on the ground as though dead. And they tore their garments and put dust on their heads and wept most bitterly. 9:10. And after these things, they prepared themselves to bury him. 9:11. And behold! a voice came, saying, “Do not bury one who yet lives, because his soul is returning to his body again.” 9:12. And when they heard the voice, they did not bury him, but for three days they remained in a circle around his body, talking (with each other) and being perplexed as to what time he was going to stand up. 9:13. After three days, his soul re-entered his body, and he raised his voice in the midst of all and said, “Glorify God with one voice, all (of you) glorify God and the Son of God who awakens us, Jesus Christ the light of all the ages, the unquenchable light, the life of faith. 9:14. And it will happen after these times that there will be another 477 years, and he will come to earth. And the tree of life, which is planted in the middle of paradise, will make all the unfruitful trees bear fruit, and grow, and send forth shoots. 9:15. And it will make the trees that had (earlier) sprouted and grown great and said, ‘We have sent our top to the sky,’ together with their high branches, to shrivel up; and that firmly rooted tree will cause them to be condemned. And it will make that which is scarlet to become white as https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-020

394

Commentary

wool. 9:16. The snow will be turned black, the sweet waters will become salty, and the salty will become sweet in the great light of the joy of God. 9:17. And he will bless the islands so that they produce fruit by the word from the mouth of his Christ. 9:18. For he will come, and he will go out, and he will choose for himself twelve apostles, so that they might preach the good news among the nations. He whom I have seen has been adorned by his Father, and he is coming into the world upon the Mount of Olives; and he will fill the hungry souls.” 9:19. While Jeremiah was saying these things concerning the Son of God, that he is coming into the world, the people became furious and said, 9:20. “These are once again the words spoken by Isaiah the son of Amos when he said, ‘I saw God and the Son of God.’ 9:21. Come then, and let us not kill him by the death (with which we killed) that one, but let us stone him with stones.” 9:22. Then Baruch and Abimelech grieved greatly over this madness, because they wanted to hear in full the mysteries that he had seen. 9:23. Jeremiah, however, said to them, “Be quiet, and do not weep. For they will not kill me until I have fully divulged to you all that I saw.” 9:24. He said to them, “Bring me a stone.” 9:25. And he set it up and said, “Light of the ages, transform this stone into my likeness until I have fully divulged to Baruch and Abimelech all that I saw.” 9:26. And the stone, through the command of God, took on the likeness of Jeremiah. 9:27. And they stoned the stone, supposing that it was Jeremiah. 9:28. And Jeremiah entrusted all the mysteries which he had seen to Baruch and Abimelech. 9:29. And then he, desiring to complete his stewardship, stood in the midst of the people. 9:30. Then the stone cried out, saying, “O foolish sons of Israel, why do you stone me, supposing that I am Jeremiah? Behold, Jeremiah stands in your midst.” 9:31. When they saw him, they immediately ran toward him with many stones. And his stewardship was fulfilled. 9:32. And Baruch and Abimelech came and buried him, and taking the stone they set it up on his tomb, writing this (on it): This is the stone (that was) the helper of Jeremiah. 9:1. Ἔμειναν δὲ οἱ τοῦ Ἰερεμίου χαίροντες καὶ ἀναφέροντες θυσίας ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ ἐννέα ἡμέρας. 9:2. Τῇ δὲ δεκάτῃ ἀνήνεγκεν Ἰερεμίας μόνος θυσίαν, καὶ ηὔξατο εὐχὴν, λέγων· 9:3. Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, τὸ θυμίαμα τῶν δένδρων τῶν ζώντων, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με ἕως οὗ ἀναληφθῶ πρὸς σέ. Περὶ τοῦ ἔλεώς σου, παρακαλῶ, περὶ τῆς φωνῆς τῆς γλυκείας τῶν δύο Σεραφίμ, 9:4. παρακαλῶ, περὶ ἄλλης εὐωδίας θυμιάματος. 9:5. Καὶ ἡ μελέτη μου Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὁ ἀνοίγων τὰς πύλας τοῖς δικαίοις, ἕως ἂν εἰσενέγκῃ τοὺς δικαίους. 9:6. Παρακαλῶ σε, Κύριε παντοκράτωρ πάσης κτίσεως, ὁ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀπερινόητος, ᾧ πᾶσα κρίσις κέκρυπται ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

395

τοῦ ταῦτα γενέσθαι. 9:7. Ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Ἰερεμίου, καὶ ἱσταμένου ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ἐγένετο ὡς εἷς τῶν παραδιδόντων τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ. 9:8. Καὶ ἔμειναν Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ κλαίοντες καὶ κράζοντες μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ὅτι, Οὐαὶ ἡμῖν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰερεμίας κατέλιπεν ἡμᾶς, ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν. 9:9. Ἤκουσε δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τοῦ κλαυθμοῦ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔδραμον ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς πάντες, καὶ εἶδον Ἰερεμίαν ἀνακείμενον χαμαὶ ὥσπερ τεθνηκότα. Καὶ διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔκλαυσαν κλαυθμὸν πικρόν. 9:10. Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἡτοίμασαν ἑαυτοὺς ἵνα κηδεύσωσιν αὐτόν. 9:11. Καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἦλθε λέγουσα· Μὴ κηδεύετε τὸν ἔτι ζῶντα, ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πάλιν. 9:12. Καὶ ἀκούσαντες τῆς φωνῆς, οὐκ ἐκήδευσαν αὐτὸν ἀλλ’ ἔμειναν περικύκλῳ τοῦ σκηνώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, λέγοντες καὶ ἀποροῦντες ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ μέλλει ἀναστῆναι. 9:13. Μετὰ δὲ τρεῖς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπῆρε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ πάντων καὶ εἶπε· Δοξάσατε τὸν Θεὸν ἐν μίᾳ φωνῇ, πάντες δοξάσατε τὸν Θεὸν  καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξυπνίζοντα ἡμᾶς, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων πάντων, ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος, ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως. 9:14. Γίνεται δὲ μετὰ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους ἄλλα ἔτη τετρακόσια ἑβδομηκονταεπτὰ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν γῆν. Καὶ τὸ δένδρον τῆς ζωῆς τὸ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου φυτευθὲν ποιήσει πάντα τὰ δένδρα τὰ ἄκαρπα ποιῆσαι καρπὸν, καὶ αὐξηθήσονται, καὶ βλαστήσουσι. 9:15. Καὶ τὰ δένδρα τὰ βεβλαστηκότα καὶ μεγαλαυχοῦντα καὶ λέγοντα, Ἐδώκαμεν τὸ τέλος ἡμῶν τῷ ἀέρι, ποιήσει αὐτὰ ξηρανθῆναι μετὰ τοῦ ὕψους τῶν κλάδων αὐτῶν, καὶ ποιήσει αὐτὰ κριθῆναι τὸ δένδρον τὸ στηριχθέν. Καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κόκκινον ὡς ἔριον λευκὸν γενέσθαι. 9:16. Ἡ χιὼν μελανθήσεται, τὰ γλυκέα ὕδατα ἁλμυρὰ γενήσονται καὶ τὰ ἁλμυρὰ γλυκέα γενήσονται ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ φωτὶ τῆς εὐφροσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ. 9:17. Καὶ εὐλογήσει τὰς νήσους τοῦ ποιῆσαι καρπὸν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ. 9:18. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἐξελεύσεται, καὶ ἐπιλέξεται ἑαυτῷ δώδεκα ἀποστόλους, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωνται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ὃν ἐγὼ ἑώρακα κεκοσμημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν· καὶ ἐμπλήσει τὰς πεινώσας ψυχάς. 9.19. Ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Ἰερεμίου περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὠργίσθη ὁ λαὸς καὶ εἶπε· 9:20. Ταῦτα πάλιν ἐστι τὰ ῥήματα τὰ ὑπὸ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἀμὼς εἰρημένα λέγοντος ὅτι, Εἶδον τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. 9:21. Δεῦτε οὖν, καὶ μὴ ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτὸν τῷ ἐκείνου θανάτῳ, ἀλλὰ λίθοις λιθοβολήσωμεν αὐτόν. 9:22. Ἐλυπήθησαν οὖν σφόδρα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀπονοίᾳ ταύτῃ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ ὅτι ἤθελον ἀκοῦσαι πλήρης τὰ μυστήρια ἃ εἶδε. 9:23.

396

Commentary

Λέγει δὲ αὐτοῖς Ἰερεμίας· Σιωπήσατε, καὶ μὴ κλαίετε· οὐ μὴ γάρ με ἀποκτείνωσιν ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι ὑμῖν. 9:24. Εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς· Ἐνέγκατέ μοι λίθον. 9:25. Ὁ δὲ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν· Τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων, ποίησον τὸν λίθον τοῦτον καθ’ ὁμοιότητά μου γενέσθαι ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ. 9:26. Ὁ δὲ λίθος διὰ προστάγματος Θεοῦ ἀνέλαβεν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ Ἰερεμίου. 9:27. Καὶ ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν λίθον, νομίζοντες ὅτι Ἰερεμίας ἐστίν. 9:28. Ὁ δὲ Ἰερεμίας πάντα παρέδωκε τὰ μυστήρια, ἃ εἶδε, τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ. 9:29. καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτως ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ, ἐκτελέσαι βουλόμενος τὴν οἰκονομίαν αὐτοῦ. 9.30. Τότε ἐβόησε ὁ λίθος, λέγων· Ὦ μωροὶ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ, διὰ τί λιθοβολεῖτέ με, νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐγὼ Ἰερεμίας; Ἰδοὺ Ἰερεμίας ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ἵσταται. 9:31. Ὡς δὲ εἶδον αὐτὸν, εὐθέως ἔδραμον πρὸς αὐτὸν μετὰ πολλῶν λίθων. Καὶ ἐπληρώθη αὐτοῦ οἰκονομία. 9:32. Καὶ ἐλθόντες Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ἔθαψαν αὐτόν, καὶ λαβόντες τὸν λίθον ἔθηκαν ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ, ἐπιγράψαντες οὕτως· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ βοηθὸς τοῦ Ἰερεμίου. Textual Notes 9:1. Kraft-Purintun have the accusative plural, θυσίας; cf. Piovanelli. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print θυσίαν.1 9:3. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer omit περὶ τοῦ ἔλεώς σου, παρακαλῶ, which Kraft prints and Piovanelli translates following P eth arm 993 (= 920). Homoioteleuton could explain the omission: a scribe skipped from the first περί to the second περί. 9:4. In eth, which Piovanelli follows here, the sweet-smelling incense is that of the Cherubim. This could be original. It not only creates parallelism with the Seraphim of the previous verse but might be related to Jer. Apocr. 40:12; here Jeremiah, upon returning from exile, composes a song of praise that includes this: “The Cherubim and Seraphim are glad.” 9:5. Schaller conjectures an original καὶ ᾖ ἡ μελέτη μου Μιχαήλ …2 Cf. the translation of Kraft-Purintun: “may Michael … be my guardian.” // Kraft-Purintun print ὁ ἀνοίγων τὰς πύλας τοῖς δικαίοις; cf. Piovanelli. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer omit. It appears in P and may not be original. But eth has “gates of righteousness,” and perhaps a line was omitted inadvertently or an eye skipped from the end of δικαιοσύνης to the end of δικαίοις. 9:6. Herzer, over against A B arm 993 (= 920) slav N S T2 and Ceriani, Harris, Kraft-Purintun, and Piovanelli, but in agreement with Delling, Schaller, and the eth, reads κτίσις instead of κρίσις. He cites texts which emphasize human igno-

  1   2

For the various textual witnesses here see Piovanelli, “Paralipomeni,” 327. Against this see Herzer, 4 Baruch, 146 n. 30.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

397

rance vis-à-vis God (e.  g. Job 5:9; 9:10; Jer 23:18) and understands the line to concern the new, eschatological creation which is now hidden.3 9:8. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print τῇ φωνῇ ὅτι, ὁ πατὴρ κτλ.; so A B arm. Kraft-Purintun, in accord with P eth, have: τῇ φωνῇ, Οὐαὶ ἡμῶν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ κτλ.; cf. Piovanelli. If an early edition had τῇ φωνῇ ὅτι· Οὐαὶ ἡμῶν [or: ἡμῖν] ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ κτλ., Ceriani’s text would be explained by an eye skipping from the first ὅτι to the second. // Kraft-Purintun print οὐαὶ ἡμῶν. The expression is otherwise unattested. Surely it is a corruption of the Septuaginital οὐαὶ ἡμῖν. 9:10. Stone suggests that arm. 993 (= 920) here preserves the original line between vv. 10 and 11: “And while he was lying like one of the dead, Baruch and Abimelech drew near.”4 9:12. Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer have λέγοντες καὶ ἀποροῦντες. Kraft-Purintun omit the last two words. An eye moving from the first –ντες to the second explains the Kraft-Purintun text. 9:13. Ἐν μίᾳ φωνῇ is in Kraft-Purintun and supported by P eth arm 144 slav T1 T2; Piovanelli translates this reading. 9:14. “477 years” is the reading of A B. P and the short Greek recension have: “377 years.” The eth witnesses vary: 303 or 330 or 333 “weeks of days.” The slav mss. also vary: 307 (N) or 377 (T1) or 387 (S) or 677 (T2). Arm 345 has “275 years and some days” while arm 144 993 (= 920) have “375 years.” Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174v has 777. // Harris and Piovanelli follow eth at the end: καὶ ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων μενεῖ. 9:15. Kraft-Purintun (without apparatus) print τὰ δένδρα after the introductory καί. If this stood in the text, omission (so Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer) would be explained by an eye moving from τὰ δένδρα to τὰ βεβ. // Ἐδώκαμεν τὸ τέλος ἡμῶν τῷ ἀέρι is likely corrupt. See the commentary below. // Kraft-Purintun omit ποιήσει before τὸ κόκκινον (so A B with Ceriani) and end with γενήσεται. 9:16. Kraft-Purintun follows the eth: τὰ γλυκέα ὕδατα ἁλμυρὰ γενήσονται καὶ τὰ ἁλμυρὰ γλυκέα. A B P arm 993 (= 920) omit καὶ τὰ ἁλμυρὰ γλυκέα, followed by Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer. Perhaps the words were added for the sake of symmetry. But the content accords with the rest of the passage. Further, if one conjectures, on the basis of the eth, a text with τὰ γλυκέα ὕδατα ἁλμυρὰ γενήσονται καὶ τὰ ἁλμυρὰ γλυκέα γενήσονται, an eye could have inadvertently passed from the first γενήσονται to the second γενήσονται. 9:22. Piovenalli fol-

  3 See

further Herzer, “Direction,” 26 n. 54 (“it makes no sense in the context of Par. Jer. to talk about a ‘hidden judgment,’ for God’s judgment is in no way hidden … rather it will definitely happen to the people” in ch. 4); idem, 4 Baruch, 147–48; Schaller, Paralipomena, 751.   4 Stone, “Armenian Version,” 51–52.

398

Commentary

lows the eth here, which opens with: “Baruch and Abimelech cried out to them, ‘Do not kill him with this death.’” // In contrast to Kraft-Purintun, Herzer lacks οὖν and adds καί before ὅτι; so too Ceriani and Harris. A B have ἐπὶ τῇ ἀπονοίᾳ ταύτῃ, which Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer print. P arm eth omit, followed by Kraft-Purintun. 9:25. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer omit ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ at the end. It appears in A B and in Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. Did a scribe inadvertently skip a line or two, or did someone assimilate to v. 23? 9:26. Harris, Piovanelli, and Herzer, in accord with eth, omit διὰ προστάγματος θεοῦ; it appears in A B P arm slav. and in Ceriani and Kraft-Purintun. 9:30. The verse opens with τότε in Kraft-Purintun. (They print τότε also at the beginning of v. 27). Ceriani, Harris, and Herzer instead have ἐβόησε δέ. None supplies an apparatus here. 9:32. “Likeness” replaces “helper” in arm 993 (= 920). // A B supply a subscription that refers to another book: “And the rest of the words of Jeremiah and all his dead, are they not—behold! (A omits)—written in the letter of Baruch?” The eth, which Piovanelli translates, is similar but takes the interrogatory form. Arm 993 (= 920) adds: “glory be to Christ forever, amen.” P: “And all power to Christ Jesus our Lord to whom be glory and might forever and ever, amen.” Arm 144 345 1447 add additional information about Jeremiah. 144, which is the longer, reads: “And the Egyptians greatly honored and extolled him, having found benefits through him and the mercy of God by means of him. Because while he was alive he destroyed the serpent of the dry land (through) his prayers and the crocodile, the watery beast, which were harmful to the inhabitants of the land. But Alexander, king of the Macedonians, having learned of that wonder, brought the relics of the prophet to his city, to Alexandria, and there he placed (them) with honor gloriously. And one of the ribs of the holy prophet he planted with honor around the wall of the city and there still they destroyed the serpent and the crocodile. He gave a sign to the Egyptians—the shaking of their idols and the falling down and breaking into pieces at the hand of a certain infant which would be born of a virgin, (at the hand) of the savior of Israel.” This is a summary of part of the Life of the Prophet Jeremiah. The short Greek recension also recalls the Life of the Prophet Jeremiah: “And Jeremiah set aside the holy vessels according to God’s commandment, sealing it in this stone by his finger in the name of God. Through the writing of iron, the imprint on the stone has become a shadowing cloud, for it is hard to make out. And the stone is in the desert, where in former times the ark was prepared along with the other (holy vessels). And Jeremiah declared: ‘The Lord went up to heaven from Zion, but he will come again to visit Zion, and the sign of the parousia of the Christ will be (this), whenever every nation will

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

399

worship (a piece of) wood, glorifying and blessing God, to whom is due all glory unto ages of ages, amen.” Commentary If the penultimate ch. 8 recounts multiple events and moves from Babylon to Jerusalem to Babylon to Samaria, the concluding ch. 9 by contrast narrates a single if complex episode that takes place in and around the temple. The episode creates a suitable inclusio with the book’s opening. Both chapters focus on Jeremiah and the temple, and both highlight the failings of the people. Yet while the unspecified sins in 1:7 lead to an exile that eventuates in a return to the land, the prophesied rejection of the Son of God will result in forfeiture of the people’s exalted status (vv. 15–16). The chapter contains four main parts: I. Jeremiah’s prayer (vv. 2–6) II. Jeremiah’s visionary experience (vv. 7–12) III. Jeremiah’s public narration of his experience (vv. 13–18) IV. Jeremiah’s martyrdom (vv. 19–32)

The prophet’s words—his “strange prayer”5 in vv. 3–6, his account of his vision in vv. 13–18, and his admonitions to Baruch and Abimelech in vv. 23–24 (cf. v. 28)—dominate the whole. The fulcrum of ch. 9 is the revelation of Jeremiah’s Christological vision (vv. 13–19). It highlights not only the person and work of Jesus Christ but also Israel’s future judgment and the future blessing of the nations. We have here a prophetic declaration of unqualified supercessionism akin to what one finds in 5 Ezra 2:10–11: “Tell my people that I will give to them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was going to give to Israel. Moreover, I will take back to myself their glory, and will give to these others the everlasting habitations, which I had prepared for Israel.” Furthermore, the coming rejection of Jesus is foreshadowed in the crowd’s treatment of his prophet, who effectively becomes a Christian martyr.6 Once he proclaims Jesus Christ, he is murdered. The appearance of a concrete prophecy about Jesus Christ on the lips of a pre-Christian Jew is not uncommon in early Christian literature and   5

So Goodenough, Symbols, 8:139. Cf. Bogaert, Baruch, 1:212: “très particulier.” Ign. Magn. 8.2 (“the divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted”). Note also Sib. Or. 2:249–51, which seemingly condemns all of post-exilic Judaism: God “will destroy all the Hebrews after Jeremiah.” On the tradition of prophets as martyrs see H. A. Fischel, “Martyr and Prophet (A Study in Jewish Literature),” JQR 37 (1947), 265–80, 363–86.

  6 Cf.

400

Commentary

in Christian versions of Jewish texts. Illustrations include T. Benj. 9:3 (“He shall enter the first temple, and there the Lord will be abused and will be raised up on wood. And the temple curtain shall be torn, and the Spirit of God will move on to all the nations as a fire is poured out. And he shall ascend from Hades and shall pass on from earth to heaven”); Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:13–20 (“through him [Isaiah] had been revealed the coming of the Beloved … and that before the sabbath he must be crucified on a tree … his twelve disciples will teach all nations and every tongue the resurrection of the Beloved, and those who believe in his cross will be saved”); Liv. Proph. Jer. Dor 1 (Jeremiah “spoke beforehand concerning the mystery of Christ”), 8–9 (“Jeremiah gave a sign … that it was decreed that their idols would be shaken and collapse through a savior, a child born of a virgin, in a manger”), 13 (“this will be for you a sign of his coming, when all the Gentiles worship a piece of wood”); Gk. 3 Bar. 4:15 (“Its bitterness will be changed into sweetness, and its curse will become a blessing, and its fruit will become the blood of God, and just as the race of men have been condemned through it, so through Jesus Christ Emmanuel in it (they) will receive a calling and entrance into paradise”); Acts of Pilate Latin B 6(22):1 (“when I [Jeremiah] was upon earth, I prophesied of the Son of God that he was seen upon earth and conversed among men”).7 The NT itself already construes many HB/OT oracles, including some in Jeremiah, as concrete prophecies of Jesus; cf. Matt 2:17–18 (“Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah”); 27:9–10 (“Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah”); etc. The Christian editor of 4 Baruch no doubt believed, as did Ignatius, that the prophets were disciples of Jesus and through the Spirit awaited his coming (Magn. 5:2; 9:2). According to Herzer and others, 4 Baruch is Jewish through 9:9. A Christian redactor is then responsible for vv. 10–32.8 The matter is not

  7

Cf. the generalization in Acts 7:52 (“the prophets … who foretold the coming of the Righteous One”) and note Evagrius, Alterc. leg. inter Sim. Iud. et Theoph. Christ. 4:17: Baruch, “near the end of his own book … prophesied about Christ’s birth and the manner of his clothing and his suffering and his resurrection, by saying: ‘This one is called my anointed, my chosen one, sprung from an undefiled womb, was born, and suffered.’” To what book these words belonged is unknown.   8 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 141–42. So also Delling, Lehre, 2, 58; Wolff, Jeremia, 51; Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 40 (this marks a change of opinion; earlier he took v. 7 to be the transition; see Paralipomènes, 57–58, 117). For Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2677, however, the Jewish original ended with v. 8. Licht, “‫ספר מעש ירמיה‬,” breaks off his translation in the middle of 9:13. According to Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 415, all of 8:9–9:32 is secondary. Schaller, Paralipomena, 665–66, appears undecided.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

401

so clear. Not only are there Christian additions long before ch. 9,9 but ­several phrases before v. 10 are more likely than not Christian: • τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με; see on v. 3 • τῆς φωνῆς τῆς γλυκείας; see on v. 3 • ἀγέννητος and ἀπερινόητος of the deity; see on v. 6 • παραδιδόντων τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; see on v. 7 Beyond this, the reference to “the living trees” in v. 3 (τῶν δένδρων τῶν ζώντων) prepares for v. 14 and its “tree of life” (τὸ δένδρον τῆς ζωῆς) planted in paradise; the use of the trisagion from Isa 6:3 along with the mention of the seraphim in v. 3 anticipate the Christological interpretation of Isa 6:1–2 in vv. 13–20; and vv. 1–9 contain a high number of words and phrases that occur nowhere before ch. 9 and so are uncharacteristic of the book as a whole.10 The Christian redaction—which reflects knowledge of both the Gospel of John and the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah11— is unlikely to be confined to vv. 10–32.12 At the same time, vv. 8 and 9 are often stylistically reminiscent of earlier chapters,13 and one doubts that ch. 8 preserves the original conclusion of our book, although that option cannot be utterly excluded.14 Did then the Jewish version of 4 Baruch end with Jeremiah’s martyrdom, perhaps by stoning,15 and a Christian interpolate the visionary material?16 The Pen­

  9  10

 11

See the Introduction, pp. 27–28.

Οἱ τοῦ, θυσία, and ἐννέα in v. 1; δέκατος and εὐχή in v. 2; θυμίαμα, ἀληθινός, φωτίζω, ἀναλαμβάνω, ἔλεος, and Σεραφίμ in v. 3; εὐωδία in v. 4; μελέτη, Μιχαήλ, ἀρχάγγελος, and εἰσφέρω in v. 5; κτίσις, ἀγέννητος, ἀπερινόητος, κρίσις, and κρύπτω in v. 6; οὐαί in v. 8; and τρέχω, ἀνάκειμαι, and χαμαί in v. 9.

See the Introduction, pp. 55–56. Writings, seems to regard all of 8:9–9:32 as Christian.  13 See the commentary on those verses; also Schaller, Paralipomena, 665 n. 12, who lists stylistic elements common to 9:1–9 and the rest of the book.  14 Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 415, seems to suggest that 8:11 marks the original conclusion. Books from the ancient world sometimes do end in unexpected ways. Many have felt that the Iliad, which ends with Hector’s funeral, is anti-climactic. So too the history in Samuel and Kings, which concludes with a remark about food for King Jehoicachin. There has also been much debate regarding the ending of Mark and whether it originally ended at 16:8 as well as much discussion of the conclusion to Acts, which fails to narrate what happened to Paul in Rome.  15 Doran, “Narrative Literature,” 296, leaves this possibility open. For the well-attested legend of Jeremiah being stoned see on v. 21.  16 Although Herzer regards 9:10–32 as Christian, he also believes that the story of Jeremiah’s martyrdom in vv. 31–32 contains “Jewish material” (4 Baruch, 161).  12 Evans,

402

Commentary

tateuch, the gospels, the Testament of Job, the Testament of Abraham, and the individual Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs all conclude with their heroes’ deaths. More plausibly, Delling and Herzer think that the book ended with vv. 7–9: Jeremiah died, presumably of old age, and the people mourned.17 Another option, to which this author is inclined, is that the Jewish 4 Baruch ended much like the Jeremiah Apocryphon (minus its concluding Christian sentence), with Jeremiah offering sacrifice and the people celebrating a feast in Jerusalem, with no notice being taken of Jeremiah’s death.18 This would bring the book to an appropriate conclusion.19 In Nickelsburg’s words, “Thematically and structurally, the plot is resolved when Jeremiah leads the people back to Jerusalem.”20 Yet a final possibility is that, after narrating the celebration, the book ended with an apocalyptic vision of the future, which a Christian turned into prophecy of Jesus.21 9:1. The scene shifts from Babylon and Samaria (see 8:6–9) back to Jerusalem and, presumably, the temple precincts. Those associated with (οἱ τοῦ) Jeremiah are, one infers, not all of the faithful who have returned home but priests, for they are distinguished from the people, on whose behalf they, rejoicing, offer sacrifices: χαίροντες καὶ ἀναφέροντες θυσίας ὑπέρ τοῦ λαοῦ;22 cf. T. Job 15:4 (ἀνέφερον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν θυσίας); 42:6 (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἀναφέρειν θυσίας), 7–8 (τὰ πρὸς θυσίαν … λαβὼν ἀνήνεγκα ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν); Heb 7:27 (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν).23 That Israel rejoiced or will rejoice upon returning from exile was a tra-

 17 Delling,

Lehre, 13–14; Herzer, Paralipomena, 32. Cf. Elgvin, “Editing,” 296: “the Grundschrift had Jeremiah die peacefully.” Herzer, 4 Baruch, 149, suggests a parallel with Moses: if the latter died before entering the land, Jeremiah dies not long after coming to Jerusalem.  18 In some ancient sources, Jeremiah dies a natural death; see Wolff, Jeremia, 93. The idea of his martyrdom was a secondary development.  19 And makes it conform to the biblical pattern of apostasy—punishment—obedience—deliverance; cf. Taatz, Brief, 80.  20 Nickelsburgh, “Stories,” 74.  21 Given the reference to the tree of life in 9:14, perhaps one should note that 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C appears to have had, near its end, a vision of the eschatological future which featured the tree of life; see 4Q385a frag. 17 a-e and Dimant, Pseudo-Prophetic Texts, 99–100, 155–57.  22 Οἱ τοῦ occurs only here in 4 Baruch; λαός: see on 1:5; χαίρω: 3x: 6:17; 7:2; 9:1; ἀναφέρω: 3x: 6:22; 9:1, 2; θυσία: 2x: 9:1, 2.  23 Ἀναφέρω + θυσία is a Septuagintism; cf. LXX Lev 17:5; 3 Βασ 12:27; 2 Chr 29:31; Isa 57:6; Amos 4:4; 1 Macc 4:53; 2 Macc 1:18, 21; 3:35; 10:3; also Gk. frag. Jub. 4:1; Gk. LAE 29:3; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 2:5; Josephus, Ant. 11:76.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

403

ditional topos; cf. Ps 126:1–2 (“when the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion … then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy … we rejoiced”); Isa 35:10 (“the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and singing shall flee away”; cf. 51:11); Jer 31:13 (“then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them and give them gladness for sorrow”); Bar 4:37 (“your children are coming from the east … rejoicing in the glory of God”; cf. 5:5).24 They celebrate for nine days: ἔμειναν … ἐννέα ἡμέρας.25 On the significance of this, see the commentary on v. 2. If, as seems likely, the sacrifice on the tenth day in v. 2 marks Yom Kippur, then the activities in v. 1 commence on the Jewish new year, and about half a year—most of it a narrative blank26—has passed since 5:33 and the 12th of Nisan. Herzer observes: “The ten days from New Year on the first of Tishri and Yom Kippur27 were considered ten days for penitence and repentance.”28 Our text, however, intimates nothing about that, so the fact is either irrelevant (as perhaps for a Christian audience) or assumed as obvious (as perhaps for a Jewish audience). As the people have just arrived, the temple is seemingly still in ruins, so how can sacrifices be offered? The temple vessels, moreover, remain hidden until the eschaton (3:8–4:4), so what instruments are being employed? Perhaps 4 Baruch, which can be laconic to the point of confusion, is so far from history that asking such questions is misguided. Nonetheless (i) a  24 The

parallel in Jer. Apocr. 40–41 goes on at length about the rejoicing of the people when they return to Jerusalem.  25 Μένω: see on 2:10; ἐννέα: 1x; ἡμέρα: see on 4:4. For the construction with the participles see on 7:32.  26 Although readers assume that the unnarrated trek from Babylon to the Jordan occupied most of the time. In Ezra 7:9, the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem takes ca. five months.  27 The phrase, “the ten days between the New Year and Yom Kippur,” appears in b. Yeb. 49b.  28 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 143 n. 11. He cites y. Roš. Haš. 1:3, 15; Midr. Ps. 17, 102. The Greek name for the festival, νηστεία, means “fast,” and the sources otherwise emphasize fasting: Philo, Mos. 2.23–24; Spec. 1.186; Josephus, Ant. 27.9. At the same time, m. Ta̔an. 4:8 has it that the Day of Atonement was one of the happiest days of the year. For an overview of the festival around the turn of the era see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London/Philadelphia: SCM/ Trinity Press Intl., 1994) 141–45.

404

Commentary

reader could envisage priests conducting services on top of the ruins of the temple. It has occasionally been suggested that the destruction of the temple in 70 CE did not end all public religious services on the mount.29 If that were so—the evidence has not persuaded many30—4 Baruch might reflect that circumstance. It is also possible (ii) that 4 Baruch presupposes, even if it does not narrate, the legend found in Jer. Apocr. 41, where Jeremiah recovers the hidden keys and vessels and then offers sacrifice. Or maybe (iii) 4 Baruch, in its original Jewish form, narrated the retrieval of the instruments but a Christian hand thought this element superfluous. Or perhaps (iv) the failure to mention the rebuilding of the temple helps reinforce the link with the miserable post-70 reality, when there was no temple. Or maybe (v) our story awkwardly assumes the passage of a few years between chs. 8 and 9,31 so that the temple has indeed been rebuilt.32 Verse 7 assumes a functioning altar. (vi) For Herzer, “the silence concerning vessels and keys points” to the fact that “they were preserved not for another earthly temple but for an eschatological heavenly temple.”33 Finally, one can (vii) hold Herzer’s view with the qualification that the eschatological temple will be on earth, not heaven. In the end, given that 4 Baruch often fails to iron out the inconcinnities generated by the melding of different traditions, and given that more than one hand has been at work in ch. 9, it is very hard to know what to think.

 29 Cf.

Kenneth W. Clark, “Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after AD 70,” NTS 6 (1960), 269–80, and note esp. 1 Clem. 41:2; m. ‘Ed. 8:6.  30 See Alexander Guttmann, “The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult,” HUCA 38 (1967), 137–48; Schürer et al., History, 1:521–23.  31 This might explain the sixty-six years of 5:1, 30. As the usual reckoning of the exilic period was seventy years (see p. 225), the difference of four years would allow enough time to rebuild the temple.  32 According to Lee, “Development,” 409, Jerusalem has been “completely renewed and restored.” On this thesis see the discussion above, on p. 232. In the Arabic version, the city appears to be already rebuilt when Abimelech awakens (trans. Mingana and Harris, p. 185). Cf. y. Ta̔an. 66d (3:9): Honi the circle drawer “remained ˙ sound asleep for seventy years, until the Temple was destroyed and it was rebuilt a second time.” It is worth recalling that “temples in the ancient Roman world were often destroyed and subsequently rebuilt”; so Choi, Leadership, 170. Certainly many Jews in the post-70 period must have hoped for the restoration of the temple; cf. 4 Ezra 7:26; 10:54; Sib. Or. 5:420–23; m. Pesah 10:6; t. S˘abb 1:13; Tg. Isa. 53:5; Tg. ˙ Zech. 6:12–13.  33 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 144. In, “Story,” 387, Herzer regards the failure to mention the vessels and keys of the temple as “astonishing.”

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

405

4 Baruch says nothing about people already living in Jerusalem when Jeremiah and the exiles return. So one can read the text to align with what Josephus thought: Nebuchadnezzar, “when he carried off the two tribes, did not settle any nation in their place, and for this reason all of Judaea and Jerusalem and the temple remained deserted for seventy years.”34 9:2. Jeremiah alone offers a sacrifice and then utters a prayer, which the next four verses will recount: ἀνήνεγκεν Ἰερεμίας μόνος θυσίαν, καὶ ηὔξατο εὐχήν.35 That Jeremiah alone makes the offering establishes his identity as the High Priest.36 According to Herzer, “Jeremiah’s prayer comes to the forefront, nearly replacing the sacrifice.”37 This may rightly catch the emphasis. In a post-70 Jewish book, one might expect prayer to overshadow sacrifice as the latter could no longer be practiced.38 One wonders, however, whether the omission of elements specific to the Day of Atonement is due to Christian revision.39 In the LXX, εὔχομαι + εὐχή (cf. ‫ נדר‬+ ‫נדר‬, as in 1 Sam 1:11) usually means to take a vow,40 but in LXX Dan 6:6 and 8 (for Aramaic ‫)יבעה בעו‬, as here, it refers to praying a prayer.41 That Jeremiah makes his offering on the tenth day (τῇ δὲ δεκάτῃ) almost certainly indicates that it is Yom

 34  35

Ant. 10.184. Cf. S. ‘Olam Rab. 27: “For fifty-two years nobody passed by Judah.”

Δέκατος: 1x; ἀναφέρω: 3x: 6:22; 9:1, 2; μόνος: 2x: 7:26; 9:2; θυσία: 2x: 9:1, 2; εὔχομαι: see on 2:3; εὐχή: 1x. The cognate object also occurs in 8:7; 9:21. It is here

likely a Semitism; cf. Maloney, Semitic Interference, 189–90. Cf. Lev 16:2–9, 23–34, and see on 7:14 and p. 183.  37 Herzer, 4 Baruch, 143. Cf. p. xxix: “the prayer … stands in the place of an actual ‘sacrifice.’” Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2676, similarly suggests that “the text’s underlying message emphasizes the importance of prayer [as a substitute for sacrifice] in light of Israel’s circumstances after the destruction of the Second Temple.”  38 Relevant here is the reinterpretation of m. ’Abot 1:2 (“Upon three things the world stands: upon Torah, upon temple service, and upon deeds of loving kindness”) after the destruction of the temple; see Dale C. Allison, Jr., Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 208–212. Rabbinic tradition came to view prayer as atoning: y. Roš. Haš. 58b (2:7); Num. Rab. 3:12; 18:21.  39 Nir, Destruction, 220–21, denies any reference to the Day of Atonement and, in accord with his view of 4 Baruch as Christian, sees Jeremiah’s sacrifice as symbolizing the sacrificial death of Jesus and the eucharist.  40 LXX Gen 28:20 (καὶ ηὔξατο … εὐχὴν λέγων); Lev 27:2; Num 6:2; 30:3; Deut 23:22; 1 Βασ 1:11 (ηὔξατο εὐχὴν Κυρίῳ λέγουσα); 1 Esdr 5:52; Isa 19:21; Jon 1:16; Eccles 5:3; cf. Philo, Agr. 175; Fug. 115; Chrysostom, Comm. Gen. 57.3 PG 54:498 (ηὔξω εὐχὴν λέγων).  41 Origen, Orat. 4.1–2, explains that εὔχομαι + εὐχή can have either meaning.  36

406

Commentary

Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which fell on the tenth day of the month of Tishrei.42 In the text as it stands, however, no details are offered. Nothing otherwise characteristic of the Day of Atonement—fasting, confession, the scapegoat—appears in this context. One could, nevertheless, regard the following prayer as that of the High Priest on Yom Kippur; cf. b. Yoma 53b. The following short prayer43 not only fails to mention exile or the return to Jerusalem44 but surprisingly lacks any thanksgiving. Indeed, the content seems largely unconnected with the rest of the book. The fact is consistent with parts of Jeremiah’s prayer being from a later hand. According to Riaud, “the first words of Jeremiah in the Paraleipomena are a prayer (1:3–6). The last [minus the Christian additions] are equally so.”45 This may well have been so for the presumed Jewish original. In the text with its Christian additions, however, Jeremiah utters several more sentences. 9:3–4. Jeremiah opens by borrowing from Isa 6:1–5, the record of Isaiah’s inaugural vision that includes the famous words of the Seraphim: “Holy holy holy Lord Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of his glory” (v. 3). Variations of these words entered Jewish liturgy as the Qeduššah (cf. t. Ber. 1:9) and Christian liturgies as the Trisagion and the Ter Sanctus,46 and they also occur elsewhere, including merkabah texts.47 Almost all of the relevant

 42 So

Riaud, Paralipomènes, 196–97; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2676 (urging that Jeremiah’s prayer uses “divine names that link God with aspects of the Yom Kippur festival”). Cf. Lev 16:29; 23:26, 32; 25:9; 29:7; 1Q22 3:10–11; 11QTemple 25:10–11; Jub. 34:18; Philo, Spec. 2.200.  43 There appears to have been a tradition that the High Priest prayed a short prayer on the Day of Atonement: m. Yoma 5:1; y. Yoma 42b (5:3).  44 Contrast the prayer of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in y. Yoma 42b (5:3): “May it be will before You, Eternal our God and of our Fathers, that there shall be no exile decreed over us, not today and not this year. But if exile was decreed over us today or this year that our exile be at a place of Torah.” One might conjecture that 9:5 was originally in the past tense: Michael, Israel’s patron, has already led the righteous to Jerusalem.  45 Riaud, Paralipomènes, 197.  46 Bryan D. Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharist Prayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).  47 1 En. 39:12; Rev 4:8; 1 Clem. 34:6; Gk. LAE 43:4 v.  l.; T. Abr. RecLng. 3:3; 1 Apoc. 1 Jn. 17; 2 En. 21:1 J; Mart. Perp. 12; Ps.-Hippolytus, Consumm. 39; Tertullian, Or. 3; Apos. Con. 7:35:3; 8:12:27; Ladder of Jacob 2:18; CIJ 1448 (an amulet); t. Ber. 1:9; b. Hul. 91b; 3 En. 40:2 (Schäfer, Synopse 58 = 924); T. Isaac 6:6, 24; T. ˙ Adam 1:4; 4:8; Quest. Ezra A 29; Syr. Apoc. Dan 36; Sepher Ha-Razim 7th firma-

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

407

texts remember “Holy holy holy” as belonging to an angelic hymn; cf. Tertullian, Or. 3: Christians can utter the sanctus because they are like angels. Despite this, and even though the line was scriptural and liturgical, Isa 6:3 was freely reworked, as here in 4 Baruch and even in the targum: “Holy in the heavens of the height, his sanctuary, holy upon the earth, the work of his might, holy in eternity is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is filled with the brilliance of his glory.” Given the pejorative use of “Sabaoth” in 4 Bar. 7:22, it is to be expected that “holy, holy, holy” is not, in 9:3, followed by the Κύριος σαβαώθ of Isa 6:3. While ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος + ὁ has parallels,48 ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος + τό is unusual, and the sense is unclear. One possibility, given that the following neuter, τὸ φῶς κτλ., is Christian and refers to Jesus Christ (see below), is that τὸ θυμίαμα τῶν δένδρων τῶν ζώντων is also the Christian Lord.49 He— whose name, Χριστός (= “anointed”), could be thought of as connoting a fragrance—is hymned with the trisagion50 and is, poetically, incense that rises from earth to heaven. In this case, one may compare 2 Cor 2:15, where the apostles are “the aroma of Christ”; Rev 5:8, where “bowls of incense” are “prayers of the saints”; Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John ed. Pusey, 1:574, where Jesus is “the altar of incense (θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος)” and like “an odor (εὐωδίας) of a sweet smell in sanctification”; and Ps.-Dionysius, E.  H. 4.3.4, 10, where Jesus is the sacramental ointment and “the rich source of the divine fragrances” (εὐωδῶν). See further below, on v. 13, where Christ appears to be the menorah in God’s temple, and recall that John’s Gospel can characterize Christ with impersonal terms such as “bread” (6:25, 41, 48, 51), “light” (8:12; 9:5), and “door” (10:7, 9). One expects “holy, holy, holy” to introduce a clause naming or characterizing the deity.51 If, to the contrary, τὸ θυμίαμα τῶν δένδρων τῶν

ment 17; Ma’aseh Merkavah Schäfer, Synopse 551, 569, 593; Gedulat Moshe 10:3; David Apoc. 6:3. On Isa 6:3 in rabbinic sources see José Costa, “Is 6,3 et la qedusha dans le corpus rabbinique ancien: Une approche phénoménologique,” JSJ 47 (2016), 532–90.  48 E.   g. T. Abr. RecLng. 3:2; Rev 4:8; Ps.-Ephrem, Serm. in pret. et viv. cruc. ed. Phrantzoles, p. 141.10; Oecumenius, Apoc. ed. Hoskier, p. 72.16; John of Damascus, Trisag. 14:25.  49 Θυμίαμα: 2x: 9:3, 4; δένδρον: see on 5:1; ζάω: 3x: 6:4; 9:3, 11. Herzer, “Direction,” 23–24, rather identifies the incense with God.  50 Christian tradition has recurrently identified Jesus with the divine figure in Isa 6:1–3. See further below, on v. 18.  51 As in Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8; T. Abr. RecLng. 3:4; Ps.-Epiphanius, Trin. ed. Diekamp, p. 317; etc.

408

Commentary

ζώντων—a phrase seemingly without close parallel52—does not characterize God or Jesus Christ, the clause seems unconnected from the rest of the sentence. In any event, the association of incense with “holy, holy, holy” is not unusual. It could be influenced by Isa 6:2–4, where the “smoke” that fills the hall is presumably incense, or it could reflect familiarity with a liturgical service in which incense was offered as the trisagion was, as in later Christian practice, being chanted. Also possible is a connection with Lev 16:12–13, which is about Yom Kippur: Aaron “shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before the Lord, and two handfuls of crushed sweet incense, and he shall bring it inside the curtain and put the incense on the fire before the Lord.”53 Does the expression, “the living trees,” perhaps advert, despite the plural, to paradise and its tree of life?54 Eden had multiple trees,55 and 5 Ezra 2:12 refers to the “fragrant perfume” of the tree of life while, according to 2 En. 8:3 J, “that tree is indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance.” In Gk LAE 29:4, there are “fragrant incenses” and “aromatic perfumes” in paradise, and according to Cave Treas. 5:17, myrrh and incense were in Eden. Alternatively, is it possible that somewhere in the background is the Greek myth of Myrrha, who for a time was turned into a tree (Ovid, Met. 10.298–502)? Or is it relevant that the best-smelling incense comes from the sap of living trees? It seems best, however, to interpret the expression in the light of Jeremiah’s christological declaration in 9:14, where the tree of life planted in paradise is the cross of Jesus planted in Jerusalem, which causes fruitless trees to bear fruit. In that verse, trees represent Christians. The same may be true here: “the living trees” are the saints.56 There was a tradition of speaking of the righteous as though they were trees or like trees.57 Some texts indeed characterize the righteous as the trees of para-

 52 According

to Bogaert, Baruch, 1:213, “it is difficult to admit that such a formula is properly Jewish. It rather involves speculations of a Gnostic or Christian type …” Yet, although the phrase may be Christian, it need involve nothing more than the belief that paradise must have been filled with pleasant odors; cf. Enc. John Bapt. 18.  53 See further below. Cf. m. Yoma 5:1. So Bogaert, Baruch, 1:213; Riaud, Paralipomènes, 197; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 144–45; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2676; Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 134–35.  54 Gen 2:9; 3:22; Rev 2:7; 22:2; 4 Ezra 8:52; cf. Origen, Frag. in Prov. 13:32: δένδρα ζωῆς.  55 See Gen 2:16; 3:2, 8; Ezek 31:8–9, 18; 3 Bar. 4:8.  56 So too Herzer, 4 Baruch, 144–45, although he does not see a Christian hand here.  57 Cf. Ps 1:3; 52:8; 92:12–14; Isa 1:30; 60:21; 61:3; 65:22; Jer 17:8; 32:41; Hos 14:5– 7; Matt 3:10; 7:17; 12:33; John 14:2–3; Herm. Sim. 4:2; Ign. Trall. 11:2; m. ’Abot

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

409

dise; cf. 1QH 14:14–17 (“their root will sprout like a flower of the field for ever, to make a shoot grow in branches of the everlasting plantation so that it covers all the world with its shade … All the streams of Eden will water its branches”); 16:5–6 (“you have set me at the source of streams in a dry land … in a garden watered by channels … a plantation of cypresses and elms, together with cedars, for your glory. Trees of life [‫ ]עצי חיים‬by a fountain of mystery, hidden among all the trees at the water, which shall make a shoot grow in the everlasting plantation”); Ps. Sol. 14:2 (“the Lord’s paradise, the trees of life, are his saints”); Odes Sol. 11:18–19 (“blessed are those who are planted in your earth, and those who have a place in your paradise and grow in the growth of trees”); Gos. Truth 36:35–39 (God “knows his plantings, because it is he who planted them in paradise”). Whatever the precise sense, Jeremiah is conducting a service on the temple mount, so readers may envisage him burning incense; cf. esp. Lev 16:12–13, which prescribes that the High Priest should burn incense in the temple on the Day of Atonement.58 Of possible relevance is the connection between prayer and incense in certain texts.59 The reference to incense—τὸ θυμίαμα τῶν δένδρων τῶν ζώντων—in a liturgical context points, if it is Christian (an uncertain issue), to a postthird century redaction. For Christians did not initially burn incense in their sacred rituals. That ritual act was for them too closely tied to the Roman imperial cult. It is only in late fourth century sources that “scattered references to Christians burning incense in worship contexts begin to appear.”60 The next clause—τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον με61—almost certainly derives from John 1:9: ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον; cf. 1 John 2:8: τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνε and note esp.

3:18. Note also Prov 11:30 (“the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”); 13:12 (“a desire fulfilled is a tree of life”); 15:4 (“a gentle tongue is a tree of life”). See further Reno, Sacred Tree, 93–105.  58 Cf. also Exod 30:7–8; Luke 1:9; m. Yoma 1:2; 3:4–5; 5:1; 7:4.  59 E.  g. Ps 141:2; Wis 18:21; Luke 1:10; Rev 5:8; 8:3–4; Apost. Const. 7:33:2. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 144–45, emphasizes that the incense is a sign of God’s presence.  60 So Susan Ashbrook Harvey, “Incense Offerings in the Syriac Transitus Mariae: Ritual and Knowledge in Ancient Christianity,” in The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe, Frederick W. Norris, and James W. Thompson (Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 1998), 176–77. Many of the relevant texts are conveniently gathered in E.  G. C. F. Atchley, A History of the Use of Incense in Divine Worshiop (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909), 81–96.  61 Φῶς: see on 6:9 and cf. the φωταγωγήσει of 5:34; ἀληθινός: 1x; φωτίζω: 1x.

410

Commentary

the use of τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν τὸ φωτίζον—not ὃ φωτίζει—in patristic texts that adapt John 1:9.62 Apart from 4 Baruch, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν + φωτίζω appears only in John and Christian texts familiar with John,63 and “the collocation of words [in 4 Baruch] is so peculiar, that it is almost impossible to refer the language to any other than St John.”64 The clause appears to be from the same hand as v. 13, where Jesus Christ is the light of all ages. It is striking that v. 19 shares another phrase with John 1:9: both have ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον, a phrase that appears to be attested first in John and otherwise only in subsequent Christian literature. All this is a problem for those who argue that the text becomes Christian only in v. 10. Delling, citing Ps 43:3; Ecclus 45:17; 1QS 2:3; 1QH 12:5, 27, argues to the contrary that the idea of God enlightening the righteous is “thoroughly possible” in a Jewish context.65 This is true, yet none of these texts is very close to 4 Bar. 9:4, and none features τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν + φωτίζω + human object.66 Wolff’s objection, moreover, that John’s Christological statement (John 1:9) is unlikely to have become 4 Baruch’s theological statement,67 comes up against (i) the possibility that the prayer in 9:3 is addressed to Jesus just as the prayer in v. 25 is addressed to him and (ii) the probability that the Christian redactor, who interpreted Israel’s vision of “the Lord” (Isa 6:1) as a vision of God’s Son (v. 20), was a binitarian or trinitarian.68 Jeremiah’s telos is that he might be lifted up to God: ἕως οὗ ἀναληφθῶ πρὸς σέ;69 cf. Baruch’s words in 6:3: “the Self-sufficient comes, and he will take you from your tent.” In Christian sources, the verb not only refers to

 62 Ps.-Justin,

Exp. Fid. ed. Morel, p. 390; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. PG 23.501; Ps.-Gregory of Nyssa, Annun. ed. Montagna line 10; Hesychius of Jerusalem, Hom. 5.2.24; etc.  63 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.5.21.2; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2:50; Epiphanius, Anc. 3:9; etc. But τὸ ἀληθῶς φῶς occurs in Plato, Phaed. 109E, and ἀληθῶς φῶς in Philo, Leg. al. 1.17.  64 So Harris, Baruch, 26. Cf. the Christian addition in C 5:33: τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ἡ ἀληθινὴ ἀνταπόδοσις, ὁ ὤν, μέγας θαυμαστὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.  65 Delling, Lehre, 35. So too Riaud, Paralipomènes, 197; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 145 n. 26. Note also Ps 18:28; 2 Cor 4:6; 2 Bar. 38:1; Lev. Rab. 31:1.  66 The closest parallel that may be independent of John appears to be Corp. Herm. 13:19: τὸν νοῦν τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν … φώτιζε φῶς.  67 Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 133–34.  68 Riaud, Jean, “Martyr,” 233–34, appropriately speaks of a “haute christologie.”  69 Ἕως οὗ: see on 3:10; ἀναλαμβάνω: 2x: 9:3, 26. Instead of a future tense, arm 993 (= 920) refers to the past: “made my heart rise up to you.”

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

411

the bodily ascension of Jesus to heaven70 but also to the ascent of souls to heaven at death.71 In Jewish texts, the verb is used in connection with the bodily ascents of Enoch (Ecclus 49:14) and Elijah (4 Βασ 2:9–11; Ecclus 48:9; 1 Macc 2:58), with Abraham’s departure from this world (T. Abr. RecLng. 15:4), and with Moses’ flight to heaven at death (Philo, Mos. 2.291).72 One might argue that “until I am taken up to you” refers to the mystical ascent about to occur (vv. 7–19) or to the resurrection on the last day (6:6–7); yet the texts just cited as well as the dualism of 4 Baruch (cf. here v. 11) and the fact that Jeremiah is about to die move one to think rather of the heavenly interim state which Jeremiah is about to enter.73 The prayer is awkwardly constructed: περί … παρακαλῶ, περί … παρακαλῶ, περί …74 One expects the third περί to be followed by παρακαλῶ; cf. Chariton, Chaer. 7.5.6 (περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐξῆς παρακλῶ); Ps.Ephraem, Paraen. ed. Phrantzoles, 3:357 (περὶ ἐμοῦ παρακλῶ); and the common repeating pattern in the later Greek liturgies: ὑπέρ + genitive + δεηθῶμεν, ὑπέρ + genitive + δεηθῶμεν, etc. Perhaps then we should take the verb not to follow περί but rather to introduce what follows; cf. 3:4 and Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 605: παρακαλῶ περὶ τούτου τελείως ἡμῖν φανερωθῆναι. This, however, leaves the first περί by itself. Whether or not the text is corrupt, the use of παρακαλέω in requests or prayers to God does not appear in the LXX but (under the influence of secular custom75) it is so used in later Jewish and Christian sources.76 Jeremiah prays for three things. First, he prays for God’s mercy (ἔλεος), which is standard for both Jewish and Christian prayers;77 cf. 4:8 (οἰκτειρήσει ἡμᾶς) and the Κύριε ἐλέησον in the Greek liturgies.

 70

E.  g. Mark 16:19; Acts 1:2, 11; 1 Tim 3:16; Justin, Dial. 32.3; cf. T. Job 39:12. E.  g. 1 Clem. 5:7 v.  l.; Gos. Pet. 5:19; Justin, Dial. 80.4; Palladius, Hist. mon. Vita 22.  72 Cf. Gelasius of Cyzicus, H.  E. 2.21.7: ἐν βίβλιῳ δὲ ἀναλήψεως Μωσέως. See further Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhungstexten bei Lukas (SANT 26; München: Kösel-Verlag, 1971), 51–74.  73 Cf. the dualism of v. 11 and the short Greek recension of 9:31 (ed. Vassiliev, p. 316): as he was being stoned, Jeremiah εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνερχόμενος.  74 Παρακαλέω: see on 1:4. Παρακαλέω + περί: only here in 4 Baruch.  75 Cf. Plutarch, Alex. 33; Arrian, Diss. 3.21.12; etc.  76 Matt 26:53; 2 Cor 12:8; T. Abr. RecLng. 14:12; Josephus, Ant. 1:48; 6.25; 17.195; Gk. LAE 27:2; 29 v.  l.:12; Apoc. Sedr. 14:2; Chrysostom, Incompreh. 3:11; etc.  77 Note Ps 57:1; 3 Macc 2:19; 6:4; 4 Macc 6:28; Ecclus 36:1; Bar 3:2; Luke 1:50; 18:13. Ἔλεος: 1x.  71

412

Commentary

The second request, by contrast, is peculiar. It is for τῆς φωνῆς τῆς γλυκείας τῶν δύο Σεραφίμ.78 The mention of the Seraphim is here appropriate because they utter the trisagion in Isaiah 6.79 Although not explicit, Isa 6:2–3 seems to imply that there were, as presumed here, two of them.80 Their mention probably implies that the Seraphim join in human worship; cf. Ps 137:1 LXX (“before angels will I sing your praise”); 1Q28a 2:8–9 (“the angels of holiness are among their congregation”); 4Q289 frag. 1 (“holy angels in the midst of all”); Chrysostom, Hom. Eph. 14:4; Incompreh. 4:43; Hist. Rech. 16:8; and recall the later liturgical call to join the Cherubim and Seraphim who cry out, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth.”81 The sound of the Seraphim was variously characterized;82 see 2 En. 21:1 J (“gentle voice”); Mart. Perpet. 12 (“unified” or “harmonious voices”); Ps.-Hippolytus, Consumm. 39 (“a mighty voice”); Apos. Con. 7:35:3 (“never-silent voices”); Cave Treas. 46:18 (“glorious” voices); Sepher Ha-Razim 7th firmament 17 (“a strong voice”); Haggadat Shema̔ Yisra’el 2:2 (the Seraphim “roar like lions”). Note also that the angel Michael’s voice is, in Jer. Apocr. 35:9, “sweet.” Our text appears to suppose that Jeremiah, like Isaiah (Isa 6:1–3), is able to hear the heavenly choir; cf. Hist. Rech. 16:8 syr., where the Rechabites say: “we hear the voices of the spirits and the praises of the angels, the hosts, and the heavenly orders who continually praise God.” Although none of these texts speaks of the Seraphim’s “sweet voices,” γλυκύς + φωνή is attested occasionally in secular contexts,83 and it was a favorite of Gregory of Nyssa and appears often in Christian sources with religious meaning.84 Jeremiah’s third request is for ἄλλης εὐωδίας θυμιάματος;85 cf. Gk LAE 29:4 (θυμιάματα εὐωδίας); Athenagoras, Leg. 13.2 (θυμιάματων εὐωδίας);  78

Φωνή: 14x, six in ch. 9; γλυκύς: 3x: 9:3, 16 bis; δύο: 2x: 3:14; 9:3; Σεραφίμ: 1x.

 79 In

a similar context in Jer. Apocr. 40:12, Jeremiah composes a song of praise which declares that “the Seraphim are glad.” On seraphim see T. N. D. Mettinger, “Seraphim,” DDD, 742–44, with lit.  80 Cf. Origen, Prin. 1.3.4; 4.3.14; Sarapion of Thumis, Euch. 1; Ps.-John of Damascus, Annun. Mariae PG 96.649; Pirqe R. El. 4; contrast Eusebius, Dem. ev. 9.1.  81 See e.  g. Lit. S. Basil ed. Brightman and Hammond, pp. 402–403.  82 Note, however, that for Herzer, “Direction,” 23 n. 37, “sweet” does not “describe the call of the seraphim as such, but rather its content.”  83 E.  g. Aesop, Fab. Ὄνος καὶ Τέττιξ –the sweet voice of the grasshopper. Note Cant. 2:14: ἡ φωνή σου ἡδεῖα.  84 Cf. Acts Phil. 4:2 (Jesus is “the sweet voice of the Father”); Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 10.3; Ps.-Ephraem, Ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις ed. Phrantzoles, 4:109 (“the sweet voice of the savior of our souls”); etc.  85 Ἄλλος: see on 5:2; εὐωδία: 1x; θυμίαμα: 2x: 9:3, 4. On incense see above, p. 409.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

413

Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.8.67.1 (εὐωδίαν  θυμιάματος); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John ed. Pusey 1:574 (θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος,  ὡς  εὐωδίας  ὀσμή); Vit. et mir. Nicolai Myrensis rec. 1 18 (τὴν  εὐωδίαν  τοῦ  θυμιάματος). If the incense in v. 3 represents Jesus, here, in v. 4, the meaning is presumably literal, and ἄλλης may signal the difference.86 Wolff, however, interprets the end of v. 4 in terms of v. 5: the εὐωδία is the salvation of the people of God.87 9:5. Jeremiah, having uttered his prayers, now declares his piety. He affirms, in a “curious formulation,”88 that the object of his meditation is Michael: ἡ μελέτη μου Μιχαήλ.89 The Greek phrase borrows the language of a refrain in LXX Ps 118: v. 24, 99 vv. 77. 92, 174 v. 97 v. 143

τὰ μαρτύριά σου μελέτη μού ἐστιν ὁ νόμος σου μελέτη μού ἐστιν τὸν νόμον σου … μελέτη μού ἐστιν αἱ ἐντολαί σου μελέτη μου

It is appropriate for a prayer to recall a famous Psalm. Here, however, the object of meditation is not the law (as in Ps 118; cf. 11Q5 18:12) but an angel, Michael. Michael (from ‫מיכאל‬, “Who is like God?”; cf. Exod 15:11; Deut 33:26) is here an archangel, as in many texts.90 1 En. 24:6 calls him “chief of

 86 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 146, however, identifies Michael as the other incense. Wolff, “Neue Testament,” 134–36. He compares 2 Cor 2:14–16: “Christ … through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved … a fragrance from life to life.”  88 So Riaud, Paralipomènes, 198.  89 Μελέτη: 1x; LXX: 16x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 2x; cf. Sib. Or. 5:327; Philo: 56x; NT: 1x; Josephus: 12x; Μιχαήλ: 1x.  90 Michael is also an “archangel” in Gk. 1 En. 9:1 Sync.; Gk. Jub. 10:7; Lat. LAE 25:2; 29:1; 45:1; Gk. LAE 13:2; 37:6; Jude 9; Gk. 3 Bar. 11:8; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:3; Apoc. Sed. 14:1; PGM 4:2357–58; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. Dan. PG 81.1533.43; etc. It is much less common for him to be called simply an “angel,” as in Hazon Gabriel A 28; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:3. Lit. on Michael: W. Lueken, Michael: Eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der jüdischen und der morgenländisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898); C. Detlef G. Müller, Die Engellehre der Koptischen Kirche: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit in Ägypten (Wiesbaden: O. Harrrassowitz, 1959), 8–35; J. Michl, “Engel VII (Michael),” in RAC 5 (1962), 243–51; Johannes Peter Rohland, Der Erzengel Michael: Arzt und Feldherr. Zwei Aspekte des vor- und frühbyzantinischen Michaelskultes (BZRG 19; Leiden: Brill, 1977); Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christol 87

414

Commentary

the angels.”91 Older tradition tends to have four or seven archangels, of which Michael is always a member.92 The HB/OT names Michael three times—Dan 10:13, which introduces him as “one of the chief princes” (LXX, Theod.: εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων τῶν πρώτων), 21; and 12:1, which calls him “the great prince” (Theod.: ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας) in charge of God’s people.93 He is then in Jewish lore Israel’s angelic patron.94 Some, however, seemingly disputed this (cf. Jub. 15:32; Ecclus 17:17). He fights on behalf of Israel, and later texts reiterate his status as a warrior.95 This lines up with his other common title, ἀρχιστράτηγος, “commander-in-chief.”96 Its origin probably lies in the identification of Michael with the sword-bearing “commander of the army of the Lord” in Josh 5:13–15.97 Traditional Christian iconography depicts him with a sword in his right hand, and popular tradition came to think of him as a healer, which perhaps grew partly out of Jewish magical invocations of his name.98 In 1 En. 40:2–9 and 71, Michael is one of the angels around the throne (cf. Exod. Rab. 18:5), and often he is depicted as an intercessor and/or heavenly High Priest.99 If 4 Baruch presumes this tradition, in 9:5 the earthly ogy, 126–31; Hannah, Michael; Erik W. Larson, “Michael,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols., ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:546–48; Michael Mach, “Michael,” in DDD, 1299–1300. “Archangel” is his usual title in Greek iconographic tradition.  91 Cf. Heb. T. Naph. 8:4; b. Yoma 37a.  92 1 En. 9–10; 20; 40:9; 87:2; 1QM 9:14–16; Sib. Or. 2:214–15; Ep. Apost. 13; 3 En. 17:1 (Schäfer, Synopse 21 = 857); etc.; cf. Ap. John 17:29–32; Ps.-Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ed. Budge, fol. 12b.  93 Cf. b. H ag. 12b; b. Menah. 110a. ˙ ˙  94 Cf. 1 En. 20:5; T. Mos. 10:2 [?]; b. Yoma 77a; Tg. Ps.-Jn. Deut. 32:9; Tg. Cant. 8:9; cf. Ps.-Clem. Rec. 2.42.  95 See e.  g. 1QM 9:15 (his name is written on a tower shield); 17:6–8 (here Michael is seemingly “the prince of light”). Note also 4Q285 frag. 6; 1 En. 90:14; Rev 12:7; b. Sanh. 26a-b; Tg. Ps.-Jn. Gen. 38:25–26 and Deut 34:3.  96 E.   g. Jos. Asen. 14:7 v.  l.; T. Abr. RecLng. passim; 2 En. 22:6 J; 33:10; Jer. Apocr. 36:1; Gk. 3 Bar. 11:4, 6, 7, 8; 13:3; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:24; T. Isaac 14:7; Apoc. BMV 23; Gos. Barth. 4:29; PGM 13:930; Theodosius, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, pp. 21.15, 22.26, 23.3, 47.26; Eustathius, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, p. 94.17.  97 Cf. Origen, Sel. Josh. PG 12.821D; Aphraates, Dem. 14; Ps.-Caesar of Nazianzus, Dial. 1.44.  98 See Naveh and Shaked, Spells, 57 (amulet 18), 106 (amulet 31), 130 (bowl 22), 142 (bowl 27).  99 14:6, 14; 1 En. 9; 20:5; 4 Ezra 7:106; Apoc. Abr. 10:17; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9:22–23 v.  l.; 2 En. 33:10; 3 Bar. 11–16; Vis. Paul 42; Apoc. Sed. 14:1; Severus, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, p. 65; Eustathius, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, pp. 97, 100;

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

415

high priest mediates on the heavenly high priest. 1 En. 40:9 calls Michael “merciful and forbearing.” The preface to Gk LAE has him teaching Moses while Pesiq. Rab. 21:9 and 11 have him, along with his retinue and Gabriel and his retinue, attending the giving of Torah on Sinai. Nothing in 4 Baruch suggests identifying him with Melchizedek, although the DSS seemingly do so (see on 4:1), or with Jesus Christ, although the Shepherd of Hermas appears to make this equation.100 Although Michael first appears here in 4 Baruch, readers may identify him with “the great angel” of 4:1 and/or the guiding angel of 6:1 and/or the “angel of the Lord” in 6:11 and/or the “righteous angel” in 8:9. Our text, however, offers no clear-cut support for any of these identifications or for equating any of these angels with each other. Yet one may here distinguish between an earlier Jewish text and later Christian editions. If the mention of Michael in 9:5 comes from a Christian hand, the Jewish 4 Baruch may not have named him. So the question of the identification of earlier angels with Michael would have arisen, if at all, only for those hearing a Christian version of our book. Michael is not just an archangel but ὁ ἀρχάγγελος τῆς δικαιοσύνης.101 Although the precise title may be due to the Christian editor, comparable phrases appear in 6:6 and 8:9 and elsewhere in both Jewish and Christian sources: 4Q287 frag. 2:13 (‫ ;)מלאכי צדקכה‬4Q403 frag. 1 1:38 (‫;)רוחות צדק‬ 6Q18 frag. 5 (‫ ;)מלאכי צדץ‬1 En. 71:3 (the archangel Michael reveals “all the secrets of righteousness”); T. Abr. RecLng. 13:10 (“Dokiel the archangel, the just [ὁ δίκαοις] weigher”), 13 (ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄγγελος); Gos. Thom. 13 (Peter calls Jesus “a righteous angel”); Herm. Man. 36:3 (ὁ … τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄγγελος; cf. v. 10); Sim. 6:3:2 (τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν δικαίων); Origen, Cels. 8.60 (ἁγίων ἀγγέλων καὶ δικαίων).102 Michael’s function is unclear. He opens the gates to the righteous, until he causes them—presumably all of them—to enter: ὁ ἀνοίγων τὰς

b. Hag. 12b; b. Menah. 110a; Exod. Rab. 18:5 (this credits Michael with composing ˙ ˙ the intercessory Psalm 85). Michael may also be the intercessor in T. Levi 5:5 and T. Dan. 6:1, although he is not there named. b. ̔Abod. Zar. 42b, which rejects offerings to him, assumes his role as intercessor; cf. y. Ber. 13a (9:1). 100 See Hannah, Michael, 186–92. 101 Ἀρχάγγελος: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 38x; Philo: 3x; NT: 2x; Josephus: 0x; δικαιοσύνη: see on 6:6. 102 Cf. also the title of the famous leader of the Qumran sectarians, the ‫( מורה צדק‬which seems to mean “righteous teacher,” not “teacher of righteousness”).

416

Commentary

πύλας τοῖς δικαίοις, ἕως ἂν εἰσενέγκῃ τοὺς δικαίους.103 Three interpretations are possible. First, this could be a reversal of the similarly worded 1:8 (εἰσελθεῖν εἰς … ἀνοίξω τὰς πύλας αὐτῆς) and 4:1 (εἰσέλθατε … ἠνεῴχθη ὑμῖν ἡ πύλη). If God, through “the great angel,” earlier opened the gates of Jerusalem so that the Babylonians could enter and destroy it, so here Michael, as the instrument of God, opens the gates so that the righteous exiles may return to their city; cf. Isa 26:2 (“open the gates [of Jerusalem], so that the righteous nation that keeps faith may enter in”). A second possibility is to think of Michael as gathering in the scattered tribes of the diaspora. Yet while this hope is very well-attested,104 Michael does not otherwise lead the returning exiles. A third, and probably the best option, is to think of Michael opening the gates to heaven105 or to the upper Jerusalem (see 5:34) and escorting the righteous through them. One is inclined to this reading—which takes ἕως ἄν to envisage not a point in time but an extended process—because the notion of Michael as psychopompos was well-known to both Jews and Christians.106 In this case one may compare 3 Bar. 11:2, where Michael holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven; T. Levi 5:1, where an unnamed angel opens the gates of heaven; 3 En. 18:18 (Schäfer, Synopse 26 = 862), where ̔Anapi̓el YHWH the prince keeps the keys of the palaces of the heaven of Arabot; and 48 C 3 (Schäfer, Synopse 72), where Metatron has the keys to the treasure chamber of heav-

103 104

Ἀνοίγω: 3x: 1:8; 4:1; 9:5, always with πύλη; πύλη: 3x: 1:8; 4:1; 9:5; δικαίος: see on 5:30; ἕως ἄν: see on 2:3; εἰσφέρω: 1x.

See the texts cited in ns. 118 and 119 in the commentary on 3:8. the gate(s) of heaven—an ancient idea (see Edward Brovarski, “The Doors of Heaven,” Orientalia 46 (1977), 107–115; Wolfgang Heimpel, “The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts,” JCS 38 (1986), 127–51) which envisages heaven as being like a walled city—see Gen 28:17; 4Q213a frag. 1 2.18; 4Q204 6:4; Gk. frag. 1 En. 9:2, 10; 1 Enoch 72–82; 3 Macc 6:18; Rev 4:1 (here it is a θύρα, a door rather than gate); T. Levi 5:1; 18:10; T. Abr. RecLng. 10:15; 3 Bar. 6:13; 11:2–5; 15:1 (cf. the “doors” of 2:2; 3:1; 14:1; 17:1); 2 Enoch 13–14; Apoc. Zeph. 3:6, 9; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.23; Vis. Paul 19; Acts Pilate 19, 25; Vis. Ezra 8; Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 11.23; also 1 Enoch 34–36 (multiple gates); 76; 4 Ezra 3:19 (four gates). Many Egyptian texts envision the ka or soul ascending through the doors or gates of heaven (e.  g. CT 44, 492). 106 Cf. 1 Enoch 71; Gk. LAE 37:4–6; T. Abr. RecLng. 20; Jude 9; 2 En. 72 J; 4 Bar. 9:5; Vis. Paul 25; T. Isaac 2:1; T. Jacob 1:6; 5:13; Hist. Jos. Carp. 13, 23; Severus, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, p. 80; Eustathius, Encom. on Michael, ed. Budge, p. 107; Serapion, Life of John trans. Mingana, p. 447; Deut. Rab. 11:10. 105 For

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

417

en.107 Note also the Martyrdom of Apa Epima 6, where a man about to die prays to Jesus: “Do not shut the gates of righteousness since I am coming to you.” Here “the gates of righteousness” have become the entrance to heaven.108 Whatever the right interpretation may be, given that Jeremiah’s prayer borrows a refrain from Psalm 119 (see above), and given that Psalms 118 and 119 were both “Hallel psalms” read together in Jewish circles (after the Passover meal) and also (from at least the fourth century on) often read together “in course” in Christian services, one suspects that Ps 118:19–20 (“Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may enter through them … This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it”) has influenced the formulation of our text. 9:6. Although the last line of Jeremiah’s prayer opens with παρακαλῶ σε (see on 1:4), which echoes vv. 3 and 4 (q.  v.), no further petition follows. Perhaps the imperative is retrospective: “(For all this) I pray.” Or perhaps some words have dropped out. The following address, Κύριε παντοκράτωρ πάσης κτίσεως,109 may be unique to our book, although the use of other divine titles + πάσης κτίσεως occurs elsewhere.110 4 Baruch’s expression merges the very common Κύριε παντοκράτωρ with the very rare Κύριε πάσης κτίσεως.111 In the light of both v. 13 and general ecclesiastical usage, Christian readers or hearers would probably have identified the Pantokrator of this verse with Jesus Christ.112

107 Note

also Matt 16:19, where Peter is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For additional texts featuring heavenly gate-keepers see Kulik, 3 Baruch, 332–33. 108 As also in Hippolytus, Haer. 5.21. Given the plural, “gates,” perhaps multiple heavens are envisaged; cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7–11; T. Levi 2:6–3:10; 2 En. 3–37; 3 Baruch. If so, one might envision post-mortem ascent through spheres or levels as in certain gnostic texts or the Eastern Orthodox tradition of passing through aerial toll booths with angelic assistance. 109 Κύριος: see on 1:4; παντοκράτωρ: see on 1:5; κτίσις: 1x. 110 E.  g. Jdt 9:12; 3 Macc 2:2; 1 Clem. 59:3; Acts John 13; Theophilus, Autol. 3.15. 111 The latter occurs in Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. γ 3:26–29; rec. ε 39:5. 112 Cf. Lampe, s.  v., παντοκράτωρ, B2. One could, however, object that prayer to Christ was sufficiently rare as to make this unlikely. Against this see the essays in Part I of Bryan D. Spinks, ed., The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008); also Susan E. Myer, “Praying to Jesus in the Acts of Thomas,” in Portraits of Jesus: Studies in Christology, ed. Susan E. Myers (WUNT 2/321; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 261–85.

418

Commentary

In accord with the Hellenistic tendency to characterize God with alpha-privatives and negative circumlocutions,113 Jeremiah adds that God—or Jesus, if that equation is presupposed—is both unbegotten and incomprehensible: ὁ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀπερινόητος.114 While ἀγέννητος—often confused with ἀγένητος or regarded as its near synonym, although their difference was important for the Arian con-

Epicurus apud Diogenes Laertius 10.139 (God is ἄφθαρτος, has no trouble, brings no trouble upon others, is exempt from anger and partiality); Lactantius, De ira dei 4 (summarizing Epicurus); Albinus, Did. 10.3 (God is ἄρρητος, αὐτοτελής, ἀπροσδεής); Philo, Cherub. 51 (God is ἀγένητος, ἄφθαρτος, ἄτρεπτος), 86 (God is ἄλυπος, ἄφοβος, ἀκοινώνητος κακῶν); Mut 15 (ἄρρητον, ἀπερινόητον, ἀκατάληπτον); Abr. 202 (God is ἄλυπος, ἄφοβος, παντὸς πάθους ἀμέτοχος); Plutarch, Comp. Arist. Cat. 4.2 (God is wholly ἀπροσδεής; so too 1 Clem. 52:1); Alexander of Ephesus in Rhetores Graeci ed. Spengel, 3.4 (God is ἀγέννητος, ἀνώλεθρος); Corpus Herm. frag. 30 ed. Nock and Festugière, 4.135 (the logos is ἀναυξής, ἀμείωτος, ἀμετάβλητος, ἄφθαρτος); Josephus, C. Ap. 2.167 (ἀγένητον, ἀνάλλοίωτον, ἄγνωστον); Apoc. Abr. 17:8 (the Slavonic list presumably translates a list of alpha-privatives: “incorruptible, unsullied, unborn, immaculate, immortal … without mother, without father, without birth”); Apos. Con. 7:35:9 (God is ἀόρατος, ἀνενδεής, ἀκάματος, ἀπερίγραφος, ἀπρόσιτος, ἀμετανάστευτος; his knowledge is ἄναρχος; his truth ἀναλλοίωτος; his work ἀμεσίτευτον; his dominion ἀνεπιβούλευτον; his monarchy ἀδιάδοχος; his kingdom ἀτελεύτητος; his strength ἀνανταγώνιστος); Ap. John 3 (God is without lack, illimitable, unsearchable, immeasurable, invisible, ineffable, immaculate, imperishable); Zostrianos passim; Eugnostos the Blessed 371–72 (God is ineffable, unbegotten, immortal, nameless, infinite, incomprehensible, imperishable, faultless, unknowable, immeasurable; in the retroversion into Greek of Demetrios Trakatellis, The Transcendent God of Eugnostos (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1991), 161–63, the relevant Coptic words are translated as follows: ἄρρητος, ἀθάνατος, ἀγέννητος, ἀνωνόμαστος, ἀπέραντος, ἀκατάληπτος, ἄφθαρτος, ἀναλλοιώτως, ἄμωμος, ἀνεννόητος, ἀμέτρητος, ἀνίχνευτος); Theophilus, Autol. 1.3.1 (God is ἄρρητος, ἀνέκφραστος; his glory is ἀχώρητος; his greatness ἀκατάληπτος; his height ἀπερινόητος; his strength ἀσύγκριτος; his goodness ἀμίμητος; his kindness ἀνεκδιήγητος); Acts John 107 (God is ἀμίαντος, ἄυλος, ἀμετάβολος, ἄδολος, ἀόργητος). Note also these NT examples: ἀόρατος (Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27); ἄφθαρτος (Rom 1:23; 1 Tim 1:17); ἀψευδής (Tit 1:2); ἀπείραστος κακῶν (Jas 1:13). For discussion of early apophatism see A.-J. Festugière, La révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste IV (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1954); C.  L. Hancock, “Negative Theology in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism,” in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, ed. R.  T. Wallis and J. Bregman (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1992), 167–84. 114 Ἀγέννητος: 1x LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; ἀπερινόητος: 1x; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 2x (both of God); NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x. 113 Cf.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

419

troversy—occurs in secular sources,115 it is characteristic of Christian texts.116 Despite John 1:18 (μονογενὴς Θεός), it can refer to Jesus.117 As for the rarer ἀπερινόητος, it too, although attested in non-Christian sources,118 is characteristic of ecclesial texts, where it refers both to God and the Son of God.119 The combination of the two words, which appear together in lists of divine attributes in Hippolytus, Haer. 6.29, and Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, Trin. PG 77.1120, are likely from a Christian hand.120 All or every judgment has been hidden before coming to pass: ᾧ πᾶσα κρίσις κέκρυπται ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ τοῦ ταῦτα γενέσθαι.121 The sense may be general: God or Christ knows all things before they come to pass; cf. Isa 42:9 (“before they spring forth I tell you of them”); Ecclus 48:25 (God through Isaiah revealed “the hidden things before they came to pass”). Yet it is also possible that the last judgment, which will bring all hidden things to light, is in view; cf. Matt 10:26 = Luke 12:2 (“Nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known”); 1 Cor 4:5 (“Do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden”). A Christological reading would be 115

E.  g. Sophocles, Trach. 61; Oed. col. 973; Plutarch, Pelop. 16.8; Mor. 153C, 359CD, 718A; Galen, Elem. ex Hippocr. libri ii ed. Kühn, 1:470. See further Delling, Lehre, 37–38. 116 Lampe, s.   v. The word occurs as a v.  l. in Josephus, C. Ap. 2.167. By contrast, ἀγένητος is well-attested in Philo and Josephus; see Delling, Lehre, 37. Schaller, Paralipomena, 750, suggests that the Jewish original had ἀγένητος and that a later Christian hand turned this into ἀγέννητος. Cf. Delling, Lehre, 37. 117 E.  g. Ign. Eph. 7:2; Acts Phil. 141; Basil of Seleucia, Or. 25:4. Other texts, however, dissociate the term from the Son: Ps.-Athanasius, Trin. 1.18; etc. 118 E.  g.Diogenes Laertius 10.46; Philo, Fug. 141; Mut. nom. 15; PGM 4:1139. Polybius 4.57.10 uses the related ἀπερινοήτως. 119 Of God: Theophilus, Autol. 1.3.1; Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 21; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 26.39. Of the Son: Diogn. 7:2; Acts John 77; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 2:2. 120 Cf. also Tri. Trac. 59:32–33. Contrast Delling, Lehre, 36–39; Herzer, 4 Baruch, 147– 48. Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 2677, citing Justin, 1 Apol. 14.1–2; Dial. 5.1, 4–6; and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.5.4, observes that “these adjectives describing God are unusual in Jewish writings” and offers that “they could be a Christian interpolation.” 121 Κρίσις: 1x; κρύπτω: 1x; cf. Eph 3:9 (ἀποκεκρυμμένου … ἐν τῷ θεῷ); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John ed. Pusey 3:116 (κέκρυπται γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ μυστήριον); Maximus the Confessor, Quaest. et dub. 30 (πᾶσα γὰρ πρᾶξις καὶ γνῶσις ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνκέκρυπται); also Lucian, Abdic. 17 (πρὸ τούτου γενέσθαι); Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.2 (πρὸ τούτων γεγενῆσθαι); Eusebius, Comm. Ps. PG 23.1128 (πρὸ τοῦ ταῦθ’ … γενέσθαι); Nicolaus Hydruntius, Disput. c. Jud. ed. Chronz, p. 163 (πρὸ τοῦ ταῦτα γενέσθαι).

420

Commentary

consistent with John 5:22: all judgment (τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν) has been given to the Son.122 Delling judges ᾧ … ἐν αὐτῷ to be Semitic and compares 2 Esdr 19:12 (ᾗ πορεύσονται ἐν αὐτῇ).123 It is equally true, however, that the alpha privatives (ἀγέννητος, ἀπερινόητος) and the substantivized infinitive (πρὸ τοῦ ταῦτα γενέσθαι) are characteristic of Greek. As throughout 4 Baruch, then, the Semitic element is present yet, against Delling, the language does not consistently seem to be translation Greek. 9:7. The story now takes a strange turn. Jeremiah’s prayer is finished: ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Ἰερεμίου. The expression appears elsewhere in 4 Baruch only in 9:19 and so may come from the same Christian hand as the latter. While standing, together with his two companions (last mentioned in 8:5), in the place where he has offered sacrifice—the same place he stood in 3:14 (cf. 3:8)—Jeremiah becomes as though dead: ἱσταμένου ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ μετὰ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ, ἐγένετο ὡς εἷς τῶν παραδιδόντων τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ.124 “Handing over his soul”—the idiom goes back to the Hebrew ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ נפש‬125—assumes a dualistic anthropology visible elsewhere in 4 Baruch126 and underlines the voluntary nature of what happens to Jeremiah: he is the agent. If v. 7 were isolated, one would envisage Jeremiah standing, perhaps as in a trance.127 Verse 9, however, will make it clear that he has fallen to the ground. Because a Christian hand is evident throughout ch. 9, it is worth noting that, although παρεδόθη εἰς θάνατον ἡ ψυχὴ αὐ-

122

Cf. Matt 25:31–46. For Herzer’s interpretation—“the statement concerning the hiddenness of the creation refers to the coming salvation that is to be revealed, which is best understood in this context as a new creation or a new beginning”—see pp. 396–97. 123 Delling, Lehre, 38–39. Cf. also Lev 21:19, 21 and Schaller, Paralipomena, 750, citing Deut 32:20 and, from the NT, Rev 3:8; 7:2, 9; 13:8; 20:8. 124 Ἵστημι: see on 3:2; θυσιαστηρίον: see on 2:10; cf. 3 Βασ 13:1 (εἱστήκει ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον); 2 Chr 5:12; Luke 1:11; Rev 8:3 (ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου); Prot. Jas. 17 (ἕστηκας ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον); γίγνομαι: see on 1:1; ὡς εἷς τῶν: the expression occurs in LXX Judg 16:7, 11, 13; 17:11; 2 Βασ 13:13; Ps 81:7; T. Jos. 17:8; Mark 6:15; παραδίδωμι: 11x; ψυχή: see on 5:32; cf. the ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ of vv. 11 and 13. 125 Cf. Exod 12:23; Ps 74:19; Mek. Pisha 1:106; Sifre Deut. 306; t. Ber. 6:7; etc. ˙ 126 See on 6:17. Against Riaud, Paralipomènes, 199, it is not at all clear that the presentation of death in 9:7 is “totally different” than what 4 Baruch otherwise implies. 127 Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174v uses ἔκστασις here, the word used of Abimelech in ch. 5.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

421

τοῦ appears in LXX Isa 53:12,128 παραδίδωμι + ψυχή with reference to pious individuals being martyred or dying voluntarily is common in Christian texts.129 9:8. Faced by an apparently lifeless companion, Baruch and Abimelech are nonplussed. Not knowing what to do, they weep: ἔμειναν … κλαίοντες.130 They also loudly voice their distress by pronouncing a woe upon themselves: κράζοντες μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ὅτι, Οὐαὶ ἡμῖν ὅτι.131 The introductory οὐαὶ ἡμῖν ὅτι (=  ‫ )אוי לנו כי‬occurs in Jer 4:13; 6:4 and so is appropriate here.132 Baruch and Abimelech recall two titles for Jeremiah, who seems to have left them and gone away: κατέλιπεν ἡμᾶς … καὶ ἀπῆλθεν.133 The first title is affectionate and personal: ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰερεμίας.134 The second title is public and official: ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ.135 Note the close parallel with 2:2: 9:8  Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ … καὶ κράζοντες μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ὅτι … ὁ πατὴρ

ἡμῶν Ἰερεμίας

2:2  Βαρούχ …          ἔκραξε φωνῇ μεγάλῇ …            πάτερ

      Ἰερεμία

128 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 149, thinks there may be an allusion to Isa 53:12. Cf. Herm. Sim. 9:28:2; Mart. sanct. Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae 37; Eusebius, H.  E. 8.6.4; Apos. Con. 6:12:15; Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab. ed. Schwartz, p. 183; etc.; also Acts 15:26. Presumably Matt 20:28 = Mark 10:45 encouraged this development; cf. also John 19:30. 130 Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. John PG 59:360: μένωμεν ἡμεῖς κλαίοντες. Μένω: see on 2:10 (Jeremiah and Baruch ἔμειναν … κλαίοντες); κλαίω: see on 2:5. On weeping and mourning in 4 Baruch see the Introduction, pp. 19–21. 131 κράζοντες κτλ.: the common expression is characteristic of our book; see on 2:2; οὐαί: 1x. 132 Cf. also 1 Sam 4:7; 4Q179 frag. 1 2:1; Rev 16:15; 2 Clem. 17:5; Chrysostom, Hom. John PG 59:406; Ps.-Ephraem, Λόγος εἰς μάταιον βίον, καὶ περὶ μετανοίας ed. Phrantzoles, 4:408; Barsanuphius and John, Ep. 546; etc. 133 Καταλείπω: see on 3:12; ἀπέρχομαι: 17x. Cf. LXX 1 Βασ 2:11 (κατέλιπον … καὶ ἀπῆλθον); Jer 9:1 (καταλείψω … καὶ ἀπελεύσομαι); 1 Macc 10:13 (κατέλιπεν … καὶ ἀπῆλθεν); Acts Thom. 10 (κατέλιπεν … καὶ ἀπῆλθεν). For ἀπέρχομαι as a euphemism for death see Euripides, Alc. 379; Sophocles, Ant. 818; Diogenes Laertius 3.6; John 16:7; Eusebius, Vit. Const. 2.36; etc. 134 See on 2:2; ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν + proper name is well-attested; cf. Plutarch, Mor. 579D; Apollonius, Ep. 72; 1 Macc 16:20; 4 Macc 7:1; 16:20; T. Levi 14:2; T. Iss. 5:6; John 4:12; 1 Clem. 4:8; 31:2; etc. 135 Ἱερεύς: 2x: 5:18; 9:9; cf. LXX Gen 14:18; 1 Sam 14:3. 129

422

Commentary

Either 9:8 comes from the same hand as 2:2, or a later author has assimilated his own contribution to the rest of the book. Jeremiah has already been called a priest in 7:14 and he has acted as one in 9:2. Indeed, 4 Baruch thinks of him as the great High Priest; see p. 183. 9:9. The scene now enlarges to include “all the people.” Having heard the loud weeping of Baruch and Abimelech, they run—as they will do again in 9:31, although there for a very different purpose—to see what has happened: ἤκουσε δὲ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς τοῦ κλαυθμοῦ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔδραμον ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς πάντες.136 Once there, they see the prone prophet: εἶδον Ἰερεμίαν ἀνακείμενον χαμαί.137 Although ἀνάκειμαι + χαμαί seems to be without parallel, κεῖμαι + χαμαί was common enough.138 The prophet appears to be dead: ὥσπερ τεθνηκότα.139 One might expect ὥσπερ νέκρος or ὥς τεθνηκότα or ὥς νέκρος or ὥσπερεὶ τεθνηκότα;140 but ὥσπερ + θνῄσκω is also attested.141 “As though dead” was traditional language for the human response to an angelophany.142 Here, however, as the sequel makes clear, it is associated with a vision of the heavenly Christ (cf. v. 18: “I have seen”); so Jeremiah is in an ecstatic state or trance.143 In the background perhaps is the notion that, to see God, means death (cf. Exod 20:19; 33:20), or maybe the real-life knowledge that those in altered states of consciousness sometimes appear to be dead,144 or the Greek literary

136

Πᾶς ὁ λαός: see on 5:18; ἀκούω: 20x; κλαυθμός: 3x: 7:26; 9:9 bis; τρέχω: 2x: 9:9,

137

Εἶδον: 24x, 7x in ch. 9: vv. 9, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31; ἀνάκειμαι: 1x; χαμαί: 1x.

31.

138

Euripides, frag. 12:248; Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. 20.4; Acts Thom. 135; etc.

Ὥσπερ: 2x: 7:24; 9:9; θνῄσκω: 2x: 7:17 (also τεθνηκότα); 9:9. 140 Ὣσπερ νέκρος: Plutarch, Mor. 973F (ὥσπερ νεκρὸς ἔκειτο); Ps.-Macarius Magn., Serm. 64 35.1; etc. Ὥς τεθνηκότα: Plutarch, Cic. 33.4 (ὥς τεθνηκότα κείμενον); Origen, Sel. Ezek. PG 13.800; etc. Ὥς νέκρος: LXX Isa 14:19; Rev 1:17; T. Job 30:1 (εἰς τὴν γήν … ὥς νεκρούς); T. Abr. RecLng. 9:1 (εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος τῆς γῆς ὡς νεκρός); etc. Ὥσπερεὶ τεθνηκότα: Anaxandrides, frag. 1; Athenaeus, Deipn. 11.10; etc. 139

141

E.  g. Plutarch, Demetr. 51; Aristophanes, Nubes 838. Cf. Matt 28:4; 4 Ezra 10:30; T. Abr. RecLng. 9:1. 143 Cf. Dan 8:18 (“as he was speaking to me, I fell into a trance, face to the ground”); Mart. Ascen. Isa. 6:10–12 (“He became silent, and his mind was taken up from him, and he did not see the men who were standing before him. His eyes indeed were open, but his mouth was silent, and the mind in his body was taken up from him. But his breath was still in him, for he was seeing a vision”). 144 See Ernst Arbman, Ecstasy, or Religious Trance, in the Experience of the Ecstatics and from the Psychological Point of View, 3 vols. (Stockholm: Svenska Bokförlaget, 1963–1970), esp. 2:1–274. 142

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

423

tradition—with its parallel in modern reports of so-called near death experiences—of people seemingly dead who return and report visiting another world.145 Or maybe, given that 4 Baruch otherwise betrays a knowledge of the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,146 4 Baruch borrows the latter’s characterization of Isaiah when he had his heavenly vision: he was “as though dead” (6:17). Whatever the truth, although Jeremiah has come near death, God spares him so that he can declare the vision; cf. Rev 1:17, where the seer, upon seeing the risen, glorified Christ, falls down ὥς νέκρος, but is commissioned to communicate what he has seen.147 Thinking Jeremiah gone for good, the people, who clearly at this point feel deep affection for him—this is the foil for their fury in vv. 19–21— grieve greatly: διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ἔκλαυσαν κλαυθμὸν πικρόν.148 Their actions are all conventional in the context of mourning and are found together often.149 The language recalls earlier phrases and helps unite the book stylistically: 9:9 διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν   ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν     ἔκλαυσαν κλαυθμὸν πικρόν 2:1 διέρρηξεν  τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ   ἐπέθηκεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ 2:2 τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ διερρωγότα 2:3     χοῦν ἔπασσεν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ 2:8 διέρρηξε καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ

145

So most famously the story of Er the Pamphylian in Plato, Resp. 614B-621D (10:13– 16). Note also Plutarch, Mor. 563B-68B; Pliny, N.  H. 7.52(53). 146 See the Introduction, pp. 55–56. 147 It is further possible that Apoc. Zeph. 1 (Akhmimic) refers to the death-like trance of the seer; but the text is fragmentary and the meaning uncertain. 148 Διέρρηξαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν: see on 2:1; ἐπέθηκαν … κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν: see on 2:1; κλαίω: see on 2:5; κλαυθμός: 3x: 7:26 (ἔκλαιον δισσὸν κλαυθμόν), 9:9 bis; πικρός: 1x. Cf. LXX Judg 21:2 (ἔκλαυσαν καλυθμὸν μέγαν); 2 Βασ 13:36 (ἔκαλυσαν κλαυθμὸν μέγαν σφόδρα); Isa 22:4 (πικρῶς κλαύσομαι); 33:7 (πικρῶς κλαίοντες); 4Q383 frag. 1 (“I, Jeremiah, weep bitterly [‫ ;)”]בכו אבכה‬T. Job 31:8 (κλαύσας κλαυθμὸν μέγαν); 39:4 (κλαύσαντες κλαυθμὸν μέγαν); Jos. Asen. 9:2 (ἔκλαυσε κλαυθμῷ μεγάλῳ καὶ πικρῷ); 10:15 (ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς … ἔκλαυσε κλαυθμῷ μεγάλῳ καὶ πικρῷ); Matt 26:75 = Luke 22:62 (ἔκλαυσε πικρῶς); Origen, Frag. Lam. frags. 6 (κλαῦσαι κλαυθμόν), 10 (κλαυθμὸν κλαύσασι); etc. 149 Cf. Josh 7:6; Job 2:12 (“they raised their voices and wept; and they rent their robes and sprinkled dust upon their heads”); Ezek 27:30; 1 Macc 11:71; Rev 18:19; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:10 (ἔσχισεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς καὶ ἔβαλεν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ); etc.

424

Commentary

4:6   ἐπέθηκε χοῦν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ     ἔκλαυσε 7:20     ἔκλαυσαν   ἐπέθηκαν χοῦν ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν 7:26     ἔκλαιον δισσὸν κλαυθμόν

Note the Semitic-like parataxis: καὶ ἔδραμον … καὶ εἶδον … καὶ διέρρηξαν … καὶ ἐπέθηκαν … καὶ ἔκλαυσαν. If all the people now mourn Jeremiah because they think him dead, they shall soon enough, once they hear his message about God’s Son, stone him. Christian readers or hearers of 4 Baruch might have thought of the crowds in the passion narrative (cf. the πᾶς ὁ λαός of Matt 27:25), who first welcome Jesus with enthusiasm and then turn against him and call for his death. 9:10. After an unspecified period of mourning, the people prepare to bury Jeremiah: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἡτοίμασαν ἑαυτοὺς ἵνα κηδεύσωσιν αὐτόν.150 Their actions—the details of which remain unspecified—reveal that the prophet’s body appears to be lifeless. Readers can imagine that someone has investigated and concluded that he really is dead (cf. Sem. 1). Although one might suppose that vv. 10–12 refer only to Baruch and Abimelech, the περικύκλῳ of v. 12 would perhaps be awkward with reference to two people alone, and when, in v. 13, Jeremiah stands up, he is in the midst of a crowd (ἐν μέσῳ πάντων). 9:11. Preparations for burial are now interrupted by an authoritative, commanding voice: καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἦλθε λέγουσα;151 cf. 3:2 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγένετο φωνή); 3 Βασ 19:13 (καὶ ἰδού … φωνὴ καὶ εἶπεν); Ezek 1:25 (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνή for ‫ ;)ויהי־קול‬43:6 (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνή); Matt 3:17 (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνή … λέγουσα); 17:5 (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνή … λέγουσα); John 12:28 (ἦλθεν … φωνή); Gk. 2 Bar. 13:1 (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐξῆλθεν … καὶ εἶπε); 3 Bar 11:5 (καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν φωνή); Prot. Jas. 11:1 (καὶ ἰδού … φωνὴ λέγουσα), 20:4 v.  l. (καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ λέγουσα). This is the divine voice, which speaks from heaven in the HB/OT,152 in extra-canonical Jewish litRev 8:6 (ἡτοίμασαν αὐτοὺς ἵνα; v.  l.: ἡτοίμασαν ἑαυτοὺς ἵνα); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 1–18 3.15 (ἑτοιμάζεις ἑαυτὸν ἵνα). Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα: see on 3:8; ἑτοιμάζω: 2x: 6:3 (ἑτοίμασον σεαυτήν); 9:10; κηδεύω: 3x: 9:10, 11, 12; LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 15x; Philo: 4x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 19x. Κηδεύω + αὐτόν appears also in 9:12; cf. Gk. LAE 40:2, 3; Acts Thom. 24; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 7:15; Iamblichus, V. Pyth. 30.184. 151 Καὶ ἰδού: see on 3:2; φωνή: 14x, 6x in ch. 9: vv. 3, 8, 11, 12, 13 bis. 152 Gen 21:17; 22:11, 15; Exod 19:19; Deut 4:10–12; 1 Kgs 19:13; Dan 4:31. 150 Cf.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

425

erature,153 and in Christian texts.154 Its descendant is the bat qôl of rabbinic literature.155 It is a literary device, the functional equivalent of words from an angel. Here the voice wins immediate obedience, and the people refrain from entombing one who is, despite appearances, still alive: μὴ κηδεύετε τὸν ἔτι ζῶντα.156 The voice explains that Jeremiah’s soul will return: ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πάλιν;157 cf. Ezek 37:10 (“breath came into them”); Rev 11:11 (πνεῦμα ζωῆς … εἰσῆλθεν ἐν αὐτοῖς); Acts Thom. 23 (“while they were putting the grave clothes on him, ἐπεισῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ”); Origen, Comm. John 28.7.51 (τὴν Λαζάρου ψυχὴν εἰσελθοῦσαν εἰς τὸ σῶμα); Epiphanius, Anc. 88:5 (τὰς ψυχὰς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς αὐτὰ τὰ σώματα); Pirqe R. El. 31 (“when the blade touched his neck, the soul of Isaac fled and departed, but when he heard His voice from between the two Cherubim, saying [to Abraham], ‘Lay not your hand upon the boy,’ his soul returned to his body” [‫)]נפשו חזרה לגופו‬. The line, which is as dualistic as 6:17 (“we will depart from the body”); 2 Cor 12:2–3 (“whether in the body or out of the body I do not know”); and Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7:5 (“you [Isaiah] have to return to your body”), anticipates v. 13: εἰσῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ. From the remainder of

153 En.

65:4; Artapanus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.27.1, 36; LAB 53:3–5; T. Abr. RecLng. 10:12; 14:13; Sib. Or. 1:127, 267–68, 275; Josephus, Ant. 13.282; Bell. 6.300; 4 Ezra 14:1; 2 Bar. 13:1; 22:1; Apoc. Abr. 9:1; 10:3; 19:1; 3 En. 16:4 (Schäfer, Synopse 20 = 856). 154 Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 12:18; Acts 10:13; 2 Pet 1:18; Rev 4:1; 10:4; 11:12; 14:13; 18:4; 19:5; Mart. Polyc. 9:1; Ep. Pet. Phil. 8:134:13–14; Acts John 18; Acts Paul 46; Acts Peter (BG) 136:17–137:1; the Apophthegmata Patrum passim. 155 Cf. t. Sotah 13:3–4; y. Mo‘ed Qat 81d (3:1); b. Sotah 48b; b. Sanh. 11a, 94a ˙ ˙ ˙ [‫]יצאה בת קול ואמרה‬, 102a [‫]יצאה בת קול ואמרה‬, 104b [‫ ;]יצאה בת קול ואמרה‬b. B. Mes. 59b; b. Meg. 3a; b. Ta̔an. 24b; etc. See further Str-B 1:125–34. Greco-Roman ˙ parallels include Sophocles, Aj. 15–16; Theopompus, frag. 69; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.1.56.3; 5.16.2–3; 8.56.2–3; Plutarch, Mor. 355E; Is. Os. 12; Aelius Aristides, Ἡρακλῆς 36; Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. α 1.45 (ἦλθεν … φωνήv). 156 Κηδεύω: 3x: 9:10, 11, 12; ζάω: 3x: 6:4; 9:3, 11. Ἔτι ζῶντα was a common idiom; cf. Plutarch, Cic. 10.3; Philo, Legat. 131; Acts Paul, frag. 10; etc. Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 40, is reminded of Luke 24:6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” 157 Ψυχή: see on 5:32; cf. v. 13 and the τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ in v. 7; εἰσέρχομαι: 16x, 10x with εἰς; σῶμα: 3x: 6:17; 9:11, 13; πάλιν: see on 5:13. The present tense for the future here expresses certainty; cf. BDF § 323.

426

Commentary

the narrative it is clear that Jeremiah’s soul has left his entranced body and is with the enthroned Christ in heaven. 9:12. Upon hearing the voice, the people stop what they are doing: καὶ ἀκούσαντες τῆς φωνῆς, οὐκ ἐκήδευσαν αὐτὸν.158 But having received no additional, positive imperative, they are at a loss as to what to do. They do not disperse but remain where they are: ἔμειναν περικύκλῳ τοῦ σκηνώματος αὐτοῦ.159 The word here used for body, σκήνωμα, can refer to a corpse.160 As its primary meaning is “habitation” or “tent,” it connotes that the body can be entered and exited; cf. 6:3 (“he will take you from your σκηνώματος”); 2 Pet 1:13–14 (“as long as I am in this σκηνώματι … the putting off of my σκηνώματος”); Sent. Sext. 320 (“It is arrogant to be vexed by the σκήνωμα of your soul, but it is blessed to be able to put it aside gently when you must”); V. Nicetae Patricii 2:26 (ψυχὴ ἐκ τοῦ σκηνώματος μὲν αὐτῆς ἐξελθοῦσα). The crowd remains around the body for three days: ἡμέρας τρεῖς.161 Although “three days” sometimes designates a short period of time,162 here one thinks rather of the association of three days with death, burial, and related events. The association is known from the NT accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection,163 and it shows up in Jewish and other Christian texts in manifold ways; cf. T. Abr. RecLng. 20:11 (angels tend the body of Abraham in preparation for his burial “until the third day”); T. Job 53:5–7 (the mourners forbid Job from being buried until “after three days”); Rev 11:9, 11 (“For three days and a half members of the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb … But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them”; cf. Apoc. Elijah 4:13–14); Apoc. Zeph 4:7 (angels “spend three days” escorting the ungodly in the air before they cast them into eternal punishment); Lactantius, Div. inst. 7.17.1–8 (an unnamed prophet will be slain, lie unburied, and then rise after the third day); Dorm.

Ἀκούσαντες τῆς φωνῆς: see on v. 8 and 3:8; cf. LXX Gen 3:8; Num 7:89; Deut 5:23–26; 18:16; Ezek 1:28; Acts 9:4; 22:9; 26:14; 2 Pet 1:18; Rev 10:4; 12:10—all with reference to hearing a divine or heavenly voice; κηδεύω: see on v. 10. 159 Μένω: see on 2:10; περίκυκλος: 1x; LXX: 26x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x; σκήνωμα: see on 6:3. 160 As in Gk. LAE 42:6; Eusebius, Mart. Pal. rec. brev. 11.25; V. Pach. 149. 161 Ἡμέρα: see on 4:4; τρεῖς: 2x: 9:12, 13. 162 E.  g. 2 Kgs 20:5, 8; Hos 6:2; LAB 56:7; T. Job 31:2; Acts 25:1; 28:7, 12, 17; Josephus, Ant. 8.408; T. Sol. 20:7. See further J. B. Bauer, “Drei Tage,” Bib 39 (1958), 354–58. 163 Matt 12:40; 27:63; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4; etc. 158

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

427

BMV 48 (the angelic songs after Mary’s death last for three days);164 SS. Davidis, Symeonis et Georgii 9 in Analecta Bollandiana 18 (1899), 219 (the dying David says that he will depart “after the third day”); Sem. 8:1 (people visit graves “until the third day” in order to prevent premature burial, examples of which Semahoth gives). One might think that, in the background of our text, is the folk belief, presupposed by John 11:17, 39; and T. Job 53:7, that the soul of an individual remains near its body for three days after death. According to Gen. Rab. 100:7, “Up to the third day the soul keeps returning to the body, thinking that it will go back in.”165 This was a common conviction in Byzantine Christianity, and it is also attested in Zoroastrian sources.166 The point would then be that, “after three days” (v. 13), Jeremiah’s soul should have moved on, so his return to life is all the more miraculous. However that may be, Christian readers or hearers would surely have thought of Jeremiah as being a prototype for Jesus (cf. Matt 16:14), another rejected prophet who rose “after three days.”167 Jeremiah appears to be dead yet the onlookers have been commanded to do nothing about it. They cannot bury the one who buried his people (7:14). Burial was a religious duty,168 and it typically took place as soon after death as possible.169 Since, however, the divine voice has declared that the prophet’s soul will re-enter his body, the crowd can do nothing more than talk about what has happened while waiting for him to arise: ἀπορῦντες ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ μέλλει ἀναστῆναι.170 Here ἀνίστημι means “stand

164 Cf.

the “Euthymiac History” in John of Damascus, Serm. de dorm. BVM 2 18 ed. Kotter, p. 537. 165 Cf. y. Mo̔ed. Qat. 82b (3:5); Tanh. Yel. Gen. 10:4; Lev. Rab. 18:1. ˙ ˙ 166 E.  g. Hadhokht 2:3–20; Vendidad 19:28; Menog i Khrad 2:114. For discussion see Emil Freistedt, Altchristliche Totengedächtnistage und ihre Beziehung zum Jenseits-Glauben und Totenkultus der Antike (Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und Forschungen 24; Münster: Aschendorff, 1928), 53–72. The liminality of the soul between death and Hades, which involves its delay in moving on, is also part of Greek tradition; see Robert Garland, The Greek Way of Death (Ithaca, N.  Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985), 38–41. Cf. Macrobius, Somn. Scip. 13.10: “ejected souls for a long time however about their bodies.” 167 Cf. Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34. See further below, on v. 13. 168 Cf. Gen 23:3–4; Tob 6:13–15; m. Ber. 3:1; m. Nazir 7:1. See further M. Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 8–15. 169 Cf. Acts 5:6–10; ARN A 35:4; ARN B 39:15; m. Sanh. 6:5; t. Neg. 6:2; Sem. 11.1. 170 Ἀπορέω: 1x; ποῖος: see on 2:2; ὥρα: see on 1:10; μέλλω: 1x; ἀνίστημι: 12x; cf. Justin, Dial. 97 (ἔμελλεν ἀνίστασθαι), 100 (ἀνίστασθαι μέλλων τῇ τρίτῇ ἡμέρᾳ), 107 (ἔμελλεν ἀναστήσεσθαι); Acts John 73 (μέλλεις ἀναστήσειν); Epiphanius, Pan. ed. Holl 1:318 (μέλλειν δὲ ἀνίστασθαι).

428

Commentary

up,” but the informed reader will think of the resurrection of the dead, taught earlier in 6:2–7. 9:13. From this point on, Jeremiah becomes, to recall Ign. Magn. 9:2, one of the prophets discipled to Jesus who “expected him as their teacher through the Spirit.” Cf. idem, Phil. 5:2: “We love the prophets also, because they too pointed to the Gospel in their preaching and set their hope on Him and awaited Him, in whom also having faith they were saved.” Jeremiah’s soul re-enters his body: εἰσῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ.171 This marks the realization of the earlier affirmation of the divine voice: v. 11, prophecy       ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πάλιν v. 13, fulfillment εἰσῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ                   εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ

That the prophet arises “after three days” would almost inevitably have reminded Christian readers or hearers of the resurrection of Jesus, especially as μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας occurs in connection with his resurrection in the NT.172 Having awakened, Jeremiah says nothing about himself. He rather becomes a witness to another: καὶ ἐπῆρε τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ.173 The use of ἐπαίρω + φωνή in Christian sources174 goes back to the LXX’s translation of ‫ נשא‬+ ‫קול‬.175 Jeremiah remains—cf. περικύκλῳ in v. 12—at the center of the people: ἐν μέσῳ πάντων.176 With all attention on him because of the marvel just witnessed, the prophet implores the Jerusalemites to glorify God: δοξάσατε τὸν Θεὸν ἐν μίᾳ φωνῇ; cf. the ‫קול אחד‬ = φωνῇ μιᾷ of Exod 24:3.177 The language is conventional; cf. T. Jos. 8:5 (ἐν ἱλαρᾷ φωνῇ χαίρων ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεόν μου); Rom 15:6 (ἐν ἑνὶ στόματι δοξάζητε τὸν Θεόν); 1 Cor 6:20 (δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν Θεόν); 1 Pet 4:16 (δοξαζέτω

Ψυχή: cf. vv. 7 and 11 and see on 5:32; εἰσῆλθεν … εἰς τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ: see on v. 11. 172 Matt 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34. Μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας: see on v. 12. 173 Ἐπαίρω: see on 5:34; φωνή: 14x, 6x in ch. 9. 174 E.  g. Luke 11:27; Acts 2:14; 14:11; Acts Paul 29; Acts Phil. 14:4. 175 Cf. Judg 2:4; 9:7; 21:2 A; Ruth 1:9, 14; 2 Βασ 13:36; Ps 92:3. 176 Cf. ‫ בתוך כל‬in Jer 40:1; 1QpHab 5:12; 1QH 16:6; 4Q289 frag. 1 5; also Appian, Bell. civ. 1.3.25; 1.4.32; 1.7.59; Origen, Comm. Matt. 13.29. Μέσος: 5x: 1:2; 9:13, 14, 29 (ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ), 30, always in the form, ἐν μέσῳ. 177 Also 2 Chr 5:13; 1QM 8:9–10; 4 Macc 8:29 (πάντες διὰ μιᾶς φωνῆ ὁμοῦ); Acts 19:34 (φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων); Ign. Eph. 4:2; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7:15; 8:18; 9:28. Δοξάσατε τὸν Θεόν: see on 7:16; φωνή: see above. 171

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

429

δὲ τὸν Θεόν); Acts Phil. 122 v.  l. (ὁμοῦ πάντες μιᾷ φωνῇ ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεόν); Hesychius of Jerusalem, Frag. Ps. ad Ps. 9.12 (δοξάσατε τὸν Θεόν); V. Sym. Styl. Jr. 138 (πάντες μιᾷ φωνῇ ἔκλαιον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν Θεόν). There is nothing offensive to the crowd about the call to “glorify God” because there is nothing distinctively Christian about it.178 When, however, the imperative is repeated and a second personal object—τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ179—added, it is a different story. As the immediate sequence makes clear, this son is God’s only Son, Jesus Christ.180 “Christ” is not here “Messiah” but, as already in much of the NT, part of Jesus’ personal name.181 Jesus has four attributes. First, he “awakens us” (ἐξυπνίζοντα ἡμᾶς). This function is particularly appropriate to the context. Not only has Jeremiah just been miraculously awakened (he is included in ἡμᾶς) but, above all, the verb recalls the story of Abimelech sleeping for decades and then being awakened with his fresh basket of figs, a story which features three uses of ἐξυπνίζω (5:1, 5, 26) and which 6:3–7 interprets as testimony to the eschatological resurrection. One is very much reminded of John 11:11, where Jesus’ statement that he will awaken (ἐξυπνίσω) the sleeping Lazarus introduces the large theological declaration that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (11:25–26).182 The metaphor presupposes the common designation of death as sleep.183 Perhaps the interpreter should also keep in mind the possibility that a Christian would have found in ἐξυπνίζοντα

178

Cf. Josh 7:19; Jer 13:16; 1 Esdr 9:8; 4 Macc 1:12; Ps. Sol. 10:7; 4Q301 frag. 3 6; T. Jud. 25:5; etc. 179 The title recurs in vv. 19 and 20 (τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ); cf. Origen, Cels. 6.1 (Θεοῦ ἢ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ); Philoc. 15.1 (Θεοῦ ἢ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ); Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. 3.2.132 (Θεῷ καὶ υἱῷ Θεοῦ). 180 Ἰησοῦς: 1x; Χριστός: 2x: 9:13, 17. 181 For the pairing of God closely with Jesus Christ see Rom 1:7 (“God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”); Eph 6:23 (“God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”); Jas 1:1 (“of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”); 2 Pet 1:2 (“of God and of Jesus our Lord”); Rev 21:22 (“the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb”); etc. 182 For other texts in which ἐξυπνίζω (see on 5:1) has eschatological content see LXX Job 14:12; Isa 26:19 Aq. Symm.; T. Jud. 25:4; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.88; Basil, Ep. 46.5; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. Isa. 7; Sophronius of Jerusalem, Liturg. 5. Although in Jewish writings God is the one who raises the dead, Jesus does this in the Gospel of John (2:19; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 10:18; 11:11; 12:1, 17) and other Christian texts (e.  g. Mark 5:35–43; Luke 7:11–17; Phil 3:21; Ign. Magn. 9.2; Pol. Phil. 5.2; Melito, Pass. 86). 183 Cf. Homer, Il. 11.241; Job 14:12 v.  l. (“they will not be aroused out of their sleep”); 2 Bar. 11:4; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 15:51; Eph 5:14 (“arise O sleeper and rise from the

430

Commentary

ἡμᾶς a reference to the descent into hell and to Jesus’ rescue of the dead, among them Jeremiah.184 Jesus Christ is also τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων πάντων.185 The phrase recurs in v. 25, without πάντων. It makes Jesus the light of every age or world; cf. John 8:12 and 9:5, where Jesus is τὸ φῶς τοῦ κοσμοῦ. One wonders whether the formulation, which seems to have no precise parallel, has been constructed under the influence of the close association of πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων with φῶς ἐκ φωτός in the Nicene creed (τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, φῶς ἐκ φωτός) and allied Christological statements.186 Whether that is so or not, the line emphasizes Jesus’ nature as light everywhere and always, including Jeremiah’s present (cf. John 8:11). It also aligns with the emphasis upon light in 6:9 (“O God our Lord, the elect light”) and 12 (Baruch is “counselor of the light”). Jesus’ nature as light is further underlined by the next phrase, “the unquenchable lamp”: ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος.187 There is a parallel in Strabo, Geogr. 9.1.16 (ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος at the ancient shrine of Minerva Polias); and an invocation to the God of gods in PGM 4:1167–1226 addresses him as “the one before whom ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος is always lit” (1219). Because our story is set where the Jerusalem temple stood, one thinks of the seven-branched candelabrum or menorah that was to be burning there always; cf. LXX Exod 27:20 (“that the λύχνος might burn continuously”); Lev 6:5–6 (“fire on the altar shall burn … and οὐ σβεσθήσεται”); 24:1–3; Diodorus Siculus 34/35.1.4 (“the lamp said by them to be undying and burning unceasingly in the temple”); Ps.-Hecataeus apud Josephus, C. Ap. 1.199 (“a light ἀναπόσβεστον by night or day”); Sifre Lev. 240; m. Tam. 3:9; PGM 4:3070–3072 (“the one in holy Jerusalem, before whom the

dead”); 1 Thess 4:14; Kaibel, EG 559.7–9; etc. See Marbury B. Ogle, “The Sleep of Death,” Memoires of the American Academy in Rome 11 (1933), 81–117. 184 Justin, Dial. 72, claims that some copies of Jeremiah had the words, “The Lord God remembered his dead people of Israel who lay in the graves, and he descended to preach to them his own salvation.” Irenaeus, Haer. 4.22.1, also attributes these words to Jeremiah, although in 3.20.4 Isaiah is the author. Against Siegert, Einleitung, 615, the citation hardly displays a knowledge of 4 Baruch.  185 Cf. Jer. Apocr. 15:2; 27:5: God is king “of all aeons” (Nnaion throu). Φῶς: see on 6:9; αἰών: 3x: 8:4; 9:13, 25. 186 Cf. Eusebius, Ep. Caes. 4; Athanasius, Syn. 25.3; etc. Note the narrative prayer in Ps.-Linus, Mart. Pet. 13: lux uera de uero lumine ante omnia saecula. 187 Ἄσβεστος: 1x; λύχνος: 1x; the nominative is unexpected; it recalls the disagreement in case in 3:8 and in several passages in Revelation: 1:5 (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός); 2:13, 20; 3:12; 8:9; 9:14; 14:12; 20:2. See also above, on 3:8.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

431

ἄσβεστον fire burns for all time”).188 Presumably, just as Christ is, in the preceding clause, light, and just as he may be, in 9:3, incense, so here he is the ever-burning lamp of God’s temple. Other texts call Jesus a λύχνος,189 and Cave Treas. 50:24 calls Jesus “the candelabra of the cross.” The final entry in the string of characterizations is: ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως.190 That Jesus is “life” was a Christian commonplace because of John 11:25 and 14:6, and the association of life with light was old,191 so the coincidence of both here in Jesus is natural; cf. John 1:4: “in him was life, and the life was the light of people.”192 In 4 Baruch, however, Jesus is specifically “the life of faith,” a phrase seemingly unique with reference to Jesus despite the close relationship between life and faith in some sources; cf. Ps.-Chrysostom, Exalt. 9 (ὅθεν ἡ τῆς πίστεως πηγάζει ζωή); Adamantius, Dial. ed. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, p. 222 (τὴν τῆς πίστεως ἔχον ζωήν … ἔχον τὴν τῆς πίστεως ζωήν). If the text is not corrupt,193 perhaps it means that Jesus is the center of faith (as its object) or the source of faith (as its subject). 9:14. Jeremiah now prophecies the future of the figure he has praised. After 477 years, God’s Son come to earth: γίνεται δὲ μετὰ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους ἄλλα ἔτη τετρακόσια ἑβδομηκονταεπτὰ καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς τὴν γῆν;194 cf. 4 Ezra 7:29 (“after these years, my son the Messiah shall die”); Ps.-Chrysostom, Or. PG 62.737 (ὁ Χριστὸς ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς); Romanos the Melodist, Cant. 34.22 (Χριστός … ἦλθεν εἰς γῆν). The language, which echoes christological ἔρχεται-statements in the NT,195 presupposes the pre-existence of Jesus. 188

Note also the legend in Jer. Apocr. 27:14–15; 41:4: the lamp in the holy place continued to burn even during the seventy years of exile. 189 E.  g. Basil of Seleucia, Hom. in pent. ed. Marx, p. 101; Romanos the Melodist, Cant. 45; Ps.-Ephraem, Ἐγκώμιον εἰς Πέτραν καὶ Παῦλον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν ed. Phrantzoles, 6:112–13; Philagathus, Hom. 21.3. Cf. also Rev 21:23, where the lamb is the lamp of the new Jerusalem. 190 Ζωή: 3x: 4:8; 9:13, 14; πίστις: 3x: 6:4; 7:2; 9:13; the word is Christian in 6:4 and 9:13 and perhaps in 7:2. 191 Cf. “the light of life” in Job 33:30; Ps 56:13; John 8:12. 192 Cf. also Ign. Eph. 7:2; Acts Phil. 141; Lampe, s.  v., ζωή 2E3. 193 Arm 993 (= 920) has “seal of faith,” a common Christian expression: Gregory of Nyssa, Ordin. ed. Gebbhart, p. 336; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 5.5; etc. 194 Γίγνομαι: 25x; καιρός: see on 3:8; ἄλλος: see on 5:1; τετρακόσιοι: 1x; ἑβδομηκονταεπτά: 1x; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.33: ἔτη ἑβδομηκονταεπτά; γῆ: see on 3:8; ἔρχομαι + εἰς: see on 7:24. 195 E.  g. Luke 12:49; John 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28; 1 Tim 1:15; Heb 10:5.

432

Commentary

The number, 477, does not play a significant role in the Bible or biblically-inspired tradition. Modern scholars typically date the return from exile to ca. 538 BCE, and the completion of the new temple to 515. This would, from the perspective of our text, put Jesus’ entry into the world about fifty years too early. Such inaccuracy is not, however, unexpected. The problems with Dan 9:25 and its “sixty-two weeks” are well-known, and Josephus reckons the second temple period to have lasted 639 years (Bell. 6.270) and dates Aristobulus’ accession 481 years after the return from Babylon (Ant. 13.301). Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8, calculates 437 years from Daniel’s day during the exile to the birth of Jesus. Furthermore, the Seder ‘Olam is full of substantial calendrical errors, such as that the temple was destroyed 420 years after it was rebuilt. Yet our text remains appropriate on the literary level, for Jeremiah was remembered, because of Jer 25:11–12 and 29:10, as having been able to prophesy precise dates; cf. Dan 9:2 (“I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years”); Josephus, Ant. 10.267 (Daniel “was wont not only to prophesy future things, as did the other prophets, but he also fixed the time at which they would come to pass”).196 In the previous verse, Jesus is the life. Here the cross—although an equation with Jesus is also possible197 and is made in arm 993 (= 920)198—is the tree of life planted in the middle of paradise: τὸ δένδρον

196 Harris, Baruch,

17, observing that, in Josephus, Bell. 6.439, the years from David to the captivity number 477, implausibly conjectures that this may have influenced our author. 197 So Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 42; Torijano, “4 Baruch,” 16. Cf. the version of our line in Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174v: “the tree of life comes to the earth.” For the tree (of life) as the (crucified) Christ in patristic sources see Reno, Sacred Tree, 105–112. Note Mart. Pet. 9–10 (“the cross” is “the word stretched out”; “O word of life and tree concerning which I now speak”); Acts John 98 (“this cross of light” is the logos and Christ); Mart. Pet. 10 (here Jesus is addressed as λόγε ζωῆς, ξύλον νῦν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰρημένον); Didymus of Alexandria, Ps. frag. 3 PG 39:1157; Palaea Historica 5:5 (“The tree of life is in fact nothing other than Christ himself and the Holy Spirit, which appeared to Adam like a towering tree reaching as far as the heavens, the vision of which was more beautiful than everything in existence”). In making his case that a docetic hand has contributed to 4 Baruch, Heininger, “Totenerweckung,” 109, states that the resume of Christ’s work in ch. 9 fails to mention the crucifixion. This overlooks the likely meaning of 9:14. 198 “He will come upon the earth, he who is the tree of life, planted in the midst of the garden.”

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

433

τῆς ζωῆς τὸ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου φυτευθέν;199 cf. Justin, Dial. 86.1 (the tree of life is a σύμβολον of the crucifixion); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.2.72.2 (“our life was hung upon it [the tree of life] in order that we might believe”); Cave of Treasures 48:9 (“Christ climbed the cross, the tree of life”); Enc. Mary Magd. 17 (“God planted the tree of life in the middle of paradise, namely, the cross of our salvation”); V. Marth. Matr. Sym. Styl. Jr. 52; Michael Choniates, Orat. 6 ed. Lampros, 1:128 (“in the middle of these things the tree of life, the cross, stands”).200 The language is from Gen 2:8–9: “the Lord God planted a garden (LXX: ἐφύτευσεν … παράδεισον) in Eden, in the east … Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden (τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ).”201 Our text offers more than affective language. Like Paul and T. Levi 18:10,202 it implies that the messianic redemption undoes the primeval disaster.203 It may further presuppose that Golgotha was the place

199

Δένδρον: see on 5:1; ζωή: 3x: 4:8; 9:13, 14; μέσος: see on v. 13; παράδεισος: 1x; φυτεύω: 1x.

200 Cf.

also Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13 (“‘and the tree,’ he says, ‘has brought forth his fruit’—not that tree in paradise that yielded death to the protoplasts but the tree of the passion of Christ”; “in order that what had formerly perished through the tree in Adam should be restored through the tree in Christ”); Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. illum. 13.19 (“The fall was in paradise, and our salvation was in a garden. From the tree came sin, and sin lasted until the tree”), 31 (Jesus to the repentant thief: “By the tree Adam fell away and by the tree you are brought into paradise”). For full discussion of this motif see Reno, Sacred Tree, 124–86. For Jewish speculation about the tree of life see esp. 1 En. 24:4–25:5; 2 En. 8:3–4; Gen. Rab. 15:6. For HB/OT references to the tree of life outside of Genesis see Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; LXX Isa 65:22; 4 Macc 18:16. Early Christian sources speak of Jesus’ cross as a “tree”; cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24; P. Berol. 22220 10; also the apocryphal prophecy that “the Lord has reigned from the tree,” as in Justin, 1 Apol. 41.4; Dial. 73:3–4; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 10, 13; Ps 96:10 it. 201 Cf. Rev 2:7; Philagathus, Hom. 4.3 (τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς  εἰς  τὸ  τῆς Ἐδὲμ φυτεύει μεσαίτατον … ὡς ἐν μέσῳ τῆς γῆς φυτευθήσεται ὁ ζωηφόρος σταυρός). For τὸ δένδρον τῆς ζωῆς as a synonym of τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς see Rev 2:7; Origen, Frag. in Prov. PG 13.32 (τὸ δένδρον τῆς ζωῆς ἐστι τὸ φυτευθέν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου); Evagrius, Scholia in Prov. 32, 132 (τὸ δένδρον τῆς ζωῆς ἐστι τὸ φυτευθέν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου); Lit. Gr. Naz. PG 36.709. 202 “He shall open the gates of paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam.” 203 Cf. Bogaert, Baruch, 1:215: our text presupposes a “development of the typology of the cross as the tree of life.” Contrast Schaller, Paralipomena, 753. For the tree of life as an eschatological hope see 1 En. 25:4–5; T. Levi 18:10–11; Gk. LAE 28:4; Rev 2:7;

434

Commentary

of Adam’s burial near Eden204 and/or even that Jesus’ cross was made of wood from the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.205 The prophecy that the tree of life will cause unfruitful trees (= the nations before Jesus) to bear fruit, that is, to live as faithful Christians, envisages the Gentile mission: ποιήσει πάντα τὰ δένδρα τὰ ἄκαρπα ποιῆσαι καρπόν;206 cf. Ign. Trall. 11:2 (if these were “the Father’s planting … they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be imperishable”); Diogn. 12:1–2 (“those who love him as they should, who become a paradise of delight, raising up in themselves a flourishing tree bearing all kinds of fruit, who are adorned with various fruits. For in this garden a tree of knowledge and a tree of life have been planted”); Sib. Or. 5:257 (Jesus “stretched out his hand on the fruitful wood”). Note the repetition of ποιέω in vv. 14–17: ποιήσει … ποιῆσαι καρπόν … ποιήσει αὐτά … ποιήσει αὐτά … ποιήσει … ποιήσαι καρπόν. The metaphorical use of “fruit” in ethico-religious speech, and esp. as a symbol of good works, repentance, or reformation, was common,207 and it recurs in v. 17. That the nations will grow and send forth shoots extends—αὐξηθήσονται καὶ βλαστήσουσι—elaborates the metaphor;208 cf. the description of the church in Sib. Or. 1:383: βλαστὸς νέος ἀνθήσειεν ἐξ ἐθνῶν. Although αὐξάνω and βλαστάνω are a natural pairing,209 a biblically literate Christian might hear an echo of LXX Gen 1:11 (βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ … ξύλον κάρπιμον ποιοῦν καρπόν) and even think of Jesus as authoring a new creation; cf. 2 Cor 5:17. 9:15–16. These verses express supercessionism. The advent of the Son of God means the end of Israel, here represented as trees that had formerly 22:2, 14, 19; 4 Ezra 2:12; 7:123; 8:52; Apoc. Elijah 5:6; T. Jacob 7:24; 3 En. 23:18 (Schäfer, Synopse 36 = 902); cf. 1QH 14:14–17. 204 Cf. Origen, Comm. Matt. ed. Kostermann 126; 551 II; Chrysostom, Hom. John 85:1; Ephraem, Hymn virg. 16:10; Cave of Treasures 2:16; 49:1–10; Theophylact, Comm. Matt. PG123.468. On this tradition see Wilhelm Heinrich Roscher, Der Omphalosgedanke bei verschiedenen Völkern, besonders den semitischen (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1918), 25–34. 205 Cf. Gk. 3 Bar. 4:9–15; Honorius of Autun, Inv. sanc. cruces PG 172:941–48. 206 Δένδρον: see on 5:1; ἄκαρπος: 1x; καρπός: 2x: 9:14, 17; ποιῆσαι καρπόν: see on v. 17. 207 Ps 1:3; Prov 1:31; Isa 3:10; Hos 10:1; Ecclus 23:25; Matt 3:10; 7:16–20; 12:33; Luke 13:6–9; John 15:2, 4, 5, 8, 16; Rom 6.22; Jas 3:17–18; Josephus, Ant. 20.48; 2 Bar. 32:1; Apoc. Adam 6:1; b. Qidd. 40a; etc. 208 Αὐξάνω: 1x; βλαστάνω: 2x: 9:14, 15. 209 Cf. Theophrastus, Caus. plant. 3:20; Theon, frag. ed. Giese, p. 46; Philo, Post. 75; etc.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

435

sprouted: τὰ δένδρα τὰ βεβλαστηκότα καὶ μεγαλαυχοῦντα.210 What they are supposed to have said is unclear, although it must be an expression of hubis. The Greek—ἐδώκαμεν τὸ τέλος ἡμῶν τῷ ἀέρι211—is difficult, and the translations vary: • Kraft-Purintun: “We have supplied our power to the air.” • Robinson: “We raised our top to the air.” • Sparks and Thornhill: “We have thrust our topmost branches to the sky.” • Vegas Montaner: “Hemos entregado nuestro vigor al aire.” • Schaller: “Wir reichen bis zum Himmel.” • Piovanelli: “Abbiamo dato la nostra cima all᾽aria.” • Herzer: “We have stretched out our top into the air.” If the text is not corrupt, the sense must something like ἐδώκαμεν/ἐπήραμεν τὴν κεφαλὴν ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν,212 and the connotation is akin to the arrogance of Isa 14:13: “I will ascend to heaven, above the stars of God”; cf. also Ezek 17:23 (“I the Lord bring low the high tree”) and Dan 4:10–27 (where Nebuchadnezzar is represented by a tree that grows and becomes strong, so that it top reaches to heaven, but God commands that it be hewn down and its branches cut off). Not only will the unfruitful trees (= Gentiles) become fruit-bearing (v. 14), but the trees that formerly grew so great (the Jews), along with their high branches will shrivel: ποιήσει αὐτὰ ξηρανθῆναι μετὰ τοῦ ὕψους τῶν κλάδων αὐτῶν;213 cf. Leg. Aphr. 5:4: “Judea has bloomed, but now it is withering.”214 In other words, they will, despite being large and firmly rooted, suffer condemnation: ποιήσει αὐτὰ κριθῆναι τὸ δένδρον τὸ στηριχθέν.215 The subject, that is, the agent of judgment, is either God216

Δένδρον: see on 5:1; βλαστάνω: 2x: 9:14, 15; μεγαλαυχέω: 1x; LXX: 5x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 5x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 0x. 211 Δίδωμι: see on 3:15; τέλος: 1x; ἀήρ: 1x. 212 Cf. LXX Ezek 31:10: ἔδωκας τὴν ἀρχήν σου εἰς μέσον νεφελῶν. 213 Ξηραίνω: 1x; ὕψος: 1x; κλάδων: 1x. 214 “To Gentiles and foreigners salvation has come” immediately follows. 215 Cf. Symeon the New Theologians, Grat. act. II 36:317: ἐν τῷ δένδρῳ … στήριξον. Κρίνω: 1x; δένδρον: see on 5:1; στηρίζω: 1x. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 37, takes κρίνω to be metaphorical. It seems better to give the verb its natural sense—“judge”; indeed, given the negative outcome, “condemn” likely catches the sense; for this meaning see BDAG, s.  v., 5. 216 In which case one could translate: “he (God) will make them to shrivel together with their high branches; and he will cause them—(of) that firmly rooted tree—to be judged.” 210

436

Commentary

or (as in the translation above) “the firmly-rooted tree,” that is, the tree of life (= the cross) of v. 14.217 Although there are parallels in Job.18: 16 (“His roots dry up beneath, and his branches wither above”); Ezek.17:9 (“Will he not pull up its roots and cut off its branches, so that all its fresh sprouting leaves wither?”); and John 15:16 (“If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers”), it does not appear that any particular text is in the background.218 Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 1, offers a conceptual parallel: “the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and greater through the grace of primary favor in the law, whereas ours is understood to be less in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy,” and “the prior and greater people, the Jews, must necessarily serve the lesser, and the lesser people, the Christians, must overcome the greater.” In discussing the relationship of Jews to Christian Gentiles in arboreal terms, our text takes up a Christian topos. Paul, in Rom 11:17–24, imagines Israel as an olive tree, some of whose branches have been broken off while others—Gentiles—have been engrafted. Chrysostom, Adv. ud. 1.2, takes up this passage, subtracts Paul’s hope for Israel, and then, like 4 Baruch, mentions fruit: “we were not part of that root, yet we have produced the fruits of piety.” He follows this with paradoxical contrasts between Jew and Gentile.219 Irenaeus, Haer. 4.36.8, offers a similar application of Luke 13:6–9, and Aphraates, Dem. 5.22, finds the same lesson in Luke 20:9–19:

217

Cf. the trans. of Sparks and Thornhill: “the Tree that is firmly rooted will make them wither.” 218 The suggestion of Robinson, “4 Baruch,” 424 n. 9d, with appeal to Eph 2:2 (“the prince of the power of the air”), that air “may here be used in a demonological sense,” reads too much into the text. Equally doubtful is the proposal—which Riaud, Paralipomènes, 200, Vegas Montaner, “Paralipomenos,” 382 (appealing to R. H. Charles, in APOT 2:500: “‫ עקר‬is constantly used in the Talmud with reference to the future fate of Rome”); and Schaller, Paralipomena, 753, entertain—that the firmly-rooted tree is the Roman empire. Nothing is here said about the Romans; rather, the focus is upon Jeremiah and the “foolish children of Israel” (9:30); and the snow turning black and the sweet waters becoming salty reflect a supercessionistic interpretation of salvation-history—the chosen people have lost God’s favor—not someone’s notion that the Roman empire went from good to bad. The contrast then is between Jews and Gentiles (vv. 17–18), not Gentiles and Romans. So correctly Wright, Baruch, 201–202, who comments: “the passage involves an anti-Jewish inversion of Paul’s censure of Gentile boasting in his extended metaphor of the olive tree (Rom 11:17–24).” 219 “The sun of righteousness rose on them first, but they turned their back on its beams and sat in darkness. But we, who were nurtured in darkness, welcomed the light … They read the prophets from ancient times, yet they crucified the one spoken of by

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

437

because the vineyard (= Israel) produced bad fruit, “its Lord uprooted it and cast it in to the fire, and he planted good fruit-bearing vines in the vineyard, such as gladden the husbandman … Vineyard was formed instead of vineyard.”220 Note also P. Berol. 22220 111 (“[tree] whose fruit appeared so that it might be known in the lands of the foreigners”) and Leg. Aphr. 5:3–4 (“For those whom a flame threatens, the dew has come … Judea has bloomed, but now it is withering. To Gentiles and foreigners salvation has come, to the miserable there is more than enough refreshment”).221 Most of these texts line up with 4 Baruch, which although it does not use the term, “new people,”222 nonetheless implies the idea. Following the parable about unfruitful trees becoming fruitful and great trees withering, there follows a series of dramatic reversals formally akin to the NT declaration that the first will be last and the last first (Mark 10:31). That which is scarlet will turn white as wool: ποιήσει τὸ κόκκινον ὡς ἔριον λευκὸν γενέσθαι.223 Snow will turn black: ἡ χιὼν μελανθήσεται.224 Sweet water will turn salty: τὰ γλυκέα ὕδατα ἁλμυρὰ γενήσονται.225 And salt water will turn sweet: τὰ ἁλμυρὰ γλυκέα. The allusion to Isa 1:18 (cf. 1 Clem. 8:4) in the first two clauses (LXX: χιόνα … κόκκινον ὡς ἔριον λευκανῶ) suggests that perhaps the implicit subject is sins. Further, one who knows Isaiah might remember that the broader context warns of judgment: “if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword” (1:20). The first and fourth items are synonymous illustrations, as are the second and third: 1 scarlet becoming white as snow = Gentiles coming to faith226 2    snow becoming black = Israel losing its privileged place

the prophets. We had not heard the Holy Scriptures, yet we now worship the one about whom the prophets speak.” 220 Note also Ambrose, Exp. Luke 7.160–72. 221 The fate of Judaism for this last writer appears in 8:3: “the Christ, the Son of the Most High is born, annulling your law and your synagogue.” 222 Cf. Barn. 5:7; 7:5; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.5.14; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.53; etc. 223 Κόκκινος: 1x; ἔριον: 1x; λευκός: 1x; cf. Gk. 1 En. 106:2: ὡς ἔρια λευκά; also LXX Dan 7:9; Rev 1:14. 224 χιών: 1x; μελαίνω: 1x LXX: 0x; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 3x; Philo: 0x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 4x. 225 Γλυκύς: 3x: 9:3, 16 bis; ὕδωρ: see on 2:5; ἁλμυρός: 2x: 9:16 bis. 226 Although one who identified the tree of life in v. 14 with the cross of Jesus might have thought in terms of atonement; cf. Tertullian, Marc. 4.10.

438

Commentary

3    sweet waters becoming become salty = Israel losing its privileged place 4 salty waters becoming sweet = Gentiles coming to faith

In each case, the impossible is spoken of (cf. Jas 3:13), so what is envisaged is a miracle; cf. the tradition that God brought “sweet water” from the Red Sea (Mek. Beshallah 5:11–12; Shirata 6:115) and the fragmentary 4Q471a, ˙ which refers to something done by divine power with these words: “you shall turn bitter to sweet and sweet …” Within the context of ch. 9, the string of antithetical metamorphoses prepares for the subsequent murder of Jeremiah. The hostility of the people toward the prophet anticipates what will happen when the Son of God comes. Israel will become like the Gentiles and the Gentiles will become like Israel. That sweet waters will become salty and that salty waters will become sweet may be a metaphorical reinterpretation of an eschatological expectation. According to Ezek 47:8, “This water [from the temple] flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah; and when it enters the sea, the sea of stagnant waters, the water will become fresh.” One of the signs of the end will be, according to 4 Ezra 5:9, that “salt waters shall be found in the sweet” (in dulcibus aquis salsae invenientur).227 According to Harris, the words just quoted from 4 Ezra were “copied by the Christian writer.”228 Related images, however, appear elsewhere: Aristotle, Prob. 933b (ὕδατα γλυκέα ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁλμυρά); Jas 3:11 (“Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish?”); Pliny the Elder, N.  H. 2.103 (Dionysius the tyrant of Sicily “encountered the portent that one day the sea-water in the harbor became fresh water”); Antigonus, Mirab. 133.1–3 (a report of a river that produces a salty stream and a drinkable stream). The changes announced will take place ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ φωτὶ τῆς εὐφροσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ.229 This could refer to God’s pleasure; cf. Philo, Somn. 2.179: “how great a good is God’s gladness” (εὐφροσύνη Θεοῦ). It is more likely, however, that the words are about those who rejoice in God because of what God has done, namely, extended salvation to the Gentiles; cf. LXX Isa 61:10 (εὐφροσύνῃ εὐφρανθήσονται ἐπὶ Κύριον); Ps. Sol. 11:3 (Gk.: τῇ εὐφροσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ); Eusebius, Comm. Ps. PG 23.1032

227

More distant parallels include Isa 5:20 (“who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter”); Gk. 3 Bar. 4:15 (“its bitterness will be turned into sweetness”; this regards the tree that led Adam astray and belongs to a prophecy about Jesus Christ). 228 Harris, Baruch, 20. Herzer, 4 Baruch, 154 n. 82, concurs. 229 Μέγας: 12x; φῶς: see on 6:9; εὐφροσύνη: 1x.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

439

(τὴν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐφροσύνην); Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Ps. 20–21 ed. Doutreleau, Gesche, and Gronewald, p. 19 (ἡ εὐφροσύνη ὑπὸ Θεοῦ); Agathangelus, Pass. Greg. Illumin. (rec. alt.) 7 (εὐωχεῖσθαι τὴν ἀΐδιον εὐφροσύνην τοῦ αἰωνίου Θεοῦ). 9:17. The application to the Gentiles becomes even clearer in this verse. The islands that are blessed (εὐλογήσει τὰς νήσους) and so produce fruit (τοῦ ποιῆσαι καρπός) must be non-Jewish peoples.230 Given the εὐφροσύνης in v. 16, perhaps LXX Ps 96:1 (εὐφρανθήτωσαν νῆσοι πολλαί) is in the background.231 “Make fruit” is a Semitism (cf. ‫ )עשה פרי‬that entered early Christian discourse through the Jesus tradition.232 “Island” connotes distance (cf. Ecclus 47:16: “far-off islands”), and the term might recall the biblical phrase, “islands of the nations.”233 A Christian would think of Gentile churches; cf. Theophilus, Autol. 2.14 (the holy churches are islands of safety); Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.23 (the “islands” of Isa 42:10 are the churches); Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 44.1 (Gentile churches are islands in a sea of unbelief); Andrew of Cesarea, Comm. Apoc. 18.52.16, 20 (the “islands” of Rev 16:20 are the churches). The thought is akin to 1 Pet 2:19 (“Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy”) and Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 3 (“we who were not the people of God in days gone by have been made his people”). The conversion of the nations will come through Christ’s word: ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ.234 “Christ” appears to be titular here (contrast v. 13). “The mouth of Christ” is common in patristic

230 Cf.

Ps 97:1; Isa 41:1; 42:10, 12; 49:1; Ecclus 47:16; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 158.

Εὐλογέω: 2x: 5:32; 9:17; νήσος: 1x; καρπός: 2x: 9:14, 17.

231 Herzer,

4 Baruch, 154, suggests rather a christological interpretation of Isa 42:4: “He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.” So also Nir, Destruction, 223 n. 63. 232 Cf. Gen 1:11, 12; 2 Kgs 19:30; Jer 12:2; 17:8; Ezek 17:23; Matt 3:10; 7:17–19; 13:26; Luke 3:9; 6:43; 8:8; 13:9; Rev 22:2; Apoc. Sedr. 12:5. 233 LXX Gen 10:5, 32; Zeph 2:11; 1 Macc 11:38. Note also MT Isa 42:4: “the ‫ איים‬wait for his teaching.” 234 Λόγος: see on 5:21; στόμα: see on 6:9; Χριστός: 2x: 9:13, 17. Ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος is, as Schaller, Paralipomena, 753, observes, a Semitism. He cites Jer 9:19; Eccles 10:12–13; Jdt 2:3, 6. Note also Deut 32:1; Job 8:2; Ps 19:14; Eccles 10:13; Hos 6:5; 4Q371 12; 4Q372 frag. 1 13; 4Q381 frag. 1 3; Gk. 1 En. 93:9.

440

Commentary

and later Christian sources,235 presumably under the influence of LXX Isa 11:4 (cf. Ps. Sol. 17:27, 39) and Rev 19:15. “His (= God’s) Christ” is likewise common Christian coin.236 Τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος takes up the old idiom, “words of his/my/your mouth”237 and employs the singular because the author is thinking of the Christian gospel or because LXX Isa 11:4 (τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ), which Christians applied to Jesus,238 has affected the formulation. Influence from Deut 18:18, which employs the plural “words,”239 is unlikely. As the next verse makes clear, the word of Christ is mediated through those who preach that gospel. 9:18. If the previous verses focus on the reversal of Israel and the nations, the picture here enlarges, giving readers a sort of outline of Jesus’ work in several stages.240 He will come to earth; his apostles will evangelize the world; and he will come to the Mount of Olives. The reference to the Christ being adorned by the Father may envisage his post-resurrection exaltation. “He will fill the hungry souls” is probably a retrospective summarizing all his redemptive acts. The precis opens with the unelaborated and so cryptic αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἐξελεύσεται.241 The verbs likely refer to Jesus’ first advent or incarnation242 and to his ascension or departure.243 Perhaps, however, the sense is closer to Acts 1:21: “the Lord Jesus moved in and out (εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν) among us.” It is less likely that both verbs advert

235 Origen,

Comm. John 2.7.56; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.44; Chrysostom, Laz. 1–7 PG 48.1041; John VI Kantakouzenos, Refut. duae Proch. Cyd. 1.31 (τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ στόματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ); etc. 236 Prot. Jas. 33; Justin, Dial. 7.3; Origen, Cels. 4.28; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.14; etc. For Jewish precedent see LXX 1 Βασ 12:5; 16:6; and Ps. Sol. 18:5 (Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ—of the eschatological Son of David). 237 Cf. Ps. Sol. 17:14, 35: the messianic Son of David will destroy the lawless nations ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ. 238 Cf. Rev 19:15; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.33.1. 239 “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth.” 240 Cf. the summaries in Acts 10:36–43; Ign. Smyr. 1; Justin, Dial. 85.2–3; Acts Thom. 47–48. 241 Ἐξέρχομαι: 22x. One recalls the old liturgical idiom of God blessing one’s “coming in” and “going out”; cf. Deut 28:6; Ps 121:8. 242 Cf. the use of ἐρχόμαι in Matt 9:13; Luke 12:49; John 10:10. 243 Cf. John 16:7: “it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you.”

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

441

to the post-Easter mission.244 Whatever the sense, a christological reading of Num 27:17 (“who shall go out before them and come in before them”) may lie in the background.245 The next line introduces Jesus’ apostles: ἐπιλέξεται ἑαυτῷ δώδεκα ἀποστόλους.246 Although the NT speaks of “the twelve apostles,”247 it nowhere uses ἐπιλέγω for Jesus’ selection of them. It does, however, employ the closely-related ἐκλέγω in this connection,248 and Origen, Cels. 1.62, supplies a close parallel: δώδεκα ἀποστόλους ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπελέξατο. That the twelve are to preach among the Gentiles—ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωνται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν249—is a Christian topos. It grew out of several NT texts—Matt 28:16–20 (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη); Mark 16:15 (“Going into all the world preach the gospel in all the creation”); Acts 1:8 (“unto the ends of the earth”); Col 1:23 (“preached in all creation under heaven”)—and led to the later legends about the twelve evangelizing in far-away lands; cf. the Preaching of Peter apud Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.6.48 (“I have chosen you twelve [ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δώδεκα] … And I sent them, of whom I was per244 Cf.

Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:18: “will come forth and send out his twelve disciples, and they will teach all nations”; also 3:13. On 4 Baruch’s knowledge of the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah see the Introduction, pp. 55–56. 245 The HB/OT passage is about the appointment of Joshua, whom Christians understood as a type for Jesus; cf. Irenaeus, frag. 19. Note further the use of “sheep without a shepherd” (which occurs in Num 27:17) in Matt 9:36; Mark 6:34. 246 Ἐπιλέγω: 1x; δώδεκα: 1x; ἀποστόλος: 1x. 247 Matt 10:2; Rev 21:14; cf. Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; also Justin, Dial. 42.1; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 2.23.2; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:21; 4:3; 11:22; Eusebius, H.  E. 1.10.7; 1.13.4; 3.31.3. But “the twelve” (unqualified) is more common in the NT: Matt 26:14, 47; Mark 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; Luke 9:12; 18:31; John 6:67; Acts 6:2; 1 Cor 15:5. “The twelve disciples” occurs only in Matthew: 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; 26:20. On the idea of the apostles in early Christianity see Wolfgang A. Bienert, “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition,” in New Testament Apocrypha II: Writings Relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and Related Subjects, rev. ed., ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Cambridge, UK/Louisville, KY: James Clark & Co./Westminster John Knox, 1992), 5–27; Jörg Frey, “Apostelbegriff, Apostelamt und Apostolizität,” in Das kirchliche Amt in apostolischer Nachfole: I. Grundlagen und Grundfragen (ed. Theodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz; Freiburg: Herder, 2004), 91–188; Thomas Söding, “Geist und Amt: Übergänge von der Apostolischen zur nachapostolischen Zeit,” in ibid., 189–264. 248 Luke 6:13 (ἐκλεξάμενος ἀπ̓ αὐτῶν δώδεκα, οὒς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν); John 6:70 (τοὺς δώδεκα ἐξελεξάμην); Acts 1:2 (τοῖς ἀποστόλοις … οὒς ἐξελέξατο). 249 Cf. Gal 1:16 (εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; does 4 Baruch here borrow from Paul?); Eph 3:8 (τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαι). Εὐαγγελίζω: see on 3:11; ἔθνος: see on 6:16; the word is positive here whereas it is negative in 7:32.

442

Commentary

suaded that they would be true apostles, into the world to proclaim to people in all the world”); Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 7 (“All nations have heard … the apostles,” whose words have gone “to the ends of the earth”); Acts Thom. 1 (the apostles “divided the regions of the world” and each went to the region that fell to his lot). The historical complexities of how the Jewish Jesus movement gradually became a largely Gentile phenomenon are of course irrelevant to the author’s theology. Jeremiah, speaking of himself as a visionary, next avows: ὃν ἐγὼ ἑώρακα κεκοσμημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ.250 The closest parallel appears to be Eusebius, H.  E. 1.3.12: Jesus was adorned by his father with honors (παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς κεκόσμητο) that human beings failed to grant him. Given that ὃν ἐγώ κτλ. immediately precedes a reference to the parousia, one guesses that the words, like those in Eusebius, H.  E. 1.3.12, refer to God’s post-resurrection exaltation of Jesus. In other words, Jeremiah has seen Jesus in his future, heavenly exaltation. By contrast, John 12:41— the prophet Isaiah “saw his glory,” that is, the glory of Jesus, and “spoke about him”—interprets Isaiah’s theophanic vision as a vision of Jesus as the pre-incarnate logos;251 cf. the tradition that, when Ezekiel saw the anthropomorphic form of the Lord (Ezek 1:26–28), he was seeing the Son of God before his incarnation252 and the vision in 5 Ezra 2:42–48, where Ezra sees the Son of God = Jesus.253

250 251

Ὁράω: 2x: 7:18; 9:18; κοσμέω: 1x; πατήρ: 13x, only here of God.

So most commentators; note e.  g. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Oliphants, Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1972), 439: “John means that the theophany of Isa. 6.1  ff. was a sight of the glory of the Logos.” Cf. already Eusebius, Dem. ev. 9.1; Chrysostom, Hom. John 68. 252 According to Justin, Dial. 126.1, the Son of God was called “a man” (ἀνήρ) by Ezekiel. Cf. 61.1: the Holy Spirit calls Jesus “the Glory of the Lord” (alluding to Ezek 1:28). According to Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Apoll. ad Thpl. ed. Mueller, p. 122, the one appearing in “human form” (ἀνθρωπικῷ σχήματι) to Ezekiel was also the one who dazzled Paul in light (ὁ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ καταστράψας τὸν Παῦλον). This was a fairly common sentiment; see Angela Russell Christman, “What Did Ezekiel See?” Christian Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot from Irenaeus to Gregory the Great (Bible in Ancient Christianity 4; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 29–33. 253 One also recalls that Christians interpreted some of the theophanies and appearances of the angel of the Lord in the HB/OT to be manifestations of the pre-incarnate Jesus; so e.  g. Justin, Dial. 127.4; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 9; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.7; etc. The precise reference, if there is one, of the prayer in Apost. Const. 8:12:61–62—“you are the one who delivered Abraham from ancestral godlessness and appointed him heir of the world and showed to him your Christ”—is unclear.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

443

Jesus will come into the world on the Mount of Olives: καὶ ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν;254 cf. v. 19 (ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον) and recall that 3:10 may implicitly refer to the Mount of Olives. The prediction combines two phrases, the first from John 1:9 (ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον),255 the second from LXX Zech 14:4 (ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν). A reader of the NT may think of stories in which Jesus is on the Mount of Olives;256 cf. Ep. Pet. Phil. 133:13–17: “the mountain which is called the (Mount) of Olives, the place where they used to gather with the blessed Christ when he was in the body.” One might also recall the many texts in which the risen Jesus discourses on the Mount of Olives.257 It is more likely, however, that the second coming is in view.258 4 Baruch takes up the language of Zech 14:4–5, an eschatological text which Jewish readers often connected with the resurrection of the dead259 and which some early Christian texts associated with the parousia.260 If so, 4 Baruch likely assumes, in line with a host of other ancient sources, that Jerusalem, the axis mundi, will be the center of the end-time events.261

Ἔρχομαι + εἰς: see on 7:24; κόσμος: 3x: 4:9; 9:18, 19; there is perhaps a wordplay with κεκοσμημένον in the previous clause; ὅρος: see on 3:10; ἐλαία: 1x. 255 Cf. 3:19; 6:14 (ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον); 12:46; 16:28; 18:37. 4 Ezra 7:132 254

(“those who have not yet come into the world”) and 8:5 (“not of your own will did you come into the world”) are, however, presumably independent of John; cf. perhaps Apoc. Pet. 2:7–8 (“false Messiahs … will promise, ‘I am the Messiah who has come into the world’”), 12 (“the deceiver who is to come into the world”). But Jer. Apocr. 28:8 (“the Son of God who is to come into the world”) is clearly Johannine. 256 Matt 21:1; 24:3; 26:30; Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26; Luke 19:37; 22:39; John 8:1. 257 Apoc. Pet. 1; Ep. Pet. Phil. 133:13–34:19; Quest. Barth. 4:1; Pistis Sophia 2; Disc. Sav. Myst. Cross 2; etc. 258 So too Riaud, “Figure of Jeremiah,” 43. 259 Cf. the northern wall of the Dura-Europos synagogue; Tg. Cant. 8:5; Tg. Zech 14:4 Codex Reuchlinianus; Pesiq. Rab. 31:10. See further John Briggs Curtis, “The Mount of Olives in Tradition,” HUCA 28 (1957), 137–80; Allison, “Scriptural Background.” Perhaps Acts 1:11–12 associates the parousia with the Mount of Olives. The angels tell the apostles that Jesus will come just as he went. Might this not embrace the place (the Mount of Olives) as well as the manner (on clouds)? A few commentators have had this thought; so e.  g. Michael Baumgarten, The Acts of the Apostles; or The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1854), 1:31–33. 260 E.   g. Matt 25:31; 1 Thess 3:13; Did. 16:7. On these texts see Allison, “Scriptural Background,” 165–68. 261 Cf. Isa 60–62; Jer 17:25; Ezek 40–48; Zech 8:7–8; Tob 14:5; Bar 5:5; Ps. Sol. 11:1–9; Luke 19:11; Rom 11:26; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.35.1; Tg. Zech. 14:4–5; etc.

444

Commentary

The last entry in Jeremiah’s list of what God’s Anointed will do— ἐμπλήσει τὰς πεινώσας ψυχάς262—may have in view both Jesus’ ministry263 and the eschatological future. The language, which may be spiritualized (cf. Matt 5:3, 6), is, in any case, not from the NT but from the HB/OT; cf. LXX Ps 106:9 (ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν ἐνέπλησεν); Prov 6:30 (ἐμπλήσῃ τὴν ψυχὴν πεινῶν); Isa 58:10 (ψυχὴν τεταπεινωμένην ἐμπλήσῃς); Jer 38:25 (πᾶσαν ψυχὴν πεινῶσαν ἐνέπλησα). As the texts from the Psalms and Jeremiah have God as their subject,264 one could urge that, in 4 Baruch, the Son of God performs a divine activity. Although Jeremiah prophesied long before Jesus, the former, on the whole, is well-informed about the latter and indeed grasps his Christian significance. The understanding of prophecy here is very different from what one finds in 1QpHab 7, which has it that, although the prophets wrote of the future, they did not understand it. Jeremiah’s precis of the Christian future says nothing negative. Everything is positive. This stands in marked contrast to one of the redactor’s sources, Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:21–31. This last depicts the corruption of the Church. 4 Baruch prefers, for its rhetorical end, an unsullied dualism. The snow has become black. The crimson has become white wool. 9:19–20. The narrator summarizes Jeremiah’s speech and then notes the furious reaction: ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Ἰερεμίου περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὠργίσθη ὁ λαός.265 One who hears an echo of LXX Ps 98:1 (ὀργιζέσθωσαν λαοί) might find the allusion ironic: Israel has become like the nations; cf. vv. 14–17. The crowd—for dramatic effect a single, undifferentiated character— responds that it has heard this before: ταῦτα πάλιν ἐστι τὰ ῥήματα τὰ ὑπὸ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἀμὼς εἰρημένα λέγοντος ὅτι.266 Isaiah also

262 263

Ἐμπίμπλημι: 1x; πεινάω: 1x; ψυχή: see on 5:32.

Cf. esp. Matt 14:13–21; 15:32–39; Mark 6:30–44; 8:1–10; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1– 13. 264 So also Luke 1:53: “he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.” 265 Ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Ἰερεμίου: see on v. 7; for “the Son of God” see on v. 13; ἔρχεται εἰς τὸν κόσμον; see on v. 18; ὀργίζω: 1x; λαός: see on 1:5. 266 Cf. Eusebius, Praep. ev. 15.2.9: τὰ ὑπ̓ ἐκείνων εἰρημένα λέγοντας. Πάλιν: see on 5:13; ῥήμα: see on 1:9; Ἠσαΐας: 1x; υἱός: 11x; Ἀμώς: 1x; ἐρῶ: 2x: 8:2; 9:20. The HB/OT often calls Isaiah the Son of Amos: 2 Kgs 19:2, 10; 20:1; 2 Chr 26:22; 32:20, 32; Isa 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; Isa 20:2; 37:2, 21; 38:1; cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 2:7; 6:1.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

445

claimed that he saw God and the Son of God: εἶδον τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ.267 The words recall Isa 1:1 and 6:1: 4 Bar. 9:10 Ἠσαΐου τοῦ υἱοῦ Ἀμώς … εἶδον τὸν Θεόν LXX Isa 1:1 Ἠσαΐας    υἱὸς Ἀμώς …  εἶδεν LXX Isa 6:1                εἶδον τὸν Κύριον268

Other HB/OT figures see God: Moses (Num 12:8; Deut 34:10), the prophet Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:19; LXX: εἶδον τὸν Κύριον Θεόν), Ezekiel (Ezek 1:26– 28), Daniel (Dan 7:9–10). One might expect Daniel to be named here because, in his vision, there are two figures, the Ancient of Days and the one like a son of man, and Christians identified the latter with Jesus Christ. 4 Baruch, however, names Isaiah in particular not only because he saw the divinity but also because, in line with the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,269 he was martyred for his Christian proclamation.270 Why the crowd is so incensed at Jeremiah’s proclamation goes unsaid, and a pre-Christian audience could have made little of Jeremiah’s words. The text makes no sense historically. But our narrator, in accord with the topos of the persecuted prophet,271 projects the taken-for-granted hostility of Jews toward Christians and their christology onto Isaiah. One recalls Εἶδον: 24x; τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ: see on v. 13. Do Θεός and υἱός have, as they do in Athanasius, Syn. 27.3.27 (Θεὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ); Ps.-Didymus of Alexandria, Trin. PG 39.848 (Θεὸν μὲν καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ); Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai, Quaest. et resp. appendix 21.2 (Θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ), the same referent? That is, does “God” = “Son of God”? Against this, the similar expression in v. 13 (q.  v.) distinguishes Jesus and God. 268 Cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3:6–9 (“Belkira accused Isaiah and the prophets who were with him, saying … ‘Isaiah himself has said, “I see more than Moses the prophet.” Moses said, “There is no man who can see the Lord and live.” But Isaiah has said, “I have seen the Lord, and behold I am alive”’”; cf. b. Yeb. 49b, which also contrasts Exod 33:20 with Isa 6:1); 11:31–32 (“I saw how he ascended into the seventh heaven, and all the righteous and all the angels praised him. And then I saw that he sat down at the right hand of that Great Glory, whose glory I told you I could not behold”). 269 On 4 Baruch’s knowledge of the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah see the Introduction, pp. 55–56. 270 One might also note that the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah appear side by side in collections of HB/OT scripture and that their lives are juxtaposed in collections of the Lives of the Prophets; note also Heb 11:37; 5 Ezra 2:18; Athenagoras, Leg. 9.1; Melito, Pass. frag. 3; Eusebius, H.  E. 4.26.14; Mek. Beshallah 7:13–15; etc. ˙ 271 See esp. Otto H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967). Pertinent texts include Jub. 1:12; 4QpHosa 2:3–6; Matt 5:12; 13:57; 23:29–32; Luke 4:24; John 4:44; 1 Thess 2:15; Heb 11:32–38; Josephus, Ant. 10.38; 5 Ezra 1:32. 267

446

Commentary

the rabbinic polemic against those who teach that there are two powers in heaven; cf. e.  g. Deut Rab. 2:33 (“Do not meddle with those who declare that there is a second god … the mouths that declare that there are two powers will be cut off and die”; God “has neither son nor brother”); Eccl. Rab. 4:8:1 (God “has no partner in his universe … he has no brother, when should he have a son?”).272 The difference from chs. 7–8, where the people who leave Babylon and enter Jerusalem are repentant and obedient, is striking. The disjunction is consistent with much or most of ch. 9 being from a secondary hand. A Christian audience, however, could think of the fickleness of the wilderness generation or of the crowds in the canonical passion narratives who first welcome Jesus and then turn on him. 9:21. Jeremiah now becomes, in effect, a Christian martyr; cf. Ign. Magn. 8:2 (“the divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted”); Sib. Or. 7:160–61 (the Sibyl is stoned after speaking with God the Father and learning about “the dear Son”); Ps.-Cyprian, Adv. Jud. 3.3 (“Moses they cursed because he proclaimed Christ … David they hated because he sang of Christ … Jeremiah they stoned while he was hymning Christ”). The crowd addresses itself in the first person plural: δεῦτε οὖν, καὶ μὴ ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτὸν τῷ ἐκείνου θανάτῳ.273 As there is no trial or reference to authorities, and as the law prescribes that stoning take place outside of the city,274 this is a lynch mob.275 Although the nature of “that death” is not clarified, there was a tradition that Isaiah was sawn in half.276 272 See

further Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012). 273 Δεῦτε: 2x: 8:2; 9:21; ἀποκτείνω: 2x: 9:21, 23; θανάτος: 1x; cf. LXX Exod 1:10 (δεῦτε οὖν κατασοφισώμεθα αὐτούς); Wis 2:6 (δεῦτε οὖν καὶ ἀπολαύσωμεν τῶν ὄντων ἀγαθῶν); Rev 2:23 (ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ); Acts Paul part. final. rec. e cod. G line 22 (δεῦτε οὖν λάβωμεν). 274 Lev 24:14, 23; Num 15:35–36; Deut 17:5; 21:19–21; 1 Kgs 21:13; m. Sanh. 6:1. 275 Cf. Luke 20:6; John 8:59; Josephus, Ant. 14.22–24; Polybius 1.69.10–13. 276 See Liv. Proph. Isa. 1; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5:1–16; 11:41; Justin, Dial. 120.5; Tertullian, Pat. 14; Scorp. 8; Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.18 (interpreting Heb 11:37); Commodian, Carm. apol. 221; Jerome, Comm. Isa. 57.2; Apoc. Paul 49; y. Sanh. 28c (10:2); b. Sanh. 103b; b. Yeb. 49b; Cave of Treasures 40:3–5. Hebrews 11:37 probably belongs with these texts (cf. already Origen). For additional references to and discussion of this very well-attested legend see A. Caquot, “Bref commentaire du Martyre d’Isaïe,” Sem 23 (1973), 65–93; Schaller, Paralipomena, 755–56; Anna Maria Schwemer, “Die Zersägung des Propheten Jesaja,” in Martyriumsvorstellung

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

447

In contrast to Isaiah’s fate, Jeremiah is to be stoned with stones: λίθοις λιθοβολήσωμεν αὐτόν.277 One is put in mind of Matt 23:37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!”278 The Semitic idiom, “to stone with stones” (cf. ‫ רגם‬+ ‫)באבן‬, occurs often in the HB/OT,279 but here we have a Greek cognate accusative. Why the two prophets, who are guilty of the same crime, should be punished differently, goes unexplained, as so much else in this chapter. The crowd’s sentence is ultimately to be explained by the fact that our book did not invent the notion that Jeremiah was stoned but rather took up a pre-existing tradition. The notice in Liv. Proph. Jer. 1—λίθοις βληθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀποθνήσκει—appears to be independent of our book as it locates the martyrdom in Taphnai in Egypt.280 Beyond that, given the tradition that Moses was threatened with stoning,281 it may be that Jeremiah’s death adds to the Moses typology.

in Antike und Mittelalter: Leben oder sterben für Gott?, ed. Sebastian Fuhrmann and Regina Grundmann (AJEC 80; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012), 45–67. The short Greek recension of 4 Bar. 9:22 (ed. Vassiliev, p. 315) adds that a wooden saw (ξυλίνῳ πρίονι) was used; cf. Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5:1, 11. 277 Cf. Eusebius, H.  E. 2.23.12 (λιθάσωμεν); 2 Apoc. Jas. 61:13–15 (“Come, let us stone the just one”); John of Damascus, Thesaur. 21.649 (λιθοβολήσωμεν). Λίθος: 9x, all in 9: vv. 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32 bis; λιθοβολέω: 3x: 9:21, 27, 30. The cognate object also occurs in 8:7; 9:2. 278 Cf. Luke 13:34; also 13:33 (“it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem”). While Christian readers or hearers of 4 Baruch were undoubtedly familiar with the canonical gospels, it is unclear that 4 Baruch here alludes to the synoptics, although Herzer, 4 Baruch, 156, suggests this. 279 Lev 20:2 (LXX: θανάτῳ θανατούσθω … λιθοβολήσουσιν αὐτὸν ἐν λίθοις), 27 (LXX: θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν … λίθοις λιθοβολήσατε); 24:23; Num 14:10; 15:35 (θανάτῳ θανατούσθω … λιθοβολήσατε αὐτὸν λίθοις), 36; Deut 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:21, 24; Josh 7:25; 1 Kgs 12:18; 21:13; 2 Chr 10:18; 24:21; cf. 11QTemple 64:5. 280 Cf. Jer 43:8. Other texts—all Christian—that speak of Jeremiah being stoned include Tertullian, Scorp. 8; Hippolytus, Antichr. 31; Comm. Sus. ad 1 (this also places the execution in Taphnai); Jerome, Jov. 2:37; Apoc. Paul 49; Opus Imperf Matt. 46 (PG 54:895). Hebrews 11:37 may have Jeremiah foremost in mind. On the origin of this tradition see below, on v. 27. Some Christian sources count Jeremiah instead as an immortal—e.  g. Ps.-Tertullian, Carm. adv. Marc. 3.245–46; Victorinus of Pettau, Comm. Rev. 11.3. 281 Note e.  g. Josephus, Ant. 4.22; b. Sotah 35a; Num. Rab. 18:4. ˙

448

Commentary

Stoning refers to a mode of execution involving the participation of a group, so it involves collective responsibility.282 Being stoned was a brutal and, in the Jewish and Greek worlds, shameful death, although Christian readers would likely have associated Jeremiah’s end with that of other prophets as well as the martyrdoms of Stephen and James the brother of Jesus.283 Josephus, Ant. 14.25, refers to a particular act of stoning as “savagery” (ὠμότητος) while Polybius 1.80.10 describes some victims of stoning as “unfortunates, mangled as if by wild beasts”; and m. Sanh. 9:3 discusses whether stoning or burning is the more severe death (cf. b. Sanh. 49b–50a). Note the progressive misfortune in Matt 21:35: “beat one, killed another, stoned another.” Stoning was legislated as punishment for blasphemy, idolatry, divination, child sacrifice, adultery, and sabbath violation. Here perhaps the implicit issue is blasphemy.284 9.22. The reason for the grief of Baruch and Abimelech is surprising. The narrator does not say that they are exceedingly pained because their friend is going to die a horrible death; rather, the crowd’s frenzy upsets them because they want to be privy to the revelation Jeremiah has received: ἐλυπήθησαν οὖν σφόδρα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀπονοίᾳ ταύτῃ Βαροὺχ καὶ Ἀβιμέλεχ ὅτι ἤθελον 282

Cf. Lev 20:2 (“the people of the land shall stone them to death”); 24:16 (“the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer”), 23; Num 15:36 (“all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones”); Deut 13:9–10; 21:21 (“all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones”); Josh 7:25 (“all Israel stoned him with stones”); 1 Kgs 12:18 (“and all Israel stoned him to death with stones”; cf. 2 Chr 10:18); Plato, Leg. 9.873b (“all the magistrates, acting on behalf of the whole state, shall each take a stone and cast it on the head of the corpse, and thus make atonement for the whole state”); Philo, Mos. 2.202 (“God commanded that he should be stoned … the work of vengeance should be shared by all the people”); m. Sanh. 6:4 (“stoning by all Israel”). Lit.: Rudolf Hirzel, Die Strafe der Steinigung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967); Josef Blinzler, “The Jewish Punishment of Stoning in the New Testament Period,” in The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D. Moule, ed. Ernst Bammel (SBT 2/13; London: SCM 1970), 147–61. 283 Matt 23:37 (prophets); John 8:59 (Jesus); Acts 7:54–60 (Stephen); Heb 11:37 (unnamed worthies); Josephus, Ant. 4.22 (Moses); 2 Apoc. Jas. 61:13–15 (James); Eusebius, H.  E. 2.23.16–18 (James); Exod. Rab. 6:13 (Moses). In the short recension (ed. Vassiliev, p. 316), Jeremiah neither speaks against nor becomes angry (ἀντεῖπεν οὐδὲ ὠργίσθη) with those who kill him, which recalls Luke 23:34 and Acts 7:60. Elgvin, “Editing,” 298, raises the possibility that “Jeremiah’s martyrdom at the hands of his fellow Jews may reflect the martyrdom of James the Just and Bar Kokhba’s persecution of Jewish believers in Jesus.” Cf. Wilson, Strangers, 98. 284 Cf. Lev 24:10–23; 1 Kgs 21:10; John 10:33; Josephus, Ant. 4.202; m. Sanh. 7:4.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

449

ἀκοῦσαι πλήρης τὰ μυστήρια ἃ εἶδε.285 This seems hardhearted. Surely their first thought should be for their friend, not their religious edification. The next verse, however, will remark upon their grief (“do not weep”), and the narrator’s chief interest is not Jeremiah’s suffering or someone else’s emotion. So the stoning is narrated matter-of-factly, without noting the prophet’s agony or anyone’s grief. The sole goal is to set the stage so that (i) the prophet can deliver esoteric revelation (vv. 23, 28) and (ii) the crowd can stone a stone, supposing it to be Jeremiah (vv. 25–26). That Jeremiah’s disciples hope to learn the mysteries revealed to the prophet implies that his speech about the Son of God in vv. 13–18 divulges only some of what he learned. The text, like Mark 4:10–12, thus implies a distinction between public disclosure and imparting esoteric mysteries. Although μυστήριον was associated with the so-called mystery religions of the Greco-Roman period,286 the primary background here in 4 Baruch is Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought, which concerned itself with the revelation of heavenly secrets and the eschatological future; cf. Dan 2:27– 28: “No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery which the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days.”287 9:23. Jeremiah remains wholly in control, telling his friends to calm down: λέγει δὲ αὐτοῖς Ἰερεμίας· Σιωπήσατε, καὶ μὴ κλαίετε.288 Evidently, along with his vision of heavenly things, he has learned his own fate and further v. 28: τὰ μυστήρια ἃ εἶδε. Λυπέω: see on 3:9; σφόδρα: 1x; ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα occurs in 1 Macc 14:16; Matt 17:23; 18:21; ἀπονοία: 1x; LXX: 3x: Ecclus

285 Cf.

22:13; 2 Macc 6:29; 4 Macc 12:3; Gk. Pseudepigrapha (Denis): 1x; Philo: 13x; NT: 0x; Josephus: 42x; the word may in part connote arrogance; cf. Lampe, s.  v., 1a; ἐπὶ τῇ ἀπονοίᾳ occurs in Lucian, Peregr. 18; Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 1.66; θέλω: see on 3:7; ἀκούω: 20x; πλήρης: 1x; μυστήριον: 2x: 9:22, 28; εἶδον: 24x, 7x in ch. 9. 286 See M. W. Meyer, “Mystery Religions,” ABD 4 (1992), 941–45. 287 Cf. 1 En. 38:3; 52:1–4; 93:2; 103:2–3; 104:10, 12; 1QpHab 7:4–5; 1QS 4:6; 9:17– 21; 1QH 15:27; 19:10; 1QapGen 5:20–21; 6:12; 4Q534 1:8; 4Q536 frag. 1 1:8–9; 4Q545 frag. 3; Gk. LAE 13:2; Rom 11:25; 1 Cor 15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:3; Col 1:26; Rev 1:20; 4 Ezra 12:36–39; 14:5–6, 45–47; Mart. Ascen. Isa. 11:37–39; 2 Bar. 48:3; 3 Bar. 1:6, 8; 2:6. See further G. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” TDNT 4 (1967), 802–828; R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament (FBBS 21; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); M. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). 288 Σιωπάω: 2x: 7:13; 9:23; κλαίω: see on 2:5.

450

Commentary

knows that he will not suffer martyrdom before he shares what he has seen: οὐ μὴ γάρ με ἀποκτείνωσιν ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι ὑμῖν.289 Verse 25 will pick up the language of this verse: 9:23 ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι + dative 9:25 ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι + dative

9:24. Still in command, Jeremiah instructs Baruch and Abimelech to procure a stone: εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς· Ἐνέγκατέ μοι λίθον.290 While the introductory εἶπε δὲ αὐτοῖς is otiose, the narrative is otherwise compressed. Nothing is said about the size or nature of the stone needed. The text also fails to note that Baruch and Abimelech fetch the stone,291 although the next verse assumes their compliance. 9:25. Jeremiah “sets up” the stone.292 What this means is unclear. Have Baruch and Abimelech dragged over a large stone that Jeremiah now sets upright? Is it some part of the ruined temple in which they are standing? Further, is Jeremiah’s action in any way related to biblical scenes such as Gen 28:22 (“this stone, which I have set up for a pillar”); 35:14 (“Jacob set up … a pillar of stone”); or Deut 27:2 (“you shall set up large stones”; cf. 27:4; Josh 4:9, 20)? Clearer than his actions are his words. Jeremiah addresses τὸ φῶς τῶν αἰώνων; see on 9:13. This means, in view of v. 13, that he is addressing Jesus Christ. His plea is quite peculiar. He wants Jesus to turn the stone into an image of the prophet: ποίησον τὸν λίθον τοῦτον καθ’ ὁμοιότητά μου γενέσθαι.293 Although καθ’ ὁμοιότητα is common enough in Greek literature, one wonders whether a biblically literate reader or hearer might hear an echo of Genesis 1, where the expression occurs twice: vv. 11, 12; cf. also 1:26: ποιήσωμεν … καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν. The concluding expression, ἕως οὗ πάντα ὅσα εἶδον διηγήσωμαι τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ, is, with minor adjustments, from v. 23 (q.  v.). 9:26. That the stone, by God’s command, now looks like Jeremiah—ὁ δὲ λίθος διὰ προστάγματος Θεοῦ ἀνέλαβεν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ Ἰερεμίου— Ἀποκτείνω: 2x: 9:21, 23; πάντα ὅσα: 3x: 7:22; 9:23, 25; εἶδον: 24x, 7x in ch. 9; διηγέομαι: 2x: 9:23, 25. 290 Φέρω: see on 3:15; λίθος: see on 9:21. 289

291 The

eth, which adds “and they brought him a stone,” reflects someone’s sense that the text as it stands is laconic. Cf. arm 144 345. 292 Ὁ δὲ ἔστησεν αὐτόν; ἵστημι: see on 3:2. 293 Λίθος: see on 9:21; ὁμοιότης: 2x: 9:25, 26.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

451

means that God has heard Jeremiah’s prayer.294 As the text moves from a prayer to Jesus to an answer from God, binitarian or trinitarian doctrine is presupposed. 9:27. Wrongly imagining that they are stoning Jeremiah, the people are in truth stoning the stone that looks like the prophet: ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν λίθον, νομίζοντες ὅτι Ἰερεμίας ἐστίν.295 The wordplay is likely intended to add a touch of levity. If so, the humor is startling: there is nothing funny about martyrdom. While several passages in Jeremiah mention stones,296 it is difficult to connect any of them directly with our passage. There is perhaps a distant parallel with the Hajj ritual of Islam, which involves people throwing stones at three pillars that represent the devil. From the Jewish side, in Jer. Apocr. 28:6–7, the cornerstone of the temple, upon Jeremiah’s command, “takes the likeness of a great and honored person,” and y. Ber. 13a (9:1) records the opinion that, when Moses fled from Pharaoh (Exod 2:15), “an angel came down and appeared to them [the Egyptians] in the shape of Moses (‫ ;)כדמות משה‬they arrested the angel and Moses fled.” One also recalls the docetic opinion that, when the Romans crucified Jesus, they unknowingly tortured a substitute in his place.297 Liv. Proph. Jer. 1, like our text, reports that Jeremiah was stoned: “Jeremiah … died in Taphnai of Egypt, having been stoned by his people.” These words draw upon Jer 43:8, which reports that “the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah in Taphanhes.” Is it coincidence that the latter verse introduces

on v. 25. Λίθος: see on 9:24; πρόσταγμα: 2x: 7:23; 9:26; πρόσταγμα (τοῦ) Θεοῦ is characteristically Christian; cf. Theophilus, Autol. 1.13; Origen, Or. 1.13; PG 17.25; Theodore the Studite, Catech. parv. 120; etc.; ἀναλαμβάνω: 2x: 9:3, 26; ὁμοιότης: 2x: 9:25, 26. 295 Νομίζω: 3x: 5:26; 9:27, 30, always followed by ὅτι; cf. v. 30: νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐγὼ Ἰερεμίας; λιθοβολέω: 3x: 9:21, 27, 30; λίθος: see on 9:24. 294 See

296 297

Jer 2:27; 3:9; 43:9–10; 51:26, 63. Note Irenaeus, Haer. 1.19.2 (“He did not suffer death, but a certain Simon of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; Simon was transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, and was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them”) and Apoc. Pet. 7.81.3–83.6 (“I saw him seemingly being seized by them … Is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking? The savior said to me, ‘He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness’ …”).

452

Commentary

a passage about stones and hiding?298 “Take in your hands large stones, and hide them in the mortar in the pavement which is at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and he will set his throne above these stones which I have hid, and he will spread his royal canopy over them’” (Jer 43:9–10). A tendentious rewriting of the Hebrew was perhaps the source of the tradition that Jeremiah was stoned. If so, however, the details of how this was done seem beyond recovery. There was no single tradition as to where Jeremiah died. Canonical Jeremiah says nothing on the matter. In our text, the place is Jerusalem. In Liv. Proph. Jer. 1, as noted, it is Taphanhes in Egypt; so too Hippolytus, Comm. Sus. 1.1. In Cave of Treasures 42:5, the prophet dies in Samaria but is buried in Jerusalem. 9:28. The editor observes that Jeremiah passed on what he saw in his altered state of consciousness: ὁ δὲ Ἰερεμίας πάντα παρέδωκε τὰ μυστήρια, ἃ εἶδε, τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ.299 This answers to vv. 22 and 23, marking the fulfillment of the wish of Baruch and Abimelech: 9:28                        πάντα παρέδωκε τὰ μυστήρια ἃ εἶδε



τῷ Βαροὺχ καὶ τῷ Ἀβιμέλεχ

9:22       Βαροὺχ καὶ          Ἀβιμέλεχ …   τὰ μυστήρια ἃ εἶδε 9:23                         πάντα …                        εἶδον

Note the parallel in Mart. Ascen. Isa. 6:16: “after Isaiah had seen this vision he recounted it to Hezekiah, and to Joab his son, and to the other prophets who had come”; cf. 11:37–39. Although παρέδωκε τὰ μυστήρια has a parallel in Wis 14:15 (παρέδωκεν … μυστήρια) and PGM 5:108 (παρέδωκας τὰ μυστήρια),300

298 Wolff,

Jeremia, 89–90, guesses that the text in Jeremiah fostered the legend. So too Richard Bernheimer, “Vitae prophetarum,” JAOS 55 (1935) 202. According to the latter, the proof that Jeremiah was a martyr follows from him having gathered the stones with which he was stoned. Wolff cites this from the medieval history of Peter Comestor: “And the people rose up against Jeremiah, and he was stoned with stones which he had hidden under the brick wall.” 299 Παραδίδωμι: 11x; μυστήριον: 2x: 9:22, 28. In its version of this line, Codex Patmensis 736 fol. 174v names only Baruch. 300 Cf. Justin, 1 Apol. 66.4 (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Μίθρα μυστηρίοις παρέδωκαν); Dial. 70.1; 78.6.

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

453

the language is typically Christian.301 The mysteries revealed to Baruch and Abimelech, which obviously go beyond the revelation in vv. 13–18, remain undisclosed. Perhaps this underlines their profundity and/or esoteric nature.302 Then again, perhaps the author thought his line an explanation for certain apocryphal books or traditions associated with Abimelech and/ or Baruch.303 9:28 could also in theory have been the opportunity to write yet another book, in which the secrets, or some of them, would be revealed. Yet of that we have no evidence.304 9:29. After passing on his revelation, the prophet stands in the midst of the crowd: καὶ εἶθ’ οὕτως ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ.305 He is done with his appointed duties: ἐκτελέσαι βουλόμενος τὴν οἰκονομίαν αὐτοῦ.306 The sense of οἰκονομία here is close to “term of office”; cf. T. Job. 1:2 (“On the day on which, having fallen ill, he [Job] was completing his stewardship [ἐξετέλει αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκονομίαν] …”); Eusebius, Comm. Isa. 2.44 (τὰς ἐν ἀνθρώποις οἰκονομίας ἐκτελῶν); Didymus of Alexandria, Comm. Ps. 20–21 ed. Doutreleau, Gesche, and Gronewald, p. 29 (αὐτοῦ οἰκονομίας ἐκτελεῖ). Jeremiah has faithfully fulfilled his prophetic and priestly ministry, and there is nothing left for him to do—just as, with the prophet soon out

301 Origen,

Cels. 3.60; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. 26.72; Apos. Con. 8:1; etc. On

παραδίδωμι for the transmission of teaching recall 1 Cor 11:23; 15:3 and see BDAG, s.  v. παραδίδωμι, 3.

302 Cf.

2 Cor 12:4 and Philo, Cherub. 48–49, which exhorts the initiated to keep the holy μηστήρια from the profane and goes on to refer to Moses and then Jeremiah as enlightened ministers of such secrets. 303 In arm 345, Baruch writes “in his book” what Jeremiah tells him to write. One might wonder about traditions related to those in 3 Baruch, which recounts heavenly revelations. 4 Baruch 9:28 is unlikely, however, to refer to 3 Baruch in anything like its present form. (i) In the latter it is Baruch, not Jeremiah, who has visions. (ii) Those visions come when Jerusalem is destroyed, not at the end of exile. (iii) 3 Baruch may be later than 4 Baruch.  304 Wright, “Baruch,” 271 n. 25, suggests that 4 Baruch may view both Baruch and Abimelech as “Jeremiah’s sucessors,” although Wright fails to clarify what this would entail. Eusebius, Dem. ev. 10.14.6, and Origen, Hom. Jer. 8.5, regard Baruch as a prophet. So too most (if not all) Jewish sources; cf. Sifre Num. 78; y. Sota 24b (9:13); ˙ etc. 305 Ἵστημι: see on 3:2; μέσος: see on 9:13; cf. v. 30: Ἰερεμίας ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ἵσταται; ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ is a Septuagintism—cf. ‫—בתוך העם‬which occurs five times in LXX Jeremiah: 12:16; 44:12; 46:14; 47:5, 6; λαός: see on 1:5. 306 Βούλομαι: 2x: 7:12; 9:29; ἐκτελέω: 1x; οἰκονομία: 2x: 9:29, 31.

454

Commentary

of the picture, there will be nothing more for the author to write: he too will have fulfilled his service. 9:30. It is unclear why the crowd fails to see Jeremiah until the stone—does it still look like him, so that there are two identical figures?—cries out and calls the fact to their attention: τότε ἐβόησε ὁ λίθος.307 Moreover, the stone’s cry is unexpected, for while v. 32 calls it Jeremiah’s helper, its words instigate the prophet’s martyrdom. Evidently the stoning is God’s will and done, through the stone, at God’s bidding. The motif of a stone crying out is well-attested; cf. Hab 2:11 (“the stone will cry [βοήσεται] out from the wall”); Luke 19:40 (“if these were silent, the stones would shout out”); Liv. Proph. Jon. 10 (Jonah “gave a portent concerning Jerusalem and the whole land, that whenever they should see a stone crying out308 piteously the end was at hand”); 4 Ezra 5:5 (“the stone shall utter its voice”—one of the signs of the end);309 Ladder Jacob 7:17 (“at his coming the idols of brass, stone, and any sort of carving will give voice for three days”). One recalls 4Q403 1 1:38–46, where the pillars and corners of the heavenly temple are animate and praise God, and Hippolytus, Haer. 9.25: Jews think “nothing inanimate.” The insulting address—ὦ μωροὶ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ310—lumps the people together as one and expresses the supercessionist point of view of the Christian narrator. The stone stresses the people’s folly and justifies use of the disparaging μωροί by asking them why they are stoning an illusion: διὰ τί λιθοβολεῖτέ με, νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐγὼ Ἰερεμίας; Ἰδοὺ Ἰερεμίας ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ἵσταται.311 The question, which echoes v. 27 (ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν λίθον, νομίζοντες ὅτι Ἰερεμίας ἐστίν), introduces the declaration, which echoes v. 29 (ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ). The words are, in effect, a call to stone the prophet.

Τότε: 3x: 5:32; 7:13; 9:30; βοάω: 1x; λίθος: see on 9:24. Arm 144 345 clarify by adding that the stone reverted to its original appearance. 308 Dor Ep2: βοῶντα; An2 (Coisl. 224): βοῶν. 309 Harris, Baruch, 20, implausibly suggests that 4 Ezra 5:5 inspired 4 Baruch’s conclusion: “The motive for this story is evidently the single sentence … from Ezra.” 310 Μωρός: 1x; υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ: see on 1:1; μωροὶ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ occurs in Sus 48. Ὦ μωροὶ is rare, although note Suda, Lex. Κ 1467; Μ 1342. The injunction in Matt 5:22 not to call anyone μωρέ has not affected our text; cf. Matt 23:17. 311 Cf. Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. rec. φ 244: νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶμαι ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος. Διὰ τί: 2x: 4:6; 9:30; λιθοβολέω: 3x: 9:21, 27, 30; νομίζω: 3x: 5:26; 9:27, 30, in each instance followed by ὅτι; ἰδού: 10x; μέσος: see on 9:13; ἵστημι: see on 3:2. 307

Chapter 9:  Jeremiah’s Vision and Martyrdom

455

9:31. As soon as their eyes land upon the real Jeremiah, the people, carrying stones, rush upon him: ὡς δὲ εἶδον αὐτὸν, εὐθέως ἔδραμον πρὸς αὐτὸν μετὰ πολλῶν λίθων.312 If, in v. 9, the people run to the prophet because of their affection for him, here they run to him in order to kill him. The combination of εὐθέως and τρέχω communicates the enthusiasm with which they go about and relish their evil deed. Nothing more of the death is recounted. The text does not say that Jeremiah died nobly (εὐγενῶς) or bravely (ἀνδρείως)—typical Greco-Roman tropes—and the bloody details are all skipped. Implicit, however, is Jeremiah’s Christ-like acceptance of his fate. All that matters is that the prophet, having made his Christian confession, has courageously fulfilled his divine mission through martyrdom: καὶ ἐπληρώθη αὐτοῦ οἰκονομία.313 9:32. Family members do not bury Jeremiah. Baruch and Abimelech, his religious companions, rather discharge the task: ἐλθόντες … ἔθαψαν αὐτόν.314 One is reminded of Matt 14:12 (John the Baptist is buried by his disciples: προσελθόντες … ἔθαψαν αὐτόν; cf. Mark 6:29); 27:57–60 (Joseph of Arimathea, who buries Jesus, is his “disciple”; cf. John 19:38); Acts 8:2 (“pious men” bury Stephen); Diogenes Laertius 6.78 (Pythagoras’ disciples bury him). The last thing Jeremiah’s companions do for their friend is set up the stone that took on his likeness above or at the front of his tomb. Upon this they write an inscription: καὶ λαβόντες τὸν λίθον ἔθηκαν ἐπὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ, ἐπιγράψαντες οὕτως.315 Perhaps we are to think of the stone as closing the tomb opening, as serving like the rolling stones in front of so many cave tombs in Israel; cf. Romanos the Melodist, Cant. 41.2: λίθος ἦν ἐπὶ τοῦ μνήματος (of Jesus’ tomb). In any event, the stone displays his epitaph, which is short and succinct, and for someone not knowing the story of Jeremiah’s martyrdom as recounted in our book, enigmatic: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λίθος ὁ βοηθὸς τοῦ Ἰερεμίου.316 This must in part depend upon 1 Λίθος: see on 9:24; εὐθέως: 1x; τρέχω: 2x: 9:9, 31. Cf. Matt 27:48 (εὐθέως δραμών); Physiologus (2 Byz. red.) 4 (δράμε εὐθέως), 17 (εὐθέως τρέχει). 313 Πληρόω: 1x; οἰκονομία: see on v. 29. Christians were fond of πληρόω + οἰκονομία; 312

cf. Athanasius, Syn. 30.5; Epiphanius, Pan. ed. Holl, 3:209; Ps.-Chrysostom, Samar. PG 59.541; etc. 314 Cf. 3 Βασ 22:37: ἦλθον … ἔθαψαν τὸν βασιλέα. Θάπτω: see on 7:14. 315 Λαμβάνω: see on 3:8; λίθος: see on 9:24; τίθημι: 1x; μνῆμα: 1x; ἐπιγράφω: 1x; οὕτως: see on 6:6. 316 Λίθος: see on 9:24; βοηθός: 1x; the word is common in inscriptions; see n. 00. Arm. 993 (= 920) has instead: “this is the likeness of Jeremiah.”

456

Commentary

Sam 7:12, presumably in its LXX translation: “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Jesha’nah, and called its name Ebene’zer, for he said, ‘Hitherto the Lord has helped us.’” Par. Jer. 9:32 λαβόντες τὸν λίθον      ἔθηκαν … ὁ λίθος ὁ  βοηθός LXX 1 Βασ 7:12 ἔλαβεν …       λίθον … ἔστησεν … λίθος τοῦ βοηθοῦ

In the HB/OT text, the helper is God.317 Here, however, it is the stone (albeit as an instrument of God) that is the helper. Even though v. 3 may anticipate the event, nothing is said of Jeremiah’s soul ascending to heaven. What happened thereafter to Baruch and Abimelech goes undisclosed. This is because Jeremiah is the central character, and with his life finished, the story is finished.

317 Cf.

Exod 18:4; Ps 22:19; 27:9; 30:10; 33:20; 40:3; 42:5, 11; 43:5; 46:1; 115:9–11; Isa 8:13; 17:10; 50:7; cf. Heb 13:6; CIJ 964; IJO 2 14A, 137, 142; 3 Syr 20, 27, 38, 41, 75; CII/P 2 1141, 1177, 1342; JIGRE 15; and see Eberhard Bons, “The Noun βοηθός as a Divine Title,” in The Reception of Septuagint Words in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian Literature, ed. Eberhard Bons, Ralph Brucker, and Jan Joosten (WUNT 2/367; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 53–67.

List of Abbreviations 1Q28b (1QSb) Rule of Benedictions Words of Moses 1Q22 1Q32 (NJ ar) New Jerusalem 1QapGen/1QGenApoc. Genesis Apocryphon 1QH Hymns of Thanksgiving 1QM Milh.amah of War Scroll Pesher Habakkuk 1QpHab 1QS Serek Hayah.ad or Rule of the Community 1QSb Rule of the Blessings (Apendix b to 1QS) 2Q24 (NJ ar) New Jerusalem 3Q15 Copper Scroll 4Q179 (apocrLam A) Apocryphal Lamentations A Ages of Creation B 4Q181 (AgesCreat B) 4Q185 Sapiential Work 4Q204 (Enc ar) Enochc 4Q213 Aramaic Levi Document paleo Exodusm 4Q22 b 4Q244 (psDan ar) Pseudo-Danielb ar 4Q258 Community Ruled 4Q266 Damascus Documenta 4Q285 (SM) Sefer ha-Milh.amah d 4Q289 (Ber ) Berakhotd 4Q292 Work Containing Prayers B 4Q301 (Mystc?) Mysteriesc 4Q358 (4QpsEzeka) Pseudo-Ezekiela 4Q371 (apocrJosepha) Narrativ and Poetic Compositiona b 4Q372 (apocrJoseph ) Narrativ and Poetic Compositionb 4Q381 Non-Canonical Psalms B 4Q383 (apocrJer A) Apocryphon of Jeremiah A a 4Q385a (apocrJer C ) Apocryphon of Jeremiah Ca b b 4Q387 (Jer C (olim psMos )) Apocryphon of JeremiahC b 4Q387a (apocrJer D) Apocryphon of Jeremiah https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-021

458

List of Abbreviations

4Q388a (Jer Cc (olim psMosc)) Apocryphon of Jeremiah Cc 4Q389 (Jer Cd (olim ps Mosd) ??) Apocryphon of JeremiahC d 4Q390 (apocrJer E (psMose)) Apocryphon of JeremiahC e d 4Q403 (ShirShabb ) Songs of the Sabbath Sacrificed 4Q436 Barkhi Nafshic 4Q471a War Scroll-like Text B (olim Mh) 4Q485 papProphecy 4Q491 (Ma) War Scrolla 4Q504 (DibHama) Words oft he Luminariesa 4Q510 (Shira) Songs of the Sagea b 4Q511 (Shir ) Songs of the Sageb 4Q522 Prophecy of Joshua (apocrJoshc ?) (olim Work with Place Names) 4Q534 Noaha ar (olim Elect of God ar) 4Q536 Noahc (olim Aramaic C) Visions fo Amramc ar 4Q545 4Q554 (NJa ar) New Jerusalema ar New Jerusalemc 4Q555 4QFlor. Floriglegium, also Midrash on Eschatologya 4QMMT Mis.qat Macas´ê ha-Toraha 4Q174 Eschatological Commentary A New Jerusalem 5Q15 (NJ ar) 4Q509 (papPrFêtesc Festival Prayersc (= recto of 1Q496 and 4Q506)) 11Q10 (tgJob) Targum of Job 11Q18 (NJ ar) New Jerusalem 11Q5 Psalms Scrolla A. D. AB ABD

‘ Abod. Zar. Achilles Tatius, Leucip et Clitoph. Acts Andr. Acts Paul Thec. Acts Paul Acts Perpet. Fel. Acts Phil. Mart.

anno Domini Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 ‘ A bodah Zarah Leucippe et Clitophon Acts of Andrew Acts of Paul and Thecla Acts of Paul Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas Acts of Philip, Martyrdom

List of Abbreviations

Acts Phil. Acts Thom. Acts Xanthip. et Polyx. / Acts Xanth. Polyx. Add Esth Adamantius, Dial. Aelius Aristides, Pan. Aeschines, Falsa leg. Aesop, Fab. Agathangelus, Hist. Arm. AGJU

459

Acts of Philip Acts of Thomas Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena

Additions to Esther Dialogue Panathenaic Oration De falsa legatione Fabulae History of the Armenians Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und den Urchristentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken AGJU Judentums und des Urchristentums AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute AJEC Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Albinus, Epit./Did. Epitome doctrinae platonicae (Didaskalikos) Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Meteorologicorum In Arist Meteor. libros commentaria Ambrose, Exp. Luke Expsitio Evangelii secundum Lucam Hexaemeron Anastasius of Sinai, Hex. Andrew of Caesarea, Comm. Apoc. Commentary on the Apocalypse ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– Anth. pal. Anthologia palatina Antigonus, Mirab. Mirabilia Homilia Antiochus the Monk, Hom. AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament The Apocryphal Old Testament. AOT Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford, 1984 Ap. John/(Apocr.) Apoc. John Apocryphon of John Genesis Apocryphon apGen (Abbrevation of Texts from Judean Desert)

460

List of Abbreviations

Aphraates, Dem. Demonstrations Apoc. Apocalypse Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. BMV Apocalypsis Beatae Mariae Virginis Apoc. Pet. Apocalypse of Peter Apoc. Paul Apocalypse of Paul Apocalypse of Sedrach Apoc. Sedr./Sed. Apoc. Zeph. Apocalypse of Zephaniah Apocr. Apocryphon Apoc. Ezek. Apocryphon of Ezekiel Apophth. Patr. Apophthegmata Patrum Apos. Con./Apost. Const. Apostolic Constiutions and Canons The Apocryphal Old Testament. APOT Edited by H. F. D. Sparks. Oxford, 1984 Appian, Bell. civ. Bella civilia Apuleius, Metam. Metamorphoses Aq. Gen Aquila Genesis Aquila Symmachus Aq. ‘ Symm. ‘ Arak. A rakin Aristides Arist. Artemidorus, Onir. Onirocritica Aristotle, Ath. pol. Athe-naı-n politeia Aristotle, Eth. eud. Ethica eudemia Aristotle, Phys. Physica Arm. Armenian ARN ‘Abot de Rabbi Nathan Ancient Records from North Arabia, ARN A ed. F. V. Winnett and W. L. Reed. Toronto, 1970 Equites Aristophanes, Eq. Artistole, Part. an. De partibus animalium Athenain politeia Aristotle, Ath. pol. Aristotle, Eth eud. Ethica eudemia Aristotle, Col. De coloribus Physica Aristotle, Phys. Problemata Artistotle, Prob. Anabasis Arrian, Anab. Arrian, Epict. diss./Diss. Epicteti dissertationes Septem contra Thebas Aschylus, Sept. Commentariorum in Psalmos Asterius Sophista, Comm. Ps.

List of Abbreviations

Athanasius, Exp. Ps. Athanasius, H. Ar. Athanasius, Inc. Athanasius, Syn. Athanasius, V. Ant./Anth. Athenaeus, Deipn. Athenagoras, Leg. Augustine, Civ. Auth. Teach. AYB

461

Expositiones in Psalmos Historia Arianorum De incarnatione De synodis Vita Antonii Deipnosophistae Legatio pro Christianis De civitate Dei Autoritative Teaching The Anchor Yale Bible

Babylonian Baba Batra Baba Mes.i’a The Biblical Archaeologist Epinicians Beiträge zur altchristlichen Literatur und Theologie Bar Baruch Biblical Archaeology Review BAR Ep. Barn. Epistle of Barnabas Basil of Seleucia, Hom. in pent. Homilia in Pentecosten Basil of Seleucia, Or. Oratio Basil, Ep./Lit. Epistles Basil, Hex. Hexameron De spiritu sancto Basil, Spir. BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999 BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar oft he New Testament and Other Eary Christion Literature. Chicago, 1961 BEATAJ Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bel Bel and the Dragon Ber. Berakot b (before rabbinic text) B. Bat. B. Mes. BA Bacchylides, Epin. BALT

462

List of Abbreviations

BETL

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BFCT Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden. 15 vols. Berlin, 1895–1983. Biblica Bib bis twice BNP Bibliothèque nationale de Paris BRKA Beiträg zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums BSKO Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des Orients BT The Bible Translator BTS Bible et terre sainte BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft BZRGG Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Religionsund Geistesgeschichte Cant. Canticles Cant. Rab. Canticles Rabbah Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. Historia Romana De Vita S. Hypatii Callinicus, Vita S. Hyp. Cave Treas. Cave of Treasures CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly MonoCBQMS graph Series CE Common Era Commentaries on Early Jewish LiterCEJL ature ch(s). chapter(s) De Chaerea et Callirhoe Chariton, Chaer./Call. Chr/Chron Chronicles see John Chrysostom Chrysostom CIG Corpus inscriptionum graecarum.

List of Abbreviations

463

Edited by A. Boeckh. 4 vols. Berlin, 1828–1877 CIJ Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum Cicero, Leg. De legibus Claudius Aelianus, Var. hist. Varia historia Clem. Clement Excerpta ex Theodoto Clement of Alexandria, Exc. Clement of Alexandria, Paed./Paid. Paedagogus Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. Eclogae propheticae Clement of Alexandria, Quis div. Quis dives salvetur Clement of Alexandria, Strom. Stromata CMC Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis cod. codex Commodian, Carm. apol. Carmen apologeticum Commodian, Inst. Instructiones Cor Corinthians Corp. herm. Corpus hermeticum Cosmas Indicopleustes, Top. Topographia christiana Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad CRINT Novum Testamentum CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Cyprian, Test. Ad Quirinum testimonia adversus Judaeos Commentarius in Isaiam Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Isa Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. John Commentarius in Ioannem Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Luke Commentarius in Lucam Epistulae paschales sive Homiliae Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. pasch. Hom. paschales Cyril of Alexandria, Exp. Ps. Expositio in Psalmos Cyril of Alexandria, Glaph. Pent. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum Cyril of Alexandria, Commentarius in XII Prophetas Comm. Xii. Proph. Cyril of Alexandria, Os.-Mal. Commentarius in xii prohetas minores Cyril of Alexandria, Thes. Thesaurus de Trinitate Catecheses ad illuminandos Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech./Cat. illum Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. Procatechesis Vita Sabae Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Sab.

464

List of Abbreviations

Dan Daniel DBSup Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplément. Edited by L. Pirot and A. Robert. Paris, 1928– DDD Dictionary of Clssical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield, 1993– Dem. Demetrius (the Chronographer) De falsa legatione Demosthenes, Fals. leg. Demosthenes, Or. Orationes Der. Er. Rab. Derek Eres. Rabbah Der. Er. Zut.. Derek Eres. Zut.a Deut Deuteronomy Dial. Sav. Dialogue of the Savior Did. Didache Didymus of Alexandria see Didymus Didymus, Comm. Zach./ Commentarii in Zachariam Comm. Zech. Didymus, Fr. Ps./Ps. frag. Fragmenta in Psalmos Didymus, In Gen./Gen. In Genesim Commentarii in Psalmos Didymus, Comm. Ps. Didymus, Comm. Job Commentarium in Job Dio Chrysostom, Or. Orationes Diogn. Diognetus Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistula ad Ammaeum i-ii 1–2 Amm. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae Ant. rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates romanae Ant. rom. Disc. Sav. Myst. Cross Discourse of the Savior on the Mystery of the Cross DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Scrolls DSS EB EBR

Echter Bibel Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception Eccl (or Qoh) Ecclesiastes (of Qoheleth) Ecclesiastes Rabbah Eccl./Eccles. Rab. Ecclus Ecclesiasticus

List of Abbreviations

465

‘Ed. ‘Eduyyot ‘ ‘ Erub. Erubin EDEJ Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by J. J. Collins, D. C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, 2010 EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G. Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993 1 En. 1 Enoch Enc. Mary Magd. Encomium on Mary Magdalene Enc. John Bapt. Encomium on John the Baptist Ep. Epistle Ep. Apost. Epistle to the Apostles Ep Jer/Ep. Jeremiah Epistle of Jeremiah Tchacos 1 Letter of Peter to Philip Ep. Pet. Phil. Eph Ephesians Ephraem, Hymn virg. Hymns on Virginity Epicurus, Ep. ad Men. Epistle ad Menoeceus Epiphanius, Anc. Ancoratus Epiphanius, Mens. De mensuris et ponderibus Panarion (Adversus haereses) Epiphanius, Pan./Haer. ‘ErIsr ‘Eretz-Israel Erub. Erubin Esdr Esdras Esth Esther ETL Ephemerides theologiecae lovanienses Helena Euripides, Hel. Euripides, Alc. Alcestis Euripides, Andr. Andromache Heraclidae Euripides, Heracl. Eusebius, Comm. Isa. Commentarius in Isaiam Eusebius, Comm. Ps./Ps. Commentarius in Psalmos Demonstratio evangelica Eusebius, Dem. ev. Eusebius, Eccl. theol. De ecclesiastica theologia Eusebius, Ecl. proph./Proph. frag. Eclogae propheticae Epistula ad Caesarienses Eusebius, Ep. Caes. Historia ecclesiastica Eusebius, H. E. Eusebius, Marc. Contra Marcellum De martyribus Palastinae Eusebius, Mart. Pal.

466

List of Abbreviations

Eusebius, Praep. ev. Eusebius, Qu. Marin. Eusebius, Quaest. Steph.

Praeparatio evangelica Questiones evangelicae ad Marinum Quaestiones evangelicae ad Stephanum Eusebius, Vit. Const. Vita Constantini Eustathius, Encom. on Michael Encomium on Michael Eutecnius, Paraph. in Nic. Ther. Paraphrasis in Nicandri Theriaca Evagrius, Alterc. Leg. Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et TheInter Sim. Iud. Et Theoph. Christ. ophili Christiani Scholia in Proverbia Evagrius, Scholia in Prov. Exod Exodus ExpTim Expository Times Ezek Ezekiel Ep. Ps.-Dionysius ad Tim Epistle of Pseudo-Dionysius to Timothy FARG

Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte Facet Books, Biblical Series FBBS FJB Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge Frg. Tg. Fragmentary Targum frg./frag. fragment Forschungen zur Religion und LitFRLANT eratur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gal Galatians Galen, Dignos. pulisb. De dignoscendis pulsibus libri IV De elementis ex Hippocrate libri II Galen, Elem. ex Hippocr. libri ii GCS Die griechischen christilchen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte Gelasius of Cyzicus, H. E. Historia ecclesiastica Gen Genesis Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah Georgius Sphrantzes, Chron. min. Chronicon minus Git. Git. t. in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra Gk. Apoc. Ezra Gospel of Bartholomew Gos. Barth. Gospel of the Hebrews Gos. Heb. Gos. Nic. Gospel of Nicodemus Gospel of the Egyptians Gos. Eg.

List of Abbreviations

Gos. Pet. Gos. Phil. Gos. Thom. Gos. Truth Gregory Nazianzen Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Apoll. ad Thpl. Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. Gregory of Nyssa, Laud. Bas. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. catech. Gregory of Nyssa, Ordin. Gregory Palamas, Orat. Antirrhet. contra Acindyn. Gregory the Great, Dial.

Gospel of Peter Gospel of Philip Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Truth see Gregory of Nazianzus Epistulae Oratio in laudem Basilii Adversus Apollinarem ad Theophilum Contra Eunomium In Laudem Basilii fratris Oratio catechetica magna In suam ordinationem Antirrhetici contra Acindynum Dialogues

Hab. Habakkuk Haer. De haeresibus Hag Haggai HB Hebrew Bible HdO Handbook of Oriental Studies Heb Hebrews Heb. Hebrew Heliodorus, Aeth. Aethiopica Shepherd of Hermas, Mandates Herm, Mand./Man. Herm. Sim. Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes Herm. Vis./Hermas, Vis. Shepherd of Hermas, Visions Herodotus, Hist. Historiae Commentary on Odes Hesychius of Jerusalem, Comm. Od. Hesychius of Jerusalem, Fragmenta in Psalmos Frag. Ps. ad Ps. Hesychius of Jerusalem, Hom. Homilies Hippocrates, Epid. Epidemiae De mulierum affectibus Hippocrates, Mul. affect. De morbis mulierum Hippocrates, Mul. Prognostica Hippocrates, Prognos. De septimestri partu Hippocrates, Septim. Hippolytus, Antichr. De antichristo Commentarium in Danielem Hippolytus, Comm. Dan.

467

468 Hippolytus, Comm. Sus. Hippolytus, Haer.

List of Abbreviations

Commentarium in Susanam Refutatio omnium haeresium (Philosophoumena) History of Joseph the Carpenter History of the Rechabites Ilias Odyssea De inventione sanctae Crucis

Hist. Jos. Carp. Hist. Rech./Hist. Rechab. Homer, Il. Homer, Od. Honorius of Autun, Inv. sanc. cruces Horace, Ep. Epistulae Hos Hosea HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

De Vita Pythagorica Iamblichus, V. Pyth. International Critical Commentary ICC Ign. Eph. Ignatius, To the Ephesians Ign. Magn. Ignatius, To the Magnesians Ign. Phld./Phil. Ignatius, To the Philadelphians Ign. Smyr. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans Ign. Trall. Ignatius, To the Trallians Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis IJO Irenaeus, Haer. Adversus haereses Is. Os. De Iside et Osiride Isa Isaiah Infancy Gospel of Thomas Inf. Gos. Thom. Isocrates, Antid. Antidosis (Or. 15) Isocrates, Phil. Philippus (Or. 4) Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society Jas James Journal of Biblical Literature JBL JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature: Monograph Series JCS Journal of Cuneiform Sudies Jdt Judith Jer Jeremiah

JANESCU

List of Abbreviations

Jerome, Comm. Isa.

469

Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII Jerome, Comm. Jer. Commentariorum in Jeremiam libri VI Jerome, Jov. Adversus Jovinianum libri II Jerome, Ruf. Adversus Rufinum libri III Commentariorum in Zachariam Jerome, Comm. Zach./ Comm. Zech. libri III JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JIGRE Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, with an Index oft he Jewish Incriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica. By William Horbury and David Noy Cambridge, 1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Western JIWE Europe. By David Noy. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1993–95 JJS Journal of Jewish Studies John Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. Adversus Judaeos John Chrysostom, Ant. exsil. Sermo antequam iret in exsilium John Chrysostom, Comm. Gen. Commentarius in Genesim John Chrysostom, Exp. Ps. Expositiones in Psalmos Fragmenta in Jeremiam John Chrysostom, Fr. in Jer John Chrysostom, Hom. Acts. Homiliae in Acta apostolorum Homiliae in Joannem John Chrysostom, Hom. John. John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. Homiliae in Matthaeum John Chrysostom, Hom.Eph. Homiliae in epistulam ad Ephesios Homiliae in Genesium John Chrysostom, Hom.Gen. John Chrysostom, Incompreh. De incomprehensibili dei natura De Lazaro John Chrysostom, Laz. John Chrysostom, Ant. exsil. Sermo antequam iret in exsilium John Chrysostom, Proph. obscur. De prophetarum obscuritate Sermones in Genesim John Chrysostom, Serm. Gen. Fragmenta in Jeremiam John Chrysostom, Fr. in Jer. Ad populum Antiochenum de John Chrysostom, Stat. statuis John of Damascus, Exp. fid. Exposito fidei John of Damascus, Serm. de dorm. Sermones in venerabilem dormi-

470

List of Abbreviations

tionem supergloriosae Dominae nostrae John of Damascus, Thesaur. Ex thesauro orthodoxiae Nicetae Chroniatae John of Damascus, Trisag. Trisagion John of Euboea, Serm. conc. Deip. Sermo in conceptionem Deiparae Refutationes duae Prochori Cydonii John VI Kantakouzenos, Refut. duae Proch. Cyd. Jos. Asen. Joseph and Aseneth Josephus, C. Ap./Ap. Contra Apionem Josephus, Ant. Antiquitates Josephus, Bell. Bellum judaicum Josh Joshua JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New JSNT Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old JSOT Testament Journal for the Study of the Old JSOTSup Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Thological Studies JTS Jub. Jubilees Judg Judges Justin Martyr See Justin Apologia i Justin, 1 Apol. Apologia ii Justin, 2 Apol.

List of Abbreviations

Justin, Dial. Justin, Dial. Juvenal, Sat.

471

Dialogus cum Tryphone Dialogus cum Tryphone Satirae

Kel. Kelim Ketub. Ketubbot Kgs Kings Kil. Kil’ayim Liber antiquitatum biblicarum LAB Divinarum institutionum libi VII Lactantius, Div. inst. Lactantius, Fabr. Mundi Fabricatorem mundi Lad. Jac. Ladder of Jacob LAE Life of Adam and Eve Lam Lamentiations Lam. Rab. Lamentations Rabbah Linguistic Biblical Studies LBS Leg. Aphr. The Legend of Aphroditianus Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas Lev Leviticus LHB/OTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Libanius, Decl. Declamatio Libanius, Ep. Epistulae Lit. Gr. Naz. Liturgia sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni Liv. Proph. Lives of the Prophets Daphnis and Chloe Longus, Daphn. LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. With revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 Library of Second Temple Studies LSTS Abdicatus Lucian, Abdic. Lucian, Anach. Anacharsis Calumniae non temere credendum Lucian, Cal. Lucian, Gall. Gallus De morte Peregrini Lucian, Peregr. Lucian, Philops. Philopseudes Somnium (Vita Luciani) Lucian, Somn. Vera historia Lucian, Ver. Hist. LXX Septuagint

472 Lysias, Andoc.

List of Abbreviations

Andocides

M. (before rabbinic texts) Mishnah Macarius Magn., Apocr. Apocriticus ad Graecos ‘ ‘ Ma as´. Š. Ma as´er Šeni Macc Maccabees Mak. Makkot Mal Malachi Mark the Deacon, V. Porph. Vita Porphyry Mart. Ascen. Isa. Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Mart. Perpet. et Felicit. / Martyrium Perpetuae et Felicitatis Mart. Perpet. Mart. Pet. Martyrdom of Peter Mart. Polyc. Martyrdom of Polycarp Mart. sanct. Carpi, Martyrium sancti Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae Papyli et Agathonicae Matt Matthew Macrobius, Somn. Scip. Commentarius in Ciceronis somnium Scipionis Maximus of Tyre, Or. Orationes Maximus the Confessor, Ascet. Liber Ascetius Maximus the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium Quaest. ad Thal. Maximus the Confessor, Questiones et dubia Quaest. et dub. MdB Le Monde de la Bible Meg. Megillah Mek. Mekilta Melito, Pass. Peri Pash .a De resurrectione Methodius of Olympus, Res. Menah.. Menah.ot Vita Sanctorum Mensis Metaphrast, Men. Mic Micah Michael Choniates, Orat. Orationes Mid. Middot Midr. Midrash Sententiae e papyris Menander, Sent. e papyris Minucius Felix, Oct. Octavius Mo‘ed Qat. an Mo‘ed Qat. . manuscript(s) ms (pl. mss)

List of Abbreviations

MSU MT

473

Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Masoretic Text

Nah Nahum NAWG Nachrichten (von) der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Ned. Nedarim NedTT Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift Neg. Negacim Neh Nehemiah NET Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie NHS Nag Hammadi Studies Nicander of Colophon, Ther. Theriaca Disputatio contra Judaeos Nicolaus Hydruntius, Disput. c. Jud. Nilus of Ancyra, Comm. Cant. Commentarius in Canticum canticorum NJ New Jerusalem NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements NTOA Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus NTS New Testamten Studies New Testament Tools, Studies, and NTTSD Documents Num Numbers Odes Sol. Oecumenius, Apoc. / ‘Comm. Rev. Olam Rab. On Bap. A Or Origen, Cels./C. Cels. Origen, Comm. Jo. Origen, Comm. Matt. Origen, Exp. Prov. Origen, Frag. Luke

Odes of Solomon Commentarius in Apocalypsin ‘ Olam Rabbah On Baptism A Orientalia Contra Celsum Commentarii in evangelium Joannis Commentarii in evangelium Matthaei Expositio in Proverbia Fragmenta in Lucam

474 Origen, Lam. frag. Origen, Comm. Eph. frag. Origen, Frag. in Prov. Origen, Hom. Jer. Origen, Hom. Lev. Origen, Hom. Num. Origen, Or. Origen, Philoc. Origen, Prin. Origen, Sel. Ezek. Origen, Sel. Josh. OT OTP

Ovid, Metam./Met. P. Berol. P. Col. P. Osl. P. Oxy. P. Stras.

List of Abbreviations

Fragmenta in Lamentationes Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam ad Ephesios Fragmenta ex commentariis in Proverbia Homiliae in Jeremiam Homiliae in Leviticum Homiliae in Numeros De oratione (Peri proseuche-s) Philocalia De principiis (Peri proseuche-s) Selecta in Ezechielem Selecta in Josuam Old Testament Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983–1985 Metamorphoses

Papyrus Berolinensis Columbia Papyri Papyri Osloenses Papyrus Oxyrhynchus Papyrus grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg P/pap. P/papyrus Pach. Pachomius Palladius, Hist. Laus. Historia Lausiaca Palladius, Hist. mon. Historia monachorum Papyrus Paris Supplément Pap. Paris Suppl. Par. Jer Paraleipomena Jeremiou Pausanias, Descr. Graeciae description Pesah Pesah . . im Pesiq. Rab Kah. Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Pesiqta Rabbati Pesiq. Rab. Pet Peter PG Patrologia graeca [=Patrologia curus completus : Series graeca]. Editied by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857– 1886

List of Abbreviations

PGM

Philagathus, Hom. Philo, Abr. Philo, Agr. Philo, Cher./Cherub. Philo, Conf. Philo, Contempl. Philo, Det. Philo, Deus. Philo, Ebr. Philo, Flacc. Philo, Fug. Philo, Gig. Philo, Her./Heres. Philo, Ios. Philo, Leg. Philo, Legat. Philo, Migr. Abr. Philo, Mos. Philo, Mut./Mut. nom. Philo, Opif. Philo, Post. Philo, Praem. Philo, QE / Q. E. Philo, QG Philo, Sacr. Philo, Somn. Philo, Spec. Philo, Virt. Philostratus, Imag. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. Pindar, Isthm. Pindar, Ol. Pindar, Pyth. Pirqe R. El.

475

Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by K. Preisendanz. Berlin, 1928 Homilia De Abrahamo De agricultura De cherubim De confusione linguarum De vita contemplativa Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat De ebrietate In Flaccum De fuga et inventione De gigantibus Quis rerum divinarum heres sit De Iosepho Legum allegoriae Legatio ad Gaium De migratione Abrahami De vita Mosis De mutatione nominum De opificio mundi De posteritate Caini De praemiis et poenis Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini De somniis De specialibus legibus De virtutibus Imagines Vita Apollonii Isthmia Olympia Pythia Pirge Rabbi Eliezer

476

List of Abbreviations

Plato, Alcib. Plato, Crat. Plato, Leg. Plato, Phaed. Plato, Resp. Plautus, Cap. Pliny the Elder, Nat./N. H. Plutarch, Ag. Cleom. Plutarch, Alex. Plutarch, Caes. Plutarch, Cam. Plutarch, Cic. Plutarch, Comp. Arist. Cat. Plutarch, Comp. Phil. Flam.

Alcibiades Cratylus Leges Phaedo Respublica Captivi Naturalis historia Agis et Cleomenes Alexander Caesar Camillus Cicero Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis Comparatio Philopoemenis et Titi Flaminini Plutarch, Demetr. Demetrius Plutarch, Lyc. Lycurgus Plutarch, Sull. Sulla Moralia Plutarch, Mor. Plutarch, Pelop. Pelopidas Plutarch, Per. Pericles Plutarch, Phoc. Phocion Plutarch, Pyrrh. Pyrrhus Themistocles Plutarch, Them. Plutarch, Is. Os. De Iside et Osiride Pol. Phil Polycarp, To the Philippians Plotinus, Enn. Enneades Historiae Polybius, Hist. Polycarp, Phil. To the Philippians Porphyry, Abst. De abstinentia Prayer of Manasseh Pr Man Pr. Prayer Proclus, In Plat. Tim. comm. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria Commentarii in Isaiam Procopius of Gaza, Comm. Isa. Prot. Jas. Protevangelium of James Prov Proverbs Ars rhetorica Ps.-Aelius Aristides, Ars rhet. Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodisias, Problems Prob. Ps.-Amphilochius of Iconium, Vita Basilii V. Bas.

List of Abbreviations

Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai, Quaest. et resp. Ps.-Apollonius, Apotel. Ps.-Apollodorus, Bib. Ps.-Athanasius, Pass.

477

Quaestiones et responsiones

Bibliotheca Homilia in passionem et crucem domini Homilia de semente Ps.-Athanasius, Sem. Ps.-Athanasius, Trin. De trinitate Ps.-Athanasius, Virg. De virginitate Ps.-Basil, Comm. Isa. Commentarius in Isaiam Ps.-Basil of Seleucia, V. Thecl. De Vita et Miraculis Sanctae Theclae Ps.-Caesar of Nazianzus, Dial. Dialogi Ps.-Callisthenes, Hist. Alex. Magn. Historia Alexandri Magni Ps.-Chrysostom, Exalt. In exaltionem venerandae crucis Ps.-Chrysostom, Or. De Oratione Ps.-Chrysostom, Ador. cruc. In adorationem venerandae crucis In Psalmum Ps.-Chrysostom, Ps. Ps.-Chrysostom, Syn. script. Synopsis sacrae scriturae Ps.-Chrysostom, Laz. De Lazaro Ps.-Chrysostom, Hom. in Ps. Homilia in Psalmum Ps.-Chrysostom, Samar. In Samaritanam Ps.-Clement, Ep. Virg. Epistulae de virginitate Recogitiones Ps.-Clem., Rec. Ps.-Clem., Hom. Homilies Ps.-Cyprian, Adv. Jud. Adversus Iudaeos Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, Trin. De trinitate Orationes Ps.-Demosthenes, Orat. Ps.-Didymus of Alexandria, Trin. De trinitate Ps.-Dionysius, E. H. De ecclesiastica hierarchia De resurrectione mortuorum serPs.-Ephraem, Res. Mort. Serm. mones Ps.-Ephraem, Paraen. Sermones paraenetici ad monachos aegypti Sermo in pretiosam et vivificam Ps.-Ephrem, Serm. in pret. crucem et vi. cruc. Ps.-Epiphanius, Trin. De trinitate Hexaemeron Ps.-Eusebius, Hex. In annuntiationem Ps.-Gregory of Nyssa, Annun. Liber de Cognitione Dei Ps.-Gregory of Nyssa, Liber de cogn. Dei

478 Ps.-Hippolytus, Consumm. Ps.-John of Damascus, Annun. Mariae Ps.-Justin, Exp. Fid. Ps.-Justin, Quaest et resp.

List of Abbreviations

De consummatione mundi Sermo in Annuntiationem Mariae Expositio Rectae Fidei Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos Martyrium Petri Homiliae spirituales

Ps.-Linus, Mart. Pet. Ps.-Macarius Magnes, Hom. spirit. Ps.-Macarius Magnes, Serm. Sermones Ps.-Phoc. Pseudo-Phocylides Ps.-Plutarch, Prov. Alex. Proverbia Alexandrinorum Epistula Ps.-Socrates, Ep. Ps.-Tertullian, Carm. adv. Marc. Carmen adversus Marcionitas Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon QG 1, 2, 3. 4

Questiones et solutiones in Genesin I, II, III, IV Qiddušin [versichern, dass der Titel Qidd. im Haupttext nicht kursiv vorkommt] Qoh Qoheleth Quest. Ezra Questions of Ezra Quest. Barth. Questions of Bartholomew Rab. Rabbah rabb. Rabbinic Reallexikon für Antike und ChrisRAC tentum. Edited by M. Ebert. Berlin 1924–1932 Canticum Ramonos the Melodist, Cant. RB Revue biblique RE Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche Revue des études sémitiques REJ Rev Revelation Review & Expositor Rev-Exp RevQ Revue de Qumran Religion in Geschichte und GegenRGG wart. Edited by K. Galling. 7 vols. 3d ed. Tübingen, 1957–1965

List of Abbreviations

479

RHPR

Revue d‘histoire et de philosophie religieuses Rom Romans Roš Haš. Roš Haššanah RQ Römische Quartalschrift für christ­ liche Altertumskunde und Kirchen­ geschichte 1–2 Samuel 1–2 ‘ Sam ‘ S. Olam. Rab. Seder Olam Rabbah Šabb. Shabbat Schoia to Aelius Aristide, Pan Orationes Panathenaicam et Platonicas Scholia in Aeschyli Septem adversus Thebas Sallust, Jug. Bellum jugurthinum Sallustius, Deis. et mun. De Deis et mundo Sanh. Sanhedrin Studien zum Alten und Neuen TestaSANT ment Sarapion of Thumis, Euch. Euchologion Sym. Styl. Jr. Symeon Stylites Junior Symeon the Meatphrast, Men. Menologion SB Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Edited by Friedrich Preisigke et al. Vols. 1–21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1915–2002 SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature MonoSBLMS graph Series SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Study SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Text and Translations SBLWGRW Society of Biblical Literature Writings form the Greco-Roman World

480

List of Abbreviations

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies Sem Semitica Sem. Semitic Sent. Sext. Sentences of Sextus Šeqal. Šeqalim Historia ecclesiastica Sozomen, H. E. Severus, Encom. on Michael Encomium on Michael Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. Adversus mathematicos Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles SJ Studia judaica SJC Studies in Jewish civilization Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SJLA SNTSMS Society for New Testament Sudies Monograph Series SNTSU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt Socrates Scholasticus, H. E. Historia ecclesiastica Ajax Sophocles, Aj. Sophocles, Oed. col. Oedipus coloneus Sophocles, Trach. Trachiniae Sophocles, Ant. Antigone Sophronius of Jerusalem, Liturg. Liturgicus Vita Stephanii Iunioris Stephan the Deacon, Vit. Setph. Iun. Strabo, Geogr. Geographica Str-B Strack, H. L., and P.Billderbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich, 1922–1961 Suk. Sukkah SUNY State University of New York suppl. supplement Supplementum Magicum Suppl. Mag. SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica Symeon the New Theologian, Gratis acta Grat. act. Symm. De symmoriis Synesius of Cyrene, Ep. Epistulae Syr. Syriac

List of Abbreviations

1–2 Tim T. Abr. RecLng

481

1–2 Timothy Testament of Abraham, Long Recension T. Abr. RecShrt Testament of Abraham, Short Repipecension T. Abr. Testament of Abraham T. Ash./Asher Testament of Asher T. Benj. Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan T. Dan T. Gad Teatament of Gad T. Isaac Testament of Isaac T. Iss. Testament of Issachar T. Job Testament of Job T. Jos. Testament of Joseph Testament of Judah T. Jud. T. Levi Testament of Levi T. Mos. Testamtent of Moses T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali T. Reub. Testament of Reuben T. Sim Testament of Simeon Testament of Solomon T. Sol. T. ‘Zeb. Testament of Zebulun ‘ Ta an Ta anit Historiae Tacitus, Hist. Tem. Temurah Tanh.. Tanh.uma Oratio ad Graecos Tatian, Or. Graec. Theological Dictionary of the New TDNT Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromilex. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 Ter. Terumot Adversus Judaeos Tertullian, Adv. Jud. Tertullian, An. De anima De carne Christi Tertullian, Carn. Chr. De cultu feminarum Tertullian, Cult. fem. Adversus Marcionem Tertullian, Marc. Tertullian, Or. De oratione De patientia Tertullian, Pat. Tertullian, Scorp. Scorpiace

482

List of Abbreviations

Tg. Targum Tg. Cant. Targum canticum canticorum Tg. Esth. Targum of Esther Tg. Isa. Targum Isaiah Tg. Mic. Targum Micah Tg. Neof. Tagum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Tg. Onq. Tg. Ps.-Jn. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Tg. Zech. Targum Zechariah Themistius, In Arist. phys. In Aristotelis Physica Themistus, In Arist. lib. de an. In libros Aristotelis de anima paraphr. paraphrasis Theod. Theodotus Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exp. Ps. Expositio in Psalmos Theodore the Studite, Catech. nagn. Catechesis magna Theodore the Studite, Catech. parv. Catechesis parva Theodore the Studite, Ep. Epistulae Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. Commentarius in Danielem Dan. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Comm. Isa Commentarius in Isaiam Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Dan. Interpretatio in Danielem Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Ps. Interpretatio in Psalmos Theodoret, Phil. hist. Philotheos historia Encomium on Michael Theodosius, Encom. on Michael Theophilus, Autol. Ad Autolycum Theophrastus, Caus. plant. De causis plantarum Theophylact, Comm. Matt. Commentarius in Matthaeum Theseus Thes. ThLB Theologisches Literaturblatt Thucydides, Hist. Historiae Thesaurus linguae graecae: Canon TLG of Greek Authors and Works. Edited by L. Berkowitz and K. A. Swuitier. 3d ed. Oxford, 1990 TLNT Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. C. Spicq. Tanslated and edited by J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1994 TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung Tob Tobit trans. Translator, translated by; transitive

List of Abbreviations

TRE

TRu TSAJ TSK TU TZ Varro, Rust. Victorinus of Pettau, Comm. Rev. Vis. Ezra Vis. Paul Vit. Aesopi Vit. Pach. VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT

Xenophon, Anab. Xenophon, Cyr. Xenophon, Hell.

483

Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by Krause and G. Müller. Berlin, 1977– Theologische Rundschau Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theologische Studien und Kritiken Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift De re rustica Commentarius in Apocalypsin Vison of Ezra Vision of Paul Vita Aesopi Vita Pachomii Vetus Testamentum [versichern, dass VT im Haupttext kursiv vorkommt]] Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Anabasis Cyropaedia Hellenica

Jerusalem (Yerushalmi} y (before rabb. txt.) Yeb. Yebamot Yoma Yoma (=Kippurim) Zeitschrift der deutschen morgen­ ländischen Gesellschaft Zech Zechariah Zeph Zephaniah Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche ZNW Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZDMG

484 ZRGG ZWT

List of Abbreviations

Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie

Index of References

1 Bible Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:3 282 1:6 153 1:2–10  37, 153 1:11 (LXX)  434, 439 1:12 439 1:30 (LXX)  328 2:1 (LXX)  155 2:1–3 155 2:8–9 38 2:9 (LXX)  155, 408 2:16 408 2:19 (LXX)  328 2:20 (LXX)  328 2:21 (LXX)  234 3:1–5 326 3:2 408 3:8 (LXX)  408, 426 3:9  123, 174, 239 3:22 (LXX)  408 4:15  125, 239 4:15 (LXX)  306 4:17 388 4:25 388 5:2 388 5:3 388 5:29 388 6:1 (LXX)  89 6:9  38, 274, 334 6:9 (LXX)  246 6:18 (LXX)  298 7:1 334 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-022

7:1 (LXX)  352 7:11 (LXX)  244 8:2 (LXX)  244 8:6–7 (LXX)  333, 334 8:9 344 8:10–11 334 8:12 344 8:6–12  320, 333 8:6–12 (LXX)  38 8:20 (LXX)  126 9:11 (LXX)  298 9:12 (LXX)  306 9:17 (LXX)  306 9:15–16 298 9:21 254 10:5 (LXX)  439 10:9 390 10:32 (LXX)  439 11:28 (LXX)  101 12:2 250 12:2 (LXX)  284 12:4 (LXX)  171 12:7 (LXX)  126, 344 12:11 (LXX)  89 12:14 (LXX)  89 13:10 270 13:18 293 14:14 (LXX)  391 14:17 385 14:18 (LXX)  421 14:19 250

486 14:21 153 14:22 250 15:1 269 15:6 (LXX)  137 15:7 303 15:12 234 15:12 (LXX)  233 15:13–14 299 15:18–21 299 16 267 16:3 (LXX)  25 17:1 1LXX  274, 344 17:7 (LXX)  298 17:9 (LXX)  298 17:19 (LXX)  298 17:22 (LXX)  170 18:1 293 18:3 (LXX)  352 18:19 (LXX)  92 18:27 (LXX)  325 18:33 (LXX)  111, 170, 384 19 94 19:14 (LXX)  93, 94, 200 19:16 259 19:18 (LXX)  148 19:24 137 21 267 21:1 (LXX)  367 21:11 235 21:12 153 21:17 (LXX)  424 21:22 (LXX)  101 21:27 (LXX)  144, 298 22 267 22:2  349, 389 22:2 (LXX)  353 22:3 (LXX)  94, 231 22:11 (LXX)  144 22:12 (LXX)  353 22:12 349 22:16 349 22:16 353 22:15–16 (LXX)  291 22:17 250 22:19 231 23:3–4 427

Index of References 24:3 250 24:7 250 24:10 231 24:13 (LXX)  121 24:20 (LXX)  121 24:40 (LXX)  350 24:44 (LXX)  108 24:51 (LXX)  171 24:66 381 25:7 274 25:23 243 25:29 238 26:2 (LXX)  344 26:3  250, 344 26:5 (LXX)  301 26:21 388 26:22 388 26:33 390 27:1 245 27:2  245, 250 27:13 248 27:17 274 27:27 268 27:33 (LXX)  233 28:8 235 28:12 (LXX)  266 28:15 (lXX)  337 28:16 227 28:17 416 28:20 (LXX)  405 28:22 450 29:11  235, 368 29:13 235 29:16 (LXX)  243 29:10–17 91 30:11 388 30:16  238, 385 30:38 (LXX)  121 31:10 (LXX)  89 31:13 344 31:13 (LXX)  93, 200, 279 31:35 (LXX)  101 31:39 (LXX)  305 32:1 123 32:12 107 32:23 123

487

1 Bible 33:4 368 33:1–5 269 34:9 107 34:18 235 35:3 (LXX)  384 35:7 (LXX)  245 35:14 450 37:29 116 37:34 116 38:25 287 39:1 107 40:18 (LXX)  348 41:9 240 42:5 90 Exodus 1:1 90 1:8 199 1:10 (LXX)  446 2:5 352 2:5–6 (LXX)  229 2:15 451 2:16 121 2:23 89 2:24 298 3:7  38, 351, 352 3:7 (LXX)  352 3:8 107 3:10–12 300 3:13–14 284 3:15–16 199 3:17 352 4:1 (LXX)  38 4:4 380 4:5 (LXX)  199, 275 4:4–5  38, 343 4:10 (LXX)  148 4:13 (LXX)  148 4:14 (1xLXX)  302, 385 4:18  125, 239, 332 4:22–23 353 4:27 268, 4:27 (LXX)  268 4:28 (LXX)  299 4:30 91 5:1 300



42:15 (LXX)  362 42:16 (LXX)  306 42:22 (LXX)  348 42:28 (LXX)  137 43:15 235 43:8 231 43:29 248 44:8 (LXX)  94 44:13 116 44:18 (LXX)  102, 148 45:15 368 46:29 360 50:1 368

5:5 (LXX)  148 6:1 380 6:2–3 284 6:4–5 298 6:4 299 6:4 (LXX)  298 6:3 125 6:5 298 6:8 (LXX)  290 6:10 199 6:12 (LXX)  304 6:13 300 6:29 25 6:29 (LXX)  190 7:1  25, 380 7:7 92 7:8 25 7:13 (LXX)  171, 176 8:11 (LXX)  171 8:14 (LXX)  276 8:15 (LXX)  171 9:29  126, 341 11:1 (LXX)  362 11:4 109 11:10 235 12:1 340 12:13 (LXX)  166 12:18 254 12:23  146, 420 12:29 109

488 12:31 94 12:34 286 12:37 342 12:42  22, 109 13:3 362 13:9 300 13:10 301 13:14  300, 301 13:16  300, 301 13:19 367, 3:19 (LXX)  387 13:21 281 14:2 288 14:5 386 14:11 300 14:12 (LXX)  147 14:15 288 14:19 (LXX)  306 14:22 (LXX)  306 14:31 103 15:11 413 15:12 (LXX)  171 15:18 22 15:26 (LXX)  301 16:8 122 16:10 (LXX)  345 16:15 120 16:16 117 16:32–34 150 17:3 300 17:4 123 17:10 176 18:1 300 18:4 456 18:7 385 18:10 (LXX)  233 19 345 19:4  315, 324 19:5 (LXX)  304 19:13 143 19:15 (LXX)  380 19:16 143 19:19  143, 424 20:7 284 20:12 (LXX)  335 20:18 (LXX)  143, 145

Index of References 20:19 422 20:24  152, 250 20:24 (LXX)  251 21:13 (LXX)  104 22:4 (LXX)  249 23:12 (LXX)  275 23:20 268 23:22 304 23:22 (LXX)  349 24:3 (LXX)  428 24:7 347 24:13 102 24:16–17 176 25:9 255 25:40 255 26:12 144 27:20 (LXX)  430 29:46 300 30:7–8 409 30:23 (LXX)  281 30:26 (LXX)  306 30:36 (LXX)  254 31:1 25 32:1 301 32:1 (LXX)  123 32:1 279 32:9 302 32:11 (LXX)  302 32:11–14 199 32:11 302 32:20 309 32:23 301 32:23 (LXX)  123 32:31–32 (LXX)  119 32:31 123 32:31 (LXX)  148 32:32 119 32:34 268 33:1 380 33:1 (LXX)  380 33:5 302 33:5 (LXX)  155 33:11 91 33:12 125 33:13 (LXX)  352 33:14 252

1 Bible

33:20  422, 445 33:22 (LXX)  166 34:9 302

34:11–16 292 34:16 289 35:1 300

Leviticus 4:20 (LXX)  119 4:26 (LXX)  119 4:25 126 4:31 119 4:35 119 12:2 290 12:4 (LXX)  117 12:5  226, 290 14:8–9 290 15:13 290 15:19 290 15:24 290 15:28 290 17:10 96 19:4 291 19:19 301 19.23 234 19:25 (LXX)  249

20:2 (LXX)  447, 448 20:22 301 20:26  289, 291 20:27 (LXX)  447 21:19 420 21:21 420 23:23–26 141 24:16 448 24:23 (LXX)  447, 448 25:9 144 25:18 (LXX)  301 25:55 89 26:1 291 26:9 (LXX)  298 26:11 144 26:25 (LXX)  149 26:42 298 26:45 298

Numbers 1:51 150 2:2 89 3:5–14 141 3:31 (LXX)  149 3:40 380 4:5–20 150 4:15 (LXX)  149 4:26 (LXX)  149 4:20 (LXX)  137 4:25 144 5:4 (LXX)  171 5:6 288 5:12 288 6:2 (LXX)  405 7:4 380 7:89 (LXX)  426 8:1–5 141 10:1–10 144 11:1 302 11:2 119 11:5 384

11:18 384 11:18 (LXX)  380 11:20 384 11:24 (LXX)  38, 147, 372, 381 11:28 (LXX)  92 12:6 91 12:7–8 103 12:8  91, 445 12:9 (LXX)  111 12:11 (LXX)  148 14:8 175 14:10 (LXX)  447 14:11 123 14:13–25 199 14:19 (LXX)  119, 123 14:22 363 14:39 (LXX)  381 15:25 119 15:35 (LXX)  447 15:36 448 15:36 (LXX)  447

489

490 15:35–36 446 15:38 288 16:20–23 141 16:31 172 16:32 (LXX)  171 18:1–7 150 18:21–24 150 18:31 251 19:11 290 19:14 290 19:16 290 20:16  300, 301 20:18 385 21:5 301 21:7 199 21:16 (LXX)  340 22:20 (LXX)  147 22:26 336 22:28–30 326 23:3 245 23:4 245 23:10 (LXX)  253 Deuteronomy 1:1 300 1:27 301 1:31 (LXX)  337 2:27 336 3:20 251 4:10 340 4:10–12 424 4:19 270 4:20 (LXX)  300, 301 4:37 300 4:39 (LXX)  250 4:40 335 4:40 (LXX)  301 4:46 89 5:11 284 5:16 335 5:16 (LXX)  335 5:23–26 426 5:27 349 5:32 (LXX)  336 6:18  348, 335 6:21  300, 301

Index of References 23:22 300 23:26 (LXX)  325 24:12 287 24:17  139, 283 24:16 391 24:24 124 24:25 (LXX)  384 25:1–9 292 25:4 189 26:10 171 27:16 (LXX)  367 27:17 441 30:2 282 30:3 (LXX)  405 31:1 300 31:4 300 31:6 (LXX)  149 31:19 290 32:1 300 32:4 300 36:1 101

7:1–6 291 7:3  289, 379 7:6 335 7:12 (LXX)  349 8:1 (LXX)  349 8:5 286 8:11 301 8:14 302 8:14 (LXX)  302 8:17–18 (LXX)  336 8:18 (LXX)  298 9:5 298 9:5 (LXX)  298 9:13 123 9:25–29 119 9:27 123 10:2 381 10:12 337 11:6 (LXX)  171 11:12 (LXX)  367 11:17 302 11:22 337

1 Bible 11:28 (LXX)  234 12:9–10 251 12:12 157 12:13 (LXX)  251 12:25 335 12:26 129 12:28 335 13:9–10 448 13:10 (LXX)  447 13:19 (LXX)  304 14:2 335 14:14 333 14:22 (LXX)  249 15:5 304 16:1 300 16:3 352 16:3 (LXX)  352 17:5 446 17:5 (LXX)  447 17:10 (LXX)  349 17:11 336 17:20 336 17:20 (LXX)  302 18:1 305 18:9 337 18:11–12 201 18:15  91, 305, 246, 380 18:15 (LXX)  304 18:15–18 320 18:15–19 22 18:16 426 18:18  91, 304, 346, 380, 440 18:19 (LXX)  380 19:9 337 20:9 (LXX)  25 21:10–14 289 21:19–21 446 21:21 448 21:21 (LXX)  447 21:22 338 21:22–23 356 21:23 (LXX)  356 22:7 335 22:21 (LXX)  447 22:24 (LXX)  447 23:22 (LXX)  405

24:15 (LXX)  270 25:19 251 26:1–11 173 26:8 301 26:17 (LXX)  301 27:2 450 27:15 291 28:1 304 28:2 304 28:6 300 28:12 189 28:14 336 28:15 304 28:36 357 28:45 301 28:47 271 28:49 288 28:69 (LXX)  298 29:19 (LXX)  246 30:1–5 157 30:2–3 (LXX)  349 30:3 (LXX)  157 30:14 242 30:14 (LXX)  241 30:15–20) 379 30:16 (LXX)  301 31:12 340 31:16 360 32:1  153, 439 32:11 324 32:11 (LXX)  166 32:11–12 316 32:12 360 32:13 (LXX)  249 32:15 (LXX)  156, 157 32:20 420 32:43 24 33:5 157 33:5 (LXX)  156 33:10 125 33:26  157, 413 33:26 (LXX)  156 34:3 414 34:5 103 34:10  91, 445

491

492

Index of References

Joshua 1:1 103 1:2 103 1:7 (LXX)  103, 336 1:13 251 2:11 250 3:8 306 3:13 306 3:15 306 3:17 89 3:33 306 4:9 450 4:18 306 4:20 450 4:23 306 5:2–9 309 5:13  125, 239 5:13–15 414 6:5–20 143 7:1 302 7:6  116, 421 7:7 (LXX)  148 7:9 284 7:13 300 7:19 429

7:25 448 7:25 (LXX)  447 9:11 (LXX)  385 10:12 (LXX)  190 10:30 (LXX)  104 11:9 176 12:1 (LXX)  25 13:14 (LXX)  176 15:18 118 16:1 (LXX)  170 17:4 235 18:4 (LXX)  384 18:8 231 18:23 169 20:2 288 21:2 384 21:44 251 22:5 337 24:6 300 24:14–15 379 24:16(LXX) 325 24:17 (LXX)  301, 337 24:27 (LXX)  92 30:16 337

Judges 1:14 118 1:16 241 1:26  388, 390 2:1 (LXX)  291 2:2 363 2:4 428 2:8 102 2:12 (LXX)  86 2:20 (LXX)  363 3:1–6 291 3:9 89 3:18 (LXX)  89 3:25 189 5:16 271 5:31 (LXX)  260 6 267 6:8 300 6:10 (LXX)  363 6:35 (LXX)  385

7:8–22 143 7:9–23 109 7:15–23 145 8:17 (LXX)  353 9:7 428 9:32 (LXX)  380 9:36 (LXX)  130 10:7 302 11:11 101 11:34 (LXX)  353 11:35 116 13:16 (LXX)  363 16:3 (LXX)  109 16:7 (LXX)  420 16:11 (LXX)  420 16:13 (LXX)  420 16:14 (LXX)  227 16:20 (LXX)  111 17:11 (LXX)  420

493

1 Bible

18:5 (LXX)  350 18:6 (LXX)  332 18:23 118 18:25 384 18:26 (LXX)  361 19:1 (LXX)  86 19:16 (LXX)  238 19:28 279 19:28 (LXX)  279

Ruth 1:9  368, 428 1:14 428 1:20–21 (LXX)  273 1 Samuel (LXX: 1 Βασ) 1:10 (LXX)  266 1:26 279 1:11 405 1:11 (LXX)  405 1:17 (LXX)  322 2:2 358 2:10 336 2:10 (LXX)  170, 300 2:11 (LXX)  421 2:25 (LXX)  118 3:17 (LXX)  147 3:21 (LXX)  125 4:3 348 4:12 116 4–6 137 4:7 421 7:3 (LXX)  271 7:8 348 7:12 456 7:12 (LXX)  38, 456 8:7 122 8:7 (LXX)  153 8:8 300 8:8 (LXX)  378



20:8 (LXX)  361 20:26 (LXX)  172 20:31 (LXX)  385 21:2 428 21:2 (LXX)  172, 423 21:7 151 21:16 151 21:23 (LXX)  388



2:12 269 4:1 (LXX)  237 4:2 237



8:9 (LXX)  153 8:22 (LXX)  153 9:16 352 10:18 300 10:18 (LXX)  300 12:5 (LXX)  440 12:6 300 12:8 300 12:15 (LXX)  304 12:19 (LXX)  119 14:3 421 14:20(LXX) 143 15:1 (LXX)  153 15:30 339 16:6 (LXX)  440 20:21 (LXX)  172 20:41 368 20:42 (LXX)  332 22:9 282 23:4 (LXX)  279 24:17 (LXX)  246 26:25 (LXX)  384 28:22  285, 336

494 2 Samuel (LXX: 2 Βασ) 1:2 116 1:11 116 1:16 175 1:23 288 2:16 239 2:19 336 3:16 165 3:22 332 3:23 332 3:31 116 5:23 (LXX)  385 6:15 (LXX)  143 7:6 (LXX)  378 7:25–27 (LXX)  103 11:14–15 295 11:15 (LXX)  349 12:7 (LXX)  300 12:12 189 12:22 284 13:13 (LXX)  420 13:15 (LXX)  279 13:19 116 13:19 (LXX)  116 13:25 (LXX)  245 13:31 116 13:36 (LXX)  423, 428 1 Kings (LXX: 3 Βασ) 1:16 (LXX)  118 2:44 286 3:5 (LXX)  344 3:8 335 3:12 286 3:14 301 3:20 109 3:22 (LXX)  102, 103 4:25 223 8:4 (LXX)  149 8:22 270 8:23 (LXX)  250 8:30 285 8:42 284 8:51 300 8:53 300 8:56  103, 251

Index of References

14:5 (LXX)  118 14:12 (LXX)  147 14:15 (LXX)  147 14:19 336 14:32 (LXX)  172 14:33 268 15:5 268 15:9 (LXX)  231, 332 15:27 (LXX)  167 15:34 (LXX)  167 16:5 165 17:18 165 17:27 (LXX)  89 18:18 165 18:24 (LXX)  270 19:1 (LXX)  245 19:5 (LXX)  117 19:16 165 19:40 (LXX)  384 19:42 384 20:22 (LXX)  92 21:6 (LXX)  92 22:29 281 23:4 281 24:16 146

8:58 337 9:2 (LXX)  344 9:6 301 9:9 (LXX)  360 11:1–8 291 11:33 301 12:18  447, 448 12:24 (LXX)  279 12:26 (LXX)  148 12:27 (LXX)  402 12:28 300 12:28 (LXX)  305 13:1 (LXX)  420 13:29 (LXX)  167 13:32 390 14:15 (LXX)  86 14:29 (LXX)  9

1 Bible 15:7 (LXX)  9 15:23 (LXX)  9 15:31 (LXX)  9 16:13 (LXX)  86 16:14 (LXX)  9 16:20 (LXX)  9 16:24  375, 388 16:26 337 16:27 (LXX)  9 17:9 (LXX)  279 17:17–24 342 18:12 268 18:22 (LXX)  287 18:39 345 19:5 266 19:5 (LXX)  279 19:13 424 2 Kings (LXX: 4 Βασ) 1:10 137 1:12 137 1:18 (LXX)  9, 302 2:9–11 (LXX)  411 2:12 118 2:16–18 268 3:7 339 4:16 (LXX)  106 4:18 (LXX)  89 4:18–37 342 4:33 (LXX)  266 5:15 345 5:22 (LXX)  148, 172 5:26 268 6:21 118 6:28 (LXX)  118 6:33 (LXX)  266 7:2 244 7:2 (LXX)  244 7:3 237 7:4 (LXX)  237 7:9 (LXX)  288 7:19 244 7:19 (LXX)  244 8:1 279 8:1 (LXX)  279 8:3 (LXX)  167

19:13 (LXX)  424 20:8 (LXX)  154 20:18 (LXX)  279 20:23 (LXX)  103 21:6 239 21:9–10 295 21:10 448 21:13  446, 447 21:31 (LXX)  328 22:4 (LXX)  334 22:19 445 22:22 304 22:23 304 22:37 (LXX)  455 22:43 337 33:15–16 91

8:6 (LXX)  249 8:19 176 10:1–3 295 10:6 295 10:6 (LXX)  349 13:14 118 13:23 298 13:23 (LXX)  298 15:11 (LXX)  9 16:10–16 152 17 376 17:7 300 17:9 390 17:13 102 17:13 (LXX)  301 17:16 (LXX)  101 17:24–41  375, 376 17:29–40 382 17:36 300 17:40 (LXX)  376 18:12 103 18:17(LXX) 305 18:37–19:1 116 19:2 444 19:3 384 19:10 444 19:16 (LXX)  299

495

496

Index of References

19:19 348 19:19 (LXX)  281 19:30 439 19:35 (LXX)  144 20:1 444 20:3 (LXX)  360 20:5 426 20:7 174 20:8 426 20:9 (LXX)  306 20:17 132 21:14 (LXX)  149 21:21 (LXX)  337 22–23 183 22:2  336, 337 22:16 97 23:19 390 23:26 (LXX)  302 23:27 97 23:35 (LXX)  241

24:1  90, 241 24:10–12 90 24:13 151 24:16 90 24:24–16  192, 369 25 (LXX)  188 25:2–4 36 25:3 (LXX)  188 25:4  106, 165, 187 25:4 (LXX)  137 25:4–7 176 25:5 (LXX)  101 25:8 (LXX)  188 25:8–21 188 25:8–12 188 25:9 145 25:10 137 25:11 (LXX)  188 25:13–17  138, 151, 152 25:19 (LXX)  188

1 Chronicles 6:49 103 9:27 189 9:28 (LXX)  149 13:8 144 13:10 302 15:28 144 16:12 363 16:13 335 16:16–17 (LXX)  298



16:31 (LXX)  271 16:35  157, 348 17:24 103 21:15  146, 147 21:16 270 22:19 117 28:2 339 29:16 281 29:18 199

2 Chronicles 1:3 103 2:11–16 295 3:1  344, 389 5:1–13 144 5:5 (LXX)  149 5:12 (LXX)  420 5:13 428 6:5 (LXX)  378 6:13 270 6:14 250 6:32 284 7:3 175 7:6 144



7:9 (LXX)  360 9:13 226 10:18  447, 448 13:15 235 14:10 281 18:3 339 18:6 287 18:21 304 18:22 304 20:10 281 20:12 151 20:21 241 23:13 116

1 Bible 24:21 447 25:8 280 25:23 (LXX)  380 26:16 302 26:22 444 28:8 89 28:11 304 29:16–28 144 29:31 (LXX)  402 30:8 302 32:20 444 32:20–21 266 32:32 444 32:24 266 32:25–26 302 33:18 9

34:2 336 34:19 116 34:23 300 34:24 266 34:27 116 35:25 194 36:5b 303 36:6  90, 241 36:8 9 36:12 303 36:17 (LXX)  90, 105 36:18–19 151 36:19  137, 145 36:19 (LXX)  155 36:20–21 225 36:22–23 350

Ezra 1:1–4 350 1:7 152 1:7–11 151 2:1  90, 241 3:2–3 152 5:7–17 295 5:13–16 152 5:14 151 6:1–5 350 6:15 225 6:22 350 7:9 403

8:8 240 8:9 240 8:19 240 8:31 254 9:1–10:5 289 9:3 116 9:39 240 9:42 240 9:49 240 9:11 102 10:11 289

Nehemia 1:8–9 157 4:20 143 9:1 116 9:2 289 9:4 279 9:7 303 9:16 302 9:18 300 9:31 377 9:38 308

10:2 169 10:28–31 289 11:1 384 12:1 169 12:12 169 12:34 169 13:1–3 289 13:23–27 289 13:24 382

497

498 Job

1:1 (LXX)  246 1:7 (LXX)  325 1:8 (LXX)  152 1:14 (LXX)  266 1:20 116 2:3 (LXX)  103 2:6 (LXX)  103 2:12 423 2:12 (LXX)  116 4:19 (LXX)  272 5:9 397 7:10 (LXX)  361 8:2 (LXX)  439 8:16 189 9:10 397 9:16 (LXX)  275 14:12  227, 429 14:12 (LXX)  429 15:25 276 15:25 (LXX)  302 15:30 (LXX)  276 16:19 391 19:26 276

Psalms 1:3 (LXX)  350, 408, 434 5:3 (LXX)  285 5:5 (LXX)  246 5:11 (LXX)  96 9:3 (LXX)  271 15:3 (LXX)  269 15:9 (LXX)  277 16:8 (LXX)  166 16:14 153 17:2 (LXX)  280 17:20 (LXX)  379 17:27 (LXX)  281 18:2 358 18:8 282 18:28  281, 410 19:14 439 21:9 (LXX)  379 21:20 (LXX)  353 22:1 280 22:8 175

Index of References 20:14 378 21:15 (LXX)  273 22:12 391 24:24 (LXX)  276 25:2 391 31:2 (LXX)  273 32:1 (LXX)  352 32:2 (LXX)  352 33:15–16 91 33:30 431 34:20 109 35:7 (LXX)  346 36:22 280 39:25 143 39:27 (LXX)  323 40:2 (LXX)  273 41:18 283 41:19 282 42:6 116 42:7  102, 103 42:7–9 (LXX)  119 42:10 (LXX)  119

22:19 456 23:1 (LXX)  96 24:1–2 153 24:16 (LXX)  353 25:12 250 27:1 281 27:6 (LXX)  233 27:7 (LXX)  277 27:9 456 28:2 (LXX)  285 28:11 (LXX)  336 30:10 456 30:22 (LXX)  233 31:11 (LXX)  271 32:18–19 (LXX)  331 33:10 (LXX)  269 33:12 335 33:20 456 34:7 277 34:17 (LXX)  353

1 Bible 36 102 36:9 281 36:7 (LXX)  350 38:16 106 39:17 (LXX)  175 40:3 456 40:12 (LXX)  379 42:5 456 42:11 456 43:3 410 43:5 456 43:21  358, 360 44:5 (LXX)  350 46:1 456 46:2 280 46:2 (LXX)  280 46:4 106 46:6 (LXX)  143 47:5 143 49:2 (LXX)  155 49:6 (LXX)  301 49:11 (LXX)  328 52:1 106 52:8 408 56:8 (LXX)  271 56:13 431 57:1 411 57:5 175 57:11 175 60:1 198 60:5 (LXX)  166 62:2 (LXX)  277 62:5 250 63:11 (LXX)  175 64:1 (LXX)  285 64:14 (LXX)  247 66:5 (LXX)  271 67:9 (LXX)  247 67:12–13 158 67:13 (LXX)  156 67:20 (LXX)  350 67:36 (LXX)  314 68:24 280 69:5 (LXX)  175 72:17 (LXX)  117 72:26 (LXX)  277

73:7 (LXX)  117 74 194 74:4 (LXX)  96 74:19 420 76:1 (LXX)  284 79 194 79:5 (LXX)  102 80:7 173 80:8 300 80:10  300, 358, 360 81:6 231 81:7 (LXX)  420 81:10 300 82:13 (LXX)  117 83:3 8LXX)  277 84:3 (LXX)  119 84:11 190 85 414 85:2 (LXX)  102 85:4 (LXX)  102 87:3 106 88:20 92 88:32 (LXX)  301 89:30–31 301 90:8 281 90:10 225 90:14 (LXX)  166 91:11–12 277 92:3 428 92:12–14 408 93:21 (LXX)  253 94:2–7 106 94:7 (LXX)  304 95:6 (LXX)  155 95:11 251 95:11 (LXX)  271 96:1 (LXX)  439 96:4–5 291 96:10 433 97:1 439 97:6 (LXX)  143 97:7 (LXX)  96, 291 98:1 (LXX)  444 98:6 144 98:8 (LXX)  281 99:3 (LXX)  284

499

500 102:5 (LXX)  343 102:22 (LXX)  251 103:5  325, 343 103:34 (LXX)  175 104:5 (LXX)  363 104:5–9 153 105:6 335 105:8 298 105:17 (LXX)  171 105:23 92 105:26 103 105:40–48 (LXX)  303 105:41 104 105:42 102 105:43 335 106:9 (LXX)  444 106:34 (LXX)  96 106:37 (LXX)  249 106:45 298 106:46 348 106:47 157 107:2 (LXX)  271 108:5 175 108:24 (LXX)  277 109:1 (LXX)  306 113:4 391 114:4 (LXX)  245 115:7 102 115:9–11  245, 456 117:24 (LXX)  271 118 413 118:5 (LXX)  301 118:8 301 118:13 (LXX)  363 118:19–20 417 118:24 (LXX)  413 118:65 (LXX)  102 118:77 (LXX)  413 118:92 (LXX)  413 118:97 (LXX)  413 Proverbs 1:28 (LXX)  236 1:31 434 2:8 286 2:10 286

Index of References 118:99 (LXX)  413 118:143 (LXX)  413 118:149 (LXX)  285 118:174 (LXX)  413 119 417 119:62 109 119:105  225, 282 121:6 (LXX)  260 121:8 440 122:3 256 122:3 (LXX)  357 123:1 270 125:1 (LXX)  167 126 52 126:1  37, 52, 214, 219 126:1–2 403 130:2 (LXX)  285 131:1 302 132:14 251 133:2 183 136:3 (LXX)  364 136:4 (LXX)  317, 364 136:6 153 137  169, 365, 366, 194 137:1  54, 168, 172, 240, 298, 360, 365 137:1 (LXX)  172, 412 137:1–2  49, 54 137:2  49, 356, 357 137:3  36, 279, 357, 363, 364 137:4  31, 364 137:3–4  35, 38, 49, 54 138:8 379 141:2 (LXX)  270, 285, 409 144:2 250 147:2 157 148:1 391 148:3 190 150:3 144



3:11 (LXX)  230 3:18 433 3:24 (LXX)  228 4:27 (LXX)  38, 332, 336, 365

501

1 Bible

6:9 (LXX)  228 6:23  255, 282 6:30 (LXX)  444 10:6 (LXX)  175 10:22 (LXX)  175 11:18 269 11:30  409, 433 13:12  409, 433 13:23 (LXX)  276 15:3 (LXX)  251

Canticles 2:10 (LXX)  94 2:13 (LXX)  94 Isaiah 1:1  38, 444, 445 1 :1 (LXX)  445 1:2 153 1:9 (LXX)  359 1:18  38, 437 1:30  408, 498 2:1 444 2:5 281 3:3 (LXX)  287 3:5 243 3:10 434 5:1 (LXX)  156 5:20 438 5:21 302 6:1  38, 410, 445 6:1 (LXX)  445 6:1–2 401 6:1–3  407, 412 6:1–5  55, 406 6:2–3 412 6:2–4 408 6:3  316, 401, 407 6:3 (LXX)  359 6:9 123 6:10  123, 228 7:1 86 8:13 456 9:2 281 9:5 (LXX)  333 9:6  280, 287



15:4  409, 433 15:29 352 16:5 302 17:23 (LXX)  350 18:12 302 18:19 389 21:16 (LXX)  234 22:17 126 23:22 243 23:31 (LXX)  246



8:8 151

9:15 243 9:16 123 10:12 106 10:17 281 11:4 (LXX)  440 11:11–13 157 12:1 250 12:3 (LXX)  121 12:6 (LXX)  271 13:1 444 13:19 90 14:13 435 14:19 (LXX)  422 16:6 106 17:6 300 17:10 456 18:3 143 18:6 (LXX)  328 19:2 (LXX)  137 19:11 (LXX)  287 19:21 (LXX)  405 20:2 444 20:3 102 22:4 (LXX)  423 22:22 189 24:10 (LXX)  296 24:23 190 25:9 (LXX)  271 26:2 416 26:4 358

502 26:12 (LXX)  281 26:13 (LXX)  281 26:19 (LXX)  323, 429 26:21 261 27:11 123 27:12–13 157 27:13 144 28:4 52 28:12 251 29:13 123 30:19 (LXX)  360 31:4 261 33:2 (LXX)  357 33:7 (LXX)  423 33:24 (LXX)  119 34:1 153 35:1 (LXX)  271 35:10 403 36:1 (LXX)  196 37:1 (LXX)  121 37:2 444 37:4 (LXX)  299 37:17 (LXX)  300 37:21 444 37:33 (LXX)  291, 385 37:36 (LXX)  144 38:1 444 38:2 (LXX)  266 38:3 (LXX)  360 38:12 272 38:21 174 38:22 (LXX)  306 39:6 132 40:5 282 40:9 (LXX)  168 40:13 287 40:31 343 41:1 439 41:8 (LXX)  335 41:12 (LXX)  236 42:1 (LXX)  92, 175 42:4 439 42:5 250 42:8 291 42:9 419 42:10 439

Index of References 42:12 439 42:16 282 42:17 291 43:5–6 157 43:14–21 157 43:20 (LXX)  92, 335 44:1 335 44:2 (LXX)  156 44:6 (LXX)  360 45:1 108 45:3 126 45:4 (LXX)  92, 335 45:13 (LXX)  166 44:17 (LXX)  269 46:8 (LXX)  388 47:15 276 48:2 106 49:1 439 49:6 157 49:7 335 49:13 (LXX)  271 49:16 107 50:7 456 51:6 (LXX)  270 51:16 (LXX)  166 51:10–11 22 52:1 384 52:6 285 52:7 (LXX)  168, 315 52:11 (LXX)  289 53:6 (LXX)  234 53:12 (LXX)  420 54:6 (LXX)  382 55:11 282 56:8 157 57:6 (LXX)  402 58:8 (LXX)  288 58:10 (LXX)  444 59:21 381 60–62 443 60:1 282 60:1–3 281 60:3–7 157 60:13 156 60:19–20 281 60:20 175

1 Bible

60:21 408 61:10 (LXX)  438 62:1 119 61:3 408 62:6 (LXX)  109 62:17 119 63:18 117

Jeremiah 1:1  168, 183 1:3  86, 254 1:5 92 1:9 363 1:11 92 1:16 (LXX)  361 1:17 279 1:18  35, 36, 99, 100 1:18 (LXX)  100 1:18–19 99 1:19 (LXX)  197 2:4–13 291 2:6 301 2:11 176 2:26 90 2:27 451 2:31 117 2:37 (LXX)  362 3:5 (LXX)  197 3:9 451 3:12 303 3:14 (LXX)  290, 349 3:16 138 3:17 271 3:21 90 4:1–2 291 4:10 123 4:13  288, 421 4:14 201 4:19 143 4:19–21  37, 139, 144 4:19–21 (LXX)  139 4:22 195 4:25 (LXX)  328 5:14 123 5:19 (LXX)  361 6:1 143

65:4 201 65:9 335 65:22 408 65:22 (LXX)  433 66:15 261 66:18–24 157 66:20 106

6:4 421 6:5 109 6:8 201 6:13 192 6:16  37, 251 6:16 (LXX)  221 6:17 143 6:19  123, 153 6:19 (LXX)  37, 139 6:21 123 6:26 353 7:2 117 7:3 (LXX)  300 7:5–7 304 7:6 (LXX)  361 7:9 (LXX)  361 7:11 192 7:12 300 7:16  99, 100, 119, 123 7:16 (LXX)  362 7:18  360, 361 7:18 (LXX)  251 7:22–23 122 7:23 337 7:23 (LXX)  304 7:25  102, 300 7:26 302 7:29 193 8:2 189 8:3 (LXX)  251 8:13 52 8:18 121 8:23 (LXX)  37, 192 9:1 (LXX)  121, 421 9:9 193 9:14 (LXX)  300 9:17 193

503

504 9:18 (LXX)  121 9:19  193, 439 9:23–24 195 10:6 (LXX)  284 11:1–7 38 11:3 (LXX)  300 11:4 300 11:6–9 141 11:7 300 11:10 (LXX)  361 11:13 360 11:14  99, 100, 119, 123 11:14 (LXX)  362 12:2 439 12:4 (LXX)  96 12:7 (LXX)  37, 196 12:9 336 12:14–17 304 12:16 (LXX)  453 13:1–7  138, 169 13:4 279 13:10 (LXX)  361 13:12 123 13:16 429 13:17 (LXX)  121 13:18 (LXX)  175 13:27 201 14:11  99, 100 14:17  20, 121 15:1  100, 119, 123 15:2 (LXX)  89 15:3  97, 137 15:4 99 15:5 201 15:7 97 15:8 97 15:15 (LXX)  367 15:16 103 15:19 363 15:20 (LXX)  197 16:5 123 16:9 (LXX)  300 16:11 (LXX)  361 16:14 2x  90, 300 16:14–21 195 16:19 280

Index of References 17:1–13 195 17:8  408, 439 17:23 302 17:24–27 304 17:25 443 18:2 279 18:20  99, 279 19:3 (LXX)  300 19:4 (LXX)  361 19:11 123 19:13 (LXX)  361 19:14 117 19:15 302 20:1–3 (LXX)  244 20:3 (LXX)  125 20:4 90 20:5 (LXX)  149 20:6 (LXX)  89 21:1 (LXX)  287 21:2  90, 241 21:7  97, 241 21:8 123 22:9 (LXX)  361 22:10 (LXX)  302, 260 22:11 (LXX)  200 22:25  90, 241 22:29 153 23:1–8 195 23:7 300 23:8 157 23:9 121 23:18 397 23:32 123 24:1  174, 241 24:1–7  36, 37, 140, 174, 219, 222 24:1–10  52, 223, 331, 369 24:2  174, 230 24:3 92 24:5  36, 300, 331 24:9 (LXX)  251 24:5  36, 331 24:7 286 25:1 241 25:2 (LXX)  92 25:4 102 25:6 (LXX)  361

1 Bible 25:9 91 25:11–12  225, 432 25:12 366 26:2 117 26:3 97 26:3–6 304 26:5 102 27:4 90 27:6 91 27:16–18 152 27:19 151 27:19–22  36, 152 27:21–22  138, 139 27:33 (LXX)  89 27:44 (LXX)  170 28:1 117 28:3 151 28:6 151 29  36, 297, 349 29:1 288 29:1–23  294, 295 29:5–7 294 29:5–28 297 29:10 432 29:10–14  157, 288, 297 29:11–14 297 29:19 102 29:21–23 297 30:1–31:26 195 30:4 300 30:15 97 31:1 157 31:2 338 31:5 387 31:8 157 31:9  298, 353 31:10 157 31:13 403 31:13–14  38, 273 31:14–17 20 31:15 298 31:21 235 31:23 156 31:26 228 31:32 300 31:37 (LXX)  251

32:6–8 100 32:6–15 138 32:9–15 154 32:15 (LXX)  300 32:16 280 32:21 300 32:26–44 195 32:37–41 157 32:41 408 33:5 (LXX)  303 33:9 296 33:16 (LXX)  92 34:4 (LXX)  300 34:13 300 35:11 101 35:15 123 36:1 (LXX)  300 36:4  294, 295 36:4 (LXX)  300 36:14 (LXX)  345 36:18 295 36:26 295 36:27 295 36:27–32 10 36:32  294, 295 37:2 304 37:2 (LXX)  300 37:3  99, 350 37:4 300 37:4 (LXX)  300 37:10–11 101 37:12 100 37:15 (LXX)  96 37:18 (LXX)  89 38–39 37 38:1–13 159 38:13–14 (LXX)  273 38:14 117 38:16 167 38:25 (LXX)  444 38:26 (LXX)  228 39:1–8 176 39:2 254 39:3–4 (LXX)  104, 105 39:4 (LXX)  302 39:15–18  13, 160, 219

505

506 39:16–18 158 39:16 (LXX)  280 39:17–18  36, 140, 166 39:28 300 39:36 (LXX)  300, 302 39:37 167 39:42 123 40:1  169, 428 40:4 168 40:4 (LXX)  300 40:7 167 40:10 (LXX)  195 41:5 287 41:13 (LXX)  300 41:21 (LXX)  149 41:22 167 41:22 (LXX)  387 42:2  99, 350 42:4 99 42:11 (LXX)  101 42:15 (LXX)  303 42:20  99, 350 43:1–7  95, 170 43:5–44:1 203 43:6 240 43:7  123, 168 43:8  240, 447, 451 43:9–10  451, 452 43:10  91, 240 43:13 240 43:14 240 43:15 240 44:10–11 (LXX)  101 44:12 (LXX)  453 44:17 360 44:17 (LXX)  302 44:18  123, 360 44:26 (LXX)  283 45:1  294, 295 45:1–5 13 45:3–4 251 45:5  201, 274 45:6 (LXX)  37, 139, 161 45:7 (LXX)  37, 139, 159 45:10 (LXX)  37, 159, 161 45:11 (LXX)  159

Index of References 45:13 (LXX)  37, 139, 161 45:17 (LXX)  125 45:25 (LXX)  92 46:4 (LXX)  159 46:14 (LXX)  453 46:16 (LXX)  159, 300 47:5 (LXX)  453 47:6 (LXX)  453 48:29 (LXX)  302 48:29–30 106 48:40 288 49:36 137 50:1–51:58 195 50:1 300 50:4 298 50:18 366 51:2 (LXX)  300 51:4 (LXX)  303 51:5 296 51:13 198 51:25 (LXX)  300 51:26 451 51:35 (LXX)  251 51:35–37 366 51:50  240, 361 51:59 95 51:63 451 52  90, 188 52:5–7 254 52:6 (LXX)  188 52:7  36, 109, 137, 165, 187 52:7 (LXX)  187 52:7–11 176 52:8 (LXX)  101 52:8 101 52:12 (LXX)  188 52:12–16 188 52:12–30 188 52:13 145 52:14  137, 185 52:14 (LXX)  101 52:16 188 52:16 (LXX)  188 52:17–23  138, 151 52:25 (LXX)  188 52:28–30  192, 369

1 Bible Lamentations 1:1  183, 193 1:2  183, 298 1:7 241 1:8 195 1:13  36, 37, 108, 136, 139 1:14 195 1:16 298 1:18 195 1:21–22 195 2:5  36, 136 2:7 116 2:9  134, 138 2:10 116 2:18  121, 298 Ezekiel 1:10 329 1:25 (LXX)  424 1:26–28  442, 445 1:28  426, 442 3:1 288 3:22 279 3:24 (LXX)  92 5:1 175 7:2 137 8–11 166 8:3 268 9:1–11  101, 137, 139 9:4 (LXX)  306 9:11 (LXX)  101 10:1–19 98 10:2 141 10:14 329 11:17–20 157 11:20 (LXX)  301 12:16 202 12:19 (LXX)  96 14:14  38, 334 14:20 334 16:60 298 17:23  435, 439 19:1 193 20:10 300 20:10–20 370 20:19 301

3:21–24 195 3:31–33 195 3:32 (LXX)  197, 198 3:42 195 3:48 298 3:49–50 119 4:5 195 4:9 249 4:22 195 5:12  243, 357 5:18 195 5:21 104 5:22 104

20:33–44 157 23:9 (LXX)  104 27:11 (LXX)  109 27:30  116, 424 28:2 302 28:2 (LXX)  302 28:5 (LXX)  302 28:17 (LXX)  302 28:18 97 28:18 (LXX)  96 28:25 157 29:12 (LXX)  296 29:19 241 31:6 328 31:8–9 408 31:10 (LXX)  435 31:13 (LXX)  328 31:18 408 32:4 (LXX)  328 33:2 288 34:11–16 157 34:23–24 102 36:23 (LXX)  284 36:24 157 36:24 (LXX)  290 36:24–25 309 36:30 (LXX)  249 37  278, 344 37:2 268

507

508

Index of References

37:3–14 (LXX)  276 37:10 (LXX)  425 37:11–28 157 37:12 (LXX)  290 37:12–13 201 37:15–28 390 38:7 (LXX)  271 38:20 (LXX)  328 39:26–27 157

40–48 443 43 152 43:6 (LXX)  424 43:13–17 126 43:18 300 45:6–7 255 47:8 438 47:22 90 48:15–20 255

Daniel 1:2 151 1:8 (LXX)  370 2:19 125 2:27–28 449 3:5 143 3:6 (LXX)  328 3:7 143 3:10 143 3:15 (LXX)  171 3:19–30 303 3:28 (LXX)  106 3:32 (LXX)  149, 351 3:51 (LXX)  341 3:86 (LXX)  253 3:91 (LXX)  344 4:10–27 435 4:13 (LXX)  144, 266 4:21 (LXX)  328 4:25 (LXX)  338 4:29 (LXX)  109 4:31  241, 424 4:33b (LXX)  277 4:34 (LXX)  144, 266 5:2–3 151 5:13 (LXX)  325 6:6 (LXX)  383, 405 6:8 (LXX)  405 6:17 (LXX)  161 7:8 (LXX)  269 7:9 (LXX)  437 7:9–10 (LXX)  445 7:16 125

7:18 (LXX)  269 7:21–22 (LXX)  269 7:25 (LXX)  269 8:11 (LXX)  117 8:15–26 202 8:18 422 8:25 (LXX)  302 9:1 (LXX)  90 9:2  225, 432 9:4 (LXX)  260 9:6 102 9:6 (LXX)  303 9:10 (LXX)  303 9:11  90, 103 9:15 300 9:15 (LXX)  281 9:17 (LXX)  281 9:18 (LXX)  162 9:20–21 266 9:24 155 9:25 432 9:27 (LXX)  162 10:5 137 10:11 329 10:13 414 11:15 (LXX)  196 11:24 (LXX)  162 11:31 (LXX)  162 12:1 (LXX)  186 12:4 155 12:9 155

509

1 Bible Hosea 2:10 (LXX)  101 3:1 (LXX)  156 6:2 426 6:5  282, 439 9:7 (LXX)  96 9:10 52 10:1 434

11:1 157 11:1 (LXX)  156 11:11 353 12:4 (LXX)  197 13:6 302 14:5–7 408

Joel 2:1 144 2:1–17 120 2:5 36 2:9 (LXX)  109



2:13  120, 122 2:16 (LXX)  340 4:17 106

Amos 1:5 (LXX)  188 2:2 143 2:10 300 3:1 300 3:6 97 3:7 102 4:2 (LXX)  196, 269



4:4 402 5:1 193 7:7 (LXX)  99 8:3 (LXX)  251 8:10 353 8:10 (LXX)  272 9:2 (LXX)  161

Jonah 1:2 279 1:16 (LXX)  405 2:2–3 280

3:1–4:11 120 3:2 279 4:6 223

Micah 1:2 153 1:6 387 1:16 (LXX)  90 2:10 (LXX)  279 4:4 223



4:13 279 5:5 369 5:14 (LXX)  107 7:8 281 7:19 (LXX)  197, 198



3:13 (LXX)  187



2:11 454 3:18 (LXX)  296 3:19 280

Nahum 1:5 (LXX)  96 1:6 (LXX)  90 Habakkuk 1:8 288 1:15 (LXX)  161 2:4 (LXX)  306

510 Zephaniah 1:16  143, 144 2:3 166 2:8–10 106 Zechariah 1:6 102 1:7–17 202 1:8–17 267 1:12  103, 123 1:14 (LXX)  291 1:16 (LXX)  291 1:17 (LXX)  291 1:18–21 137 2:7 (LXX)  266 3:7 (LXX)  291 3:10 223 4:1 227 4:11 (LXX)  306 5:3 (LXX)  306 5:5 (LXX)  144 6:1–8 137 Malachi 1:7 (LXX)  370 1:12 (LXX)  284, 370 2:13 126 2:17 175

Index of References

2:11 (LXX)  345, 439 3:20 157

7:5 225 8:7 157 8:7–8 443 8:9 304 8:13 390 8:23 363 9:13–15 390 9:14 143 10:3 (LXX)  367 10:6–12 157 11:1  88, 136, 182 12:10 353 13:2 359 14:4 (LXX)  38, 443 14:4–5  274, 278, 442, 443 14:5  261, 270



3:1 (LXX)  379 3:10 244 4:4 103

New Testament Matthew 1:20–24 202 1:20 91 1:24 227 2:12 91 2:13 91 2:17–18 400 2:18 20 2:20–21 346 2:22 91 3:2  28, 390 3:10  137, 408, 434, 439 3:13 307 3:14–15 274

3:17  156, 349, 424 4:5  106, 383 4:11 266 4:17  28, 390 5:3 444 5:4 137 5:6 444 5:11–12 199 5:12  270, 298, 445 5:15 282 5:22  190, 328, 454 5:28 190 5:32 190

1 Bible 5:34 190 5:38 190 5:44 190 6:5 279 7:16–20 434 7:17 408 7:17–19 439 7:24–27 305 8:4 239 8:20  224, 239 8:27 344 9:2 119 9:4 271 9:8 341 9:13 440 9:27 357 9:33 344 9:36 441 10:1 441 10:2 441 10:5 172 10:5–6 389 10:19 287 10:26 419 11:1 441 11:4 325 11:25  220, 250 11:25–30  251, 271 11:28 221 11:29  251, 253 12:4 243 12:10  25, 243 12:18 156 12:23 344 12:33  408, 434 12:40  352, 426 12:44 272 13:14 338 13:16 199 13:26 439 13:40 254 13:49  144, 354 13:57 445 14:12 455 14:13–21 444 14:20 173

14:21 342 14:31 275 15:28 245 15:31 344 15:32–39 444 16:9 173 16:14 427 16:17 199 16:18 190 16:19  189, 416 17:5  156, 175, 349, 380, 424 17:23 449 18:9 328 18:10 277 18:15–16 304 18:21 449 18:35 254 19:4 153 20:8 270 20:17 441 20:28 421 20:30 357 20:31 357 20:32 286 21:1 443 21:13 192 21:17 188 21:20 344 21:35 448 22:4 172 22:6 296 22:7 114 22:37 271 23:9 118 23:17 454 23:18 126 23:20 126 23:21 190 23:29–32 445 23:35 126 23:37  195, 447, 448 24:3 443 24:15  162, 195 24:22 137 24:27 352 24:28 325

511

512 24:29 101 24:31  143, 144 24:37 352 25:6 109 25:6–7 109 25:45 101 25:14 352 25:31 443 25:31–46 419 25:45 101 26:14 441 26:20 441 26:25 344 26:30 443 26:42 269 26:44 228 26:45 104 26:47 441 26.53 411 26:63 116 Mark 1:9 307 1:11  156, 175, 349, 425 1:4 93 1:27  120, 344 1:35 338 2:1 348 2:10 119 2:11 340 2:12 341 3:1 348 3:14 441 4:10 441 4:10–12 449 4:15 242 4:38 224 4:41 344 5:1–2 201 5:7 117 5:20 344 5:21–24 342 5:33 125 5:34 332 5:35–43 429 5:41 340

Index of References 26:64 280 26:75 423 27:1 172 27:9–10 400 27:22 151 27:24–25 114 27:25 424 27:43 379 27:48 455 27:51–53 278 27:52 270 27:52–53 323 27:53 106 27:57–60 455 27:63  426, 427, 428 27:66 154 28:2 145 28:4 422 28:16–20 441

5:42 233 6:7 441 6:15 420 6:20 246 6:29 455 6:30–44 44 6:31 224 6:34 441 6:41 270 6:43 173 7:34 270 8:1–10 444 8:19 173 8:22–26 174 8:26 172 8:31  427, 428 8:34–9:1 141 9:1  190, 279 9:7  143, 156, 304, 349, 380, 425 9:31  104, 426, 427, 428 9:35 441 9:37 122 10:1  94, 381 10:11–12 379

1 Bible 10:32 441 10:31 437 10:34  427, 428 10:45 421 11:1 443 11:13  70, 202, 249 11:17 192 11:25 279 12:1–12 353 12:6  156, 172 13:3 443 13:14  162, 195 13:29 354 14:16 176 Luke 1:2 242 1:5 86 1:6 246 1:9 409 1:10 409 1:10–11 266 1:11  306, 420 1:15 101 1:16  89, 90 1:18 341 1:19 329 1:26 267 1:35 325 1:38  102, 292 1:39 231 1:49 280 1:50 411 1:53 444 1:63 349 1:68 233 1:72 298 2:14 391 2:20 341 2:25 246 2:32 281 2:39 167 3:3 93 3:9 439 3:22  156, 349 4:6 125

14:26 443 14:30 239 14:32 237 14:40 228 14:48 325 14:62 280 14:63 116 15:9 101 15:21 238 16:4–7 202 16:15 441 16:19 410 16:20 242

4:9  125, 195 4:24  137, 445 4:36 344 4:42 338 5:24 190 6:13 441 6:20 270 6:43 439 7:11–17  342, 429 7:12  339, 353 7:14 340 7:20 172 7:38 368 7:50 332 8:8 439 8:25 244 8:42 353 9:10–17 444 9:12 441 9:17 173 9:22 426 9:35  92, 380 9:38 353 9:43 344 9:52–56 389 9:58 224 10:16 380 10:21  220, 250 10:23 199 10:25–37  31, 390

513

514

Index of References

11:14 344 11:24 272 11:27 428 11:39 103 11:51 126 12:2 419 12:11 287 12:21 354 12:42 327 12:49  431, 440 13:6–9  52, 164, 434, 436 13:7 236 13:9 439 13:33 447 13:34 447 14:14 199 15:7 354 15:10 354 15:11–32 353 15:18 231 15:20  94, 268, 381 15:24 342 16:9  306, 328 16:22 391 16:23 270 16:29 304 17:6 103 17:11–19  31, 390 17:13 357 17:19  94, 231 17:24 352 17:26 86 18:6  103, 328

18:13  270, 411 18:31  270, 441 19:11 443 19:29 172 19:37 443 19:40 454 19:41  146, 192 19:43 186 20:6 446 20:9–19 436 20:13  103, 156 21:1 269 21:5 155 21:7 156 21:20 195 21:21 98 22:4 279 22:39  355, 443 22:41–42 269 22:41–43 266 22:46 279 22:62 423 23:26 238 23:27 105 23:34  119, 448 23:35  92, 281 23:39 355 23:43 190 23:48 113 23:50 246 24:6 425 24:33 384 24:34 344

John 1:1–18 283 1:4 431 1:4–9 281 1:9  28, 55, 409, 410, 443 1:14 353 1:18  353, 419 1:31 330 1:34 281 1:43 239 1:46 125 1:48 223

2:9 121 2:19 429 3:13 170 3:16 353 3:18 353 4:4–42  31, 390 4:7 121 4:9 389 4:12 421 4:19 246 4:21 391

1 Bible 4:21–23 391 4:29 344 4:44 445 5:22  276, 419 5:25 304 5:28–29  278, 323 5:35 282 6:1–13 444 6:1–14 345 6:13 173 6:14 431 6:17 222 6:29 343 6:39 429 6:40 429 6:44 429 6:51 277 6:54 429 6:53 198 6:63 381 6:67 441 6:70 441 8:1 443 8:11 430 8:12  281, 430, 431 8:41 379 8:47 304 8:48 389 8:52 146 8:59  446, 448 9:5  281, 430 9:6–7 174 9:36 343 9:39 431 10:10 440 10:18 429 10:33 448 11:1–44 342 11:11 227, 11:15 343 11:17  323, 427 11:23 323 11:24 323 11:25  276, 431

11:25–26 429 11:27 431 11:38  202, 323 11:39  276, 427 11:40–42 343 11:41 270 11:42 343 11:44 323 12:1 429 12:17 429 12:18 425 12:23 101 12:27 330 12:28 424 12:35 237 12:41  56, 442 13:19 343 14:2–3 408 14:3  261, 391 14:6 431 14:10 381 15:2 434 15:3 274 15:4 434 15:5 434 15:8 434 15:16  434, 436 16:7  421, 440 16:20 273 16:28 431 17:1 270 17:7 146 17:8 381 17:15 261 18:1 200 18:37 330 19:17–20 355 19:30  224, 421 19:38 455 20:4–6 267 20:23 120 20:31 343 21:19 341

515

516 Acts 1:1 245 1:2  410, 441 1:8  31, 390, 441 1:10–11 202 1:11 410 1:11–12 443 1:21 440 2:7 344 2:12 344 2:14 428 2:22 90 2:26 277 2:30 387 2:37 348 2:38 388 3:2 155 3:12 344 3:13 199 3:18 304 3:19 388 3:19–20 17 4:4 242 4:21 279 4:29 102 5:4 122 5:6–10 427 5:30  338, 355, 356, 433 6:2 441 7:2 345 7:23 89 7:25 348 7:31 143 7:34 352 7:36 300 7:38 277 7:52  129, 156, 400 7:53 277 7:54–60 448 7:60  429, 448 8 160 8:2 455 8:4–25  31, 390 8:10 280 8:26 279 8:27 231

Index of References 8:39 268 9:4 426 9:6 279 9:11  94, 231 9:13 270 9:15  99, 328 9:17 344 9:34 279 9:36–43 342 9:43 378 10:7 292 10:10 233 10:13  143, 425 10:20 231 10:22 246 10:25 142 10:28 289 10:36–43 440 10:39  338, 355, 356, 433 10:40 426 11:6 235 11:14 147 11:18 341 12:7 266 12:10 292 13:17 300 13:29 433 13:47 282 13:48 341 14:5 142 14:11 428 14:14 116 15:3 202 15:20 370 15:23  294, 296 15:23–29 295 15:26 421 15:33 279 16:17  102, 391 16:25 109 16:31 362 16:36 332 17:23 126 18:9 103 18:23 279

517

1 Bible 19:11–12 174 19:34 428 20:3 278 20:37 368 21:1 142 21:11 104 21:20 341 21:36 105 22:1 188 22:9 426 Romans 1:1 295 1:4 279 1:5 327 1:7  270, 429 1:20 418 1:23 418 2:1 245 2:25 247 2:26 301 4:11  306, 308 6:8 276 6:17 122 6:22 434 9–11 33 9:25 156 1 Corinthians 1:2 251 1:11 125 1:4–9 137 2:5  279, 337 3:13 125 4:1 327 4:2  137, 327, 352 4:5 419 4:8 229 4:19 106 4:20 279 5:10 200 6:20  341, 428 7:10–11 379 7:12–13 30 7:20 272



22:10 231 23:26 296 25:1 426 25:19 276 26:14 426 26:16  279, 344 27:38 229 28:28 304 30:26 279

9:27 90 9:29 359 11:17–24 436 11:25 449 11:26 443 11:28 156 11:33 245 13:12 379 15:6 428 15:9 341 15:10 241 15:13 279 15:19  195, 279 15:32 275 16:13 92

9:2 306 9:13 126 10:10 146 11:7 175 11:23 453 14:8 143 15 277 15:3 453 15:4 426 15:5 441 15:8 344 15:35–38 278 15:43 279 15:51  429, 449 15:52 144

518 2 Corinthians 2:14 251 2:14–16 413 2:15 407 4:6  286, 410 5:1 272 5:4 272 5:17 434 5:21 274 6:2 148 Galatians 1:16 441 2:9 99 3:1 245 3:13  338, 356, 433 3:19 277

Index of References 6:7  279, 337 6:16 190 6:18 103 9:10 248 11:7 118 12:2–3 425 12:4  243, 453 12:8 411 14:25 306



4:26 256 5:19 379 6:6 242 6:10 327



3:8 441 3:9 419 5:14 429 6:3 335 6:23 429

Philippians 1:1 295 2:6 315



3:21 429

Colossians 1:13 156 1:15 418 1:22 272 1:23 441



1:26 449 1:29 336 4:3 350

1 Thessalonians 1:8 251 2:15 445 3:13 443



4:14 430 4:16  143, 144 5:25 350

2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 139



3:1 350

1 Timothy 1:15 431 1:17 418



1:19 327 2:8  251, 270

Ephesians 1:6 156 1:9 449 1:18 286 2:2 436 3:3 449

519

1 Bible

3:9 327 3:16 410



4:1 327 6:11 245



1:12 213

2 Timothy 1:16 275 Titus 1:1 295 1:2 418 Philemon 10 102 Hebrews 1:14 277 2:2  270, 277 3:5 103 4:7 240 4:9–10 253 4:15 274 5:1 119 6:14 250 7:13 126 7:26 274 7:27  119, 402 8:9 300 9:4 150 10:5 431 10:13 125 James 1:1  102, 295, 296, 429 1:2–4 297 1:5 297 1:12 297 1:13  297, 418 1:17–18 297 1:25 297 2:5 297 2:8–12 297 2:13 297 2:16 332 2:20 245 3:6 297

10:35 270 11:7 334 11:17 353 11:26 270 11:32–38 445 11:27 418 11:37  445, 446, 447, 448 12:3 245 12:22  106, 256 13:5 402 13:6 456 13:12 355 13:18 350 13:24 270

3:11 438 3:13 438 3:17–18 434 4:13 276 4:13–5:6 297 4:15 106 5:1–6 297 5:4 259 5:7–9 297 5:7–11 297 5:15 119 5:16  98, 119, 352, 362 5:20 96

520 1 Peter 1:5  279, 337 2:5 402 2:8 242 2:9 335 2:19 439 2:24  338, 433 3:1 30

Index of References

3:3 155 4:8 96 4:10 327 4:13 296 4:16  341, 428 5:13 124

2 Peter 1:1 295 1:2 429 1:13–14  272, 426 1:17  156, 175, 349



1:18  425, 426 2:5 334 2:21 387 3:14 352

1 John 1:1 283 1:5 281 2:7 242 2:8 409 2:11 237



3:15 198 3:18 122 3:23 343 4:9  343, 353 5:12 198



13 294



20 327



2:26 305 3:1 288 3:7  189, 288 3:8 420 3:12  99, 190, 256 3:13 305 3:14 288 3:21 305 4:1  416, 425 4:8  103, 329, 406, 407 5:1  136, 154 5:4 191 5:5 136

2 John 12 294 3 John 2 333 Jude 1 295 9  413, 416 Revelation 1:8  103, 189 1:14 437 1:17  422, 423 1:19 288 1:20 449 2:1 288 2:6 379 2:7  408, 433 2:8 288 2:12 288 2:14 90 2:17 150 2:23 446

1 Bible 5:8  270, 407, 409 6:1 136 6:10 117 7:1–3  135, 136, 144, 145, 187 7:2 420 7:2–3 117 7:4 89 7:9 420 7:10 117 8–11 143 8:2 143 8:3 420 8:3–4 409 8:6 424 8:6–12 143 8:13  143, 326, 339 9:1 143 9:11 146 9:13–14 143 9:14  135, 430 9:14–15  135, 144 10:1 145 10:4  425, 426 10:7  102, 143 11:2 106 11:9 426 11:11  425, 426 11:12  170, 425 11:15 143 11:17 103 11:18  269, 270 12:7 414 12:10 426 12:16 171 13:8 420 14:4 275 14:8 124

14:13 425 14:17 145 15:3 103 15:6 144 16:7 103 16:4 103 16:15 421 16:19 124 16:20 439 17:5 124 18:1 145 18:2 124 18:4 425 18:10 124 18:19  116, 423 18:21 124 19:2 107 19:5 425 19:6 103 19:7 296 19:12 285 19:13 283 19:15  103, 440 19:17 117 20:1 145 20:4–5 276 20:8 420 21:2 106 21:10 106 21:14 441 21:22  103, 429 21:23  281, 431 22:2  408, 434 22:5 281 22:14 434 22:19  106, 434 22:2 439

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint 1 Esdras 1:28 304 1:40 90 1:47 304 1:48 302

1:54–55 373 1:54 151 2:1–5 373 2:10–12 373

521

522

Index of References

2:15–25 373 2:11  295, 304 2:17 195 2:18 292 4:49 170 4:58 270 5:52  190, 405 5:54–59 373 5:55 190 5:61 175 6:1–2 373 6:8 296 6:12 153 6:13 250

6:14–15  36, 124 6:14  90, 105 6:15  124, 188 6: 16–19 373 7:1–3 373 8:1–3 373 8:7 373 8:9 296 8:57 149 8:71 172 8:79 303 8:87 148 9:8 429 9:37 89

2 Esdras 1:1–3 373 1:2 250 1:7–8 373 1:11 170 3:8–11 373 4:7–24 373 4:15 195 4:17 279 5:11 250 5:14 373 6:16 373 7:1–6 373 7:10 373



1 Maccabees 1:2–6 297 1:25 251 1:54 162 2:7 106 2:14 116 2:27 298 2:47 350 2:58 411 3:15 89 3:17 385 3:47 116 3:51 129 4:10  298, 379 4:47 152 4:53 402

5:39 385 5:46 336 6:48 385 7:41 144 7:42 129 8:23–32 295 9:15 90 9:27 162 9:32 385 9:45 306 10:7 340 10:10–13 295 10:13 421 10:17–24 295 10:18 296

8:28 149 10:3 279 10:4 175 11:4 172 11:10 279 13:33 89 14:9 89 18:18 360 19:12 420 19:25 (LXX)  389 20:40 149 21:1 106 23:24 382

1 Bible 10:25 296 10:25–45 295 11:30–37 295 11:30 296 11:32 296 11:38 439 11:57 349 11:71  116, 423 12:5–18 295 12:6 296 12:19–23 295 12:20 296 12:46 176

13:36 296 14:12 223 14:16 449 14:20–23 295 14:20 296 15:1–2 294 15:2 296 15:9 306 15:16 296 15:33 325 16:5 231 16:20 421 16:21 9

2 Maccabees 1:1–9 297 1:1 296 1:2  297, 298 1:2d 298 1:4–9 152 1:4 297 1:9 155 1:10–2:18 297 1:10 333 1:12  106, 384 1:18 402 1:21 402 1:22 142 1:24–25 297 1:25 92 1:27–29 297 1:27 157 1:33 306 2 46 2:1–3 305 2:2–3 297 2:4–8  45, 132, 134 2:4–5 150 2:5 138 2:7–8 297 2:7 157 2:19 266 2:18  157, 297

3:24 337 3:28 280 3:30 103 3:35 402 3:38 337 5:16 248 6:29 449 7:8 251 8:2 198 9:18  280, 294 9:19–27 295 10:3 402 10:25 116 11:13 337 11:16–21 295 11:16 296 11:22–26 295 11:22 296 11:27–33 295 11:27 296 11:34–38 295 11:34 296 14 277 14:15 116 14:42 296 15:9 354 15:14  99, 100

523

524 3 Maccabees 1:8–2:24 150 1:18 116 2:2 417 2:9  104, 284 2:17–18 105 2:17 196 2:19 411 2:24 291 3:12–29 295 3:25 171 5:7 280 5:11–12 228

Index of References 5:11 379 5:49 268 5:51 198 6:4–5 106 6:4  351, 411 6:5 106 6:9 296 6:11 156 6:12  280, 357 6:18  108, 416 7:1–9 295

4 Maccabees 1:12 429 5:6 239 5:18 243 5:36 243 6:28 411 7:1 421 7:9 118 7:10 239 7:15 245 8:5 243



Baruch 1:1–2 170 1:1  95, 203, 241, 295 1:3 240 1:5 298 1:8–9 151 1:12  336, 352 1:13 362 1:19 300 1:20  103, 300 2:11  279, 300 2:12 281 2:19 281 2:20  102, 303 2:22 304 2:24  102, 303 2:27 281 2:28 103 2:30 302 2:34–35 298

2:35  298, 373 3:1–5 373 3:1 103 3:2 411 3:4 103 3:6 281 3:37  102, 156 4:4 199 4:12  114, 195 4:13 301 4:30 201 4:36 201 4:37  157, 403 5:1 201 5:2 175 5:5  157, 201, 403, 443 5:6 290 5:9  255, 282 6 297

8:29 428 9:2 287 9:3 350 10:13 243 12:3 449 15:1 245 15:25 279 16:20 421 17:5 255 18:16 433

525

1 Bible Bel and the Dragon 1:5 250 11 188 18 (LXX)  345 38 260



Ecclesiasticus Prol. 20  197 1:18 333 2:8 269 2:17 271 5:6  96, 123 6:28 252 8:6 243 11:6 104 14:27 166 16:4 90 17:12 298 17:17 414 18:23 271 22:9 227 22:13 449 23:17 272 23:25 434 24:3 282 24:31 143 35:12 176 35:17 119 36:1  357, 411 36:11 157 36:13 251 39:6 106 40:29 370 42:17  103, 202

43:9 391 44:16 137 44:17  274, 334, 352 44:18 137 44:20  298, 352 45:7 298 45:17 410 45:23 283 45:24  137, 298 46:8 137 46:10 89 47:16 439 47:22 92 48:9 411 48:10 157 48:25 419 49:5–6  36, 104 49:6 195 49:7 137 49:14 411 50:11–15 152 50:16 144 50:17 103 50:25–26 389 50:26 385 51:27 252

36 268 42 161 48 (LXX)  345

Epistle of Jeremiah 1 96 1:1  167, 168, 305 1:7 320

2–73 297 6:60 190 72 246

Esther, Addition to 13 295



16 295

Judith 2:3 439 2:6 439



2:24 389 3:6 389

526 4:2 190 4:11 116 4:12 162 4:13–14 116 4:13 103 4:15 116 5:5  285, 304 5:17–18 96 5:18 190 6:17 108 8:13 103 8:33 149 8:35 332 9:1 116 9:8  129, 279

Index of References

9:12  250, 417 9:14 280 10:13 108 11:5 102 12:6 102 13:7 336 13:16 118 13:18 250 13:19  280, 337 14:16 116 14:19 116 15:10 103 16:6 103 16:17 103

Susanna 3 2 44/45 266



48 454 55 279

Tobit 3:1 280 4:12  199, 290 5–7 268 5:1 325 5:10 325 5:17 333 6:13–15 427 6:16 239 7:6  268, 360, 368 7:7 245 7:17 250 8:10 231 8:15 335 8:17 353 8:20 369 8:21 333 9:6 233

10:12 332 10:14 250 11:13 146 11:14 284 11:16 344 12:10 118 13:3 89 13:5 157 13:6 379 13:9 384 13:13 157 13:13 104 13:14 260 13:15 296 13:16–18 191 13:16 255 14:5  157, 191, 443

Wisdom 1:1 283 2:6 446 2:8 276 2:10 243 3:1  252, 253 4:7  251, 252



4:13 274 5:15 269 7:25 337 7:26  281, 283 9:8 255 9:15 272

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

10:4 334 10:5 274 12:22 283 14:15 452 16:28 288



527

18:4 255 18:9 269 18:21 409 18:25 146 19:8 166

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 1–5 101 1:1–2 91 1:2 123 1:2–5  42, 97 1:2–4 96 1:15 109 2:1  42, 98 2:2  42, 99 2:23 156 3:1–2 109 3:1 106 4:1–7 255 4:2 107 4:3–4 234 5:1  42, 105, 284 5:5 110 5:6 121 6–8  50, 145 6 152 6:1–7:1 109 6:1–2 202 6:1  42, 101, 185 6:3–4 142 6:3  43, 110, 191 6:4–8:1 43 6:4–8  135, 187 6:4  110, 135, 144, 145, 147 6:5  135, 145 6:6 135 6:7–10 43 6:7–9  132, 134 6:7–8 132 6:7  135, 150 6:8  153, 157

6:9 157 6:10 171 7:1–8:2 110 7:1  105, 110 7:2 191 8:1–9:1 43 8:1  110, 176, 191 8:2 187 8:4  101, 188 9:1  116, 196, 274 10 194 10:1–5 170 10:2–5 43 10:2  167, 168 10:5–12:4  43, 194 10:5  58, 193 10:6–7  43, 200 10:6 195 10:18  43, 183, 184, 185, 191, 192, 195, 196 11:1 124 11:4–7  195, 200 11:4–5 43 11:4  200, 429 12:1–4 195 13:1  58, 424, 425 13:9–10 42 21:1  176, 201 21:4 109 21:21–23 156 21:21 156 21:23 156 21:24 200 22:1 425

528 32:1 434 33:2  43, 167, 168 34:1–35:1 126 35:1–5 194 35:1 58 35:2  44, 121 38:1 410 39:8 109 42:8 278 48:3 449 50:2 278 51:11 139 52:14 110 53 154 55:1 223 61:7 274 67:7 124 73:1 253 75:7 300 77:25 330 77:9–10 42 77:12  167, 168, 335 77:15–16 282 77:17–26 44 77:18–26 321 77:18  223, 293, 321 77:19 321 77:21  321, 332

Index of References 77:22  321, 338 77:23 321 77:24 321 77:25  321, 330 77:26  321, 336 78–87 297 78–86 295 78–85 297 78:1–7 157 78:2–7 297 78:3 297 78:6–7 17 79:1 90 79:2  42, 114 80:1–3 43 80:2 43 80:3  42, 105 81:1–82:1 297 81:4 297 82:1–83:23 297 83:1–86:1 297 84:1–11 297 85:2 44 85:3–9 297 85:9–15 297 85:11  253, 271 87:1  44, 321, 330, 346

3 Baruch Title  60, 156, 159, 193, 217 1:1–5 121 1:1–2  88, 97, 195 1:1  24, 90 1:2  105, 195 1:3  103, 266 1:6 449 1:8 449 2:2 416 2:6 449 2:7 158 3:1 416 3:12 160 3:18 160

3:21–22 160 4:8  158, 408 4:9–15 434 4:15  125, 400, 438 6:13 416 7:25–27 160 9:8 189 11–16 414 11:2–5 416 11:2  189, 416 11:3 143 11:4 414 11:5 424 11:6 414

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 11:7 414 11:8  413, 414 12–13 277 12:1 173 13:3 414



529

13:5 125 14:1 143 15:1 416 17:1 416

4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) 1–7 32 1–5 30 1–4  13, 14, 35, 66, 95 1–3 180 1  13, 15, 68, 85, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 113, 114, 176, 180 1:1–4:11 17 1:1–4:5 13 1:1–11 14 1:1–10  10, 88 1:1–9 110 1:1–3  54, 142 1:1–2  93, 95 1:1  13, 15, 16, 17, 22, 25, 29. 38, 39, 42, 47, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 119, 123, 124, 144, 147, 148, 160, 162, 166, 169, 180, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 195, 197, 198, 200, 233, 235, 236, 239, 240, 241, 246, 247, 250, 255, 269, 274, 279, 281, 282, 287, 288, 290, 291, 296, 300, 301, 314, 323, 328, 335, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 345, 350, 354, 357, 360, 361, 364, 378, 385, 420, 454 1:1a 87 1:1b-3 87 1:2  21, 24, 25, 29, 34, 35, 36, 85, 87, 98, 100, 109, 350, 428 1:3–6 406 1:3  39, 42, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 101, 107, 108, 146, 148, 180, 185, 186, 187, 188, 196, 231, 278, 226, 336, 337, 345, 362 1:4–5  86, 286



1:4  21, 22, 25, 39, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 101, 103, 122, 147, 148, 158, 161, 171, 175, 189, 191, 233, 237, 250, 266, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 295, 297, 302, 303, 304, 325, 336, 348, 361, 367, 378, 379, 381, 411, 417 1:4a 87 1:4b 87 1:5–6  21, 87 1:5  16, 25, 36, 39, 42, 48, 54, 85, 90, 92, 96, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 118, 122, 123, 124, 145, 148, 149, 161, 166, 167, 173, 180, 188, 192, 195, 196, 197, 201, 228, 239, 241, 247, 288, 302, 328, 332, 335, 338, 339, 340, 344, 345, 346, 347, 351, 354, 355, 362, 363, 368, 378, 380, 381, 383, 402, 417, 444, 453 1:6–10 286 1:6  25, 26, 39, 85, 86, 89, 104, 106, 107, 110, 147, 162, 306 1:7–10  21, 87, 101 1:7–8  87, 142 1:7  13, 17, 25, 42, 47, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96, 105, 107, 108, 110, 115, 180, 185, 188, 193, 197, 198, 200, 282, 314, 399 1:7 96 1:8  17, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 101, 107, 110, 115, 180, 187, 196, 197, 231, 279, 284, 330, 415, 416 1:9–10 142 1:9  29, 85, 86, 87, 93, 108, 113, 123, 126, 147, 160, 279, 348, 380, 381, 444 1:10  15, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 98, 101,

530

Index of References

107, 109, 110, 115, 125, 142, 145, 148, 158, 162, 185, 196, 231, 244, 246, 288, 329, 427 1:11  85, 86, 87, 91, 111, 170, 179, 200, 292 2  5, 15, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 160 2:1–10  14, 162 2:1–9 13 2:1–5 192 2:1–2  113, 118 2:1  19, 39, 49, 96, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 122, 125, 171, 180, 183, 193, 231, 240, 339, 347, 423 2:1a 108 2:2–10 354 2:2–9  10, 32 2:2–5  17, 301 2:2–4 113 2:2–3  17, 42, 47, 114, 180 2:2  29, 39, 42, 48, 92, 108, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 125, 143, 146, 162, 198, 230, 235, 238, 239, 244, 245, 250, 254, 268, 315, 339, 349, 354, 421, 423, 427 2:3  44, 49, 96, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 147, 240, 279, 280, 296, 405, 415, 423 2:4  25, 92, 112, 113, 120, 123 2:5  10, 19, 20, 25, 29, 34, 36, 44, 112, 113, 114, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 146, 156, 160, 172, 190, 191, 193, 201, 268, 278, 298, 301, 339, 347, 348, 354, 357, 360, 362, 367, 421, 423, 437, 449 2:5 120 2:6  92, 112, 113, 123, 244, 361 2:7  11, 17, 25, 36, 48, 89, 91, 101, 104, 105, 112, 114, 123, 124, 148, 149, 167, 180, 188, 192, 241, 247, 279, 291, 295, 302, 305, 324, 330, 337, 351, 354, 369, 378, 379, 384, 385 2:8–10 193 2:8  19, 112, 114, 115, 122, 125, 423

2:9–3:3 88 2:9  29, 39, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 125, 126, 129, 146, 148, 152, 239, 240, 244, 248, 284, 328, 329, 330, 332 2:10  19, 29, 112, 113, 114, 126, 142, 167, 192, 201, 237, 268, 298, 347, 369, 403, 420, 421, 426 2:25 361 3  15, 19, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175, 180, 190 3:1–16 14 3:1–8 43 3:1–5 50 3:1–4  109, 110, 185, 186, 196 3:1–3  54, 88, 131 3:1–3a 130 3:1–2  54, 101 3:1  89, 98, 109, 110, 127, 128, 130, 140, 142, 145, 146, 171, 176, 180, 193, 244, 378 3:2–8  135, 136 3:2–4  17, 37, 139 3:2  17, 25, 37, 39, 89, 93, 98, 104, 127, 128, 129, 130, 136, 139, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 170, 181, 185, 186, 187, 202, 243, 250, 266, 269, 277, 292, 298, 328, 363, 383, 420, 424, 450, 453, 454 3:3  13, 14, 19, 29, 101, 108, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 140, 142, 146, 148, 158, 180, 192, 193, 248, 347 3:4–13 142 3:4–12 10 3:4–11 131 3:4–8 286 3:4  21, 25, 29, 39, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 101, 102, 103, 108, 119, 127, 128, 129, 140, 144, 146, 147, 148, 282, 283, 350, 362, 411 3:4 a  130 3:4 b  130

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

3:4 c  130 3:5  21, 25, 92, 103, 127, 128, 130, 147, 148, 282 3:6–15 99 3:6–8  139, 240 3:6–7  21, 163 3:6  25, 48, 101, 104, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 148, 149, 180, 195, 281, 354 3:7–8  13, 32, 163 3:7  127, 128, 129, 149, 156, 162, 171, 230, 246, 269, 286, 329, 348, 379, 382, 449 3:8–4:4 403 3:8  5, 10, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 29, 35, 37, 39, 43, 49, 60, 92, 120, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 136, 139, 140, 142, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163, 171, 178, 180, 188, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 227, 243, 244, 248, 250, 253, 266, 285, 290, 300, 304, 306, 308, 353, 364, 367, 379, 416, 420, 424, 430, 431, 455 3:9–14 163 3:9–12 163 3:9–11 231 3:9–10  13, 141, 221, 222, 286 3:9  15, 21, 23, 26, 29, 37, 47, 49, 54, 92, 95, 101, 102, 107, 110, 127, 128, 129, 130, 139, 140, 147, 149, 151, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 172, 173, 180, 198, 201, 208, 237, 246, 285, 296, 303, 304, 338, 351, 354, 360, 449 3:10–12  21, 130, 142 3:10–11 141 3:10  12, 15, 35, 36, 49, 57, 60, 88, 127, 128, 130, 139, 140, 156, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173, 175, 197, 217, 218, 222, 230, 264, 268, 269, 279, 287, 292, 329, 330, 338, 354, 361, 388, 410, 443 3:11–12 180 3:11  29, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 141, 158, 163, 166, 167, 169, 173,

531

176, 180, 193, 241, 243, 247, 337, 339, 369, 441 3:12  88, 91, 127, 128, 147, 163, 166, 169, 237, 329, 330, 379, 382, 421 3:13–16 131 3:13  111, 127, 128, 131, 139, 144, 130, 163, 170, 179, 200, 269 3:14–16 179 3:14  13, 17, 19, 29, 32, 37, 39, 43, 49, 93, 117, 121, 127, 128, 129, 130, 140, 142, 147, 149, 152, 163, 171, 172, 190, 192, 193, 201, 223, 237, 240, 347, 354, 411, 420 3:14 a  131 3:14 b  131 3:14 c  131 3:14 152 3:15–16  141, 163, 221 3:15  12, 13, 15, 26, 37, 39, 49, 60, 115, 128, 131, 140, 141, 163, 164, 172, 173, 175, 180, 185, 208, 222, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 237, 244, 248, 254, 268, 276, 278, 281, 294, 331, 332, 336, 337, 339, 340, 350, 367, 368, 369, 435, 450 3:16–4:5 209 3:16  88, 128, 129, 130, 131, 142, 176, 222 4  5, 13, 15, 19, 131, 132, 177, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 201, 203, 238 4:1–11 14 4:1–6 43 4:1–5 110 4:1–2  91, 179 4:1  42, 43, 50, 54, 101, 107, 108, 109, 110, 137, 140, 141, 143, 172, 177, 178, 180, 181, 185, 187, 196, 247, 276, 277, 288, 291, 389, 415, 416 4:1a 179 4:1b 179 4:1  90, 101

532

Index of References

4:2  89, 90, 96, 101, 105, 177, 178, 179, 188, 239 4:3–5 179 4:3–4  34, 43, 52, 54, 185, 240, 327, 328 4:3  32, 49, 60, 93, 101, 110, 120, 155, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 188, 189, 190, 201, 236, 239, 266, 316, 332, 339, 346, 378 4:3a 179 4:3b-4 179 4:4–5 180 4:4  60, 92, 93, 120, 129, 177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 191, 192, 196, 200, 290, 327, 352, 361, 403, 426 4:5–11 13 4:5–6 162 4:5  19, 29, 37, 43, 54, 121, 124, 169, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 192, 241, 247, 286, 298, 322 4:6–6:10 13 4:6–11  170, 179, 354 4:6–10  10, 32, 43 4:6–9  195, 202 4:6–8 194 4:6–7  96, 180 4:6  25, 29, 37, 42, 47, 92, 94, 104, 115, 137, 148, 149, 156, 172, 177, 178, 180, 181, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 201, 231, 239, 255, 296, 305, 347, 354, 361, 367, 380, 383, 387, 423, 454 4:6a 179 4:6b-9 179 4:6 96 4:6c 194 4:7–11 233 4:7  42, 54, 92, 96, 101, 105, 155, 156, 177, 178, 181, 194, 196, 197, 354 4:8  18, 37, 55, 167, 177, 178, 180, 185, 194, 197, 198, 296, 348, 366, 382, 385, 411, 431, 433 4:8a 194 4:8b 194 4:9  10, 93, 107, 118, 162, 177, 178,

180, 194, 198, 200, 201, 261, 296, 298, 443 4:10–11  179, 222, 137 4:10  19, 29, 93, 105, 111, 162, 170, 177, 178, 179, 180, 188, 200, 201, 235, 292, 298, 386 4:11  17, 47, 102, 126, 144, 170, 177, 178, 179, 180, 201, 202, 237, 267, 323, 369 4:15 17 5–9  13, 35 5–7 14 5  13, 14, 15, 48, 95, 131, 173, 176, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 256, 263, 343, 420 5:1–6:8 141 5:1–6:7 13 5:1–34  10, 14 5:1–16 209 5:1–7 222 5:1–5 244 5:1  11, 13, 17, 37, 62, 63, 163, 170, 172, 173, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 218, 220, 222, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 237, 247, 251, 254, 276, 338, 355, 404, 407, 429, 431, 433, 434, 435 5:2–3 210 5:2  39, 105, 155, 173, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 220, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 338, 412 5:3  17, 170, 204, 205, 209, 222, 229, 236, 239, 245, 269 5:4–6 210 5:4  149, 173, 204, 205, 211, 228, 230 5:5  160, 163, 204, 205, 211, 227, 230, 235, 240, 247, 355, 429 5:6  39, 94, 101, 191, 204, 206, 207, 208, 220, 222, 231, 337, 384 5:7–16 218 5:7–8 236

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

5:7  63, 107, 173, 204, 206, 208, 210, 222, 227, 231, 232, 235, 251, 267, 338, 339, 362, 368, 384, 387, 388 5:8–11 210 5:8–9 211 5:8  21, 39, 204, 206, 208, 210, 211, 233, 234, 236, 237, 247, 250 5:9–10  234, 235 5:9  163, 173, 204, 206, 208, 227, 234, 236 5:10  173, 204, 206, 208, 211, 227, 229, 234, 235 5:11–12 208 5:11  204, 206, 208, 211, 234, 235, 352 5:12–31 248 5:12  63, 167, 179, 200, 201, 204, 206, 208, 211, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 265, 266, 306 5:12a 210 5:12b 210 5:13  204, 206, 210, 220, 229, 236, 278, 284, 348, 382, 384, 387, 425, 444 5:14  10, 21, 204, 206, 210, 211, 233, 236, 247, 250 5:15–16a 210 5:15  12, 19, 29, 54, 93, 126, 162, 163, 188, 204, 206, 211, 235, 236, 237, 239, 265, 266, 369 5:16  169, 201, 204, 206, 210, 211, 222, 233, 237, 238, 247 5:17–34  10, 210 5:17  29, 118, 125, 190, 204, 206, 219, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 248, 254, 316 5:17a-b 210 5:17c 210 5:18  25, 37, 47, 92, 93, 94, 117, 119, 183, 188, 191, 204, 206, 208, 210, 229, 237, 239, 240, 327, 344, 421, 422 5:19–20 240 5:19  22, 93, 125, 204, 206, 210, 239, 246, 361



533

5:20  204, 206, 230, 240, 245, 298, 363 5:21  14, 26, 29, 37, 39, 43, 54, 89, 90, 167, 188, 205, 206, 211, 220, 241, 243, 250, 300, 339, 351, 355, 439 5:22–34  242, 243 5:22–29 210 5:22–23  242, 243 5:22  160, 205, 238, 242, 245, 246, 254 5:23  24, 89, 124, 188, 205, 206, 208, 211, 238, 239, 243, 244, 247, 296 5:24  52, 124, 144, 154, 205, 206, 243, 253, 337, 342 5:25–30 222 5:25–26  14, 222 5:25  35, 49, 54, 60, 92, 109, 163, 164, 173, 205, 206, 208, 244, 247, 254, 368 5:26–31 17 5:26–29 222 5:26  11, 29, 89, 105, 109, 124, 142, 172, 173, 188, 205, 206, 210, 211, 222, 227, 229, 230, 231, 244, 245, 247, 251, 429, 451, 454 5:27–32 344 5:27  126, 155, 205, 206, 244, 245, 249 5:28–29 210 5:28  160, 205, 207, 210, 229, 245 5:29  205, 207, 210, 229, 245, 248 5:30–34 13 5:30–31  210, 245 5:30  36, 89. 91, 124, 146, 149, 162, 163, 187, 205, 207, 208, 209, 211, 231, 232, 233, 240, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 254, 276, 291, 334, 351, 354, 362, 415 5:31  126, 154, 205, 207, 209, 220, 221, 238, 245, 247, 248, 268, 342, 345, 387 5:32  11, 18, 21, 29, 34, 37, 39, 117, 144, 152, 205, 207, 209, 220, 221, 232, 246, 250, 251, 253, 254, 256,

534

Index of References

275, 315, 320, 337, 420, 425, 428, 439, 444, 454 5:32–33a 210 5:33  14, 29, 118, 205, 207, 209, 220, 239, 242, 245, 249, 250, 254, 403, 410 5:33b 210 5:34  13, 18, 25, 91, 157, 173, 205, 207, 210, 218, 221, 232, 239, 242, 245, 254, 255, 281, 330, 348, 391, 409, 416, 428 6–8 33 6–7  14, 88, 347 6  5, 13, 14, 15, 28, 30, 64, 238, 257, 261, 263, 264, 265, 267, 269, 271, 273, 275, 277, 279, 283, 285, 287, 289, 291, 293, 295, 297, 299, 300, 303, 305, 307, 308, 309, 320, 341, 343, 344, 383 6:1–23  12, 14 6:1–7 95 6:1–2 202 6:1–2b 263 6:1  21, 38, 39, 47, 104, 129, 143, 144, 163, 170, 180, 188, 201, 232, 233, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 277, 286, 341, 362, 389, 415 6:2–11 350 6:2–7  10, 13, 21, 428 6:2c-7 263 6:2–4 12 6:2  17, 39, 55, 113, 126, 144, 149, 166, 170, 248, 257, 258, 260, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 274, 279, 328, 367, 368 6:3–7  11, 14, 264, 265, 271, 429 6:3–4  29, 273 6:3  18, 20, 29, 32, 38, 39, 95, 96, 120, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 263, 265, 271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 286, 288, 296, 302, 328, 352, 361, 388, 410, 424, 426 6:4–7  18, 230, 323 6:4  25, 26, 257, 258, 261, 265, 275, 303, 307, 327, 342, 407, 425, 431

6:5–7 269 6:5–6 277 6:5  22, 62, 187, 229, 247, 257, 258, 271, 276, 290, 363 6:6–7  337, 411 6:6  40, 257, 261, 267, 274, 276, 277, 286, 294, 334, 349, 354, 388, 389, 415, 455 6:7  40, 101, 120, 196, 236, 257, 258, 263, 264, 276, 278 6:8 13 6:8–7:13 95 6:8–9 318 6:8  21, 40, 107, 108, 111, 118, 124, 126, 179, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 268, 274, 279, 286, 287, 288, 329, 330, 332, 334, 335, 354, 364 6:9–14 88 6:9–10  10, 21, 263, 287 6:9  18, 21, 28, 29, 65, 92, 93, 101, 104, 107, 118, 148, 236, 257, 258, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 269, 280, 281, 282, 284, 287, 288, 300, 307, 363, 387, 388, 409, 430, 438, 439 6:10  23, 29, 40, 65, 101, 124, 149, 153, 257, 259, 262, 271, 279, 285, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292, 295, 303, 335, 363 6:11–9:9 13 6:11–15 92 6:11–14  170, 277 6:11–12 264 6:11  144, 163, 192, 241, 257, 259, 262, 263, 266, 277, 286, 299, 415 6:12–14  142, 263, 365, 369 6:12  92, 109, 257, 259, 262, 273, 279, 281, 282, 286, 287, 299, 323, 329, 330, 335, 337, 339, 341, 342, 345, 367, 388, 430 6:13–23 347 6:13–14  17, 23, 264, 265, 294, 299, 335, 347, 374 6:13  26, 29, 40, 89, 105, 155, 191, 257, 259, 264, 266, 288, 290, 291, 294, 295, 303, 304, 305, 330, 331,

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 340, 346, 348, 349, 368, 379, 380, 388 6:14  24, 92, 245, 257, 259, 264, 289, 290, 291, 305, 383, 385 6:15–16 263 6:15  17, 111, 130, 144, 179, 200, 257, 259, 292 6:16–23 36 6:16  38, 54, 163, 257, 259, 262, 265, 276, 288, 292, 293, 294, 335, 341, 369, 378, 441 6:17–24 263 6:17–23  10, 14, 263, 299, 365 6:17–19 295 6:17  18, 20, 29, 36, 91, 92, 93, 102, 119, 162, 195, 198, 200, 243, 252, 258, 259, 261, 264, 265, 271, 272, 288, 295, 296, 297, 303, 326, 327, 335, 341, 367, 402, 420, 423, 425 6:18–23 17 6:18  18, 20, 22, 38, 40, 49, 115, 118, 121, 145, 198, 199, 258, 259, 264, 265, 297, 308, 385 6:19  40, 198, 241, 258, 259, 262, 264, 287, 299 6:20–23 22 6:20–22 335 6:20  35, 38, 40, 89, 152, 241, 258, 259, 264, 281, 291, 300, 302, 303, 309 6:21–22  295, 349 6:21  17, 25, 40, 42, 47, 92, 101, 114, 120, 258, 259, 262, 264, 271, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 354 6:22–23 23 6:22  15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 29, 92, 93, 102, 153, 258, 259, 264, 281, 289, 290, 291, 303, 304, 306, 363, 374, 380, 385, 388, 402, 405 6:22 304 6:23  29, 51, 62, 65, 121, 235, 258, 259, 265, 294, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 378, 381, 382, 383 6:24 264 7–8  66, 446 7  7, 13, 14, 15, 22, 32, 58, 212,

535

251, 264, 291, 292, 310, 311, 313, 315, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 327, 329, 331, 333, 335, 337, 339, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 349, 351, 353, 355, 357, 359, 361, 363, 365, 367, 369, 377, 378, 384 7:1–8:1 135 7:1–32 14 7:1–12  10, 13, 44, 317 7:1–13 10 7:1–2 323 7:1  93, 196, 201, 267, 287, 310, 312, 317, 319, 339 7:2–19 170 7:2–12 17 7:2–7 317 7:2  25, 92, 101, 192, 274, 275, 288, 296, 310, 132, 314, 317, 322, 327, 328, 348, 352, 402, 431 7:3–7 318 7:3–4 317 7:3  25, 40, 92, 105, 125, 144, 246, 269, 310, 312, 318, 319, 328, 330, 332, 335 7:4  110, 149, 310, 312, 315, 319, 329, 340, 351, 355 7:5  125, 149, 169, 279, 310, 312, 317, 318, 319, 329, 330, 350, 351 7:6  25, 107, 124, 125, 254, 279, 310, 312, 317, 318, 319, 330, 335 7:7  55, 125, 310, 312, 317, 318, 319, 322, 330 7:8–9  318, 330 7:8  34, 36, 44, 102, 125, 173, 221, 290, 310, 312, 317, 319, 330, 337, 346, 367, 368, 369 7:9–12  315, 317 7:9  25, 92, 190, 279, 310, 312, 316, 318, 319, 328, 332, 334, 340, 367 7:10  14, 26, 35, 38, 192, 246, 279, 310, 312, 319, 320, 332, 333, 334, 352 7:11  40, 92, 276, 279, 294, 310, 312, 314, 318, 319, 320, 322, 328, 334, 335, 336

536

Index of References

7:12  26, 38, 40, 101, 102, 144, 173, 175, 231, 278, 310, 312, 314, 319, 320, 322, 328, 332, 333, 335, 336, 381, 453 7:13–22 317 7:13  22, 29, 124, 167, 208, 232, 250, 310, 312, 314, 318, 319, 320, 323, 324, 330, 332, 337, 338, 345, 367, 388, 449, 454 7:13a  166, 317 7:13b-15a 317 7:14–15 319 7:14–15a  65, 322 7:14  14, 54, 90, 183, 188, 222, 232, 237, 240, 241, 310, 312, 314, 315, 319, 339, 346, 351, 405, 422, 427, 455 7:14  173, 339 7:15–16 346 7:15  17, 22, 92, 93, 117, 190, 195, 221, 282, 310, 312, 315, 316, 318, 319, 329, 334, 335, 339, 340, 341, 346, 362 7:15b 317 7:16  21, 248, 267, 310, 312, 316, 318, 319, 340, 341, 342, 362, 379, 382, 387, 428 7:17–23 15 7:17–18  10, 65, 322 7:17  17, 26, 38, 55, 243, 275, 311, 313, 318, 323, 325, 339, 341, 342, 343, 351, 422 7:18  22, 35, 91, 101, 105, 118, 239, 248, 311, 313, 315, 316, 318, 219, 320, 324, 338, 340, 344, 345, 346, 370, 442 7:19–22 318 7:19  22, 102, 142, 190, 311, 313, 316, 318, 319, 340, 346, 367 7:19a  318, 319 7:19b  318, 319 7:20–21 318 7:20  19, 115, 311, 313, 315, 316, 319, 347, 423 7:21  108, 149, 197, 236, 311, 313, 319, 348



7:22  17, 18, 22, 23, 29, 40, 95, 101, 120, 197, 290, 311, 313, 316, 318, 319, 322, 325, 340, 347, 348, 407, 450 7:23–31  317, 318, 322 7:23–29  10, 14, 17, 31, 95, 222, 318, 368 7:23–26 355 7:23–24  160, 319 7:23  21, 38, 40, 90, 92, 93, 95, 98, 118, 148, 163, 173, 191, 201, 235, 245, 246, 276, 288, 311, 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 329, 334, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 362, 365, 368, 451 7:23  319, 329 7:24–29 386 7:24–25 90 7:24  10, 19, 91, 118, 122, 124, 163, 230, 276, 279, 311, 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 329, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357, 360, 367, 368, 383, 387, 422, 431, 443 7:24b 319 7:24c 319 7:25–29 14 7:25–27 160 7:25–26  49, 54, 93, 291, 319, 365 7:25–26a 318 7:25  7, 19, 26, 28, 36, 40, 49, 65, 90, 103, 241, 254, 311, 313, 316, 319, 322, 338, 351, 354, 355, 358, 359, 360, 268, 387 7:26–27 320 7:26  19, 29, 47, 57, 89, 101, 162, 191, 311, 313, 319, 320, 322, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 360, 364, 382, 405, 422, 423, 424 7:26b-27 318 7:27–28 240 7:27  19, 167, 272, 311, 313, 317, 319, 320, 361 7:28  17, 21, 22, 29, 38, 40, 86, 101, 123, 148, 153, 221, 232, 260, 267, 281, 311, 313, 318, 319, 320, 329, 341, 350, 362, 365, 368

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

7:29  26, 35, 36, 38, 49, 54, 57, 105, 145, 152, 198, 240, 276, 279, 311, 313, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 329, 336, 356, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365 7:30–31 10 7:30  40, 44, 126, 155, 268, 311, 313, 318, 319, 330, 332, 367 7:31  19, 268, 311, 313, 318, 319, 320, 322, 337, 346, 351, 354, 355, 367, 368, 388 7:31a 337 7:32–8:1 226 7:32  17, 18, 23, 24, 40, 93, 126, 173, 174, 237, 254, 292, 312, 314, 317, 322, 331, 368, 370, 383, 403, 441 8–9  14, 42, 158, 180 8  11, 15, 16, 23, 28, 31, 32, 41, 58, 93, 95, 108, 168, 180, 291, 305, 306, 317, 370, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 381, 383, 385, 387, 389, 391, 392, 399, 401, 404 8:1–9:1  14, 18 8:1–9 14 8:1–5 22 8:1–4 374 8:1–3  142, 374 8:1–2  322, 347, 372 8:1  40, 89, 170, 191, 226, 254, 371, 378 8:2–4 93 8:2–3  88, 374 8:2  23, 25, 29, 40, 108, 149, 155, 169, 306, 342, 346, 371, 374, 378, 382, 444, 446 8:3–9:13 6 8:3–4 376 8:3  22, 25, 290, 304, 305, 306, 371, 380, 381, 382 8:3b 3 8:3b-9:14 6 8:4–8 306 8:4–6 306 8:4  3, 25, 29, 38, 91, 108, 113, 149, 169, 197, 231, 236, 306, 371, 372, 374, 381, 383, 430

537

8:5–6  308, 374 8:5  50, 95, 105, 109, 142, 145, 163, 187, 221, 290, 291, 306, 341, 354, 371, 372, 374, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 420 8:6–9 402 8:6–7 322 8:6  25, 40, 124, 231, 232, 236, 291, 371, 372, 374, 382, 384, 387 8:7  25, 40, 96, 124, 187, 197, 201, 235, 248, 268, 284, 297, 342, 371, 372, 374, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 405, 447 8:8–9  374, 384 8:8  40, 232, 232, 236, 284, 322, 338, 354, 371, 372, 374, 387, 388, 390 8:9–9:32  400, 401 8:9  28, 31, 64, 144, 186, 232, 262, 273, 277, 287, 290, 327, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 377, 387, 388, 390, 391, 415 8:11 401 9  V, 10, 15, 17, 23, 27, 33, 53, 56, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 104, 114, 180, 197, 221, 234, 238, 250, 251, 265, 343, 344, 393, 395, 397, 399, 401, 403, 404, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413, 415, 417, 419, 420, 421, 423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 435, 437, 438, 439, 441, 443, 445, 446, 447, 449, 451, 453, 455 9:1–37 14 9:1–32 169 9:1–18 14 9:1–9 401 9:1–2  37, 49, 50, 191, 232, 240 9:1  14, 20, 32, 40, 126, 191, 232, 296, 304, 369, 393, 394, 396, 401, 402, 405 9:2–6 399 9:2  118, 183, 240, 280, 304, 339, 387, 393, 394, 401, 402, 403, 405, 422, 447 9:3–6  10, 21, 399 9:3–4 406

538

Index of References

9:3  18, 21, 28, 29, 38, 46, 55, 101, 149, 166, 172, 222, 252, 275, 281, 316, 358, 393, 394, 396, 401, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 417, 424, 425, 431, 437, 451, 456 9:4  101, 228, 393, 394, 396, 401, 407, 410, 412, 413, 417 9:5  18, 38, 92, 107, 119, 186, 246, 255, 277, 389, 393, 394, 396, 401, 406, 413, 414, 415, 416, 430 9:6  16, 21, 25, 28, 40, 101, 102, 103, 393, 394, 396, 401, 417 9:7–32 14 9:7–28 170 9:7–19 411 9:7–12 399 9:7–9 402 9:7  89, 126, 145, 152, 251, 253, 341, 393, 395, 401, 404, 420, 425, 428, 444 9:8–9 95 9:8  20, 54, 92, 117, 126, 169, 239, 261, 315, 341, 393, 395, 397, 400, 401, 421, 424 9:9  20, 29, 33, 115, 239, 316, 342, 360, 393, 395, 400, 401, 420, 421, 422, 423, 455 9:10–32  28, 29, 33, 34, 400, 401 9:10–21 55 9:10–12 424 9:10  27, 29, 33, 155, 271, 393, 395, 397, 401, 410, 424, 425, 426, 445 9:11  18, 28, 33, 129, 143, 192, 236, 251, 253, 256, 275, 296, 393, 395, 397, 407, 411, 420, 424, 425, 428 9:12  28, 29, 33, 98, 109, 118, 126, 153, 191, 239, 254, 265, 272, 363, 393, 395, 397, 424, 425, 426, 428 9:13–20 401 9:13–19 399 9:13–18  10, 399, 449, 453 9:13  18, 24, 25, 28, 33, 55, 65, 98, 154, 191, 198, 227, 251, 254, 256, 275, 281, 296, 327, 341, 382, 393, 395, 397, 400, 407, 410, 417, 420, 424, 425, 426, 417, 424, 427, 428,

429, 430, 431, 433, 439, 444, 445, 450, 453, 454 9:14–18  30, 33, 97 9:14–17  33, 197, 434, 444 9:14  33, 38, 152, 154, 198, 228, 354, 393, 395, 397, 401, 402, 408, 428, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 439 9:14 222 9:15–18 33 9:15–16  38, 399, 434 9:15  33, 222, 393, 395, 397, 434, 435 9:16–20 67 9:16  20, 25, 29, 33, 121, 281, 394, 395, 397, 411, 437, 439 9:17–18 436 9:17  25, 29, 33, 40, 241, 250, 281, 394, 395, 429, 434, 439 9:18  25, 28, 29, 33, 38, 118, 163, 167, 241, 251, 292, 345, 354, 394, 395, 407, 422, 440, 442, 443, 444 9:19–32  14, 33, 399 9:19–20 444 9:19–21 423 9:19  28, 33, 55, 354, 394, 395, 410, 420, 429, 443 9:20  29, 33, 38, 108, 236, 378, 394, 395, 410, 422, 429, 444 9:21  25, 29, 33, 54, 378, 387, 394, 395, 401, 405, 446, 447, 450, 451, 353 9:22–23 56 9:22–28 95 9:22  29, 33, 149, 162, 341, 394, 395, 397, 398, 422, 447, 448, 449, 452 9:23–24 399 9:23  29, 33, 166, 338, 348, 394, 395, 398, 422, 446, 449, 450, 452 9:24–25 141 9:24  33, 394, 396, 447, 450, 451, 454, 455 9:25–26 449 9:25  10, 28, 29, 33, 145, 281, 341, 348, 382, 394, 396, 398, 410, 422,

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

430, 447, 450, 451 9:26  33, 350, 394, 396, 398, 410, 447, 450, 451 9:27  28, 29, 33, 394, 396, 398, 447, 451, 454 9:28  33, 56, 94, 163, 202, 341, 394, 396, 422, 449, 452, 453 9:29  28, 33, 40, 145, 276, 394, 396, 428, 453, 454, 455



9:30  28, 29, 33, 89, 145, 195, 245, 250, 394, 396, 398, 428, 436, 447, 451, 453, 454 9:31–32 401 9:31  29, 33, 161, 394, 396, 411, 422, 447, 453, 455 9:32  33, 38, 95, 155, 163, 276, 341, 394, 396, 398, 454, 455, 456 9:32  33, 447

1 Enoch 1:2 246 1:5–6 280 1:9 270 6–11 289 6:4 387 6:7 267 8:3–4 267 9–10  186, 414 9 414 9:1 413 9:2 416 9:3 391 9:6 125 9:10 416 10:2 125 10:16 379 14:5 170 15:1 325 15:9 272 18:14 101 20  186, 414 20:5 414 22:7 101 22:9 101 24:4–25:5 433 24:6  186, 413 25:3 101 25:4–5 433 34–36 416 38:2 253 38:3 449 39:4–5 253 39:6 92

539

39:12 406 40:2–9 414 40:5 92 40:9  186, 414, 415 45:3  92, 253 48:4 282 51:1 278 52:1–4 449 53:2 284 57:1 157 58.2–3 199 63:1 146 65:4 425 66:1–67:2 139 66:1 146 67:1 334 69:1 267 69:14 284 71 416 71:3 415 71:5 391 72–82 416 76 416 76:1–4 137 87:2  186, 414 90:14 414 90:28–29 191 90:29 255 90:33 157 91:11–17 154 91:12 103 93:1–10 154 93:2 449

540 93:9 439 95:5  272, 291 97:13 296 98:5 291 99:15 191 100:5 277 102:4 253 102:5 272 103:2–3 449 103:12 275

Index of References

104:10 449 104:12 449 106:2 329 106:2 437 106:3 107 106:5 329 106:4 125 106:9 101 106:10 329 106:18 334

2 Enoch 3–37 417 8:3–4 433 8:3 408 13–14 416 21:1  406, 412 22:6 414

33:1–2  154, 253 33:10 414 42:3 253 55:2 256 72 416

3 Enoch

2:1 329 16:4  414, 425 17:1 186 18:18  189, 416 23:18 434



24:11 329 26:3 329 40:2 406 44:5 329 48  189, 416

4 Ezra 2:12 434 2:18  102, 304 2:34 190 3–4 266 3:1–2 124 3:11 334 3:14–15 234 3:17 300 3:19 416 3:27 149 3:28–31 124 4:1–21 115 4:1 299



4:3 329 4:24 123 4:35 253 5:5 453 5:9 438 5:40 260 5:50 102 6:20 155 6:23 143 6:54 335 6:58 353 7:1 299 7:26  255, 404

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 7:29 431 7:32 278 7:36 253 7:38 253 7:54 153 7:75 253 7:85 253 7:91 253 7:95 253 7:99 253 7:106 414 7:123  434, 443 7:132 443 7:133  389, 443 8:52  253, 255, 408, 434 9:29 344 9:32 301 9:38 116 10:19–23 194 10:22  132, 151 10:25–29 255 10:29 266 10:30 422

10:42 255 10:44 255 10:54  191, 255, 404 11–12 324 11:7–9 326 11:7 339 12:36–39 449 13:10 282 13:27 282 13:32–50 157 13:36 255 13:42 301 13:46–47 22 14:1  223, 425 14:5–6 449 14:5 155 14:11–12 154 14:23 340 14:31–32 96 14:31 97 14:45–47 449 15:53 335 15:56 335

5 Ezra 1:25 123 1:29 144 1:32 445 2:10–11 399

2:12 408 2:18 445 2:42–48 442

6 Ezra

16:58 153

Apocalypse of Abraham

9:1–6 234 9:1 425 10:3 425 10:17 414 14:2 92 17:8 418

19:1 425 20:6 92 27:3 134 27:4–6 194 29:2 154 31:1 144

541

542

Index of References

Apocalypse of Daniel (Syr.)

6–8 132



36 406

Apocalypse of David

6:3 407

Apocalypse of Elijah 1:10 256 4:13–14 426

5:2–5  268, 389 5:6 434

Apocalypse of Ezra (Greek)

1:3 413 1:8 92 1:10 120 2:22 195 3:3 92 4:24 414



4:36  144, 323 5:18 283 6:14 126 6:16 349 6:18 261 7:15 424

Apocalypse of Sedrach 2:2 170 2:3 329 3:10 103 6:1–6 353 9:2–3 272



12:5 439 14:1  413, 414 14:2 411 16:3 253

Apocalypse of Zephaniah

1 423 3:6 416 3:9 416 4:7 426



9:1 143 10:1 143 10:9 242 12:1 143

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Apocryphon of Jeremiah 1–2 97 1:1 (Coptic)  47 1:2 (Coptic)  47 1:6 360 1:6 (Coptic)  47 2:13 360 2:13 (Coptic)  47 3:9–10 298 4 97 4:2 298 4:5 360 4:5 (Coptic)  47 5–6 159 5–6 (Coptic)  47 5:23–6:2 166 6  212, 222 6:2 166 6:2–7 166 7:3 360 7:3 (Coptic)  47 7:8 90 8–9 53 8 240 8:5 240 8:5 (Coptic)  47 8:7 240 8:7 (Coptic)  47 9–10 97 9 201 9:2 202 9:2 (Coptic)  47 10:8 90 10:12 306 11:2 (Coptic)  47 11:17 298 11:18 90 12  159, 212, 222 12 (Coptic)  47, 48 12:5  164, 166 12:17  218, 251 12:19 225 13 97 14:1  92, 142 14:2–4  100, 120

14:4–6  94, 99 14:4–5 98 14:4–5 (Coptic)  48 14:8 105 14:18 (Coptic)  48 14:19 225 15:1–15 99 15:2 430 15:7  90, 108 15:7 (Coptic)  48 15:14 108 15:14 (Coptic)  48 15:15 92 16:1–14 186 16:14 298 16:14 (Coptic)  49 17:8  100, 120 19 97 20 97 20:12 90 21:16 157 22 212 22 (Coptic)  48 22:1 161 22:1 (Coptic)  49 22:3  166, 173 22:3 (Coptic)  49 22:8 220 22:9  218, 222 22:10  218, 227 24:7 306 24:12  355, 357 24:12 (Coptic)  49 25 97 26 (Coptic)  49 26:4 338 26:15  355, 357 27 97 27:5 430 27:8  92, 302 27:14–15 431 27:16  167, 193 28–29  133, 183 28–29 (Coptic)  49

543

544 28 53 28 (Coptic)  53 28:2 117 28:6–7 451 28:8 443 28:10–11 152 28:14 171 28:15–20 183 28:17–19 189 28:20 184 29 167 29:2–4  52, 183 29:6–13 120 29:6–7 116 29:6 116 29:6 (Coptic)  49 29:9–11 183 29:9–11 (Coptic) 49 29:11 167 29:12–13 116 29:14 167 30–37 168 30–31 167 30 97 30:1–10 193 30:7 93 30:10–21 323 31 201 31:12–14 365 31:12–14 (Coptic)  49 31:12 356 31:14 (Coptic)  356 31:21 339 31:21 (Coptic)  47 32–37 351 32:1 90 33 (Coptic)  49 34:9–18 (Coptic) 49 34:13 298 35  201, 202

Index of References 35:1–16  99, 266 35:1 339 35:1 (Coptic)  47 35:6 335 35:9 412 35:11 92 36:1 414 36:2 117 37:1–16 386 37:5 99 38–40 212 38–39 229 38–39 (Coptic)  48 38  218, 223 38:3  222, 229 38:4–12 228 38:4  208, 228 38:5 231 38:6  225, 229 38:7–11 218 38:7 218 38:8 218 38:10 208 38:12 233 39  223, 238, 242, 245 39:5  164, 225 39:8  52, 166, 173, 244 39:8 (Coptic)  49 39:10–13 237 39:13 246 39:13 (Arabic)  209 39:13 (Coptic)  209 40–41 403 40:3–6 383 40:12  396, 412 41  158, 184, 404 41:4  183, 431 41:13 183 41:15–17 (Coptic)  49

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

History of the Rechabites

1:3  268, 389 8:2 116 10:5 268

11:2 274 14:3–4 391 16:8 412

Joseph and Aseneth

1:3 287 1:8 125 2:6 155 3:3  233, 275 3:4 125 4:4 147 4:9 302 5:3 385 7:5  289, 383 8:5 289 8:9 253 9:1 391 9:2  360, 423 10:6 228 10:15 423 12:1 153 12:8 334 14:7 414 14:8  147, 279 14:9 329



14:11  147, 279 14:13 147 15:7 253 16:12 306 16:14 199 16:16 148 17:6 253 17:10 102 18:3 360 18:4 228 18:11 120 19:4 385 19:8 99 21:7 268 22:13  99, 253 23:9 302 23:14 90 24:15 277 24:19 277

Jubilees 1:12 445 1:15 157 1:27 191 1:29–2:1 277 3:28  325, 326 4:1 402 10:7 413 10:17 334 10:21 369 10:24 369 12:29 332 15:9–10 299 15:32 414

16:17–18 289 18:2  349, 389 18:13 389 19:18 335 20:4 289 22:16–20 289 22:16 289 23:10 274 23:21  192, 284 25:1–10 289 27:10 289 27:17 274 30:5 389

545

546

Index of References

30:7–17 289 34:18 406

35:16–17 277 48:7–8 298

Ladder of Jacob

2:18 406 5:7 134



7:17 454

Letter of Aristeas

13 337 41 333 59 155 66 155 74 155 88 361



123 147 132 306 142 370 264 287 306 104

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo) 3:10 278 6:3–18 303 9:4 299 9:5 289 9:10 348 11:12 277 12:3 281 12:9 281 15:5 277 16:5 280 18:13–14 289 19:2 298 19:12 261 20:2  102, 103 21:1 289 23:6–7 234 26:12–15  132, 152

26:15 157 28:6 234 28:8 154 30:1 289 32:18 144 33:1 277 39:7 335 43:5 289 44:7 289 45:3 289 48:1 324 51:4 282 53:3–5 425 53:3 118 56:7 426 59:4 277

Life of Adam and Eve (Greek)

preface  277, 415 2:4 94 6:3  239, 245

9:3  94, 297 13:1–2 266 13:2  413, 449

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 16:1 94 16:2 239 20:4–5 174 21:1 94 21:4 325 22:1  143, 186, 187 26:4 191 27:2  147, 297, 411 28:2 235 28:4 433 29:1 111 29:2  151, 286 29:3 402 29:4  408, 412 29:11 117 29:12 411 29:13 306 31:1 296 31:2 276 32:3 266 32:4  260, 272, 296

35:1 239 35:2 119 35:6 104 36:1 119 37:3 260 37:4–6  391, 416 37:4–5 261 37:5 191 37:6  260, 413 38:3 144 39:1 239 39:2  272, 273 40:2  186, 424 40:3 424 41:2 125 42:6  272, 426 43:2 191 43:4 200 43:4 406 43:9 292

Life of Adam and Eve (Latin)

6:3 306 25:2 413 28:2 281 29:1 413



31:3 116 45:1 413 51:2 253

Lives of the Prophets Life of the Prophet Daniel 4–18 90 4  119, 241 Life of the Prophet Elijah 17 342 Life of the Prophet Elisha 17 342 Life of the Prophet Habakuk 3 241



9 241

547

548

Index of References

Life of the Prophet Isaiah 1 446 Life of the Prophet Jeremiah 1  400, 447, 451, 452 3  99, 100 8–9 400 9 138 11–19  132, 133, 134 11  92, 150, 170, 171

12  94, 152 13 400 15 157 16–17 152 16 154

Life of the Prophet Jonah 10 454



11 107

Life of the Prophet Maleachi prologue 142



3 86

Life of the Prophet Micah 1 198

Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah 1:2 444 1:4 385 1:5 156 1:7 156 1:10  116, 121, 125, 423 1:13 156 2:7 444 2:14 104 3:6–9 445 3:9 55 3:13–20 400 3:13  156, 441 3:17–18 156 3:18 441 3:21–31 444 3:21 441 4:3 441 4:13 55 5:1–16 446 5:1 447 5:11 447 5:11–14 55 5:14 55

5:15 156 6:1 444 6:10–12 422 6:16 452 7–11 417 7:2 285 7:5 425 7:15 428 7:23 391 8:7 285 8:18  156, 428 8:25 156 9:5 285 9:12 156 9:22–23 414 9:27–32 391 9:28 428 11:22 441 11:31–32 445 11:34 260 11:37–39  56, 449, 452 11:41  55, 446

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Odes of Solomon 8:22 156 11:18–19 409 12:3 282

15:1–2 281 38:11 156

Prayer of Azariah

40 190

Psalms of Solomon 2:8 304 2:11 189 2:12 189 4:19 189 4:29 260 6:1 271 8:1 143 8:8 189 8:28 157 9:8 195 9:16 156 10:7 429 11:1–9 443 11:1–3 144 11:1 167 11:2–3 157 11:3 438

13:1 166 14:2 409 17.1 105 17:4 157 17:14 440 17:20 96 17:21 157 17:26–28 157 17:27 440 17:35 440 17:39 440 17:44  157, 199 18:3 89 18:4 353 18:5 440 18:6 199 18:10–12 190

Questions of Ezra

A 29  406



B 11  143, 144

Sibylline Oracle 1:127 425 1:267–68 425 1:275 425 1:280 334 1:304 359 1:316 359

1:383 434 1:398 296 2:170–73 157 2:214–15  186, 414 2:227 186 2:239 359

549

550 2:249–51 399 2:280–81 225 3:141 388 3:233 234 3:255 300 3:480 275 3:611 332 3:697 229 3:705 166 3:785 271 4 58 4:116 190 4:171–78 143

Index of References 4:408–413 106 5:143 124 5:159–60 124 5:250 106 5:257 434 5:327 413 5:395 275 5:396–413 194 5:414–33 191 5:420–27 255 5:420–23 404 8:239–48 144 12:58 350

Testament of Abraham Short Recension 1:1 89 1:2  94, 279 2:4 246 2:8 279 3:5 175 3:6 279 4:7 148 4:9 296 4:10 246 4:14 279 5:3 325 6:2 368



Long Recension 2:10 106 3:2 407 3:3  325, 406 3:4 407 3:5 101 3:7 121 4:1  245, 349 6:2 239 7:2 255 7:4 170 7:6 106 7:10 245 7:11 329 8:7 250

9:1 422 9:3 102 9:8 239 10:9  171, 172 10:12 425 10:13–14 274 10:15 416 12:8 294 12:9 338 12:16 266 13:4 261 13:10 415 13:13  277, 415 14:12  119, 411

7:10 253 7:17 154 7:19  296, 325 8 103 8:1 102 8:2 325 8:13 296 9:7 325 9:8 253 10:12 325 11:1 325 14:6 261

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

14:13 425 14:14 283 15:4 411 15:5 341 15:12 103 15:14 103 16:9 117 17:11 337



18:6 235 19:4 105 19:7 154 20 416 20:10  260, 261 20:11 426 20:14  260, 261

Testament of Adam

1:4 406 3:4 174



4:1 277 4:8 406

Testament of Isaac 2:1  391, 416 2:2 92 2:5–16 253 6:6 406

6:24 406 7:1–2 391 14:7 414

Testament of Jacob

1:6 416 2:5 277



5:13  391, 416 7:24 434

Testament of Job

1:2 453 4:1  2, 325 4:8 126 4:11 92 15:4 402 15:6 105 16:4 341 18:7 255 19:2 116 21:1 276 21:3 245 23:6 101 26:5 297 28:2  354, 381

28:3 116 29:4 116 30:1 422 31:2 426 31:8 423 34:2 354 34:6 354 35:4–5 243 39:4 423 39:6 360 39:12 410 39:13 243 40:14 9 41:3  9, 105

551

552

Index of References

41:7 9 42:6  116, 402 42:7–8 402 42:8 119 43:5 272 43:10 277 43:14–15 271

44:2 161 45:3 289 49:2 391 52:5–6 391 52:8–10 261 53:5–7 426 53:7 427

Testament of Moses Preface 103 1:18 17 3:1–2 150 3:2 145 3:9 298 3:14 227 4:2 335 4:5–6 298 5:3–6:1 192

7:1–10 192 8:5 242 9:4 274 10:1–2 261 10:2 414 11:1 116 11:12 353 11:16 242

Testament of Solomon

1:2 92 1:6  250, 359 1:7 359 1:8 250 2:5  250, 341 2:9 250 3:7 250 5:9 359 7:8 277 10:53 360 11 60



11:6 360 14:7 186 15:12 341 17:4 250 18:16 359 18:41  250, 341 20:2 353 20:7 426 20:21 250 24:2 360 25:7 89

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Asher 2:6 86 3:1 283



6:5  379, 391 7:3 157

Testament of Benjamin 3:4 166 5:4 296



6:6 367 8:1 283

2  Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

8:3 161 9:2  157, 190 9:3  170, 400 10:11 157

Testament of Dan 5:8–9 157 5:11–12 269 5:12  253, 255 5:13 162 6:1  414, 415

11:2–4 92 11:2 156 12:3 90



6:4 17 6:6 251 6:8 379 10:5 302

Testament of Gad 7:1 119 Testament of Issachar 1:9 105 5:6 421

6:2–4 157 7:1–7 274

Testament of Joseph 2:1 327 3:1 354 5:2 116 6:7 277 8:5  341, 428 11:6 327

13:1 239 17:8 420 18:2 119 19:3–8 157 20:1 290

Testament of Judah 1:6 350 11:3–5 289 12:1 155 13:2 105 13:3 105 14:5 118 14:6 289 21:5 90

22:2 261 22:3 387 23:3 190 23:5 17 25:4–5 325 25:4 429 25:5 429

Testament of Levi 1:1 191 2:3 166 2:6–3:10 417 3:10 86 5:1 416 5:3  277, 389 5:5  148, 414 7:2 389

8:11 261 9:10 289 10:5 104 14:1–6 192 14:2 421 14:6 289 15:4 199 16:3–4 114

553

554

Index of References

17:11 192 18:9 253 18:10–11 433



18:10  416, 433 19:1 379 23:5 367

Testament of Naphtali 2:6 379 4:2–5 157 4:2 352



5:6 324 8:4  186, 414



3:5 105 4:4 274



6:2 277 6:5 345



9:8  104, 281, 315

Testament of Reuben 1:4 237 3:1 234 Testament of Simeon 2:5 391 4:5 175 6:2–7 17 Testament of Zebulon 8:1 297

Vision of Ezra

1–2 266



8 416

3  New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts of Andrew and Matthew

17 325



32 342

Acts of Andrew

16 355 42 224



58 275

Acts of Barnabas

7:1 142

15:1–8  154, 155

3  New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Acts of John 9:7 171 13 417 18 425 38–41 269 42  105, 357 73 427



77  175, 419 81  102, 118 98 432 107 418 108 102 113 253

Acts of Paul

3:25 307 5 341 6 200 8 175 19 176 22 297 29 428 34 146



38 345 46 425 Thec.1 156 frag. 5  233 frag. 6  200 frag. 8  351 frag. 10  425 G (ed. Lipsius) p. 272  143

Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas

11 391

Acts of Peter

41 271



(BG) 136:17–137:1 425

Acts of Philip 3:5–6 315 3:5 323 3:12 148 4:2 412 5:18 108 12 326 13:1 385 14:4 428 40 172 78 129 83 270



93 332 109 256 122 429 133  172, 357 134 154 140 296 141  419, 431 142  296, 379 144  269, 283 148 142 133 357

555

556

Index of References

Acts of Pilate

16:8 103 19 416



25 416

Acts of Thomas 1 442 2 349 4 224 8 121 10  252, 421 19 172 23  342, 425 24 424 28 156 30 343 36 260 47–48 440 51 198 52 252

78–79 326 94 253 94 199 97 336 107 296 111 332 113 277 131 307 135 422 137 239 144 279 161 360 163 285

Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena

17–18 315 18:2 333 28:5 307



35 172 41:1 268

Apocalypse of Paul

5.2.22 145 15 272



49  446, 447

Apocalypse of Peter

1 443 2 52 2 164

2:7–8 443 2:12 443 7.81.3–83.6 451

3  New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Apocryphon of John 1 102 2:23:26–27 315 2:31:19–20 154 3 418 3:30:17–18 315

9 143 13 141 17 117 17:29–32  186, 414 28 142

Apostolic Constitutions and Canons

2:22:11 266 3:13:1 275 3:15:1 191 4:12:9 270 5:1:5 270 5:2:3 199 5:7:13 270 6:11:30 270 6:12 370 6:12:15 421 7:26:3 199 7:33:2 409 7:32:5 260 7:33:3 120 7:33:6 103 7:35 103

7:35:3  406, 412 7:35:9 418 7:36 103 7:39 242 7:42 336 7:45 279 8:1 453 8:11 103 8:12:24–26 298 8:12:27 406 8:12:61–62 442 8:16 103 8:37 103 8:40 103 33:2 199

Encomium on John the Baptist

18 408

Encomium on Mary Magdalene

17 433

Epistle to the Apostles

13  186, 414 19 253 22 253 26 253



28 253 31 99 41 307

557

558

Index of References

Gospel of Bartholomew

frag. 1 2  272 4:23 239 4:29 414



4:55 244 4:68 199

Gospel of Nicodemus

11:1 117 14:1 170



14:2 199

Gospel of Peter

5:19  280, 411 8 154



25 114 27 172

Gospel of Philip 54:5–13 285 72:22–24 252



146 176 148 176

Gospel of the Egyptians

4:66:5 307 4:66:25 307



4:78:5 307

Gospel of Thomas

13  391, 415 50 252



60 252 90  252, 253

History of Joseph the Carpenter

13 416



23 416

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

1:9 117 1:12 199



2:9 117 3:2 148

3  New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

3:13 199 6 (rec. 1)  347 6:2a (rec. 3)  348 12:2 (rec. 1)  176



15:3 (rec. 3)  239 17 190 18 190 19:3 (rec. 2)  236

Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas

12  406, 412



20 229

Martyrdom of Peter

9–10 432 9 355



10 432

Protevangelium of James

1:1 89 1:12 90 2:22 266 7 266 8:2 151 9:2 172 11:1 424 14:1 222 17 420 18 266 18:14 385



20:2 89 20:4 424 23:1 126 23:3 89 29 266 33 440 35:13 90 36 118 40 266 46:5 90

The Legend of Aphroditianus 5:3–4 437 5:4 435



8:3 437

Vision of Paul

19 416 25 416



42 414

559

560

Index of References

4 Philo De Abrahamo

31 246 33 246 83 92



70 281 202 418

De agricutlura

175 405

De cherubim 46 273 48–49 453 51 418



86 418 121 106 181 273

De confusione linguarum

7–9 326 23 244



48 314

De ebrietate

164 314

De fuga et inventione

115 405 138 120 141 419



149 245 176 249 192 244

De gigantibus

3 334



12 277

561

4 Philo

De Iosepho

182 268



217 116

De migratione Abrahami

30 252

De mutatione nominum

15  418, 419 27 273



46 273 189 334

De opificio mundi

156 326

De posteritate Caini

48 334



75 434

De praemiis et poenis 120 272 164–65 157



168 157

De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini

63 277

De somniis

1.75 281 2.179 438 2.223 253



2.246 106 2.250 106

562

Index of References

De specialibus legibus 1.186 403 2.154 249 2.189 143 2.215–16 173

2.200 406 2.237–38 243 2.261 335 3.151–52 356

De virtutibus

201 107

De vita contemplativa

66 270

De vita Mosis 1.75 285 1.111 280 1.166 389 1.147 342 2.23–24 403



2.94 150 2.114 284 2.202 448 2.291 411

In Flaccum

72–85 356

Legatio ad Gaium

131 425 198 242



269 228 278 391

Legum allegoriae

1.17 410 1.44 273 1.80 269 2.31 234



3.29 289 3.167 287 3.169 120 3.181 273

563

5 Josephus

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum

2.2 352



2.40 256

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin

1.23 277 1.24 234 1.35 333



2.33 334 2.44 334 28 272

Quis rerum divinarum heres sit

26 150 249 233 260 334



264 281 312 126

Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 52 335 121–22 252



158 190

Quod Deus sit immutabilis

12 252



117 246

5 Josephus Antiquitates

1.41 326 1.48 411 1.75 334 1.196 293 1.222 353 1.226 389 1.318 240 2.149 354 2.268 352 2.317 342 3.125 150



3.322 116 4.22  447, 448 4.70 106 4.78 222 4.109 326 4.200 106 4.202 448 4.205 106 4.209 106 4.218 106 5.39 103

564 5.340 303 5.349 227 6.25 411 6.338 243 7.176 277 7.243 165 7.342 149 7.362 119 8.20 126 8.26 229 8.52 102 8.119 190 8.191 289 8.196 345 8.404 243 8.408 426 9.254 190 9.271 241 9.279 376 9.288–91  375, 376 9.291 389 10.38 445 10.40 90 10.79 66 10.80 183 10.87 241 10.98 303 10.120–23 159 10.122 160 10.123 161 10.136 109 10.145 151 10.146  145, 241 10.174 90 10.177 345 10.179  95, 203 10.180–85 90 10.182 169 10.183–85 376 10.184  225, 405 10.186–218 90 10.186 241 10.255 279 10.267 432

Index of References 11.2 225 11.19–30 375 11.76 402 11.88–94 375 11.91 90 11.114–19 375 11.123 240 11.127 240 11.162 270 11.169 199 11.174–83 375 11.212 386 11.267 355 11.302–347  375, 376 11.340–47 375 12.45 90 12.145 384 12.156 389 12:257–64 375 13:51 106 13:254–56 375 13.282 425 13.301 432 14.22–24 446 14.25 448 14.71–72 150 14.285 384 14.482–83 150 17.151–63 324 17.171 381 17.195 411 18.30 389 18.33 431 18.85 132 18.345 289 19.288–91 375 20.20 353 20.48 434 20.122 162 20.134–36 375 20.181 192 20.206–207 192 20.233 225 27.9 403

565

5 Josephus

Bellum Judaicum 1.152–53 150 1.229 384 1.619 202 1.650–55 324 1.668 346 2.75 356 2.128 190 2.222 155 2.232–33 389 2.306–308 356 2.316 116 2.321 150 3.44 249 3.123 332 3.321  324, 356 3.431 195 4.317 356 4.533 293 4.544 224 4.632 101 5.19 194 5.48 324 5.180–81 165 5.225–26 126 5.225 152

5.229 126 5.289 356 5.389 225 5.420–22 98 5.449–51 356 5.449 355 5.491–511 186 6.113–19 98 6.411 105 6.439 432 6.270 432 6.288–309  87, 187 6.293–300 140 6.300 425 6.389 150 6.411 105 6.413 107 7.202 355 7.203 355 7.259–74 114 7.331–32 97 7.349 228 7.360 88 7.377 58

Contra Apionem

1.132  195, 225 1.187 226 1.195 155 1.198 152 1.199 430



1.309 386 2.121 386 2.167  418, 419 2.258 386

Vita

142 306 259 143

366 242 420–21 356

566

Index of References

6  Dead Sea Scrolls

1Q22 3:10–11  406 1Q28a 2:8–9 412 1Q28b 4:27  282 1Q32 255 1Q34 frag. 3 2:5  298 1Q174 frag. 1 1:7–8 253 2Q24 255 3Q15 141 4Q158 frags. 1–2 14  268 4Q179  96, 194 4Q179 frag. 1 1:10; 2:7  195 4Q179 frag. 1 1:10–11 361 4Q179 frag. 1 2:1  421 4Q179 frag. 2 5  195 4Q181 frag. 1 2:4  270 4Q185 1–2.5, 7  125, 239 4Q204 6:4  416 4Q213a frag. 1 2.18  416 4Q222 1:5–6 233 4Q244 frag. 12  114 4Q244 frag. 12 2–3 123 4Q258 8:5  234 4Q266 11 = 4Q270 7 1:18–19 120 4Q285 frag. 6  414 4Q287 frag. 2:13  415 4Q289 frag. 1  412 4Q289 frag. 1 5  428 4Q292 2  102 4Q301 frag. 3 6  429 4Q358 2.8; 3.3  359 4Q370 1:7  298 4Q371 12  439 4Q372 frag. 1 12  390 4Q372 frag. 1 13  439 4Q381 19  102 4Q381 frag. 1 3  439 4Q383 45 4Q383 frag. 1  423 4Q385  225, 305, 356, 402 4Q385a  45, 168 4Q385a frag. 17 a-e  402 4Q385a frag. 18  119, 151,193, 227, 378 4Q385a frag. 18 8  363



4Q385a frags. 18 i a-b  305 4Q385a frag. 19  194 4Q385a frag. 15  356 4Q387 45 4Q387a 45 4Q388a 45 4Q389  45, 63, 226 4Q389 frag. 1  378 4Q389 frag. 8 2:3–4 114 4Q389a 226 4Q390 45 4Q403 1 1:38–46 454 4Q403 frag. 1 1:24  269 4Q403 frag. 1 1:38  415 4Q436 frag. 1 2:3  3023 4Q451 frag. 1  284 4Q471a 438 4Q485a frag. 1a-b 2:4  302 4Q491 frag. 11 1:13–14 252 4Q504 1–2 2:14  336 4Q504 1–2 6:12–14 157 4Q504 6:12  102 4Q509 3  157 4Q509 frags. 97–98 7  298 4Q510 1 5  146 4Q511 frag. 8 8  270 4Q522 2:8  156 4Q534 1:8  449 4Q536 frag. 1 1:8–9 449 4Q542 1  289 4Q542 1:1  284 4Q545 frag. 3  449 4Q550 5  154 4Q554 255 4Q554a 255 4Q555 255 5Q15 255 6Q18 frag. 5  415 11Q5 18:12  413 11Q5 22:12  250 11Q5 27:2  282 11Q10 38:2–3 119 11Q18 255 11QTemple 2:12–15 289

6  Dead Sea Scrolls

11QTemple 19–20 290 11QTemple 25:10–11 406 11QTemple 29:8–10 191 11QTemple 47:3–6 384 11QTemple 49:6–7 290 11QTemple 50:4, 13  290 11QTemple 53:7  335 11QTemple 54:16  300 11QTemple 57:5–6 157 11QTemple 57:15–19 289 11QTemple 64:5  447 11QTemple 64:8–9 356 11QTemple 65:5  335 1QapGen 12 1QapGen 5:20–21 449 1QapGen 6:12  449 1QapGen 15:14  137 1QapGen 19:17  227 1QapGen 21:13  94 1QapGen 21:19  293 1QapGen 22:16  250 1QapGen 22:21  250 1QapGen 22:27  344 1QH 5:20  277 1QH 6:8  102 1QH 9:5  280 1QH 12:5  410 1QH 12:23  281 1QH 12:27  410 1QH 13:15  102 1QH 13:28  102 1QH 14:14–17  409, 434 1QH 15:25  281 1QH 15:27  449 1QH 16:5–6 409 1QH 16:6  428 1QH 19:10  449



1QM 3:5  270 1QM 8:9–10 428 1QM 9:14–16  186, 414 1QM 9:15  414 1QM 13:12  146 1QM 10:8  250 1QM 11:2  284 1QM 11:4–5 280 1QM 17:6–8 414 1QM 18:7  241 1QpHab 3:8–15 324 1QpHab 5:12  428 1QpHab 7  444 1QpHab 7:4–5 449 1QpHab 8:8–13 192 1QpHab 9:2  272 1QpHab 9:4–11 192 1QpHab 10:7  359 1QpHab 11:12–15 192 1QpHab 12:7–10 192 1QpHab 16–10:1 192 1QS 1:3  102 1QS 2:3  410 1QS 4:6  449 1QS 4:12  146 1QS 9:17–21 449 1QS 9:20  234 1QS 11:8  269 1QSb 3:26  269 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah C  193, 225, 305, 356, 402 4QFlor. 1:1–3 191 4QMMT frags. 6–13 289 4QpHosa 2:3–6 445 4QpNah frags. 3–4 1:7  356 4QpNah frags. 3–4 2:6  272 4QpsEzekb 1 col. 2  157

Damascus Rule 1:4 298 1:4–5 298 1:6 123 1:13 234 2:6 146

567

6:2 298 11:21 352 11:22–23 144 20:22 106

568

Index of References

7  Mishnah, Talmud, and related Literature Babylonian Talmud ’Abodah Zarah 10b 342 36b 289



42b 415

‘Arakin 9b 254 33a  168, 169, 378 Baba Batra 9a 237



10a 17 15a 194 75b 255

Baba Mes.i’a 59b  12, 425 59a 20



43a 200

Berakot 3a 58 4b 238 6a 156 28b  99, 282 32a 119



32b 20 44b 272 57b 253 59a 20



57b 365



15a 280 16a 146



12a 134

’Erubin 54b  280, 283 Git. t. in 56b 98 H . agigah 5b  20, 21, 253 12b  256, 414 13b 332 Horayot 8a 280 H . ullin 91b 406 Keritot 5b 134

7  Mishnah, Talmud, and related Literature Ketubbot 66b 98



104a 391



14b-15a 171 14b  160, 183, 378 16b  95, 203, 267

Mo’ed Qat. an 16b  160, 161



26a 116

Qiddušin 40a 434



75b 376

Šabbat 12b 176 33a 114 55a 146 87a 280 88a 146 88b  280, 283



89a 103 105b  21, 297 118b 17 119b  114, 115 137b 308 156a 190

Sanhedrin 11a 425 26a-b 414 34b-35a 189 43a 356 49b-50a 448 87b-98a 17 94a  114, 425 96b 106



97a-b 154 99a 22 102a 425 103b 446 104b 425 107b 106 110b 157

Sot. ah 9a  134, 138, 152 35a 447



48b 425

Makkot 24a 118 Megillah 3a 425 7b 342 11b 225 Menah.ot 110a 414

Sukkah 14a 352

569

570

Index of References

Ta’anit 5a 256 11a 277 23a  52, 214, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 226, 227, 232, 246



24a 249 24b 425 29a  140, 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 196, 254, 327

Yebamot 49b  56, 403, 445, 446 64a 352



105b  270, 280, 283

Yoma 17a 186 20b 296 21a 296 29a 352 37a 414



39b  88, 136 52b  134, 150 53b 406 77a 414

Jerusalem Talmud ’Abodah Zarah 39d (1:4)  293, 294 Berakot 11a (7:1)  376 13a (9:1)  415, 451



14a (9:3)  308

Mo‘ed Qat. an 81c-d (3:1)  12 81d (3:1)  425



82b (3:5)  427



58b (2:7)  405



28c (10:2)  446 29c (10:6)  157

Pe’ah 15c (1:1)  227 Roš Haššanah 1:3 403 1:15 403 Šabbat 7(6:3) 174 Sanhedrin 25a (7:5)  116 28a (10:1)  16

7  Mishnah, Talmud, and related Literature Šeqalim 49c (6:1)  134 50a (6:3)  53, 181, 182, 183, 184,

190, 191, 196

Sot. ah 24b (9:13)  453 Ta’anit 66d (3:9)  52, 213, 214, 217, 218, 219, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 232, 233, 404 Yoma 6:3 (43c)  88, 136



68d (4:5)  283 68d (4:6)  139



42b (5:3)  406

Mishnah ‘Abot 1:2 405 1.3 102 2:11 200 2:13 120 3:11 200



3:15  137, 156 3:18  408, 409 4:21 200 5:9 114



9:5 233



11 357 14:8 189

‘Eduyyot 8:6 404 Baba Batra 2:9 339 Berakot 3:1 427 Bikkurim 3:4–5 222 Git. t. in 7:1 224 Kelim 9–10  138, 171 10 158

571

572 Middot 2:2 118 3:1–5 126

Index of References

4:5 150



7:5  116, 294 9:3 448 10:1  276, 284 10:3 157

Šeqalim 6:1–2  134, 150



6:2 296

Sot. ah 1:4 284



7:6 284

Ta’anit 2:1 120 3:8 284

4:6–7 140 4:8 403

Tamid 3:8 284 3:9 430



Nazir 7:1 427 Nedarim 3:10 376 Niddah 4:1 384 Pesah.im 10:6 404 Qiddušin 4:3 376 Sanhedrin 6:1 446 6:4  356, 448 6:5 427 7:4 448 Šebu’ot 7:5 294

7:2 284 7:4 253

8  Targumic Texts Yoma 1:2 409 3:4–5 409 3:8 103 4:2 103



5:1  406, 408, 409 6:2 103 7:4 409

8  Targumic Texts



Frg. Tg. P on Exod 15:18  22 Frg. Tg. V on Exod 12:42  22 Tg Ps-Jn Deut 34:3  414 Tg. 1 Chr 9:27  189 Tg. Cant 8:5  443 Tg. Cant. 8:9  414 Tg. Cant. 4:12  391 Tg. Esth. Sheni 1:2  88, 98, 101, 110, 115, 121, 132, 136, 172, 182, 183, 200, 332 Tg. Esth. Sheni 2 1:2  184 Tg. Hos. 2:2  157 Tg. Isa 2:3  242 Tg. Isa 30:10  242 Tg. Isa 32:6  242 Tg. Isa. 53:5  404 Tg. Isa. 53:8  157 Tg. Isa. 6:13  157 Tg. Jer 4:9  328 Tg. Jer. 10.11  297 Tg. Jer. 10:11–12 291 Tg. Jer. 38:12  161 Tg. Jer. 38:7  160 Tg. Jer. 39:16  160 Tg. Job 5:8  280 Tg. Lam 1:1  194 Tg. Lam. 1:3  114 Tg. Mic. 5:3  157 Tg. Neof. 1 Exod 2:42  109



Tg. Neof. 1 Gen 30:22  189 Tg. Neof. 1 Gen. 11:31  303 Tg. Neof. 1 Gen. 15:7  303 Tg. Neof. 1  22 Tg. Neof. Num. 24:7  157 Tg. Neofiti 1 Deut 32:29  242 Tg. Neofiti 1  242 Tg. Isa. 53:5  191 Tg. Lam. 1:1  183 Tg. Lam. 2  183 Tg. Onq. Num 24:24  124 Tg. Ps. 125:1  219 Tg. Ps. 126:1  369 Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 14:2  156 Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 26:18  156 Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 28:12  189 Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 33:12  156 Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 32:20  309 Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 49:10  242 Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen. 48:16  277 Tg. Ps.-J.  22 Tg. Ps.-Jn. Deut. 32:9  414 Tg. Ps.-Jn. Exod 12:12  146 Tg. Ps.-Jn. Gen. 38:25–26 414 Tg. Ps.-Jn. Num. 20:29  99 Tg. Ps-Jn. on Num. 16:34  103 Tg. Zech 14:4  443 Tg. Zech. 14:4–5 443 Tg. Zech. 6:12–13 404

573

574

Index of References

9  Nag Hammadi Codices 1 Apocalypse of James 24:20–22 285

2 Apocalypse of James

49:8 156

61:13–15  447, 448

Apocalypse of Adam

6:1 434

Dialogue of the Savior

120:1–8 252

Gospel of Truth 22:4–12 252 36:35–39 409 37:7–40:33 285

37:19–21 252 42–3 252

On Baptism A

41 307

Tchacos 1 Letter of Peter to Philip 8:134:13–14 425 133:13–17 443

133:13–34:19 443

10  Other Rabbinic Works

575

10  Other Rabbinic Works Avot of Rabbi Nathan

A 2:61  176 A 4:22  58 A 4:32  339 A 4:38  116, 125 A 4:39  182, 184 A 6:31–34 98 A 11:8  176 A 14:3  176 A 17:15  120 A 25:5  99 A 25:29  116



A 35:4  427 A 37:20  283 A 38:18  115 A 38:21  115 A 41:36  134 B 6:1–4 98 B 7:15  172 B 7:19  182, 183, 184, 185, 196, 327 B 39:15  427

Chronicle of Jerahmeel

77:9  133, 134

Derek Eres Zuta

1:18 261

Gedulat Moshe

10:3 407

Haggadat Shema‘ Yisra’el

2:2 412

Mekilta Beshallah. 5:11–12 438 Beshallah. 5:16–30 353 Beshallah. 7:13–15 445 Beshallah. 7:156–57 157 Shirata 3:65–73 353 Shirata 6:115  438

Pish.a 1:35–42 340 Pish.a 1:42–44 347 Pish.a 1:106  420 Pish.a 14  320 Pish.a 14:8–10 268 Pish.a 14:30–31 342

576

Index of References

Pish.a 14:113–15 22 Pish.a 14:113–14 109 Amalek 1:175  283 Vayassa’ 1:6–7 283

Vayassa’ 1:94  352 Vayassa’ 6:81–85  117, 150 Bah.odesh 6  356

Midrash Rabbah Cantices Rabbah 1:6:4 124 5:5  95, 203



5:5:1 267

Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:33 446



11:10  274, 391, 416

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:1:2 162 2:15 331 4:8:1 446



4:11:2 223 5:11:2 172 11:5:2 249

Exodus Rabbah 2:6 99 6:13 448



18:5 414

Genesis Rabbah 2:3 282 15:6 433 15:7 174 17:5  234, 253 19:6 174 33:3 270 33:5 333 38:13 303 44:21 234



46:3 273 47:10  293, 294 59:11 268 62:1 172 62:2 223 70:12 268 100:7 427 622 249

Lamentations Rabbah proem 7  140 proem 24  20, 21, 98, 115 proem 34  169, 203 1:5:31  98, 99, 186 1:13:41 141



1:14 249 1:41  106, 136, 145 2:2  139, 356 2:4 283

Leviticus Rabbah proem 34  114 18:1 427 19:6  182, 183, 184, 185, 191



25:5 174 31:1 410

10  Other Rabbinic Works Numbers Rabbah 3:2  174, 335 3:12 405 10:7 224 12:4 176



577

15:5 281 15:13  134, 138 18:4 447 18:21 405

Ruth Rabbah 2:1 183

Midrash to Psalms

1:20 278 7:18 160 17 403 55:3 277 91:8 284 102 403



122:4 256 126:1 214 136:4 365 137:4 364 137:11 379

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana

13:8  91, 162 13:12 162 13:14  99, 104, 110 16:6 145



16:9 119 16:11 145 17:2 365

Pesiqta Rabbati 21:9 415 21:11 415 26  34, 53, 54, 55, 134 26:5–6 66 26:4 183 26:5  54, 116, 159, 161, 162, 187, 197 26:6  50, 54, 99, 100, 106, 110, 117, 142, 145, 146, 147, 168, 181, 182,



183, 184, 185, 190, 193, 247, 305, 339, 365, 378 26:6 146 26:7  194, 195 26:12 183 31:1 136 31:10 443 33:1 136

Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer

4 412 19 154 26:6 145



31 425 53  160, 261

578

Index of References

Qimhi on Jeremiah

1:1 183

Rashi on Genesis

25:7 274

Seder ‘Olam Rabbah

25 169 26  95, 169, 203



27 405 29 225

Sefer ha-Razim 4:61–66 190

Semah.ot

1 424 8:1 427

11:1 427 14:9–10 339

Sifre Deuteronomy

19 353 27 102 41 17 45 353 48 137 97 156 173 176



221 356 305 353 306 420 312  335, 353 345 353 352 353 357 103

Sifre Leviticus

240 430

10  Other Rabbinic Works

Sifre Num.

1:10 156 39 284 78  171, 453 78:1 183 84 320



91 353 99  160, 260, 261 105 353 112  280, 283

Tanh.uma

Wayyetse 5  90



Behar 2  114

Tanh.uma Buber

Tazria‘ 16  124 Metsora‘ 3  200



Nitstsavim 1  379

Tanh.uma-Yelammedenu

Pequde 1  256



Gen. 10:4  427

Tosephta ‘Abodah Zarah 2:8 376 ‘Eduyyot 3:3 58 Berakot 1:9 406 6:5 298 6:7 420



6:13 308 6:19 58



13:22  114, 115

Ma‘as´er Šeni 5:8 224 Menah.ot 13:18–22 192

579

580

Index of References

Nega‘im 6:2  339, 427 Šabbat 1:13 404 Sanhedrin 2.6 297 9:7 356



13:12 157

Šebu‘ot 5:11 294 Šeqalim 2:18 134 Sot. ah 13:1 134 13:3–4 425

14:6 192 15:8–15 19

Ta‘anit 3:9 254 Terumot 4:14 376 Yoma 2:15 134

11  Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement

4:8 421 4:12 103 5:2 99 5:4 391 5:7 411 7 391 8:3 388 8:4 437 9:3 352 9:4 352 10:3  250, 284

17:1  129, 156 18:6 125 23:4 245 24:4–5  245, 278 25:1–26:1 278 28:1 269 31:2 421 34:6  359, 406 41:2  126, 251, 404 43:5 172 46:2 270

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

49:5 96 51:3 103 51:5 103 52:1 418



59:3 417 59:4 345 60:3 166 61:1 333

2 Clement

5:1 200 5:5 253 6:7 253



8:3 200 16:4 96 17:5 421

Didache

9:1 102 11:7 119 16:4 104



16:6  143, 144 16:7 443

Diognetus

6:8 272 7:2 419 8:11 156 10:2 353

11:2–8 283 12:1–2 434 12:9 283

Epistle of Barnabas

3:6 156 5:7 437 7:5 437 9:6 308 12:1 338

14:4 103 15:1–8  154, 155 15:7 153 15:9 170

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works Aelius Aristides Εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον

(ed. Jebb) p. 385  340

581

582

Index of References

Panatheaic Oration (ed. Jebb) p. 172  161

Aeschines De falsa legatione 134 340

Aesop Fabulae 273 324

Agatharchides Mari Erythraeo 38 121

Alexander of Aphrodisias In Aristotelis meteorologicorum libros commentaria (ed. Hayduck) p. 181  249

Anastasius of Sinai Hexaemeron 12 (ed. Baggarly/Kuehn) 6:143  315, 332

Andrew of Cesarea Comm. Apoc. 18.52.16 439



20 439

Anthologia Palatina

7.161 326 9.233  324, 329



9.265 324

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Antigonus Mirabilia 133.1–3 438

Antiochus the Monk Homilia 27 (PG 89:1524)  285

Antiphanes

frag. 260  349

Aphraates Dem. 5.22 436 14 414

7.19–21 307

Apophthegmata Patrum alphabetical collection PG 65.193  106



PG 65.205  117

systematic collection ed. Guy SC 387 3.87 201



7.58 269

systematic collection ed. Guy SC 474 10.150 142



15.33 106

anonymous collection ed. Nau 201 384

583

584

Index of References

Appian Bella civilia 1.3.25 428 1.4.32 428 1.7.59 428 1.119.553 355 1.120.159 355



1.120.559 355 2.90.377 355 3.3.9 355 4.29.126 355 5.6.54 118

Apuleius Metamorphoses 2.21–30 342

Aristophanes Aves 512–15 324 Equites 772 192



Aristotle Athenain politeia 44.1 188 De coloribus 795a 249 De partibus animalium 653a 228 Ethica eudemia 7.12.1–2 273 Physica 218b 213 Problemata 933b 438

838 422

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Arrian Anabasis 3.15.4 224 Epicteti dissertationes 1.10.10 102 2.24.2 102 1.25.27 125 1.28.17 158 2.18.24 125



6.17.2 355



2.24.2 102 3.17.7 120 3.21.12 411 4.6.21 106

Artemidorus Onirocritica 2.20 234

Asterius Sophista Commentarius in Psalmos 3:14 189



18:2 189

Athanasius De incaranatione 19.4 126 De synodis 25.3 430 27.3.27 445



30.5 455



78 148

Expositiones in Psalmos 102:5 (PG 27:432D)  325 Historia Arianorum 46.3 118 Vita Antonii 8–10 201

585

586

Index of References

Athenaeus Deipnosophistai 2.69 249 4.14 333



11.10 422

Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 9.1 445 13.2 412



31.3 281

Augustine De civitate Dei 22.8 342



22.30  154, 155

In Evangelium Johannis tractatus 51 176

Bacchylides Epinicians 5:18 288

Barsanuphius and John Epistle 48 192 178 350 197 269



333 118 546 421 605 411

Basil De spiritu sancto 29.25 242 Epistles 46.5 429 243 99



PG 31:1644  103 PG 31:1653  103

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works Hexaemeron 3.5 153

Basil of Seleucia Homilia in Pentecosten (ed. Marx) p. 101  431 Oratio 21 (PG 85:256)  350



25:4 419

Callimachus Hymni 1:67–69 234 In Dianam 3.50 121

Callinicus De Vita S. Hypatii



48.33 229

Cassius Dio Historia Romana 43.24.4 354 51.12.3 368 60.13.2 354



41.17.2 243 48.37.6 240 55.14.2 120

Cave of Treasures 2:16 434 5:17 408 40:3–5 446 42:5 452

46:18 412 48:9 433 49:1–10 434 50:24 431

587

588

Index of References

Chariton De Chaerea et Callirhoe 3.8.9 342 5.10.5 368



7.5.6 411 8.5.13 367

Cicero De legibus 2.23.58 339

Claudius Aelianus Varia historia 13.34 368

Clement of Alexandria Eclogae propheticae 21 419 Excerpta ex Theodoto 83 307 Paedagogus 1.5.14 437 1.6.45.1 256 1.7  391, 442 1.7.59 103 Quis dives salvetur 42 307 Stromata 1.11.50.3 337 1.17.85.4 126 1.20.120.2 183 1.21.127.1 295 1.24.164.4 287 1.141.1 241 2.5.4 419



1.10.91 388 2.8.67.1 412 2.12.119.1 256



42.16 391



2.5.21.2 410 2.9.45 252 4.16.101.3 270 5.2.72.2 433 5.14.96 252 6.6.48 441

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Commodian Carmen apologeticum 221 446

941–46 157

Instructiones 42 (2.1)  157

Corpus Hermeticum

frag. 2A 2  106 12 296



13:19 410

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum

3902:18 284



4705 250

Cyprian Ad Quirinum testimonia adversus Judaeos 3.29 45

Cyril of Alexandria Commentarius in Ioannem 1:574  407, 412 2:116 146



2:484 242 3:116 419

Commentarius in Isaiam PG 70:625, 712  143



PG 70:762  291



2:614 103

Commentarius in Lucam PG 72:508  273 Commentarius in XII Prophetas (ed. Pusey) 2:591 103 Epistulae paschales sive Homiliae paschales 1:1 221

589

590

Index of References

Expositio in Psalmos PG 69:853  315 Glaphyra in Pentateuchum PG 69:537  117 Commentarius in xii prohetas minores (ed. Pusey) 2:557 370



2:559 370 2:602 370

Thesaurus de Trinitate PG 75:317  143

Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses 1.2–3 307 1–18 424 3.15 424



5.5 431 13.19 433 13.31 433

Procatechesis 16 271

Cyril of Scythopolis Vita Sabae (ed. Schwartz) p. 183  421

Democritus

frag. B 187  272

Demosthenes De falsa legatione 162 277 Orationes 25.2 106

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Dicaearchus

frag. 49  333

Didymus of Alexandria Commentarii in Zachariam 1.60 103 1.67 103 1.202 104



2.46 357 2.365 186



p. 29  453



894 117 3 (PG 39:1157)  432

Commentarium in Job (ed. Henrichs) 23  302 Commonatrii in Psalmos. (ed. Doutreleau/Gesche/Gronewald) p. 19  439 Fragmenta in Psalmos 550 280 741a 283 In Genesim (ed. Doutreleau/Nautin) p. 181  352

Dio Chrysostom Orationes 33.44 296



46.12 116

Diocles

frag. 241  148

Diodorus Siculus

3.17.4 121 3.55.9 96 12.60.3 96 17.46.4 355

34 430 34.1.1–4 386 35.1.4 430

591

592

Index of References

Diogenes Laertius 1.109–10  213, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 232, 238, 246 1.109  220, 236, 238 3.6 421 6.78 455



8.64 242 8.67 342 10.46 419 10.139 417

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae 1.56.3 425 2.67.5 162 5.16.2–3 425 6.67.2 125

8.56.2–3 425 9.26.5 164 10.56.1 222

Epistula ad Ammaeum i-ii 11 340

Dorotheus the Astrologer Pentateuch (ed. Pingree) p. 343  268



(ed. Pingree) p. 355  334

Epistle of Pseudo-Dionysius to Timothy

3:6 121



Ephraem Hymns on Virginity 16:10 434

Epicurus Epistula ad Menoeceus 123 199

9:10 338

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Epiphanius Ancoratus 3:9 410



88:5 425

De Mensuris et ponderibus 14–15 98 Panarion 1:318 427 3:209 455 29.3.7 272 29.7.7–8 98

30.2.7 98 30.16.4–5 32 64.70 175

Eugnostos the Blessed 371–72  285, 418

Eupolemus

frag. 4  132

Euripides Alcestis 379 421 Andromache 1180 329 frag. pap. 156  197



frag. 12:248  422

Helena 1094 275 Heraclidae 1345–46 273

Eusebius Commentarius in Isaiam 1.53 437 1.65 145



1.66 449 1.88 429

593

594

2.14 440 2.23 439 2.44  440, 453

Commentarius in Psalmos PG 23.197  161 PG 23.404C  391 PG 23.857  117 PG 23.1032  438

Index of References

2.50  148, 410 2.54 117 PG 23.501  410



PG 23.1128  419 PG 23.1625  325, 332 Ps. 102.5  325



11.25 (rec. brev.)  426



9.1  412, 442 10.9.9 280 10.14.6 453



PG 22.1269  95, 159, 167



3.31.3 441 3.5.3 98 4.6.2 283 4.26.14 445 5.1.6 99 8.6.4 421 8.10.8 103 10.5.18 105

Contra Marcellum 1.4.9 126 De ecclesiastica theologia 2.20.8 256 De martyribus Palaestinae 11.23 416 Demonstratio evangelica 1.3.17 249 4.4.1 354 6.14.3 270 8.2 103 Eclogae propheticae (ed. Gaisford) p. 95  162 Epistula ad Caesarienses 4 430 Historia ecclesiastica 1.1.2 114 1.3.12 442 1.10.7 441 1.13.4 441 2.6.8 114 2.15.2 124 2.23.6 119 2.23.12 447 2.23.16–18 448 Praeparatio evangelica 8.9.13 370 8.10.8 300 9.22.4–6 289

9.27.1 425 9.27.21–22 348 9.27.36 425

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works 9.29.8 352 9.29.10 298 9.29.16 332 9.34.1 250 9.34.14–15 150

9.34.4 190 9.39.2–3 114 9.39.4 241 9.39.5  132, 150, 152 15.2.9 444

Questiones evangelicae ad Marinum PG 22.1000  384 Quaestiones evangelicae ad Stephanum 14 183 Vita Constantini 2.36 421



4.62 307

Eustathius Encomium on Michael (ed. Budge) p. 94.17  414 p. 21.15  414 p. 22.26  414 p. 23.3  414



p. 47.26  414 p. 97  414 p. 100  414 p. 107  416 p. 65  414

Eutecnius Paraphrasis in Nicandri Theriaca (ed. Gualandri) p. 28  229

Evagrius Altercatio Simonis Iudaei et Theophili Christiani 4:17 400 Scholia in Proverbia 32 433



Galen De dignoscendis pulsibus (ed. Kuhn) 8:942  236

132 433

595

596

Index of References

De elementis ex Hippocrate libri ii (ed. Kuhn) 1:470  418

Gelasius of Cyzicus Historia ecclesiastica 2.21.7 411

Gregory of Nazianzus Epistulae 219.3 283 Oratio in laudem Basilii 44.1 439 2 (PG 35.472)  370



6 (PG 35.729)  256 21 (PG 35.1112)  99

Gregory of Nyssa Adversus Apollinarem ad Theophilum (ed. Mueller) p. 122  442 Contra Eunomium 3.2.132 429 Epistulae 10.3 412 In Laudem Basilii fratris 21 348 In suam ordinationem (ed. Gebbhart) p. 336  431 Oratio catechetica magna 26.72 453

Gregory the Great Dialogues 2.11 342



2.32 342

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Hegemonius Acta Archelai 11:4 359

Heliodorus Aethiopica 6.14–15 342

Hellanicus Jacoby edition frags. 5b, 42b  381

Herodotus Historiae 1.134 268 2.55–57 325 2.55 325 2.73 332



3.27 345 7.194 355 9.104 277 9.120 355

Hesychius of Jerusalem Commentary on Odes 2.11 332 Fragmenta in Psalmos 9.12 429 Homilies 5.2.24 41

Hippocrates De mulierum affectibus 1–3 41  235 De septimestri partu 52 272

597

598

Index of References

Epidemiae 7.1.69 235 Prognostica 13 276

Hippolytus of Rome Commentarium in Danielem 1.12 183 2.37 200 4.18 200

4.21.1 126 4.23–24 154 4.28.2 166

Commentarium in Susanam 1 447



1.1 452

De antichristo 31 447



61 315

Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.21 417 6.29 419



9.23.3 387 9.25 454

Homer Ilias 1.601 228 2.2 228 4.131 228 6.89 188 8.245–52 324 11.241 429 Odyssea 1.364 228 2.143–47 324 5.7 199 9.333 228 16.161 345

18.23–24 116 20.131 345 24.292–93 324 24.292  288, 329 24.310–11 324 24.310  288, 329

16.190 268 16.451 228 18.199 228 23.16–17 228

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Horace Epistulae 1.1.60–61 99

Iamblichus De Vita Pythagorica 30.184 424

Ignatius To the Ephesians 2:1 275 4:2 428



7:2  272, 419, 431



9:2  400, 428, 429 13:1 350

To the Smyrnaeans Inscription 156



1 440

To the Trallians 11:2  408, 434



12:2 275

To the Magnesians 5:2 400 8:2  283, 399, 446 To the Philadelphians 5:2 428

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 1.2.1 129 1.8.2 419 1.10.1 156 1.19.2 451 1.21.3 285 3.20.4  167, 430 3.23 416 4 Gk frag. 3  354 4.5.4 349 4.12.4 352



4.16.1 253 4.22.1 167 4.33.1  430, 440 4.36.8 436 5 frag. 15  179 5.26.1 124 5.28.3  154, 155 5.30.4 253 5.35.1 443

599

600

Index of References

Isocrates Antidosis 111, 120  270 Philippus 113 126

Jerome Adversus Jovianum libri II 2:37 447 Adversus Rufinum libri III 3.31 283 Commentariorum in Isaiam libri XVIII 57.2 446 Commentariorum in Jeremiam libri VI 31:15 293 Commentariorum in Zachariam libri III 11:4–5 293

John Chrysostom Ad populum Antiochenum de statuis 5.1 PG 49:69  248 Adversus Judaeos 1.2 436 4 PG 48.873  248



8 PG 48.939  248



4:43 412

Commentarius in Genesim 57.3 (PG 54:498)  405 De incomprehensibili dei natura 3:11 411 De Prophetarum obscuritate 2.5 99

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works Expositiones in Psalmos PG 55:456  99 Fragmenta in Jeremiam PG 64.809  159 Homiliae in Acta apostolorum PG 60:231  348 Homiliae in epistulam ad Ephesios 14:4 412 Homiliae in Genesim PG 53:158  283 Homiliae in Joannem PG 59:302  146 PG 59:360  421 PG 59:406  421



68 442 85:1 434

Homiliae in Matthaeum 2:2 419 26.39 419



38.1 (PG 57.429)  122

Sermo antequam iret in exsilium I,2 (PG 52.492)  99

John of Damascus Ex thesauro orthodoxiae Nicetae Chroniatae 21.649 447 Exposito fidei 2:1 154 Sermones in venerabilem dormitionem supergloriosae Dominae nostrae BVM 2 18 (ed. Kotter) p. 537  427 Trisagion 14.25 407

601

602

Index of References

John of Thessalonica Dormition BVM A 5 (ed. Jugie) p. 382  277

John of Euboea Sermo in conceptionem Deiparae 18 (PG 96:1489)  183

Julius Africanus Cesti 1:20 337

Justin Apologia i 14.1–2 419 41.4 433



47.4 195 66.4 452

Apologia ii 5.2 249 Dialogus cum Tryphone 5.1 419 5.4–6 419 7.3 440 16.4 114 17.1 246 32.3 410 36.5 170 40.1 272 42.1 441 48.3–49.1 281 52.3  149, 151 57.3 344 59.2 90 61.1 442 70.1 452 72 430

72.4 167 73.3–4 433 77.4 350 78.6 452 80.4 411 85.2–3 440 86.1 433 89–90 356 97 427 100 427 107 427 120.5 446 126.1 442 127.4  391, 442 130.1–4 241 138.1 334

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works Epitome 2.15 386

Juvenal Saturae 3.14 173



6.542 173

Lactantius De ira dei 4 417 Divinarum institutionum libri VII 7.17.1–8 426 Fabricatorem mundi 6 154

Libanius Declamatio 21.1.10 340 Epistulae 559.3 340



826.1 236

Liturgia sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni

PG 36.709  433

Longus Daphnis and Chloe 3.10.1 142

Lucian Abdicatus 5 344



17 419

603

604

Index of References

Anacharsis 16 242 Calumniae non temere credundum 20.7 99 De morte Peregrini 18 449 Gallus 17 272 Philopseudes 12 344



26 342

Somnium 5 240 Verae historiae 2.35 346

Lysias Andocides 49.7 118

Macarius Magnes Apocriticus ad Graecos 2.21 302

Macrobius Commentarius in Ciceronis somnium Scipionis 13.10 427

Marcus Aurelius

11:33 243

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Mark the Deacon Vita Porphyry 62 267

Martyrdom of Apa Epima

6 416

Martyrdom of Polycarp

9:1 425 14:1 156



20:1 353

Martyrium sancti Carpi, Papyli et Agathonicae

37 421

Maximus of Tyre Orationes 10.1  213, 223

Maximus the Confessor Liber Ascetius 37 283 Quaestiones ad Thalassium 54 179 Quaestiones et dubia 30 419

Melito Peri Pash .a frag. 3  445 55 272



86 429

605

606

Index of References

Menander Sententiae e papyris 9r 336

Methodius of Olympus De resurrectione 2:18 276

Minicius Felix Octavius 18.11 107

Nicander of Colophon Theriaka 56 229

Nicolaus Hydruntius Disputatio contra Judaeos (ed. Chronz) p. 163  419

Nicophon

frag. 12  224

Nilus of Ancyra Commentarius in Caticum canticorum 59:1 387

Nonnus Dionysiaca 25.517 337

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Oecumenius Commentarius in Apocalypsin 16:19 124



(ed. Hoskier) p. 72.16  407

Origen Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 2.7.56 440 28.7.51 425



32.3.33 302

Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei 10.18 446 13.29 428 14.9 363



ed. Kostermann 126  434 ed. Kostermann 551 II  434

Contra Celsum 1.47 114 1.62 441 2.71 255 3.60 453 4.28 440



4.73 114 5.1 277 5.45 359 6.1 429 8.60 415

De oratione PG 17.25  451

4.1–2 405

De principiis 1.3.4 412 4.3.8 391



4.3.14 412

Expositio in Proverbia PG 17.188  280 Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam ad Ephesios frag. 26  227 Fragmenta ex commentariis in Proverbia 13:32 408 Fragmenta in Lamentationes frag. 6  423 frag. 7  105 Fragmenta in Lucam frag. 168  256



PG 13.32  433



frag. 10  423



174 391

607

608

Index of References

Homiliae in Jeremiam 8.5 453 Homiliae in Leviticum 12:5 275 Homiliae in Numeros 23.4 253 Philocalia 15.1 429 Selecta in Ezechelem PG 13.800  422 Selecta in Joshua PG 12.821D  414

Ovid Metamorphoses 5.530 116

10.298–502 408

Palaea Historica

5:5 432

Palladius Historia Lausiaca rec. G Vita 36.4  2  79 Historia monachorum Vita 22  411

Paphnutius Onuphrio 1 106

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Pausanius Graeciae descriptio 1.14.4  213, 223, 225

Pherecrates

frag. 85  224

Philagathus Homilia 4.3 433



21.3 431

Philostratus Imagines 2.2 242 Vita Apollonii 4.44 269



4.45 342

Physiologus

1:1 332 4 455 6 325



Pindar Isthmia 6.50 332 Olympia 13.21 332 Pythia 1:3 332

17 455 21 350 29 200

609

610

Index of References

Pistis Sophia

2 443

Plato Alcibiades 135D 106 Cratylus 400D-E 284 Leges 784B 383



9.873b 448



614B-621D (10:13–16) 423

Phaedo 109E 410 Respublica 372D 333 592A-B 255

Plautus Captivi 455  106, 107

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 2.103 438 7.52(53) 423 7.175  213, 222, 223, 225 10.3 328



Plotinus Enneades 4.7.11 198

10.5 324 15.19 229 23.63 174

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Plutarch Agis et Cleomenes 20.4 422 Alexander 8.5 346 24 231



33 411



33.4 422



545F 360 563B-68B 423 579D 421 718A 418 973F 422 1054E 198 1055C 198

Caesar 2.2 355 Camillus 34.4 288 Cicero 10.3 425 Comparatio Aristides et Catonis 4.2 418 Comparatio Philopoeminis et Titi Flaminini 2.6 279 De Iside et Osiride 12 425 Demetrius 51 422 Lycurgus 31.4 353 Moralia 94A 349 153C 418 355E 425 359C-D 418 423A 353 439E 118 538A 242 Pelopidas 16.8 418

611

612

Index of References

Perikles 13.8 345 Phocion 22 276 Pyrrhos 6.4 346 Sulla 7.3 143 Themistocles 28 109



30.1 345

Polybius Historiae 1.30.10 288 1.69.10–13 446 1.80.10 448



4.57.10 419 10.33.8 355 12.26.6 333

Polycarp To the Philippians 6:3 129



7:2 142

Porphyry

De abstinentia

4.2 333

Proclus In Platonis Timaeum commentarius (ed. Diehl) 2 p. 230  198

Procopius of Gaza Commentarii in Isaiam PG 87.2:2064  281



PG 87.2:2472  281

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Ps.-Aelius Aristides Ars rhetorica 1.4.1 243

Ps.-Alexander of Aphrodisias Problems 3.17 228

Ps.-Amphilochius of Iconium Vita Basilii 13 148

Ps.-Anacreon Ode 15(9) 330

Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai Quaestiones et responsiones appendix 21.2  445

Ps.-Apollodorus Bibliotheca 3.16 330



5.19a-b 142

Ps.-Apollonius Apotel. (ed. Nau) p. 1380  109

613

614

Index of References

Ps.-Athanasius De trinitate 1.18 419 De virginitate 6 370



24 256

Homilia de semente PG 28.168  350 Homilia in passionem et crucem domini PG 28.228  338

Ps.-Bartholomew Book of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (ed. Budge) fol. 12b  186, 414

Ps.-Basil of Seleucia De Vita et Miraculis Sanctae Theclae 1.28 242

Ps.-Basil Commentarius in Isaiam



14.291 302

Ps.-Caesar of Nazianzus Dialogi 1.44 414

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Ps.-Callisthenes Historia Alexandri Magni rec. a 2.21.26  355 rec. α 1.45  425 rec. β 1.7, 13  172 rec. β 1.14  338 rec. β 1:23  348 rec. β 3:30  201

rec. γ (lib. 3) 32  273 rec. γ 3:26–29 417 rec. ε 39:5  417 rec ε 44  273 rec. φ 244  454

Ps.-Chrysostom De Lazaro 1–7 PG 48.1041  440 De Oratione PG 62.737  431 Homilia in Psalmum PG 55.709  159 In adorationem venerandae crucis PG 52.839  120 In exaltionem venerandae crucis 9 431 In Psalmum PG 55.642  325, 332 In Samatiranam PG 59.541  455 Synopsis sacrae scripturae PG 56.357  8

Pseudo-Clementines Homilies 1.13.3 242 1.37.2–4 33 2.23.2 441 7.12.1–2 270 17.10 251

39.2 33 48.5–6 33 54.1 33 64.1–2 33

615

616 Recogitiones 6.8 307 2.21.2 270

Index of References

2.42 414

Ps.-Clement Epistulae de virginitate 1.5.2 256 Rec. 2.21.2  270 Rec. 6.8  307



Rec. 2:42  414 Rec 2.21.2  270

Ps.-Cyprian Adversus Judaeos 3.3 446



25 (64)  61, 67

Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria De trinitate PG 77.1120  419

Ps.-Demosthenes Orationes 25.4 243



50.20 192

Ps.-Didymus of Alexandria De trinitate PG 39.704  275



PG 39.848  445

Ps.-Dionysius De ecclesiastica hierarchia 4.3.4 407



10 407

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

617

Ps.-Ephraem Συμβουλία περὶ πνευματικοῦ βίου πρὸς νεόφυτον μοναχόν

41 (ed. Phrantzoles) 2:232  102

Λόγοι παραινετικοὶ πρὸς τοὺς κατ’ Αἰγύπτον μοναχούς

1 (ed. Phrantzoles) 3:37  269 20 (ed. Phrantzoles) 3:96  227



40 (ed. Phrantzoles) 3:205 276 41 (ed. Phrantzoles) 3:209 279–280



4:109 412

Ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις

(ed. Phrantzoles) 4:85 142

Λόγος εἰς μάταιον βίον, καὶ περὶ μετανοίας

(ed. Phrantzoles) 4:408  421

Λόγος ψυχωφελής

(ed. Phrantzoles) 5:112  118

Ἐγκώμιον εἰς Πέτραν καὶ Παῦλον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν

(ed. Phrantzoles) 6:112–13 431



6:145 256

De resurrectione mortuorum sermones (ed. Phrantzoles) 4:266  143 Sermo in pretiosam et vivificam crucem (ed. Phrantzoles) p. 141.10  407 Sermones paraenetici ad monachos aegypti (ed. Phrantzoles) 3:357  411

Ps.-Epiphanius De trinitate (ed. Diekamp) p. 317  407

Ps.-Eusebius Hexaemeron PG 18.732  325

618

Index of References

Ps.-Gregory of Nyssa In annuntiationem (ed. Montagna) line 10  410 Liber de Cognitione Dei PG 130.265  287

Ps.-Hippolytus De consummatione mundi 39  406, 412

Ps.-John of Damascus Sermo in Annuntiationen Mariae PG 96.649  412

Ps.-Justin Expositio Rectae Fidei (ed. Morel) p. 390  410 Quaestiones et responsiones (ed. Morel) p. 417  295



p. 429  172 p. 477A  162

Ps.-Linus Martyrium Petri 13 430

Ps.-Macarius Magnes Homiliae spirituale 50 17  256 Sermo 64 2.12.14 143 16.3.6 256



35.1 422

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Ps.-Phocylides

215 275



220 243

Ps.-Plato Hippia major 304b 199

Ps.-Plutarch Proverbia Alexandrinorum frag. 10  268

Ps.-Socrates Epistula 6.4 199

Ps.-Tertullian Carmen adversus Marcionitas 3.245–46 447

Quaestiones Iacobi ad Iohannem Vassiliev edition p. 320  239

Questions of Bartholomew

4:1 443

Romanos the Melodist Canticum 31.27 193 34.22 431 41.2 455



45 431 54.7 352

619

620

Index of References

Sallust Bellum jugurthinum 14.19 107

Sallustius De Deis et mundo 12:6 296



19:2 296

Sarapion of Thumis Euchologion 1 412

Schoia to Aelius Aristides Orationes Panathenaicam et Platonicas (ed. Jebb) p. 172  161

Scholia in Aeschyli Septem adversus Thebas

423b 145

Scholia in Nicandrum

249b 229

Sentences of Sextus

320  272, 426

Serapion Life of John (trans. Mingana) p. 447  416

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Severus Encomium on Michael (ed. Budge) p. 65  414



p. 80  416

Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 5.5 242



6.67 363

Sheperd of Hermas Mandates 3:3  126, 146 11:3 126 36 277



Similitudes 1:1–6 255 1:4 151 4:2 408 5:2:2 239 5:6:7 391 6:3:2 415 8:4:1 186 8:6:3 307 8:8:3 186 9:1:7 276

9:7:1 239 9:10:5 125 9:11:2 125 9:16:2–4 307 9:17:4 307 9:23:1 276 9:27:2 391 9:28:2 421 50:3 200

Visions 1:2:4 360 1:3:4 153



36:3 415 36:10 415

2:2:7 391 5:5 288

Socrates Scholasticus Historia ecclesiastica 7.4 242

Sophocles Ajax 15–16 425

69–70 328

621

622

Index of References

Antigone 818 421 Oedipus coloneus 973 418 Trachiniae 61 418

Sophronius of Jerusalem Liturgicus 5 429

Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica 2.4 293

Stephan the Deacon Vita Setphanii Iunioris 17 256

Strabo Geographica 3.5.7 171 8.3.31 121 9.1.16 430



10.4.15 162 13.1.41 162 14.3.9 164

Symeon the Metaphrast Menologion PG 115.427–48  61, 215, 216



PG 115.445  279

Synesius of Cyrene Epistulae 157 294

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works

Tacitus Historiae 4.81 174 5.5.1 386



5.13  88, 140, 187

Tatian Oratio ad Graecos 15 272

Teles Hense edition p. 59  360

Tertullian Adversus Judaeos 1 436 8 432 3 439 7 442 Adversus Marcionem 4.10 437 De anima 53 391 De carne Christi 14.5 391 De cultu feminarum 2.13 391 De oratione 3  406, 407 De patientia 14 446



9 442 10 433 13 433 158 439

623

624

Index of References

Scorpiace 8  446, 447

Themistius In libros Aristotelis de anima paraphrasis (ed. Schenkl vol. 5/2) pp. 202, 231 363



(ed. Heinze 5/3) p. 43  198

Theodore of Mopsuestia Expositio in Psalmos 34:15 161

Theodoret of Cyrrhus Commentarius in Danielem PG 81.1533.43  413 Commentarius in Isaiam 7 429 De situ terrae sanctae (ed. Geyer) p. 140  165, 218, 223 Interpretatio in Danielem PG 81.1392  242 Interpretatio in Psalmos PG 80.1681  283 Philotheos historia 9:3 201



12:2 201

Theodosius Encomium on Michael (ed. Budge) p. 21.25  414 p. 22.26  414



p. 23.3  414 p. 47.26  414

12  Classical and Ancient Christian Writers and Works On the Jews 5:30 90 7:1 90



9:1 90

De situ terrae sanctae 6 (ed. Geyer) p. 140  165, 218, 223

Theon

frag. (ed. Giese) p. 46  434

Theophilus Ad Autolycum 1.3.1  418, 419 1.13 451 2.8 387



2.14 439 3.15 417

Theophrastus De causis plantarum 3:20 434

Theophylact Commentarius in Matthaeum PG 123.468  434

Theopompus

frag. 69  425

Thucydides

2.2 109 4.93 268

Historiae 1.132.5 346



7.43 109



8.45.6 270

625

626

Index of References

Timaeus Tauromenitanus

frag. 22  333

Varro De re rustica 3.7 330

Victorinus of Pettau Commentarius in Apocalypsin 11.3 448

Vita Aesopi

G 92  346



W rec. 2 8  228

Vita Nicetae Patricii

2:26 426

Vita Nicolai Myrensis

rec. 1 18  413

Vita Pachomii

97 279

Vita sancti Auxibii

(ed. Noret) p. 191  223

13  Papyri, Ostraca, and Epigraphica

Xenophon Anabasis 4.3.2 228



7.5.4 270

Cyropaedia 5.2.1 231 Hellenika 4.4.6 107

13  Papyri, Ostraca, and Epigraphica

BGU

1 19:10  294 1 24, 33, 50  296 1 343  333



2 531:2  102 4 1047 3:11  294 4 1127:20  243

Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis 10:8–11 325 24:8 287 32:14–16 287 37:7–8 200 49:6–8 294 51:6–12  259, 268

55:13–21 268 58:1–5 288 59:6–9 330 63:9–10 327 71:17 118 74:15 349

Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum

1 688  253 2 877  253 2 903  253 2 1538  250 673 359



674 359 690 391 717 359 964 456 1448 406

627

628

Index of References

Oxyrhynchus Papyri

2 292  102 2 292:11  333 4 654  252 4 805  334



10 1258.9  251 12.1492 296 61 4113.19  251

Papyri Graecae magicae 2:15 359 3:76 359 4:210–15 324 4:289–90 387 4:640 280 4:981 359 4:1139 419 4:1167–1226  284, 430 4:1219 430 4:1377 359 4:1485 359 4:2357–58 413 4:3039–40 309 4:3070–3072 430

5:108 452 7:242 387 7:246 387 7:443 387 12:84 387 12:239–40 285 13:763–64 285 13:930 414 19a:49 272 21:1 285 22b :16  336 22b:20 284 36:180 145 36:259 387

Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten

1:3692 250 5:8562 250



8563 250

Supplementum Magica Daniel and Maltomini edition 27:2 360 papyrus 46:12 387 47:14 387 49:32 387 Papyrus Paris Supplément gr. 574 360



54:4 387 30 387 98:6 387

629

14 Other

14 Other

Hadhokht 2:3–20 427

Koran

Sura 2:259  217, 230



Sura 18  216, 223

Menog i Khrad

2:114 427

Vendidad

19:28 427

Index of Names and Subjects Aaron  99n, 133n, 152, 184, 189n, 268, 295n, 340, 408 Aaron’s staff  134n, 150 Abimelech/Ebed-melech  5n, 9, 13–16, 18–21, 23, 32n, 35–37, 50, 52, 54–55, 60–62, 65n, 68n, 69, 88, 92n, 95, 131, 140–41, 158–63, 165–67, 172–76, 180, 185, 193, 196, 202, 209–255, 260n, 262–71, 276–77, 280, 286, 288, 292, 294, 296, 299n, 302, 316–17, 323, 331, 334, 337, 341, 351, 355, 362, 368, 373, 382n, 383, 389–90, 397–99, 404n, 420n, 421–22, 424, 448, 450, 452–53, 455–56 Baruch, identified with  160 Baruch, as being like  163 Character and deeds of  49, 54, 139, 159, 161 Grief of  163, 237 Sleep of  11–12, 17, 30, 48, 52, 62, 69, 209–56, 429 Trance/ecstasy of  5n, 9, 48, 61, 234, 237, 247–48 Abraham  18, 20, 22, 33n, 35, 43, 49, 94, 99n, 102n, 116, 118, 194, 198– 99, 200n, 201, 234, 258, 264–65, 274, 282n, 289–90, 293, 298, 301, 303, 308n, 325, 349, 359, 374, 411, 425–26, 442n; see also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/patriarchs  18, 20, 21n, 22, 35, 43, 49, 116, 118, 194, 198–99, 200n, 201, 258, 264–65, 274, 290, 298, 301, 359 Abraham, Testament of  12, 63, 66, 89, 102, 402; see also Index of References https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110269802-023

Adam  147, 234, 260n, 432n, 433n, 438n Adultery  96n, 448 Aelia Captiolina  62, 63n, 221 Afterlife: see Life after Death Ages of the world  154–56, 190, 308, 410 Agrippa 1  60 Agrippa II  93, 164 Agrippa, vineyard/estate of  12, 49, 57, 59–60, 67n, 131, 164–66, 173, 212n, 222, 230–31 Akiba  139, 283n, Angel(s)  17, 21n, 92, 95, 108, 111n, 130–31, 132n, 133n, 143–48, 152–53, 163, 179–80, 186, 228n, 243n, 256n, 262–64, 266–68, 277, 286–89, 291–92, 321, 329–30, 377, 389, 407, 412, 415–16, 417n, 422, 425–27, 442n, 443n, 445n, 451 Archangel(s)  18, 69, 92n, 186, 255, 389, 413–15 Commands of  23, 88, 277, 288–89, 291, 299, 346, 365, 369 Destroyer(s), as  17, 36–37, 43, 46n, 50, 53–55, 88, 99n, 100, 105, 106n, 109–10, 134–37, 139, 142, 144–46, 181, 185, 187 Escort(s) of souls  261n, 416, 426 Guardian(s), as  267, 277, 320, 396, 414 Interpreters, as  170, 202 Lord, of the  99n, 266n, 267, 277, 415, 442n Righteous/righteousness of  92n, 186, 277, 377, 388–89, 391, 415

Index of Names and Subjects Anger: see God, Anger/wrath of Apocalypse/apocalyptic  10, 64n, 95, 154, 202, 402, 449 Apostles  17, 33, 56, 102n, 241, 407, 440–42, 443n Apostrophe  196 Armenian translation of 4 Baruch  5n, 7, 9, 69, 173n, 193, 316 Arch of Titus  151 Ark of the covenant  38, 44, 132n, 133n, 134–35, 137–39, 150–52, 157, 171, 398 Atonement, Day of  403n, 405–406, 409 Babylon/Babylonians  9, 11, 14–18, 22–24, 31n, 33–34, 36, 38, 43–44, 48, 52–54, 58, 65–66, 67n, 86, 90, 91n, 92n, 93–95, 97–98, 101, 104, 106n, 108, 114, 117, 124–25, 132n, 137–38, 140–41, 143, 145, 149, 151–53, 158, 163, 167–70, 173, 176, 178, 180–81, 184–85, 188, 192–93, 196–97, 201, 203, 225, 226n, 227n, 240–41, 243–44, 247, 254, 264, 275, 279, 284n, 288–89, 291–92, 294, 297, 300–303, 305, 309, 317, 319–22, 323n, 324, 330, 335–40, 345, 347–48, 349n, 351– 52, 354–56, 357n, 359, 361–64, 365n, 366, 368–70, 374, 376–79, 381–88, 392, 399, 402, 403n, 416, 432, 446, 452 Babylonian exile/captivity: see Exile Baptism  27, 62, 93n, 307, 308n, 309n, 379n Bar Kokhba and Bar Kokhba war  59n, 62, 63, 64n, 139, 226, 283n, 308n, 353n, 448n Barnabas, Epistle of  97; see also Index of References Baruch passim Abimelech, as being like  163 Beloved son, as  92n, 118, 349 Counselor of the light, as  92n, 282n, 287, 430 Ezra, as being like  240

631

Jeremiah, relationship to  95, 171, 193, 285, 295 Lamentation of  193–200 Letter of  95, 264–65, 294–309, 398 Prayer of  98–101, 126, 156n, 180, 263, 266, 269, 279–81, 285–86, 320, 336–37, 362–63, 350, 362, 365 Prophet, as  95, 165 Public reader, as  94, 204, 239n, 240, 327 Scribe, companion of Jeremiah, as  10, 50, 94, 142, 239n, 240n, 288, 295, 347 Servant, as  285, 295, 327, 341 Sinlessness of  32, 95, 191n, 196, 265, 274–75, 328, 352 Steward of faith/faithful steward, as  274, 327–28 2 Baruch  10, 15n, 31, 34, 41–46, 47n, 50, 55, 60, 63, 65, 67n, 70n, 90n, 95–97, 100n, 104n, 108, 110, 134–36, 140, 145, 157n, 184, 185n, 188n, 193, 202, 240, 282n, 289, 307, 321–22, 338n, 341n, 347; see also Index of References 3 Baruch  10, 60–61, 95, 164, 172, 202, 217n, 417, 453n; see also Index of References Basket  11, 17, 36–37, 48, 67, 69n, 140, 166, 173–75, 209, 212n, 218–19, 222, 224, 229, 231, 237–38, 244, 249, 252n, 264, 269, 276, 278, 331, 344, 368, 429 Bat qôl  425 Beatitudes  11n, 198–199, 233, 308n Beauty  155–56, 158, 193, 432n Beloved  18, 37, 43, 55, 92n, 118, 140, 154n, 156–58, 180, 191, 195, 353n, 400 Biblicisms  25–26, 39–41, 92–93, 96, 118, 123, 129, 147–48, 171–72, 227, 231, 233, 241, 266, 277, 279, 285, 288, 290, 299–300, 301n, 302, 320, 335–37, 348, 352, 363, 367, 374, 381n, 384–85

632

Index of Names and Subjects

Binitarianism  64, 410, 451 Birds  44, 92n, 137n, 320–22, 324, 326, 328, 332, 335, 336n Boasting  42, 54, 105–106, 110, 136–37, 181, 194, 196, 436n Burial  90, 152, 163, 169n, 215n, 339– 41, 424, 426–27, 434, 452, 455–56; see also Tomb Cataracts of heaven  37, 48, 52, 212n, 243–44 Cave  132n, 134n, 138n, 150, 152, 201–202, 213–14, 215n, 216n, 217n, 220, 223, 227, 292, 294, 328, 455 Chaldeans  36, 42–43, 48–49, 50, 54, 87, 89–91, 95, 98, 101, 105, 107, 109–10, 133n, 137, 151, 166, 179–81, 185, 187–88, 197–98, 225, 288, 303, 317, 331, 365n Chapter divisions of 4 Baruch  13n Christian vocabulary and elements  v, 14–17, 19n, 20, 23–24, 25n, 27–30, 32–34, 50–53, 55–57, 61–67, 102, 103n, 106, 140, 146, 148, 153, 167–68, 179, 192, 198, 220–21, 241–42, 249–50, 251n, 255–56, 265, 270–71, 272, 275, 283, 285, 307–308, 315, 322, 327, 330, 370, 375, 377, 378n, 390–91, 400–402, 404–410, 415, 418–21, 429–56; see also Compositional history of 4 Baruch Circumcision  59n, 62, 308–309 Comedic elements Baruch  12, 16, 28, 211–12, 210–11, 212n, 227–31, 243–44, 451 Compassion: see Mercy Compositional history of 4 Baruch  18n, 19n, 24–26, 55–57, 64, 103n, 108, 141–42, 160n, 180, 221, 247, 261, 322, 327, 360, 362n, 365, 400–404, 406, 415; see also Christian vocabulary and elements Conclusion/ending of 4 Baruch  16, 33–34, 400–402

Covenant  18, 20, 22, 38, 49, 97, 114, 258, 264–65, 295, 298–99, 301, 303, 308, 349, 372 Creation  35, 37, 153–55, 308, 328, 397, 419n, 434 Crucifixion  36, 49, 91, 318–19, 338, 355–58; see also Jesus Christ, cross of Crying/weeping, grief and mourning  9, 15, 18–21, 30–31, 33, 37–38, 43– 44, 49, 60, 63, 95, 113–16, 120n, 121–22, 125–26, 131, 140, 146, 168n, 169n, 170, 172, 179, 192–94, 200–201, 211n, 233, 237, 267–68, 273, 295–97, 303, 319–20, 323, 338, 353–55, 360n, 361, 364, 365n, 368, 402–403, 421–24, 448–49 Cyrus  11, 17, 108, 132n, 166n, 225, 350–51, 373, 378, 386 Date of 4 Baruch  57–64 Dead Sea Scrolls  246, 415; see also Index of References Death  18, 20, 33, 55, 95, 199, 214, 216n, 252n, 253, 256, 260–61, 263, 271, 275–76, 277n, 296, 331n, 353, 355, 391, 402, 410–411, 420n, 422–24, 426–27, 429, 433n, 446–48, 451–52, 455 Desert: see Wilderness Dialectical negation, idiom of  121–22 Diaspora: see Exile Disobedience: see Obedience and Disobedience Divine passive  137, 187, 191, 195–96, 329–30 Divorce  379–80 Dove  38, 44, 321, 325–26, 333–34 Dream  37, 52, 91, 212, 213n, 214, 219 Dualism/dualistic anthropology  18, 252n, 256, 260–61, 264, 272, 296– 97, 343–44, 410–11, 420, 425–28 Dura Europos synagogue  268n, 278, 332n, 443n Dust, putting on head as an act of mourning  19–20, 37, 43–44, 49, 108, 116, 120, 180, 193, 423

Index of Names and Subjects Eagle  11, 17, 22, 32, 44, 53, 67–68, 88, 92n, 95, 170, 173, 238, 264, 287–88, 314n, 315–18, 321–26, 328–46, 367, 381 Earth personified  153, 171 Ebionites  32n, 67n, 392n Eden/paradise  38, 164n, 174, 276n, 325, 400–401, 408–409, 432–34 Editions 4 Baruch: see Compositional history of 4 Baruch Egypt/Egyptians  21, 22, 35, 38, 94–95, 100n, 106, 122, 168–70, 203, 226n, 258, 264, 290, 295, 300–301, 305, 309, 319–20, 324, 326, 332n, 338n, 340, 342n, 345, 363, 370n, 378, 384, 386, 398, 416n, 447, 451–52 Elijah  44, 118, 134n, 150n, 261n, 321, 411 Elisha  118, 342 Enoch  139, 274, 411 1 Enoch  68; see also Index of References Epimenides  213, 218n, 220, 225n, 227, 228, 232, 236, 238, 246 Epiphanius  64; see also Index of References Eschatological salvation/restoration  18– 19, 22n, 141, 157–58, 180, 191, 197, 198n, 253, 256, 265, 308, 323, 397, 444; see also Resurrection Esoteric teaching  56, 163, 449, 453 Essenes  66 Ethiopic Synaxarium  69 Ethiopic translation of 4 Baruch  3–9,10n, 32, 68–70, 316, Euphrates  54, 138, 168n, 169, 305n, 307n, 321, 378n, 381 Eupolemus  134; see also Index of References Eusebius  64; see also Index of Refer­ ences Exile  9, 11–20, 21n, 23, 31–32, 35–37, 40, 45, 48, 50, 52, 54–56, 58, 62–63, 65n, 66n, 86, 89–90, 93–95, 96n, 114, 115n, 116–17, 131, 133n, 134n, 148, 158, 160n, 162–63, 166– 70, 188, 192–94, 200n, 203, 209,

633

211–12, 218, 222, 225–26, 227n, 237, 239–40, 244, 251, 264–65, 267n, 270, 275, 288, 290, 294–98, 300, 305, 317–24, 331, 335, 338– 39, 343–44, 347–48, 350–51, 353, 356n, 357, 358n, 361–62, 365–66, 369, 375, 376n, 378n, 384–85, 399, 406, 431n, 432, 453n Exile, return from  16, 18, 20, 40, 49–50, 52, 65n, 91, 115n, 140–41, 157, 166–67, 169, 180, 184, 191, 194, 197, 212n, 219, 226, 254, 264–65, 282n, 288–90, 298n, 309, 349–50, 369, 377, 383, 385, 396, 402, 405, 416 Exodus from Egypt  21, 22, 35, 264, 290, 320, 324, 338, 342–45, 351, 363, 386 Ezra  49, 92n, 115, 223n, 239n, 240, 254, 266n, 289n, 339n, 373, 377, 442 4 Ezra  60, 63, 68, 115; see also Index of References 5 Ezra  64; see also Index of References Faith(ful)  92n, 182, 184, 191n, 192, 261, 265, 274–76, 327–28, 416, 428, 431 Father, as honorific  54, 92n, 108, 117–18, 125, 160n, 168n, 230, 349, 365n Father, Son, and Holy Spirit  53, 64, 410, 451 Fictional nature of 4 Baruch  10–13, 57, 166, 168, 176, 326, 334, 343n, 378 Figs  11, 14, 17–18, 20, 32, 36–37, 48–49, 52, 67n, 68n, 69, 70, 95, 140, 163n, 166, 172–74, 209–13, 218–19, 222–24, 226n, 229–31, 237–38, 244–45, 247–50, 252n, 254, 263–65, 269, 276, 278, 280, 290, 292, 306, 317, 321, 331, 343–44, 368–70, 429 Fire  36–37, 54, 88, 95, 97–98, 99n, 104, 117, 136–37, 139, 145–46, 181,

634

Index of Names and Subjects

182n, 195, 282, 303, 304n, 400, 437 Foreign gods  47, 292n, 357–58, 361 Foreign spouses  11, 23, 30, 32, 51, 289, 291, 306, 375, 377, 379–83, 385, 387, 388n Gabriel  186, 266n, 415 Galilee  59 Garments, rending of  19–20, 21n, 36, 108, 114–16, 120, 122, 125, 423 Genitive of quality  287, 327 Genre of 4 Baruch  10–13; see also: Fictional nature of 4 Baruch Gentile(s)  56, 64, 67n, 160, 290n, 322, 339, 375–76, 384, 435, 438, 441–42 Christians, as  17, 20, 30, 33, 57, 64, 133n, 197n, 392n, 400, 434–40 Defilement of  23, 33, 93, 168n, 292, 320, 369–70, 383n, 388 Marketplace of  57, 63n, 265, 292–94 Separation from  11, 17, 23–24, 30, 32, 51, 66n, 264, 289–91, 294, 305, 369, 374, 389, 392n Glory, divine and human  44, 175–76, 189n, 229n, 255, 281n, 337, 343n, 391, 398–99, 403, 406–407, 409, 418n, 442, 445n Gnosticism  30n, 64–65, 252, 307n, 322n, 342n, 359, 392, 408n, 417n God passim Almighty/pantokrator, as  103–104, 108, 116n, 280n, 372, 417, 429n Anger/wrath of  22, 32n, 43, 97n, 114, 119, 123, 258, 264, 302–303, 334, 353, 417n Anthropomorphic character of  91, 111, 170 Compassion/mercy of  18, 20, 37, 49, 95, 114–15, 122–23, 132n, 147, 180, 194, 197–98, 216n, 258, 269, 295, 297, 298, 303, 331n, 354, 357, 372, 398, 411, 436, 439

Creator, as  37, 44, 153, 190, 200n, 250n, 282, 321 Destroyer of Jerusalem/temple, as  36, 88, 94, 96–97, 107–108, 110, 136–37, 140, 145, 187 Light  281, 255 Lord, as  20–22, 86, 91, 103–104, 111, 114, 141, 250, 300 Name of  154, 157, 184, 190n, 263, 284–85 Power of  18n, 39–40, 104, 243n, 250, 263–64, 276, 278–80, 283, 337, 438 Rest, as  11, 251–53 Self-sufficient as the  263, 265, 273, 410 Sovereignty of  16–17, 87–88 Unbegotten, as  417–20 Will of  98n, 106–107, 141, 246, 326, 369, 454 God Sabaoth  316, 322, 357–60 Good news/gospel  17, 23, 33, 158, 167–68, 241–42, 335, 339, 441 Greek, character of 4 Baruch’s  24–26 Greek text of 4 Baruch  3–6, 8 Grief: see Crying/weeping, grief and mourning Hadrian  27, 59n, 62, 63n, 221, 293, 307n, 350n, 351 Haggadah  11n, 12, 55, 136, 144, 151, 158, 168, 174, 219, 331, 356, 364 Heart  19, 22, 36, 96, 114, 120–22, 125, 138, 144, 196, 271, 274, 286, 295, 302 Heaven  10, 17–19, 91, 95, 111, 136–37, 145, 156n, 170, 181, 183, 244, 251–52, 255, 270, 283n, 285, 373, 391, 398, 400, 404, 407, 410–12, 416–17, 424, 426, 432n, 435, 442, 445–46, 449, 456; see also Jeru­ salem, heavenly Hegesippus  64, 392; see also Index of References High priest: see Priest(s) and high priest(s)

Index of Names and Subjects Hilkiah  94, 183, 240 Hippolytus  28, 64; see also Index of References Holiness  19, 36, 105–106, 136, 149–50, 165, 218, 256, 289, 384, 407 Holy Spirit  234, 432n, 442n, Honi the Circle Drawer  213–15, 218, ˙ 223, 227–28, 232, 246, 404n Hope  17–18, 58n, 59n, 63–64, 88, 115, 140–41, 157–58, 162, 167, 264, 275, 285n, 288, 298, 301, 331n, 335, 377, 389n, 404n, 416, 428, 433n, 436 Humor: see Comedic elements Idolatry/idolaters  93, 96n, 97n, 114, 275n, 291–92, 293n, 448 Incense  21, 132n, 135, 150–52, 396, 407–409, 413, 431 Intertextuality  31, 34–41, 89, 94, 109, 119–20, 136–40, 144, 149, 151–52, 153n, 158, 161, 166, 172, 174, 185, 187–88, 192–94, 196, 197–98, 207, 219–20, 223n, 238, 269, 273, 276, 301, 320, 331, 336, 340, 343, 345–46, 351–52, 356, 365, 368n, 380–81, 413, 434, 444, 450, 456 Irony  100–101, 144, 231, 235, 237, 243n, 358, 382, 384, 444 Isaac  35, 69n, 92n, 349, 389n, 390, 425; see also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Isaiah (person)  35, 38, 55–56, 57n, 69n, 102n, 167n, 174, 266n, 304, 316, 400, 406, 412, 419, 423, 425, 430n, 442, 444–47, 452 Isaiah, Martyrdom and Ascension of: see Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Israel, land: see Israel, land of Israel, people of passim; see also Exile; Exile, return from; Exodus from Egypt Beloved, as  37, 55, 92n, 140, 156–58, 180, 191, 195, 353n Election of  92n, 104n, 322, 328, 335 Holy as  289 Rejection of  33, 104, 141, 434–40

635

Sins of  13, 17, 42, 44, 47, 49, 69n, 87, 93, 96–97, 104, 107–108, 114–16, 118–19, 131, 132n, 178, 180, 194–96, 240, 303, 357, 362, 399 Jacob  35, 139, 198, 268–69, 274, 283n, 295n, 325, 450; see also Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob James the Just (brother of Jesus)  99n, 102n, 119, 183, 448 Jehoiachin  53, 181–82 Jeremiah passim Author of Psalm 137, as  366 Death of  15–16, 28, 33, 55, 61, 69n, 401–402, 411n, 424, 446–48, 451–52, 454–55 Father, as  54, 92n, 108, 117–18, 123, 125, 160n, 168n, 230, 365n, 421 God’s elect/chosen one, as  22, 92–93, 103, 107, 147, 328, 340 Gravestone of  455–56 Intercessor, as  44, 98, 100n, 119–20, 146 Leader of Israel  14, 15n, 22, 102, 227n, 254, 288, 339, 363, 378, 402 Letter(s) of  5, 10n, 14–15, 36, 95, 168n, 226n, 263–65, 294, 321–22, 349–68 Moses, as new/being like  21–22, 35, 91, 103, 119, 267, 320, 345–46, 363, 378, 380–81, 389n Prayer(s) of  15, 21, 35–36, 42, 44, 48–49, 65n, 87, 93–94, 98–101, 103, 119, 285, 339n, 398–99, 405–420 Priest and high priest, as  50, 60n, 98, 117, 149, 183 Prophet, as  8n, 9, 22, 46, 57, 69, 86, 91–92, 100n, 142, 159, 208, 267, 304, 320, 345–46, 363, 380, 389n, 398, 400 Servant of God, as  22, 49, 54, 91, 92n, 93, 102–103, 303–304, 363, 383

636

Index of Names and Subjects

Stone of  28, 38, 398, 450–51, 455–56 Trance of  420, 422, 426 (Coptic)  8n, Jeremiah Apocryphon 16, 27, 34, 41n, 45n, 46–53, 56, 60n, 67, 93n, 97, 108, 158–59, 164, 166, 183–84, 201, 217–20, 222, 223n, 225, 232, 339n, 360, 375n, 378n, 402; see also Index of References Jeremiah, Epistle of  68n, 291, 297; see also Index of References Jeremiah, Life of the Prophet  5, 6n, 134, 398; see also Index of References Jerusalem passim Burning of  36–37, 43, 50, 53, 69n, 94, 98, 108–109, 136, 139, 145, 181, 185, 187, 154 City of God, as  105–106, 196 Elect city, as  36, 48, 104, 328 Heavenly  13, 18–19, 157n, 207, 218n, 255–56, 348, 390–91, 416, 441 Holy, as  92n, 100n, 105–106, 155, 384 Signs of  235–36 Walls of  15, 43, 54, 99n, 100–101, 105, 108–110, 116n, 137, 142, 145–46, 171, 185, 187, 212n, Jesus Christ  31, 41, 56–57, 92n, 93n, 114n, 118, 154, 156, 170, 183, 224n, 249, 266n, 271, 272n, 280, 285, 287n, 288n, 307, 315n, 323n, 330, 333n, 338, 340n, 343, 345, 354n, 356n, 357n, 391, 398–400, 402, 405n, 407–408, 410, 412n, 413, 415–17, 419, 424, 426–46, 448n, 450, 455 Ascension of  410, 440 Beloved, as  55–56, 154n, 156 Cross of  61, 215n, 400, 408, 431–34, 436, 437n, 451n God, as  64, 410, 418, 444, 445n, 450–51 Light (of ages), as  55, 281, 410, 430–31, 450

Sinless  32, 274 Son of God, as  349, 419, 429 Jewish origin of 4 Baruch  28, 30–34 Job  9n, 115, 119, 426, 453; see also Index of References Job, Testament of  12, 24n, 402; see also Index of References Johanan ben Zakkai  63n, 66n, 88, 98, 99n, 116, 125, 282n John the Baptist  266n, 282n, 330, 455 John, Gospel of  55–58, 64, 407, 410; see also Index of References John Hyrcanus  375, 392n Jonah  223n, 454 Jordan River  22, 51, 68, 238, 306–309, 322, 374, 378, 379n, 380–84, 403n Josephus  93, 140, 375–76, 388n, 389; see also Index of References Joshua  102n, 190, 306, 309, 378, 441n Joy  15, 20, 33, 38, 121, 175, 255, 268, 271–73, 281n, 325, 343, 403 Jubilees  12n, 13, 68; see also Index of References Judgment/punishment  21, 23, 88, 94n, 97, 105, 109n, 123, 131, 135–37, 139, 141, 143, 145n, 146n, 154, 158, 170, 172, 195, 198n, 264, 269, 277n, 283, 291, 297, 305, 317, 319, 353–54, 366, 374, 377n, 380, 389n, 397n, 399, 402n, 419, 426, 435, 437 Keys of the temple: See Temple, keys of Kiss  212n, 268, 312, 368, 383n Knowledge (gnosis)  285–86 Lamentations (Book of)  9n, 17, 20, 37, 66, 68n, 89n, 115, 140, 172, 181, 193–94, 303, 361; see also Index of References Land of Israel  15, 18, 58, 66n, 141, 157, 163, 168–70, 180, 188, 201, 212, 251, 265, 290, 298–99, 304n, 309, 320, 347–49, 351, 357,

Index of Names and Subjects 361–62, 372, 383n, 399, 402n, 448n, 454 Language, original of 4 Baruch  24–26 Law: see Torah Lawless  91, 92n, 139n, 196n, 319, 350, 351n, 356, 440n Letters/epistles  5, 10, 13n, 14–15, 21, 23, 36, 44, 53, 58, 67n, 95, 167–68, 174n, 215n, 226n, 263–65, 280, 288–89, 291–92, 294–309, 316–19, 321–22, 325–26, 330–35, 337, 340–41, 343–47, 349, 355, 362, 363, 365–68, 378n, 398 Life after death  18, 252–261, 271, 275, 277n, 296–97, 331n, 391, 410–11, 427n, 429–30; see also Resurrection Light  18, 20–21, 48, 55, 92n, 94, 99, 184, 186, 255, 263, 279, 281–83, 287, 324, 328–29, 407, 410, 414n, 430–31, 432, 436n, 442n Liturgical expressions/elements  21, 28, 104, 148, 199, 271, 283, 336, 406–409, 411–12, 440n Long-sleepers, legends of  212–20 Luke, Gospel of  24, 64, 143n, 231, 279n, 287; see also Index of References 2 Maccabees  134, 264; see also Index of References Mark, Gospel of  41; see also Index of References Marketplace of the Gentiles  57, 63n, 265, 292–93 Marriage  23–24, 27, 265, 289–90, 292, 294, 306, 322, 370, 374–75, 376n, 379, 382, 388 Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah  55–56, 57n, 64, 68, 156, 401, 423, 441n, 445; see also Index of References Matthew, Gospel of  31, 41, 143n, 221, 287, 345n, 441n; see also Index of References Melchizedek  186, 415 Melito of Sardis  97; see also Index of

637

References Mercy: see God, Mercy of Mercy seat  132n, 150 Memory  240, 301, 356, 358, 361 Messiah  113n, 157n, 282n, 353n, 429, 431, 443n Michael  18, 35, 38, 69, 92n, 186–87, 255, 256n, 266n, 277, 330n, 389, 406n, 412–16 Midnight  109, 125–26 Midrash  10n, 36, 41, 138–39, 274 Miracle(s)  10n, 11, 17, 20, 95, 225, 237, 245, 248, 254, 263, 269, 276, 278, 280, 292, 320–21, 343–46, 438 Modern scholarship on 4 Baruch  70–71 Moses  21–22, 35, 38, 91–93, 102n, 103, 119, 122, 132n, 133n, 134, 150, 152, 172, 199, 229, 246, 254–55, 267–68, 274, 277, 306, 309, 320, 338–41, 342n, 343, 345, 347–48, 351, 363, 372–74, 377–78, 380–81, 383, 389n, 402n, 411, 415, 445–47, 448n, 451, 453n Mount Nebo  134n, 152 Mount of Olives  38, 133n, 163n, 165, 218, 440, 443 Mourning: see Crying/weeping, grief and mourning Nazoaraeans  67n Nebuchadnezzar/king of the Chaldeans  11, 34–36, 48–49, 85–91, 92n, 97, 105, 107–109, 132n, 133n, 151, 181, 169n, 172, 181, 182n, 186n, 219n, 225, 241, 315n, 339, 351, 355n, 356–57, 364, 373, 378, 405, 435, 449 New exodus  21–22, 176n, 254n, 301, 309, 320, 337n, 342n, 346, 374, 378 Nisan  14, 205, 209, 249, 254, 403 Noah  35, 38, 44, 246, 274, 290, 320–21, 333–34, 352 Noah’s flood  35, 37, 244, 321, 333

638

Index of Names and Subjects

Obedience and disobedience  18n, 23, 31, 93, 95, 97, 102, 122–23, 264, 277, 299, 304–305, 307, 318, 321, 335, 339, 346, 349, 362, 366, 374, 377, 379–83, 389, 402n, 425 Offerings: see Sacrifice(s) Orality  10n, 45–46, 50–51, 55, 87, 181, 211, 326n, Origen  64, 277, 279, 314n, 446n; see also Index of References Orthodox Menaion  5, 32n, 68 Papyrus  258, 294, 330, 335, 341, 346 Parallelism/repetition  28, 50n, 87, 101, 107, 113, 115, 123–24, 125, 129–30, 141–42, 146, 148–49, 168, 173, 175, 179–81, 185, 190, 193, 196–97, 200–201, 208, 210–11, 225, 230–31, 234–36, 244–47, 254, 262–63, 275, 286–88, 291, 315, 318–19, 330, 337, 340–41, 346, 354, 360, 367–68, 380, 385, 396, 421, 423–24, 428, 434, 450, 452 Paradise: see Eden Patriarchs/forefathers: see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Pella, flight to  98 Persia  11, 154, 325n, 350–51, 358, 372–73, 375, 376n Pesiqta Rabbati  34, 53–55, 181n Pharaoh  171, 229, 339, 351, 451–52 Pharisees  66, 276n Philo  66, 282, 309n; see also Index of References Phoenix  278, 332 Pillar, person as  99–100 Pity: see Mercy Pompey  91 Post-70 setting of 4 Baruch  11, 16, 20– 21, 30–31, 55, 57–60, 63, 65–66, 88, 91, 95, 114, 124, 126, 140–41, 150n, 185, 187, 226, 256, 264, 294, 351n, 404–405 Prayer  10n, 15, 20n, 21, 35–36, 42, 44, 48–49, 65n, 87, 93–94, 98–101, 103, 119, 120n, 126, 156n, 180,

190n, 214, 255, 262–63, 266, 269–71, 277, 279–81, 283, 284n, 285–86, 320, 336–37, 339n, 341– 42, 350, 352, 362, 365, 372, 399, 405–407, 409–11, 413, 416–17, 420, 442n, 451 Pride  22, 96, 114, 106n, 302 Priest(s) and high priest(s)  37, 43, 46n, 49–50, 53–54, 60n, 92n, 98, 116n, 117, 119, 126, 132n, 133n, 134n, 135, 141n, 148–51, 152n, 171–72, 181–84, 189, 191–92, 196, 204, 208, 223, 226n, 239n, 240, 282n, 288, 339, 362, 369n, 373, 377, 384, 402, 404–406, 409, 414–15, 422, 453 Pseudo-Philo  13; see also Index of ­References Punishment: see Judgment Raven  38, 44, 321, 333, 334n Reception history of 4 Baruch  67–71 Red Sea  22, 309n, 438 Repentance  17, 95, 97, 116, 303, 304n, 319, 351, 375–77, 388–90, 403, 434, 446 Repetition: see Parallelism Resurrection  11, 14, 17, 22, 52, 64, 66, 133n, 144, 158, 166, 174, 215n, 230n, 252n, 256, 260–61, 263–65, 269, 270n, 271, 273–74, 276–79, 291, 320, 322n, 323, 325, 337–38, 342–44, 359, 400, 411, 426, 428–29, 440, 443 Rest (eschatological)  11, 200, 224, 232n, 251–53, 256, Revenge  198, 366 Reward  260n, 263–65, 269–70, 277, 375–76 Rewritten Bible/Scripture  12–13 Righteousness/the righteous/the just  11, 18, 37, 43–44, 155, 157n, 200, 232n, 246, 248, 251–53, 255–56, 274, 308, 320, 352, 362, 389, 406n, 408, 410, 415–17, 445n Rip Van Winkle  217

Index of Names and Subjects Roman emperor  91, 351 Romans/Roman empire/Rome  66n, 88, 98, 99n, 124, 140–41, 150–51, 164n, 185, 294, 301, 324, 351, 356, 358n, 370, 392, 409, 436n, 451 Romanian and Slavic translations of 4 Baruch  5n, 7–9, 69, 227n Sacrifice(s)  15–16, 19, 32, 49–50, 69n, 114, 122, 191n, 233, 240, 402–405, 420 Sadducees  66, 377 Samaria/Samaritans  11, 14–15, 23, 31–33, 41, 51, 53, 58, 64, 68n, 90n, 132n, 291, 305, 322, 338n, 374–92, 399, 402, 452 Segmented sleep  109 Semitisms  24–26, 39n, 89, 103, 125, 227, 234n, 239, 250, 286n, 323n, 325n, 349n, 405n, 439 Septuagint/Septuagintism  24–26, 34–41, 63, 86, 108, 125, 143, 153, 161, 325n, 402n, 453n Seraphim  396, 401, 406, 411–12, 21 Seven seals  136, 154–55, 308 Seven Sleepers of Ephesus  34, 61, 67, 215, 216n, 223n, 225n, 232, 264, 278–79, 331n Shekinah  320 Short recension of 4 Baruch  3n, 5–6, 8–9, 32n, 113, 162n, 238n, 243n, 306n, 378n, 379n, 448n Sibylline Oracles  196; see also Index of References Sick(ness)  68n, 128, 173, 175, 223, 224, 226n, 231, 254, 312, 368–70 Sign of the great seal  51, 307–309 Sin(s)/sinner(s)  13, 17, 42, 44, 47, 49, 69n, 87, 93, 96–97, 104, 107–108, 114–16, 118–19, 122n, 123, 131, 132n, 155, 178, 180–81, 191, 194–96, 240, 274, 302–303, 357, 362, 399, 433n, 437 Sin(s), forgiveness of  44, 49, 116n, 119–20, 123, 307n

639

Sinlessness  32, 95, 191n, 196, 265, 274–75, 328, 352 Sitting (posture)  30, 37, 47, 60, 140, 168n, 172, 193–94, 201–202, 210, 212n, 213–14, 218, 223, 237–38, 240, 252n, 261n, 314n, 321, 324, 361, 365n, 436n, 445n Sitz im Leben of 4 Baruch: see Post-­ seventy setting of 4 Baruch Sixty-six years  11, 13–14, 17–18, 48, 62–63, 218, 222, 225–27, 230–31, 238, 240, 244–45, 248, 252, 264, 267, 311, 323, 328, 338n, 355, 404n Sodom and Gomorrah  94 Solomon, Testament of  60; see also Index of References Son of God  17, 38, 53n, 55, 68, 399–400, 419, 434, 438, 442, 443n, 444–45, 449 Soul: see Dualism/dualistic anthropology Stephen  448, 455 Stewards, faithful and unfaithful  43, 52, 54, 92n, 93, 181–85, 191–92, 274–75, 327–28, 352 Stiff-necked: see Pride Stoning  16, 28, 33, 61, 69n, 169n, 216n, 401, 411n, 424, 446–49, 451, 452n, 454–55 Structure of 4 Baruch  13–16 Sun, personified  189–91 Supercessionism  23, 32–33, 57, 64, 66, 97, 104n, 114n, 314, 399, 434, 436n, 454 Symbolism  11, 23n, 52, 137n, 173n, 174n, 201n, 222n, 223, 226, 276, 307n, 323, 324n, 325n, 368, 392 Taphanhes  451–52 Tears: See Crying/weeping and mourning Temple in Jerusalem  19n, 21, 30, 32, 35, 58, 117, 136, 144, 174, 181–82, 183n, 189n, 192, 194n, 222–23, 225, 237, 251, 255, 266n, 324n, 347, 362, 373, 399, 400, 402–405, 409, 430, 438, 450–51

640

Index of Names and Subjects

Altar of  19, 49, 60n, 114, 116n, 126, 132n, 135, 142, 150, 152, 155, 181, 255, 256n, 404, 407–408, 430 Beauty of  155–56 Destruction of  19, 20n, 21n, 45, 50, 54, 60, 63n, 87–88, 96–98, 106n, 108, 114, 116, 124–25, 131, 136–37, 140–42, 146n, 149, 152, 158, 162, 181, 182n, 185, 187, 194n, 196, 202n, 213–14, 218–19, 233, 364–65, 392, 405n, 432 Heavenly counterpart  404, 454 Holy of Holies in  60, 88, 126, 132n, 133n, 135, 183n36, Instruments, vessels, furnishings in  15–17, 32, 36, 43, 45, 49, 60n, 120, 131–41, 144, 149–53, 155–58, 163, 166, 171n, 180, 240, 404 Keys of  19, 32, 34, 43, 46n, 49, 52–54, 60n, 120, 133n, 180–85, 188–91, 240, 327, 404 Rebuilding/restoration of  141, 157n, 158, 180, 191, 351, 373, 404, 432 Terebinth  293–94 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs  115n, 402; see also Index of References Theodore Psalter  32, 67, 69n, 160n, 216n, 218n, 238, 331 Theodosius, travel book of  67, 165–66, 218; see also Index of References Three days  343–44, 426–28, 454 Title of 4 Baruch  8–10 Titus  91, 105–106, 141, 186 Tomb  30, 38, 47, 154, 170, 201–202, 233, 237, 267–68, 278, 314n, 323– 25, 339n, 426, 455; see also Burial

Torah  22, 32, 66, 96n, 114, 133n, 138, 143, 145, 151, 168n, 214, 227n, 240, 242n, 246, 255n, 277, 282, 287, 290, 297, 299n, 301–302, 305, 308n, 345, 368, 369n, 388, 405n, 406n, 413, 415, 436, 437n, 439n, 446 Trajan  62n, 351 Tree(s) of life  38, 402n, 408–409, 432 Trees, living  21, 401, 408 Trinity/Trinitarianism: see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Trisagion  38, 46n, 149n, 401, 406–408, 412 Trumpets  37, 43, 136, 139, 143–45, 151, 180, 186–87 Uriel  186, 266n Weeping: see Crying/weeping, grief and mourning Wilderness/desert  22, 93, 118, 133n, 134, 152, 176, 309, 320, 338, 340, 342–343, 345–47, 370, 381, 384, 387, 405, 446 Wrath: see God, Anger/wrath of Yom Kippur  14, 403, 406, 408 Zedekiah  60n, 69, 94, 133n, 158, 160n, 161, 165, 171n, 188 Zion  35–38, 49, 52, 60n, 105, 110n, 133n, 136, 155, 169n, 170, 183, 191, 194, 200, 214, 219, 240, 255n, 311n, 361, 363–64, 369, 390, 398, 403 Zoroaster/Zoroastrianism  358, 427