Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception 3110362945, 9783110362947

Table of contents :
Contents
Introduction
Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah
A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch
The Inter-textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12–20 in Baruch 3:9–4:4
Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5–5:9 and Its Relationships with Jewish Scripture
One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5–5:9)
The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5–5:9
Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hos thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6
The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9–15; 3:32–4:4)
Contributors
Author Index
Index of Ancient Sources

Citation preview

Studies on Baruch

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego and Tobias Nicklas

Volume 23

Studies on Baruch

Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception Edited by Sean A. Adams

ISBN 978-3-11-036294-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-036427-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039160-2 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgements As in any project, thanks are due to a wide range of people. First I would like to thank Tobias Nicklas for his invitation to edit this volume in de Gruyter’s Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies series. I would also like to thank the staff at de Gruyter, especially Albrecht Döhnert, as well as the other series editors for their assistance throughout this project. I am very grateful for the British Academy, whose funding allowed me to dedicate the needed time to this project. Finally, thanks are due to my family who support me in my academic endeavours, especially my wife Megan and my son William. The completion of this manuscript coincides with the birth of my nephew, Ethan James Adams and it is with great delight that I dedicate this book to him and his parents Morgan and Martha: May he always be to you a blessing. August 2015 Sean A. Adams Glasgow, UK

Contents Sean A. Adams Introduction 1 Georg Fischer, SJ Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah 5 Michael H. Floyd A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

25

Ruth Henderson The Inter-textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12 – 20 43 in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 Sean A. Adams Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 and Its Relationships 61 with Jewish Scripture Johanna Erzberger One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9) Géza G. Xeravits The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

79

97

David G. Burke Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6 135 Nuria Calduch-Benages The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4) Contributors

171

Author Index

173

Index of Ancient Sources

177

153

Abbreviation All abbreviations in this book are taken from Patrick H. Alexander, et al., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines, Second Edition (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014).

Sean A. Adams

Introduction

The chapters in this volume come from individual studies by the various authors. The uniting feature amongst them is the recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to Baruch and that much more scholarship needs to be undertaken in order to understand more fully this neglected book. This is the first volume of collected essays that focus exclusively on Baruch and it is clear from the range of subjects that much more could have been covered. The chapters explore a variety of topics including reception, translation, and historical placement, though by far the most common topic is the relationship between Baruch and Jewish Scripture. In general, the studies that re-investigate the literary and theological perspectives of Baruch are focused on specific sections of the text. As is well known amongst those who are interested in Baruch, one of the main issues is determining the interrelated nature of the component parts (1:1– 14; 1:15 – 3:8; 3:9 – 4:4; and 4:5 – 5:9). Although no chapter seeks to tackle more than one section, the collective findings from the various articles show strong similarities in their conclusions and suggest that an innovative approach to the use of Scripture may be a uniting feature of the work. For example, one of the common themes found throughout this volume, especially amongst the essays examining Baruch’s relationship with Jewish Scripture, is that the author/compiler of Baruch is creative. Although traditionally it may have been fashionable to deride the author of Baruch for merely repackaging existing texts, it is recognised in these studies that there is substantial creativity in the selection of which texts to draw upon and in their arrangement. Just because the author of Baruch made use of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, and other texts does not mean that he did so in an uncritical manner or that he adopted whole cloth the perspective of his source text. The findings of this volume indicate that the author was highly selective and nuanced in his appropriation of texts and that he selected his models with care. In addition to the recognition of Baruch’s literary creativity, there is agreement amongst the writers who contributed to this volume that Baruch contains substantial theological ingenuity also. The engagement by Baruch of pre-existing scriptural texts is not one of blind conformity. Rather, the author of Baruch tailors the content and theological thrust of his text to his perceived situation. Theological ideas embedded in Scripture are reformulated and presented from fresh perspectives. Similarly, some theological ideas that were latent in the texts are now explicitly and more fully developed. Far from being entirely dependent on scriptural texts, the author of Baruch made new and original literary and theo-

2

Sean A. Adams

logical contributions. The chapters in this volume that investigate these topics are part of a larger trend in scholarship, though it is clear that more can and should be done in this regard. In addition to the chapters that investigate the literary and theological creativity of the author, a few chapters look to the reception of Baruch; how it has been translated and how it has been used in religious settings. This is an even less explored aspect of Baruch, but one that is equally fruitful. For example, what role did Baruch play in Jewish and Christian liturgy? What place, if any, did it have in the creation and development of theology? Why is it that it is predominantly the wisdom section of Baruch (3:9 – 4:4) that is used by Christian writers as opposed to other sections? Each of these questions opens up new ways of understanding the text of Baruch and the chapters in this volume provide new opportunities to understand Baruch better in its different historical contexts. The above discussion provides a brief introduction to the macro-level themes and ideas discussed in the volume. The remainder of this introduction offers summaries of the different chapters. The first study in the volume is “Simulated Similarities” by Georg Fischer. In his chapter Fischer unpacks the role and function of the author’s selection of Baruch as the dominant character in Baruch 1:1. Fischer argues that the Book of Baruch displays three formative ideas: it emphasizes the importance of its main figure, Baruch; it indicates the close relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah; and, third, Baruch differs from Jeremiah by going “beyond” by expanding certain Jeremianic ideas, thus creating its own agenda. The identification of these similarities and differences allows for an insightful reading of the text that recognizes Baruch’s relationship with Jeremiah, but also highlights elements where the author adopted different ideas. In chapter three, “A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch”, Michael Floyd mines the text of Baruch for insights into the function and structure of the synagogue in the second century BCE. Floyd determines that Baruch has the ability to shed light on particular questions, such as synagogue sanctity and the practice of communal prayer. More generally, Floyd concludes that Baruch shows that some local assemblies in the diaspora envisioned the institutionalization of certain penitential practices which they considered complementary to Jerusalem’s sacrificial cult. Groups that were synagogues in this sense thus saw themselves as outlying extensions or satellites of the temple. Along the way, Floyd re-evaluates the scholarly theories of the dating of the text and concludes that Baruch was most likely written prior to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanies (i. e., in the early second century BCE).

Introduction

3

The fourth chapter of this volume, “The Inter-textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12 – 20 in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4”, is written by Ruth Henderson and seeks to map the intertextual dialogue of scriptural sources in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4. She argues that the two major scriptural influences, Job 28 and Deuteronomy 4, which appear to have been regarded by the author as representative of a type of authoritative scripture, have been set structurally in dialogue with each other. Overall, Henderson concludes that the author knew the (near) final form of both Deuteronomy and Job and that he regarded both of them as authoritative. In chapter five, “Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation”, Sean Adams reinvestigates the claim of the author of Baruch’s dependence on Isaiah. Although he recognises that certain phrases and themes in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 show Isaianic character and parallels, he identifies a number of distinctive features, such as the amount of material spoken by the character of Jerusalem and the way that Jerusalem’s innocence is emphasised. As a result of these and other differences Adams claims that it is better to say that the author of Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 made creative use of Isaiah. This phrasing not only highlights the unique features of Baruch, it also emphasises the role of the author to shape a unique narrative with its own distinctive message. Johanna Erzberger’s “One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)”, is chapter six. In this contribution Erzberger argues that the poem’s polyphony can neither be explained by distinct redactional layers, nor be dissolved into distinct identifiable intertextual references which were subordinated to some author’s super-ordinated unifying voice. As a result, Erzberger posits that recurring motifs that cannot be traced back to any known source text are likely representative of the author’s voice. These authorial motifs are subordinated textual elements that potentially conflict with and undermine what are presented as the central statements of the text. Nevertheless, they are part of a unified text that shows elements of other texts in its creation, but not different strata of composition. In chapter seven, “The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9”, Géza Xeravits explores the background of the prophetic psalms that close the Book of Baruch (4:5 – 5:9). In a thorough and detailed investigation, Xeravits seeks to discover what kind of passages prove to be authoritative or influential for the author(s) of the Baruchan psalms. Such a determination, Xeravits argues, helps to define the interest and intention of those responsible for these passages and will provide greater insight into the construction of this section and the way that the author of this section utilized Scripture. Xeravits concludes that the author of the Baruchan psalms created a new text with quality

4

Sean A. Adams

artistry and that he intentionally left his pretexts recognisable for the intended readers to identify. The penultimate chapter, “Receiving the Royal Treatment”, is written by David Burke, in which he traces how the Greek phrase hōs thronon basileias (Bar 5:6) has been translated, and mistranslated, over centuries. Outlining the various difficulties of the Greek text by identifying its likely Hebrew Vorlage, Burke concludes that scholarship has arrived at a broad consensus and that the phrase should be translated “as on a royal throne”. In the final chapter, “The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4)”, Nuria Calduch-Benages investigates why Baruch is the only ‘deuterocanonical’ book to be read in the light of the Paschal candle. Not only is Baruch’s inclusion of interest, but its placement between Isaiah and Ezekiel is also puzzling. In response to these questions Calduch-Benages argues that the people responsible for the construction of the liturgy saw in Baruch a unique combination of prophecy and Wisdom that witnessed to Christ, who “appeared on earth”, and lived, died, and rose “among humans”.

Georg Fischer, SJ

Simulated Similarities: The Intricate Relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah Baruch 1:1 introduces the figure of Baruch as “son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah …”. As far as we have extant texts, the only possible source for this is Jeremiah 32:12. In the Book of Baruch, however, the filiation is heavily extended; it is continued with “son of Zedekiah, son of Hasadiah, son of Hilkiah”. The very beginning of Baruch thus displays three typical features of the book: it emphasizes the importance of its main figure, Baruch; it further indicates the close relationship between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah; and, at the same time, it shows already initial signs of their differences, as the Book of Baruch goes “beyond” the Book of Jeremiah in adding much more weight to Baruch.¹ I will investigate the connections between the two books under various aspects.

1 The Figure of Baruch 1.1 Baruch in the Book of Jeremiah Baruch appears in the Book of Jeremiah in four chapters.² The first mention of him is Jeremiah 32:12. He takes over the deeds of the purchase of the field in Anathoth and is commanded to put them into a vessel so that they may be preserved for a long time (32:14). He is presented as an amanuensis for the prophet Jeremiah. At his next appearance, he writes down Jeremiah’s words on a scroll (Jer 36:4) and is told to read it in the temple (36:5 – 6). He does so (36:9 – 10),³ and is, as a consequence, invited to an interview with high officials (36:13 – 19). They immediately perceive the danger inherent in the prophet’s message and Baruch’s reading of it (v. 19), anticipating correctly the reaction of King Jehojakim who, in v. 26, seeks to seize them both, though because of God’s protec-

 Adams, Baruch, : “The occurrence of a six-generation genealogy is distinctive”. I am grateful to Mrs. Felicity Stephens for having corrected the English of this article.  The counting of the text of Jer follows the Hebrew version, unless otherwise indicated.  Jeremiah : already states that Baruch did all that Jeremiah had commanded him. This remark anticipates the following obedient execution of the prophet’s orders.

6

Georg Fischer, SJ

tion (v. 32), the king’s attempt fails. Baruch’s life is very closely connected with that of his master. It is only in Jeremiah 43 that we hear again from Baruch. The people had asked for a divine answer as to whether they should stay in the country or leave for Egypt (Jer 42). Jeremiah, who had pleaded the case for remaining in Judah, is accused of answering ‫“ שׁקר‬deceit”, because of having listened to Baruch (43:2– 3). This runs counter to the preceding text which does not have any trace of Baruch’s influence, but attributes Jeremiah’s answer entirely to his having waited and listened for God’s revelation in this case (see esp. 42:7), and perverts the roles of “prophet” and his “secretary”, making the latter dominant with regard to the former. Both are taken to Egypt, against their will and against the advice of God and Jeremiah (vv. 6 – 7).⁴ Once again, Baruch shares the fate of the prophet. The last mention of Baruch in Jeremiah is in chapter 45. A divine word is communicated to Jeremiah, to console his confidant in his sorrow (v. 3); yet the word makes clear that Baruch is aspiring too high, given the desolation all around (vv. 4– 5).⁵ There may be yet another, indirect, hint to Baruch towards the end of Jeremiah, in 51:59, where Seraiah, who accompanies King Zedekiah to Babylon, has the same filiation in two generations: “…son of Neriah, son of Mahseiah”. Most probably this is an indication that he is a brother of Baruch. Baruch in the Book of Jeremiah is a figure close to the prophet, completely subordinate to him. He receives orders from Jeremiah, executes them faithfully, and serves him in everything. Baruch is entirely dependent on the prophet; he does not carry out any autonomous individual action in the Book of Jeremiah, besides complaining about his pains and sorrows (Jer 45:3).

1.2 Baruch in the Book of Baruch The portrayal of Baruch in the Book of Baruch is different from that in the Book of Jeremiah. It starts in Baruch 1:1 with the fivefold filiation (see above), and the same verse contains two other pieces of information that are difficult to reconcile with Jeremiah. Baruch 1:1 attributes the writing of a scroll of his own to Baruch, independently of the prophet Jeremiah. This changes his image from that of a secretary to that of an author. The other difference is in regards to the place of

 Pace Stipp, Verschleppung, who argues that they were not forced to immigrate to Egypt.  For an interpretation of Jer  focusing on the figure of Baruch, see Scalise, Baruch, esp.  – .

Simulated Similarities

7

composition, namely “in Babylon”, which is in obvious opposition to his “biography” in Jeremiah, which only knows of his sojourns in Judah and, finally, in Egypt.⁶ The indication of the date in Baruch 1:2 “in the fifth year, on the seventh of the month” presents a conundrum. It is incomplete, regarding the month, and the reference point for the counting of the years is unclear. As the latter part of the verse refers to the “burning” of Jerusalem, the most probable starting point is 587 BCE,⁷ the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar according to Jeremiah 52:29. Consequently, the “fifth year” would correspond to his 23rd year, mentioned in Jeremiah 52:30, for a third deportation of Judeans, most likely to be connected with Ishmael’s murder of the governor Gedaliah and the subsequent flight of Judeans to Egypt (Jer 41– 43). Jeremiah 43:6 mentions that both Jeremiah and Baruch were taken there by the emigrating group (cf. above 1.1), creating a tension with the indication here in Baruch 1:2 that Baruch was in Babylon in the same year. Baruch 1:3 – 4 reports Baruch’s personal reading of his scroll⁸ in Babylon. The audience is illustrious, starting with King Jehoiachin, and encompassing all the people, including the influential ones and the “sons of the kings”. The fivefold repetition of “in the ears of” enhances the presence and attention of the whole assembly. Jeremiah, in his entire (recorded) lifetime, never made such an appearance, or gave a reading in such company, which included the entire community from the king to the lower subjects.⁹ The last mention of Baruch occurs in Baruch 1:8. He is said to have taken the temple vessels, in order to return them to Jerusalem where they had been taken from. This information makes him resemble Sheshbazzar who received them

 Perdue, Baruch, , too, points out this discrepancy in the locations.  Feuerstein, Nicht im Vertrauen, , assumes the year  BCE, obviously reckoning with King Jehoiachin’s exile as the beginning of the counting. This would create a connection with Ezek :, and also a closer link to Jer  which, though without precise date, could be set to this time. However, it runs counter to the mention of setting “fire” to Jerusalem which only happened in  BCE.  The exact nature of the βίβλος/βίβλιον—Baruch uses both forms in :—“paper, book” is a matter of dispute. The contents and ancient scribal practice indicate a “scroll”; the narrative frame, especially its sending to Jerusalem (:), also allows for it to be understood as a “letter”.  The merism “(from) small—(to) great” in Bar : indicates totality and occurs most frequently in Jeremiah. See Stipp, Konkordanz, , which is a very useful tool for comparisons of word usage, as he also cites the relevant passages of Baruch.

8

Georg Fischer, SJ

from the Persian King, Cyrus (Ezra 1:7– 11).¹⁰ The motif of the “temple vessels” is prominent in Jeremiah too; however, in the opposite direction. In Jeremiah 27:16 – 22 Jeremiah announces that even the vessels still remaining will be taken to Babylon. The prophet Hananiah counters this announcement in Jeremiah 28:3, proclaiming that all of them will return “to this place” (i. e. the temple in Jerusalem) within two years. The end of the Book of Jeremiah debunks Hananiah’s statement and gives credence to the prophet Jeremiah: all the remaining vessels, including other precious items, are also brought to Babylon (Jer 52:17– 23, in parallel to 2 Kings 25:13 – 17, and extending it). Baruch 1:8 is the very last note about Baruch. There is no further occurrence of his name, nor is there an “I” referring to him to be found thereafter. This means that his figure merely serves, in the introduction, to create a link with a “biblical personage” known from an important scroll, namely Jeremiah. The choice of “Baruch” might have been influenced by two factors. On the one hand, Jeremiah is one of the main sources for Baruch. On the other hand, Baruch and Jeremiah share many similar motifs (see below 2.1 and further on). “Baruch” in the Book of Baruch thus seems to be the creation of a fictitious figure related to prophecy, especially to Jeremiah, as well as to the period of Jerusalem’s fall. One of the functions of his selection is to provide a setting for the book. It might also be intended to confer a certain authority on the Book of Baruch, although not at the highest level.¹¹ “Baruch” in the Book of Baruch appears as the author of a book. Relying primarily on Baruch 1:1– 14 as a basis, Baruch is portrayed as a pious man who exhorts his fellow exiles to pray (1:11, 13) and attends to the return of the temple vessels. He also relates, in a similar vein, the support given by the exiles to the cult in Jerusalem with money and offerings (1:5 – 6, 10); this may be regarded as indirect evidence of Baruch’s own interest in it. The content of his book (Bar 1:15 – 5:9) contains further hints at the profile of its author, which will show up in the main body of this chapter.

 Baruch never describes that the vessels were actually brought back to the temple. It is a kind of “blind motif” within the book. The indications of the material “silver” and of their production under King Zedekiah have no confirmation in the Hebrew Bible.  The choice of the figure of Baruch, in some ways, may also be an expression of “humility”. Instead of attributing this scroll to Jeremiah as, e. g., the Letter of Jeremiah (Bar ), the Vita Jeremiae, or the Paralipomena Jeremiae, the Book of Baruch receives its authority through an “intermediary”. This might indicate a consciousness of a lower level of authority, and also indicate a time setting, when scriptural prophecy had ceased.

Simulated Similarities

9

1.3 The different profiles of “Baruch” The Books of Jeremiah and Baruch display contrasting images of the “same” figure: “Baruch (1)” in the Book of Jeremiah is totally subservient to the prophet, whereas “Baruch (2)” in the Book of Baruch is an independent, pious scribe and author, whose presentation is based on his (literary) “predecessor” in Jeremiah, but is extended here. He is conversant with many other biblical scrolls¹² and uses them for a message of his own. Another argument for a deliberate deviation of the character of Baruch from the description in Jeremiah may be the fact that the name of the prophet “Jeremiah” is never mentioned in Baruch, although the book often quotes him and uses the Book of Jeremiah as a main source.¹³ In contrast, several other names do occur. King Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned in Baruch 1:9, 11– 12, his “son” Belshazzar¹⁴ also in 1:11– 12, Moses in 1:20; 2:2, 28, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in 2:34. This “silence” with respect to Jeremiah goes together with the increased importance given to Baruch in the Book of Baruch.

2 Different Theologies Just as the Book of Baruch differs from Jeremiah with respect to its main figure, so it differs also in its theology, although there is much common ground between the two books. I will first deal with elements shared by both, and then present their specific characteristics.

 Ballhorn, Sekretär,  and , calls him a “schriftgelehrter Weiser”. Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, , speaks of “professionelle Schriftgelehrsamkeit” and demonstrates the wide range of biblical quotations, especially in the penitential prayer (pp.  – ). Adams, Reframing, discusses the use of “citation” by exegetes, analyzes several of them in Bar , and reflects on their function in Baruch.  Even in the passage in Bar : – , where the author quotes and combines texts of Jeremiah most intensively, he only refers to the undetermined plural “your servants, the prophets” (:).  Adams, Baruch, , discusses the various options for Belshazzar’s designation as “son” of Nebuchadnezzar. His solution is to understand it in a broad sense as “descendant” and applicable also to other Babylonian rulers.

10

Georg Fischer, SJ

2.1 Common elements The Books of Jeremiah and Baruch share many ideas about God. This is “normal”, as both are rooted in Israel’s faith, and it also unites them with other biblical books. Thus, for example, God is portrayed as universal and also as creator (Bar 3:32– 35; Jer 5:22; 10:12; 23:24). He loves Israel especially (Bar 3:37; Jer 31:3), although the people are sinful and rebellious (Bar 1:13, 19; 2:10; Jer 2:20 – 24, 29, and elsewhere). God has addressed them frequently, also through his prophets, but has had no success (Bar 1:18, 21; 2:20, 24; Jer 7:23 – 28; 11:7– 8, etc.). Nevertheless he is full of mercy and gives his people a future (Bar 2:27; 3:2; 5:9; Jer 31:20; 33:26; 42:12). Besides these features common to many books of the Old Testament, there are some specific traits linking the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah.¹⁵ Jeremiah 2:13 (//17:13) refers to God as “the source of living water”, and the people are accused of having “forsaken the source of living water”. Similarly, Baruch 3:12 talks about Israel, having “forsaken the source of wisdom”; the following context, leading to Baruch 4:1 with its equation of wisdom with the book of God’s commandments, suggests a close connection between the “source of wisdom” and God himself. Thus, although using different terms, the two passages in Jeremiah and Baruch are very close to one another.¹⁶ A second “exclusive link” between the Books of Jeremiah and Baruch exists in God’s “giving fear into the human heart”. Yhwh, in his response to Jeremiah’s prayer, promises to do so (Jer 32:40). The only other instance of this motif is Baruch 3:7; there it is acknowledged that God has done so and fulfilled his pledge. The affirmation of Yhwh’s uniqueness is not exclusive to the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah, but rare. The strongest attestation for it in Jeremiah is in the confrontation with other divinities in Jeremiah 10. Therein, ‫“( מאין כמוך‬Absolutely nobody is like you!”) is the frame for the first passage referring to Yhwh (10:6 – 7), thus emphasizing his matchlessness. Close to it is Baruch 3:36, “This is our God; no other can be compared to him!”¹⁷

 Some expressions are only found in these two books and thus connect them “exclusively”; see Fischer, Baruch,  – .  Jeremiah frequently uses the phrase “to abandon Yhwh” (with ‫עזב‬, as in :; cf. Stipp, Konkordanz,  – ) and refers often to the worship of other gods, e. g., in Jer : and : with ‫“ עבד‬to venerate”, similar to Bar : which has ἐργάζεσθαι.  This is the rendering of the NRSV. Septuaginta Deutsch translates: “Dieser ist unser Gott, kein anderer wird neben ihm anerkannt werden.” (= no other will be recognized besides him). The Greek verb λογίζομαι “to count, to attribute, to consider” may be interpreted in both directions. Interestingly, this quote from Bar : is attributed to the prophet Jeremiah in the mosaic of the

Simulated Similarities

11

These are some of the motifs in which the theologies of Baruch and Jeremiah concur. On this basis, we can now go on and detect the individual theological features of each of these books.

2.2 Theological language and motifs in Baruch The phrase ὁ αἰώνιος, the “Eternal one”, is a favorite designation of Baruch for the biblical God. It occurs first in Baruch 4:10,¹⁸ and seven times more up to Baruch 5:2. This insistence on God’s eternity marks Baruch out, distinguishing it from all other biblical books. Jeremiah 10:10 had called Yhwh “eternal king” and uses ‫“ עולם‬eternal” several times for God (e. g., Jer 2:20; 3:5, 12); however, Baruch goes beyond this usage in making it a title for Yhwh. Another designation for God used in Baruch is παντοκράτωρ “ruling everything, almighty” (Bar 3:1, 4). It is frequently found in the Twelve Prophets, especially Amos, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, but also in Job and 2 Maccabees, and is the standard equivalent for the Hebrew ‫“ אלהי צבאות‬God of hosts”, found also in Jeremiah 5:14 and 15:16, etc. However, “almighty, all-powerful” in Greek says something different and thus contributes to Baruch’s theology a nuance not so clearly attested in the original Hebrew version of Jeremiah.¹⁹ A unique concept of Baruch is the designation of the universe as “God’s house” (Bar 3:24). It fits well with the foregoing ideas of God ruling everything and of his eternity, adding to them the new aspect of the cosmos as his dwelling,²⁰ with which he has a personal bond. God in Baruch does not only rule everything, he is also “the one knowing everything” (Bar 3:32). This concept occurs very seldom in the Bible. The only other attestations are in the Greek additions to the Book of Daniel, in the narration about Susanna.²¹ Baruch 4:8 brings another unique designation for God, using the extremely rare verb τροφεύω²² to present him as “the one who nourishes you”. There are triumphal arch above the apsis in San Clemente in Rome (ca. , CE). As was usual in former times, Baruch and Lamentations were reckoned as “Jeremianic literature”.  Here, and in Bar :, it functions as subject of the phrase. These are the first two instances; the other ones are: Bar :,  [x], , ; :. See further Bar : with “the eternal God”.  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, , and Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – , demonstrate in detail and at length that Baruch used the Hebrew and not the Greek text of Jeremiah.  Similarly, Adams, Baruch, .  Susanna affirms that God knows everything. The LXX version of Dan brings it already in Dan :, the version of Theodotion has it in :.  The only other occurrence within the LXX is Exod :, where it is applied to Moses’ mother, for breast-feeding him.

12

Georg Fischer, SJ

similar ideas, for example, in Psalm 104:27– 28 and 145:15 – 16; the exact wording, however, is different, and it has no parallel in Jeremiah’s theology. The latter is also true for the motif of divine glory for Jerusalem. It has roots in Isaiah 58:8 and 60:1– 2, and the author of Baruch develops this idea extensively, at the end of his book, using it rather like a cornerstone for it. The word, δόξα “glory”, corresponding to Hebrew ‫כבוד‬, occurs seven times in Baruch 4:37– 5:9. It comes from God, and is given to Jerusalem (5:1, 4). This sets Baruch apart from Jeremiah which, although being much longer, uses ‫ כבוד‬only five times,²³ and describes Jerusalem’s destruction in its final chapter. The indications given above are clear signs that Baruch has a specific theology, with marked accents of its own. It is distinct from other biblical books, and also from Jeremiah.

2.3 The theology of the Book of Jeremiah Looking at the peculiar features of the theology of the Book of Jeremiah confirms Baruch’s theological difference from the other direction.²⁴ The Book of Jeremiah portrays God, in several respects, in a manner not encountered in Baruch. Jeremiah 9:1 describes God’s wish to leave his people, preferring a lodge in the desert to staying longer with them. Jeremiah 12:7 goes a step further; God has already left his house and repudiated his heritage. One verse later, he talks about his hatred for it (12:8). In Jeremiah, God radically distances himself from his people in a manner seen rarely elsewhere;²⁵ the Book of Baruch, although speaking about divine wrath (e. g., Bar 1:13; 2:13, 20), never goes so far. The Book of Jeremiah is unique in portraying a weeping God. Three times tears are ascribed to him: in Jeremiah 9:9 [English 9:10] God claims that he will weep for the destruction of the mountains and wilderness, in Jeremiah 14:17 his tears are flowing night and day over his people, and in Jeremiah 48:32 he weeps over Moab’s adversity. In this respect, Jeremiah is different from all other books of the Bible, not only from Baruch. The use of the hiphil ‫ שׁכם‬in connection with an action verb, to do something “incessantly”, is a specific trait of the theology of the Book of Jeremiah. It occurs

 Jer :; :; :; :, and :. With the exception of the last passage “glory” always refers to God in Jeremiah.  I will deal here only with a few special features; for a broader picture, see Fischer, Theologien,  – .  The only other passage in the Hebrew Bible speaking of God’s hatred against his people is Hos :. For his desire to leave his people in Jer : [:] cf. Ezek  –  where Yhwh’s glory leaves the temple.

Simulated Similarities

13

first in Jeremiah 7:13 where God declares himself to have spoken tirelessly, trying to persuade the people to listen to him. In Jeremiah 7:25 he says that he has sent his “servants, the prophets” without ceasing, yet with the same negative result. All in all, Jeremiah has ten passages devoted to this continuous divine effort.²⁶ Besides Jeremiah, the only other instance of this phrase being used in the same sense is in 2 Chron 36:15. God’s word in Jeremiah has special qualities: it is burning, and it has tremendous force. Three times “fire” is connected with it: in Jeremiah 5:14, which is a continuation and intensification of 1:9; in 20:9, Jeremiah’s last confession; and in 23:29, God’s charge against false prophets. In the same verse he also compares his word with a forging hammer capable of crushing rocks into pieces; shortly before, in 23:28, he associates it with wheat, able to nourish substantially. Jeremiah 7:16 introduces another unique feature of the book’s theology: Jeremiah is no longer allowed to pray for his people. The prohibition of intercession is repeated thrice²⁷ and marks a new, final stage in the deterioration of the relationship between God and his people. It is only later that this rupture is overcome, as in Jeremiah 29:7 for those exiled, and in 42:1– 7, where Jeremiah’s pleading for the group of survivors on the way to Egypt is answered by God. The exhortation to pray for the ‫ שׁלום‬of the city in 29:7, Jeremiah’s letter to the Golah in Babylon, is the closest parallel and probable source for the request to pray for Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in Baruch 1:11. There are still further aspects where the theology of the Book of Jeremiah is different from that in Baruch.²⁸ Decisively distinct are God’s emotions in Jeremiah, specifically, his weeping. In Jeremiah 25:30 he shouts and sings at the universal judgment, like those treading wine. He questions his affection for Ephraim in 31:20, confessing his inner turmoil.²⁹ The Book of Jeremiah allows the readers a glimpse into some of the innermost feelings and thoughts of God. Certainly the Books of Jeremiah and Baruch talk about the “same” Yhwh, but they emphasize different aspects. Whereas the Book of Jeremiah portrays him as inwardly moved, zealous, the author of Baruch emphasizes his para-

 The other texts are Jer :; :, ; :; :; :; : – ; :; for the interpretation of this expression, see Bartelmus, Unermüdlichkeitsformel.  Also in Jer :; :; and :, yet there in other terms; Rossi, L’intercessione, offers the most recent and detailed study of it.  The phrase “from near … and from afar” (Jer :), the list of opposite verbs (“to pluck up and to tear down, … to build and to plant”, Jer : and more often), the expression “thoughts of ‫( ”שׁלום‬Jer :) are not encountered in Baruch, although the latter concept is generally true also for Baruch, which describes a way to salvation.  Literally: “my bowels make noise”.

14

Georg Fischer, SJ

mount qualities, like “all-knowing”, “all-powerful”, and “the Eternal one”. This contrast mirrors a shift in theology: the Book of Jeremiah presents a deeply affected God, as a source of consolation, and a challenge. The Book of Baruch similarly wants to provide solace to the community, but places more stress on God’s power as basis for it.

3 Further Differences between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah 3.1 The roles of Jerusalem and its temple It is obvious that Jerusalem and its temple are key motifs in both books. The Book of Jeremiah deals almost entirely with Judah’s capital, mentioning the exile of its population for the first time in Jeremiah 1:3, and dedicating the very last chapter to its downfall.³⁰ These negative poles at the beginning and the end also correspond to the main thrust of Jerusalem’s portrayal in Jeremiah, which offers, in large part, a bleak portrayal of this city.³¹ It is similar with the temple; in Jeremiah 7:11 God calls it, uniquely, a “den of robbers”. Jeremiah 26 reports the refusal of God’s invitation to repent there; on the contrary, the temple becomes the place where Jeremiah is threatened with being put to death. Previously, in Jeremiah 20:1– 3, the prophet had been tortured and humiliated there. Accordingly, it is no wonder that the temple is finally destroyed and emptied (Jer 52:13, 17– 23).³² The presentation in Baruch is very different from that in Jeremiah. The twelve occurrences of Jerusalem in Baruch start with a reference to its burning by the Chaldeans (Bar 1:2), but then, soon after, Baruch 1:7 reports the financial support of those exiled to their home city and its population.³³ The clearest deviation occurs in the final part of the book. Baruch 4:8 introduces the imagery of Jerusalem as a mother who has been grieved; in the next verse, she starts to

 Jer  is taken from  Kings : – :, as is widely accepted. However, it places special emphases: cf. Fischer, Jeremia .  Jeremiah also envisages a positive role for Jerusalem in the future, as is clear, for example, in Jer :; :; :; :; :. However, these are mostly short hints, not as elaborated as at the end of Baruch.  For the negative role of the temple in Jeremiah, see further Fischer, Relativierung.  Bar : is the only verse in Baruch with two occurrences of the name “Jerusalem”. Bar : links it with King Jehoiachin’s exile, and the beginning of the prayer in : has the “men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” as self-references of those praying.

Simulated Similarities

15

speak, and continues until 4:29. This personification of the city takes several forms: Jerusalem is perceived as “mother,”³⁴ “widow,”³⁵ and even as Queen.³⁶ In attending to the address of her neighbors and her children, she herself is encouraged. The four last occurrences of “Jerusalem” are all connected with imperatives. Baruch 4:30 exhorts her to be confident, 4:36 to look toward the East, 5:1 to doff the garment of grief and misery, and 5:5 to get up and to climb a height.³⁷ The verse before, 5:4, indicates with the new name “peace of justice, and glory of (the?) fear of God” her changed identity, now completely positive.³⁸ The only occurrence of ναός “temple” is in Baruch 1:8. It refers to the cultic vessels removed from there, yet mentions at the same time their restitution to Jerusalem. The equivalent expression “house of the Lord” is repeated in 1:14; there the temple is the place where “the book” sent by the exiles is read and becomes the source and the motivation for the long prayer following immediately afterwards. Baruch 2:26 has the phrase “the house upon which your name is called”, taken from Jeremiah 7:10, and probably refers to its destruction, without, however, being explicit about it.³⁹ This short review of the roles of Jerusalem and the temple in Jeremiah and Baruch has shown decisive differences between them. For Jerusalem, the overall movement in Jeremiah goes towards its nearly complete destruction; in Baruch the dynamic brings a reversal of the city’s fate at the end: Jerusalem is honored and full of joy. Whereas in Jeremiah the temple is a place of concealment for evildoers and of the persecution of God’s prophet, in Baruch the people of Jerusalem assemble there to pray and ask divine mercy for their sins and those of their ancestors.

 Simian-Yofre, Jerusalem, based on the frequent use of “children” and her address of them, in Bar :, , , , , , .  This designation for Jerusalem’s role in Baruch has been proposed by Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, and again newly in Calduch-Benages, Name, .  Thus Häusl, Künderin,  (“königliche Mutter”) and  (“Königin”). She emphasizes, following Steck’s lead, that Jerusalem supports Baruch by interceding for her children, and in picking up his admonition to pray (p. ).  The context of all these four verses contains further imperatives connected to those mentioned here. This emphasizes the strong hortatory character of this final address to Jerusalem, as an intensive encouragement.  Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, , sees in this turn a fulfillment of Jeremianic salvation messages. However, this ending of Baruch stands in marked opposition to Jeremiah’s closure in its final chapter.  For the relationship with Jer  and other passages of Jeremiah, see Fischer, Baruch, ; “as it is this day” seems to indicate within the context “… der zur Zeit des vorbetenden Baruch desolate Zustand des Tempels.” Steck, Baruch, .

16

Georg Fischer, SJ

3.2 Language and motifs It is not my intention to be exhaustive here; my scope in this section is to demonstrate some examples of how the Book of Baruch is close to Jeremiah, while at the same time being quite different from it. This procedure points to two attitudes combined: on the one hand taking the prophet’s words and ideas as inspiration and model (cf. already above in 2.1 the common elements), on the other hand developing its own thoughts and expressions.⁴⁰ The king at the very end of the Davidic dynasty is Jehoiachin, exiled to Babylon in 597 BCE, and pardoned in 561 BCE by Nebuchadrezzar’s successor EvilMerodach. Whereas in the Greek text of 2 Kings his name is, like that of his father, Ιοακιμ,⁴¹ the name Jer-LXX uses for him is mainly Ιεχονιας, which corresponds much more closely to the Hebrew original.⁴² Baruch 1:3, 9 uses the same name, and may have taken it from Jeremiah.⁴³ This is quite probable, as the author of Baruch often uses Jeremiah as a source. Some further common features are: (i) The pairing of “house Israel … (and) house Judah” is typical for Jeremiah.⁴⁴ The only other passages using it in the same sense, to link both parts of the people within one verse, are Zechariah 8:13 and Baruch 2:26. As Zechariah depends on the Book of Jeremiah⁴⁵ and the Book of Baruch rarely uses Zechariah, once again the Book of Baruch apparently seems to draw on Jeremiah. (ii) The expression ‫“ לב רע‬evil heart” occurs six times in Jeremiah, and elsewhere only twice, both in Proverbs.⁴⁶ The Book of Baruch uses the same phraseology as Jeremiah in Baruch 1:22 and 2:8. (iii) The exhorta The judgment of Meyer, Baruch, , “Kein Satz im Buch ist originell”, has to be relativized. As the parts on Baruch’s theology and on the role of Jerusalem in Baruch above showed, the Book of Baruch has specific ideas, phrases, and emphases that testify to a genuine message. Häusl, Künderin, , notes the new combinations and different contexts of Baruch.   Kgdms :, , and various times till :.  The passages are Jer :, ; :; :; : and : (in the numbering of the LXX). The King’s name in Hebrew varies; it is normally rendered as ‫יהויכין‬, e. g., in Jer : (dependent on its source  Kings :), but there are by-forms like ‫( יויכין‬Ezek :), ‫( כניהו‬only Jer :, , and :), ‫( יכניה‬thus six times in Jer, starting with Jer :, and besides  Chron : –  and Esther :), and ‫( יכניהו‬only Jer :).  Other options are the occurrences of the Greek name Ιεχονιας for the Judean King at the end of the Davidic monarchy in  Chron :;  Chron : – ;  Esd :, ; :; and Esth :.  Stipp, Konkordanz, , lists eight occurrences in Jeremiah, between : and :; the sequence of both expressions may vary.  Nurmela, Prophets, among others, argues for this direction of dependence.  For the passages, see Stipp, Konkordanz, . Proverbs : can also be interpreted as “sad heart”; then Prov : would be the only instance sharing with Jeremiah and Baruch the ethical sense of this phrase.

Simulated Similarities

17

tion to serve the Babylonian king (most markedly in Jer 27:6 – 14) occurs again in Baruch, there as a desired attitude (Bar 1:12).⁴⁷ Undoubtedly there are many similarities in language and ideas between the Books of Jeremiah and Baruch.⁴⁸ Sometimes the shared vocabulary is even exclusive, which underlines the enormous influence of the Book of Jeremiah on Baruch and that the Book of Jeremiah was an important source for Baruch. Yet, Baruch is also distinct from Jeremiah. This starts with the very opening of the books. Jeremiah begins with “The words …” (Jer 1:1), only later on mentioning written documents (e. g., Jer 29:1; 30:2). Baruch starts with “And these are the words of the scroll/letter…”, by this already indicating its different literary character.⁴⁹ The Book of Jeremiah uses the parallelism of ‫“ שׁמע‬hear, listen” and ‫( נטה אזן‬hiphil) “bend the ear” exclusively negated and in this sequence,⁵⁰ differently from all other biblical books. The prayer in Baruch 2:16 does not side with the Jeremianic tradition, but sticks to the common usage: “Bend, o Lord, your ear, and hear!”, which is in the obverse arrangement, and positive. Intercession is another issue that unites and divides the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah. We find prayer on behalf of foreigners in both books: in Jeremiah 29:7 for the welfare of the city where the exiles have been deported, and in Baruch 1:11 for the King Nebuchadrezzar and his “son” Belshazzar. Distinctive, however, is intercession for the people themselves. Whereas God prohibits Jeremiah from praying for his people on several occasions (see above 2.3), the exiles ask in Baruch 1:13 “… and pray also for us to the Lord our God” in their document sent to Jerusalem. This indicates a complete change in the relationship with God. Formerly it was not possible to address him, pleading forgiveness for sins, not even by the great intercessors of the past.⁵¹ Now there is confidence that the priests and people of Jerusalem can achieve once again God’s mercy for the exiled ones and their iniquities. Jeremiah is, uniquely, called to be a “prophet for the nations”, and this mirrors the international, open aspect of his book, which attributes salvation even to

 Asurmendi, Baruch, , sees in Jeremiah’s “option for submission to the Babylonians” the starting point for Baruch. Marttila, Power, , interprets it thus: “Baruch recommends political quietism.”  For further points of contact, see Corley, Transformation,  – .  Schreiner, Baruch, .  Stipp, Konkordanz, .  Jer : mentions Moses and Samuel. They, too, like Jeremiah himself, would not have been able to change God’s mind in favor of the people.

18

Georg Fischer, SJ

people outside of the Israelite community.⁵² The Book of Baruch does not follow this orientation, as is made clear in Baruch 4:25: “… Your enemy has persecuted you, but you will soon see his destruction and step upon their necks.” The last phrase, indicating such submission and violent humiliation of the enemy, is unimaginable in Jeremiah.⁵³ Another motif separating the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah is the issue of guilt. Jeremiah 5:1– 5; 6:13 and several other texts in Jeremiah lay blame on all the people, without exception. In Baruch, there is an ambiguity in the confession, “we have sinned before you” (3:2), as those praying refer to themselves two verses later as “the children of those who sinned before you” (3:4) and declare afterwards that they have distanced themselves from “all the iniquity of our parents who have sinned before you” (3:7). This may be interpreted as creating a divide between the sinful former generations and their present offspring, who do not engage in the vices of the past.⁵⁴ It is always tricky to argue with “lacunae”. In Baruch, the Davidic dynasty is not important for its author.⁵⁵ This is quite different in Jeremiah, where it has a prominent place in several instances⁵⁶ and a new future “David” is promised (Jer 30:9). On the various levels of expressions, ideas, key themes used, there are common areas as well as significant differences between the Books of Baruch and Jeremiah. Taken together, this is a sign of Baruch’s dependence on Jeremiah and at the same time of its author’s desire to communicate a genuine, distinct message.

3.3 Communication structure, setting, and dynamic This final topic of comparison encompasses various related aspects; therefore I deal with them together and treat the two books one after the other. The Book of

 See esp. Jer : – ; the end of :; :; :, . Jeremiah is marked by its universal horizon: Fischer, Horizonte, and idem, Blick.  Ballhorn, Weisheit,  – , addresses this issue under the heading “Verneinter Universalismus?”. However, Jeremiah also knows about bringing shame on former enemies (e. g., Jer :) and about their destruction (the fall of Babylon, Jer  – , being a model case for it).  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, . Similarly, and surprisingly, Jerusalem is portrayed as “completely innocent”: Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, .  Marttila, Ideology,  – , sees the Davidic dynasty as the “only noteworthy Dtr view that is missing” in Baruch.  E. g., the promises in Jer :; : – ; : – ,  – ,  – ; the exhortation in :, etc.

Simulated Similarities

19

Jeremiah is mainly presented by a “narrator”. In Jeremiah 1:1– 3, he introduces the reader to contents, significant individuals, time, and a final event. He distributes the voices of the characters, for example, in Jeremiah 1:4 to the prophet Jeremiah (“… to me”), and in 7:2 to God, etc. At the end of the book, in Jeremiah 52, he narrates the fall of Jerusalem, slightly varied with respect to its source of 2 Kings 24:18 – 25:30. The corpus of the book is filled with speeches and narrations; the “implied audience” is not directly addressed. The setting of Jeremiah is within a time frame from 626 to 587 BCE, mostly in Jerusalem. There are deviations from this, the longest one in Jeremiah 40 – 44 which deals with the aftermath of the destruction, focusing on the group fleeing to Egypt. The dynamic of Jeremiah shows a clear development towards the negative ending. In the first half, options are still open;⁵⁷ in Jeremiah 25 divine judgment is announced and from Jeremiah 36 onward it takes place in the foreseen order. The final chapter stresses Jerusalem’s downfall, which has already been reported in Jeremiah 39. It is quite different with the Book of Baruch. Its communication structure, especially at the beginning, is very complicated.⁵⁸ In Baruch 1:3 Baruch reads a scroll; the response of the listeners leads them to support those in Jerusalem (1:5 – 10), to ask for their prayers (1:11– 13) and to demand their reading of the same “book” there (1:14).⁵⁹ The confession starts in 1:15 with a report, but switches in 2:11 to addressing God directly. From 3:9 onwards Israel is the addressee; within that, Jerusalem starts to speak in 4:9, and is herself addressed in 4:30 and the following verses. As a surprise, God enters the scene in 4:34 with “I”—the only occurrence in the whole book.⁶⁰ The “book” thus appears as an intricate mixture of a prayer of confession (Bar 1:15 – 3:8), an instruction on wisdom, identified with eternal law (3:9 – 4:4), and exhortations to various addressees (4:5 – 5:9). One main focus

 Stulman, Order, has convincingly explained the relationship of the two halves of Jeremiah, attributing to the first part (Jer  – ) the heading “death and dismantling of Judah’s sacred world” (p. ).  For Baruch’s special features in this regard, see Ballhorn, Kommunikation, esp.  – .  Haag, Umkehrbekenntnis,  – , and Asurmendi, Baruch, , present good reasons that the scroll/letter sent to Jerusalem (Bar :) is identical with the one read by Baruch in Babylon (:).  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, , interprets this as a mistake of the author who was influenced by his source texts: “… daß an dieser Stelle stilwidrig sogar die Ich-Rede Gottes mit übernommen wird”. In my estimation, the use of the first person for God at this point heightens the authority of this consoling passage for Jerusalem, which is the first one ever in the book for her. The divine speech might even start earlier in :, and last till v. ; : – : often have “God” and are therefore better attributed to another speaker.

20

Georg Fischer, SJ

lies on “Israel” (3:9, 24; 4:5), also emphasized in its predilection (3:37; 5:7– 9). The other focal point is Jerusalem; she receives a speaker’s role in 4:9 and various encouragements (from 4:30 onward). In contrast to Jeremiah, Baruch has a much more direct approach to its intended audience. The setting of Baruch is similarly complex, and fictitious. Baruch 1:2 mentions the “fifth year” (see above 1.2) and the “seventh day of the month … in which the Chaldeans had taken Jerusalem and burnt it with fire”. According to 2 Kings 25:9, the temple was burnt then, too; however, Baruch 1:14 presupposes its existence and its function as a place for reunions. Another tension is the dichotomy in the locations. ⁶¹ The scroll originates in Babylon, and there are various allusions to a situation of exile, most clearly in Baruch 3:7– 8. On the other hand, the main focus lies on Jerusalem, as is visible in the direction of the narrative frame at the beginning and also in the development of the entire book, leading to her encouragement and renewed splendor. “From the distress of the exiled Jews to rejoicing”⁶² may summarize the dynamic of Baruch. At the beginning there are several indications of affliction: the exiles, the (need to) support, the reference to the burning of Jerusalem, the hints at calamity especially in the confessional prayer. In the middle section this atmosphere is already being overcome, and the last part ends with confidence and expectation of renewed glory. The comparison of the Books of Jeremiah and Baruch in the aspects treated here reveals probably the strongest differences. With respect to their presentation and development, the two books share very little in common. Jeremiah is a prophetic book, full of speeches, accusations, and focused on understanding Jerusalem’s downfall and its implications. Baruch, on the other side, is more of a “wisdom” book, trying to foster hope and communicating more directly with the supposed addressees.

4 Conclusion: Simulated Similarities The obvious linking of the Book of Baruch to that of Jeremiah by giving to its author and initial main figure the name of a “side character” from Jeremiah simulates closeness between the two books.⁶³ As seen above, this is true in various  Ballhorn, Kommunikation,  – , calls it “Doppelte Perspektive: Exil und Jerusalem”.  Thus Corley, Transformation, .  Feuerstein, Nicht im Vertrauen, , captures the delicate relationship well: “Baruch als Garant der Überlieferung des Jeremia und seiner Verkündigung kann sehr wohl als Verfasser eines solchen Textes gelten, bzw. anders herum, ein solcher Text verlangt nach einem Verfasser, von

Simulated Similarities

21

respects. For some intentions, vocabulary and phrases, theology, etc. Baruch stands in the “footsteps” of the prophet Jeremiah and the book carrying his name. Yet, there is also a deliberate distancing from Jeremiah in Baruch. Jeremiah does not occur in person; instead, Baruch receives the central role, becoming an author, prayer leader,⁶⁴ and an intermediary between those receiving revelation, like Moses and Jeremiah, and the people.⁶⁵ The choice of his person is very fortunate, as he is a witness and survivor of the worst catastrophe that befell Jerusalem.⁶⁶ Besides the differences mentioned already, there are further distinct accents in Baruch, which separate it from Jeremiah and show other interests. The strong linking of wisdom and law⁶⁷ is absent from Jeremiah, but stays close to Sirach 24. On the other hand, the Book of Baruch does not care much about ethics or social behavior,⁶⁸ whereas Jeremiah insists on it (e. g., Jer 7:3, 5 – 6, 9). The picture of the relationship between the Books of Jeremiah and Baruch is thus ambivalent. Baruch continues, in part, concerns of Jeremiah, such as prayer, conversion, insight into one’s guilt, and even expands these issues in its large penitential prayer, but it also has its own agenda. The Book of Jeremiah thus serves as a source of inspiration, becoming fruitful once again in Baruch.

dem eine besondere Nähe zu Jeremia auch und gerade in dessen deuteronomistisch gefärbter Predigt bekannt ist.”  Ballhorn, Sekretär,  – .  Ballhorn, Weisheit, .  Haag, Umkehrbekenntnis, , sees Baruch’s role thus: “Als Sachwalter des Propheten und Überlebender des Zorngerichts Gottes an Zion/Jerusalem ist Baruch ein hochqualifizierter Zeuge und Ratgeber, der Israel am Anfang seines Weges in das “große Exil” mit dem Umkehrbekenntnis eine theologisch notwendige Glaubensweisung vermitteln will.”  Cf. Milani, Rilettura,  – , and de Vos, Forsaken.  Feuerstein, Nicht im Vertrauen, .

22

Georg Fischer, SJ

Bibliography Adams, Sean A., Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Greek Texts in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden: Brill 2014. Adams, Sean A., Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations’, in: I. Kalimi, T. Nicklas, and G.G. Xeravits (eds.), Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (DCLS 16) Berlin: de Gruyter 2013, 63 – 83. Asurmendi, Jésus María, Baruch: Causes, effects and remedies for a disaster, in: N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen (eds.), History and identity. How Israel’s later authors viewed its earlier history (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Yearbook 2006) Berlin: de Gruyter 2006, 187 – 200. Ballhorn, Egbert, Baruch—pseudepigraphe Kommunikation, in: F.V. Reiterer, R. Egger-Eenzel, and T.R. Elssner (eds.), Gesellschaft und Religion in der spätbiblischen und deuterokanonischen Literatur (DCLS 20) Berlin: de Gruyter 2014, 229 – 52. Ballhorn, Egbert, Vom Sekretär des Jeremia zum schriftgelehrten Weisen. Die Figur des Baruch und die kanonische Einbindung des Buches, in: T. Hieke (ed.), Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 228) Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2013, 209 – 24. Ballhorn, Egbert, Weisheit, die zur Tora führt. Die Israel-Manrede im Buch Baruch (Bar 3,9 – 4,4), in: U. Dahmen and J. Schnocks (eds.), Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. Herrschaft—Widerstand—Identität (FS H.-J. Fabry, Bonner biblische Beiträge 159) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010, 259 – 80. Bartelmus, Rüdiger, haškem welammed—die “Unermüdlichkeitsformel” und die Etymologie von hiškim oder: Hat engagiertes Lehren etwas mit dem Beladen von Kamelen zu tun?, in: W. Gross (ed.), Text, Methode und Grammatik (FS W. Richter) St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag 1991, 17 – 27. Calduch-Benages, Núria, “The Name of the Beloved City in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9,” BN 164 (2015), 51 – 64. Calduch-Benages, Núria, Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5 – 5:9), in: edited by H. Lichtenberger, F.V. Reiterer and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Studies Yearbook 2008) Berlin: de Gruyter 2008, 147 – 64. Corley, Jeremy, Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Yearbook 2011) Berlin: de Gruyter 2012, 225 – 51. Feuerstein, Rüdiger, “Nicht im Vertrauen auf die Verdienste unserer Väter und Könige legen wir dir unsere Bitte um Erbarmen vor” (Bar 2,19). Aspekte des Gebetes im Buch Baruch, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5 – 9 July 2003 (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Yearbook 2004) Berlin: de Gruyter 2004, 255 – 91. Fischer, Georg, Baruch, Jeremiah’s “Secretary”? The Relationships between the Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch, in: E. Tigchelaar (ed), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (BETL 270) Leuven: Peeters 2014, 137 – 55.

Simulated Similarities

23

Fischer, Georg, Der weite Blick des Völkerpropheten. Personen, Nationen und Orte im Jeremiabuch,” in: T. Wagner, J.M. Robker, and F. Überschaer (eds.), Text—Textegeschichte —Textwirkung (FS S. Kreuzer) Münster: Ugarit-Verlag 2014, 93 – 110. Fischer, Georg, Gottes universale Horizonte. Die Völker der Welt und ihre Geschichte in der Sicht des Jeremiabuches, in: M. Milani, Marcello and M. Zappella (eds.), “Ricercare la Sapienza di Tutti gli Antichi” (Sir 39,1) (FS G.L. Prato, RivBibS 56) Bologna: EDB 2013, 313 – 28. Fischer, Georg, Theologien des Alten Testaments (NSK-AT 31) Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2012. Fischer, Georg, Zur Relativierung des Tempels im Jeremiabuch, in: D. Böhler, I. Himbaza, and P. Hugo (eds.), L’Écrit et l’Esprit: Etudes D’Histoire Du Texte Et De Theologie Biblique En Hommage a Adrian Schenker (OBO 214; FS A. Schenker) Fribourg: Universitätsverlag 2005, 87 – 99; repr. in idem, Der Prophet wie Mose. Studien zum Jeremiabuch (BZAR 15) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 337 – 47. Fischer, Georg, Jeremia 52—ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch: Bib 79 (1998) 333 – 59; repr. in idem, Der Prophet wie Mose. Studien zum Jeremiabuch (BZAR 15) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011, 42 – 63. Haag, Ernst, Das Umkehrbekenntnis im Baruchbuch: TThZ 113 (2004) 81 – 97. Häusl, Maria, Künderin und Königin—Jerusalem in Bar 4,5 – 5,9, in: idem (ed.), Tochter Zion auf dem Weg zum himmlischen Jerusalem. Rezeptionslinien der “Stadtfrau Jerusalem” von den späten alttestamentlichen Texten bis zu den Werken der Kirchenväter (Dresdner Beiträge zur Geschlechterforschung in Geschichte, Kultur und Literatur 2) Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts-Verlag 2011, 103 – 24. Kabasele Mukenge, André, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Études Bibliques 38) Paris: Gabalda 1998. Kraus, Wolfgang and Martin Karrer (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, 2nd Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2010. Marttila, Marko, Political Power and Ideology in the Book of Baruch: BN 161 (2014) 99 – 114. Marttila, Marko, The Deuteronomistic ideology and phraseology in the Book of Baruch, in: H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and interpreting authoritative traditions in the Second Temple period (BZAW 419) Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 321 – 46. Meyer, Ivo, “Das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia,” in: E. Zenger, et al. (eds.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (8th ed. by Christian Frevel) Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012, 585 – 91. Milani, Marcello, Rilettura sapienziale della Legge nel recupero dell’ “identità nazionale” di Israele: Ricerche storico bibliche 15 (2003) 109 – 31. Nurmela, Risto, Prophets in dialogue. Inner-biblical allusions in Zechariah 1 – 8 and 9 – 14, Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag 1996. Perdue, Leo G., Baruch among the sages, in: J. Goldingay (ed.), Uprooting and planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (Library of Hebrew Bible 459) New York: T&T Clark 2007, 260 – 90. Rossi, Benedetta, L’intercessione nel tempo della fine. Studio dell’intercessione profetica nel libro di Geremia (AnBib 204) Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press 2013.

24

Georg Fischer, SJ

Scalise, Pamela J., Baruch as first reader: Baruch’s lament in the structure of the Book of Jeremiah, in: J. Goldingay (ed.), Uprooting and planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (Library of Hebrew Bible 459) New York: T&T Clark 2007, 291 – 307. Schreiner, Josef, Baruch, in: H. Groß, Heinrich and J. Schreiner (eds.), Klagelieder—Baruch (Neue Echter Bibel 14) Würzburg: Echter 1986. Simian-Yofre, Horacio, Jerusalem as Mother in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9, in: A. Passaro (ed.), Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2012/2013), Berlin: de Gruyter 2013, 363 – 76. Steck, Odil H., Das Buch Baruch (ATD 5) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Steck, Odil H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Stipp, Hermann-Josef, Legenden der Jeremia-Exegese (II): Die Verschleppung Jeremias nach Ägypten: VT 64 (2014) 654 – 63. Stipp, Hermann-Josef, Deutero-jeremianische Konkordanz (ATSAT 6) St. Ottilien: EOS 1998. Stulman, Louis, Order amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1998. de Vos, Cornelis J., “You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom”: the function of law in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4: Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13 (2007) 176 – 86.

Michael H. Floyd

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch The Book of Baruch does not appear on most, if any, lists of sources relevant to the question of the synagogue’s origins.¹ However, I believe that it throws light on aspects of that question. Baruch describes how a group of diaspora Jews, gathered for worship, viewed themselves and their liturgical practices in relation to the cult in Jerusalem. Although this is no doubt a fictional description, it reflects how at least some Second Temple period Jews conceived of local gatherings taking place apart from the sacrificial worship in Judea. Analysis of how Baruch describes such a liturgical event, in light of the literary and historical context, has implications for the evolution of the synagogue. This essay has three parts: first, an overview of Baruch, identifying the main themes that define its overall coherence; second, an attempt to locate the historical setting that is reflected in the book as a whole; and third, a discussion of how the book provides a glimpse of the emerging synagogue.

1 Overview 1.1 Contents The Book of Baruch is basically a report of the origins of a prayer book. It begins (1:1– 2) by naming Baruch as the writer and by giving the place, the time, and the circumstances of its composition: “in Babylon, in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month, at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burned it with fire”. Then follows (1:3 – 15aα) a description of what happened when this prayer book was first used. In the presence of Jewish exiles, including King Jeconiah (alias Jehoiachin), his nobles, and numerous representatives of the people at large, Baruch presided at a liturgy that included penitence, the proclamation of a fast, and prayer. The assembly was moved to collect funds to be sent to the high priest in Jerusalem, to pay for sacrifices to be offered there on behalf of the exiles. Along with a copy of the penitential liturgy that they had just used, the exiles sent their co-religionists in Jerusalem a letter. This letter explained what the money was for and asked them to pray for the welfare of the  E. g., Binder, Into the Temple Courts,  – .

26

Michael H. Floyd

king of Babylon and for God to pardon the exiles’ unfaithfulness, using the same penitential liturgy. Also being sent to Jerusalem were various sacred silver vessels that had been looted from the Jerusalem temple by the conquering Babylonians. Permission was now given for them to be returned. The following bulk of the Book of Baruch (1:15aβ–5:9) contains the text of the penitential liturgy itself, which includes a prayer of penitence (1:15aα–3:8), a wisdom instruction (3:9 – 4:4), and a prophetic exhortation (4:5 – 5:9). The text of the liturgy does not give any explicit directions for the recommended intercessory prayers, nor for the fast which, in view of the way the exiles conducted the rite, would presumably accompany it.

1.2 The dominant theme of the framing narrative One of Baruch’s most striking features is the way it plays with ambiguous and kaleidoscopically shifting temporal and local perspectives.² It offers no explicit clues with respect to its origins. The so-called Book of Baruch does not actually identify Baruch as its own writer, but rather reports that he was the writer of the prayer book that it describes. Similarly, the Book of Baruch does not locate itself in the Babylonian exile, but rather locates the composition and observance of the penitential liturgy there. Thus there is no indication of who wrote the book itself, as opposed to the penitential liturgy, nor of when or where it was written. The beginning of the Babylonian exile is the main point of reference, and so it must have been composed sometime later. In all other respects, however, this document hides the circumstances of its production. This obscurity has not deterred scholars from trying to pin down Baruch’s date and authorship, but the result has been an impossible variety of theories—a matter to which we will return further on. For now it is sufficient to point out that the book as a whole presents itself as an anonymous composition which looks back on the exile from an indeterminate later point in time. In view of the way the text unfolds, presenting other such ambiguities and uncertainties along the way, this appears to be intentional. The next case of ambiguity concerns the protagonist, Baruch. He is traditionally assumed to be the same Baruch who served as the prophet Jeremiah’s secretary and companion. The Book of Baruch does not explicitly connect its protag “No theory can fully explain all the narrative elements, much less cover what happened historically at the time in which the narrative is set. The goal must be to understand the book through understanding the narrative world envisioned by the author”. (Saldarini, Book of Baruch,  – ).

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

27

onist with Jeremiah, but there are clues that point in this direction. Baruch is identified by means of a five-generation genealogy (1:1) which gives his father as Neriah and his grandfather as Mahseiah. This equates him with Jeremiah’s Baruch, who is also identified as having the same father and grandfather (Jer 32:12). The problem is that Jeremiah’s Baruch was not among the exiles and thus presumably never went to Babylon. On the contrary, he and Jeremiah are explicitly said to have stayed behind in Jerusalem, and then to have been coerced into joining a group headed for Egypt after the insurrection against Gedaliah (Jer 43:6 – 7). A certain Seraiah, who is also identified as the son of Neriah and grandson of Mahseiah—and is therefore presumably a brother of Baruch—is said to have gone to Babylon with King Zedekiah after Jerusalem fell (Jer 51:59). In contrast with the fictional protagonist in the Book of Baruch, who sends from Babylon a book that he wrote there to be read in Jerusalem, Seraiah brings from Jerusalem a book that Jeremiah wrote there to be read in Babylon (Jer 51:59 – 64). Thus the characterization of the fictional protagonist in the Book of Baruch creates a confusing discrepancy by blurring and reversing the roles of Jeremiah’s Baruch and his brother. The chronology is no less ambiguous. The initial date formula (1:2a) puts the penitential gathering “in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month”, but it specifies neither the event from which the year is counted nor the name of the month in question. The return of the temple vessels, which appears to be linked with the gathering, is dated to “the tenth day of Sivan” (1:8). Does this mean that the gathering happened on the seventh day of Sivan, just three days before the sending to Jerusalem of the monetary collection and the prayer book, along with the temple vessels? Or did the gathering happen sometime earlier, on the seventh day of a month other than Sivan? Was the sending of the money and the prayer book coincident with the return of the vessels? Or did their return happen somewhat later? Chronologically, there is also inaccuracy with respect to the reigns of Babylonian kings. When the exiles ask their co-religionists in Jerusalem to pray for the king’s welfare, they identify that king as Nebuchadnezzar and his successor as “his son Belshazzar” (1:12). However, Belshazzar was the son of and co-regent with Nabonidus, who seized the throne several years after Nebuchadnezzar died. The temple vessels in question are specifically described as the silver ones commissioned by Jeconiah’s successor, Zedekiah, to take the place of those looted by the Babylonians in the first deportation in 597 BCE (2 Kgs 24:13).The original vessels were of gold, and may not have been returnable because they are said to have been “cut in pieces” by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:13). These silver replacements were presumably brought to Babylon in the same way after the final destruction of the temple in 587/6 BCE (2 Kgs 25:14). However vague the

28

Michael H. Floyd

time of their return may be in relation to the sending of the money and the prayer book, and even if the identity and location of the agent are not clear,³ the return of the vessels mentioned here is definitely supposed to have taken place during the reign of a Babylonian king (1:12). Elsewhere, however, the temple vessels looted by the Babylonians—whichever ones might have been in a still usable condition—are said to have been returned by the Persian king Cyrus (Ezra 1:7– 11) some fifty years later. This last discrepancy concerning who returned the temple vessels—the Babylonians or the Persians?—brings us to the fundamental discrepancy at the core of the narrative. The presence of the silver vessels in Babylon presupposes the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, and the return of the vessels is a motif that conventionally connotes the restoration of a cult.⁴ Yet the narrative also paradoxically presupposes that the cult in Jerusalem is fully functioning, with priests presenting burnt offerings, sin offerings, incense, and cereal offerings “on the altar of the Lord our God” (1:10). In Baruch’s narrative world return and restoration have already happened, and at the same time they are nevertheless still anticipated. Baruch thus presents “Babylonian exile” in the abstract, as if it were a condition that persists even after restoration happens. The narration recognizes that the Jerusalem temple cult has been restored, as it finally was in the reign of the Persian emperor Darius II (ca. 516 BCE), but it superimposes upon this situation the time frame of Babylonian rule (597– 539 BCE), as if to say that “although there has been a return to Jerusalem and a resumption of sacrifices in the temple there, we are still, in effect, in exile”. This time warp makes the form of Jewish life that emerged as a result of the Persian restoration into a temporary condition that will someday be reversed by a more complete return and restoration (4:36 – 5:9). Taken individually, these ambiguities that blur perspectives of time and place might be considered stray mistakes—and that is how many commentators have tended to regard them. Taken all together, however, it becomes evident that they collectively serve a common purpose. They are literary devices that reinforce the temporal and local displacements entailed in the thematically dominant metaphorical description of the restoration of Yehud and its temple cult—to be the

 Most translations and commentators resolve this uncertainty by making Baruch the agent, but the third person masculine pronominal subject of the verb in : (αὐτόν) would normally refer to the nearest preceding proper noun, i. e., the high priest Jehoiakim (:), and the main verb λαβεῖν can mean either “take” or “receive”.  Ackroyd, The Temple Vessels,  – .

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

29

geo-political center of a Jewish community dispersed throughout the empire—as a kind of ongoing, unrelieved exile.⁵ The metaphorical likening of restoration to exile is developed mainly in the introduction (1:1– 15aα), but it frames the book as a whole. The three components of the liturgy that the exiles use and send to Jerusalem, which form the rest of Baruch, all serve to develop this dominant theme. The prayer of penitence (1:15aβ–3:8) basically admits that exile was a well-deserved punishment and prays for it to end; the wisdom instruction (3:9 – 4:4) explains why Israel went into exile and describes the way out; and the prophetic exhortation (4:5 – 5:9) urges hope for an end to exile. These subsequent sections of the book also develop another theme that similarly permeates them and relates them to one another, namely, the Law and the Prophets.

1.3 The dominant theme of the Law and the Prophets The prayer of penitence (1:15aβ–3:8) has two main sections, an admission of guilt (1:15aβ–2:10) and a prayer for mercy (2:11– 3:8), both of which are grounded in the concept of the Law and the Prophets. The guilt of the exiles is due to their not following the statues of the Lord given through Moses and their not heeding the voice of the Lord spoken through his prophets. Thus they have come under the curse that results from disobeying the Law, and they have seen the prophecies of judgment spoken against them fulfilled. Likewise the prayer for mercy is predicated on the possibility of repentance promised in the Law (2:27– 35; see Deut 30:1– 5), and on the exiles’ willingness to heed the prophetic word. The two subsequent sections of the liturgy develop this theme of the Law and the Prophets, respectively, as the means of the exiles’ realizing the promise of “a heart that obeys and ears that hear” (2:31), i. e., a heart that obeys what the Law commands and ears that hear what the Prophets say. The wisdom instruction (3:9 – 4:4) elaborates on the Law, arguing that it be treated as the means of a quest for wisdom, and the prophetic exhortation (4:5 – 5:9) elaborates on the vision to which the Prophets attest, urging God’s repentant people to hope for a complete return to and restoration of Jerusalem.

 In view of Baruch’s affinity with Jeremiah it is perhaps odd that a reinterpretation of the  year oracle (Jer :, ) is not invoked as a means of naming this sense of ongoing exile (cf. Zech :, Dan : – ).

30

Michael H. Floyd

2 Historical Setting 2.1 A proposed approach to dating Dating the Book of Baruch is tricky. Proposals range from the sixth century BCE to the first century CE and even later. The matter is complicated not only by the ambiguities of time and place mentioned above, but also by debates about the original language and the relationship of the various sections of the books to other texts.⁶ Some scholars have argued that part or all of Baruch was originally in Hebrew.⁷ Some scholars have also argued for the interdependence of parts of Baruch and other texts: the prayer of penitence (1:15aα–3:8) and Dan 9; the wisdom instruction (3:9 – 4:4) and passages from Job 28; the prophetic exhortation (4:5 – 5:9) and passages from II and III Isaiah, as well as Psalms of Solomon 11, etc. If these sections of Baruch are thought to be dependent on these comparable texts, or vice versa, the dating of these parts of Baruch will be affected by how one dates the other texts. Conclusions regarding the original language and dependence on other texts will obviously affect theories about the origins of the various parts and their redaction to produce the whole of Baruch in its present form.⁸ Some of the theories about the composite production of Baruch are quite plausible, but in the final analysis all such theories are somewhat speculative. This is particularly evident in the way the arguments regarding intertextual dependence keep shifting. There are only so many possibilities: a section of Baruch is dependent on a similar text; a similar text is dependent on a section of Baruch; a section of Baruch and a similar text are both mutually dependent on a third comparable text; or a section of Baruch and a similar text have both appropriated material from the same traditional repertoire of themes, motifs, and phrases, etc. Scholarly proposals keep vacillating among these possibilities, which strongly suggests that the question, as it is typically framed, is not conclusively resolvable on the basis of the presently available information. In order to get some rough idea of the historical context in which the Book of Baruch can be imagined, despite such difficulties, I propose an approach that is considerably more modest in its methods and aspirations. I suggest that we think

 The history of Baruch’s interpretation is comprehensively surveyed by Feuerstein, Das Buch Baruch.  Burke (Poetry of Baruch,  – ) gives a survey of those who have advocated this view.  For surveys of the various proposals, see Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – ,  – ,  – ,  – .

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

31

in terms of what we actually have, not in terms of what might have once existed. What we actually have is the Greek text of the book as a whole. Given what we have previously observed about the nature of the introductory narrative and the conceptual coherence of the book as a whole, are there any indications of where Baruch might fit along the developmental trajectory of Second Temple Judaism? The object is not a definitive hypothesis about the origins of Baruch and its constituent parts, but rather the identification of some suggestive clues as to when and how the book as a whole might have functioned in the context of Second Temple Judaism.

2.2 The narrative’s mode of historical reference The first of such clues is the nature of the narrative introduction. In light of the way in which the temporal perspectives of exile and restoration are superimposed upon one another it is evident that the narrative intends to describe the general condition of Jews living under imperial domination during and after the Persian restoration, metaphorically characterizing it as a kind of ongoing “Babylonian exile” even though the Babylonian captivity has literally ended. Jewish existence under this imperial domination had two poles, Jerusalem and “Babylon” (i. e., the diaspora), which are envisioned as related in a particular way. This general condition is of course historically bounded—it is evidently post-exilic—but it is not limited to any particular time. Such a narrative is not attempting to refer, even indirectly, to a particular set of historical circumstances. Thus attempts to identify Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim with some particular historical king and high priest, respectively, are quite beside the point. As characters in the narrative they represent imperial rule and temple priesthood, respectively, as they were generally related to one another over an extensive stretch of time.

2.3 The ambiguity of “exile” A second clue will help to further mark off this stretch of time: the attitude toward imperial domination and temple administration that is reflected in the text. The Persians were the architects of a new mode of existence for the Jews, which brought central imperial domination and local temple administration into a complementary relationship. Under the Persians the Jewish homeland became the imperial province of Yehud, with limited local control exercised by a governor and a high priest. In addition to the exercise of local civil authority,

32

Michael H. Floyd

the main joint responsibility of these two officials was the maintenance of the restored Jerusalem temple and its sacrificial cult (Zech 3 – 4). This sanctuary became a central point of reference for defining the identity of the Jewish people as a religious minority dispersed throughout the empire. This same basic arrangement continued, mutatis mutandis, under the succession of empires that followed the Persians: the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and the Romans, with the relatively brief exception of Hasmonean home rule. Because this mode of existence initially enabled the Jews to survive against overwhelming odds, and eventually even to prosper in many places, its inauguration was regarded as a divinely authored act of salvation, achieved through the Persians acting as Yhwh’s agents (e. g., Isa 45:1– 7). The obvious drawback, however, was that the Jews remained a subject people. In this sense it was still exile. As long as the arrangement functioned to the relative advantage of the Jews, it could be affirmed as a divinely ordained state of affairs to which they should willingly submit. At the same time, however, they could also see its limitations and hope for more—a more complete return and restoration in which they were no longer subject to foreign rule. Baruch expresses this profound ambivalence about ongoing exile under imperial domination. On the one hand, the prayer of penitence (1: 15aα–3:8) emphasizes that exile is God’s just punishment for Israel’s long history of unfaithfulness. It is therefore incumbent on them that they follow the prophetic command to “serve the king of Babylon” (1:20 – 21a; cf. Jer 29:1– 7) and pray for “favor in the sight of those who have carried us into exile” (1:14b). The exiles also urge their co-religionists in Jerusalem to pray for the king, so that they may live long under his protection and “find favor in his sight” (1:11– 12). A future return to the “land which I gave to your fathers” is contingent on the present willing submission of the exiles to their imperial overlord (1:21b). Even the prophetic exhortation (4:5 – 5:9), which announces the imminent possibility of such a return (4:36 – 5:9), also counsels the exiles to “bear with patience the wrath that has come upon you from God” (4:25a). On the other hand, Baruch also expresses a sure confidence in the possibility of an eventual full return and restoration, free from foreign domination (2:34– 35; 4:21– 5:9). This future is made possible because in submitting to their punishment the exiles will have learned repentance (2:30b–33; 3:7; 4:28 – 29). Because God will give his repentant people “a heart that obeys and ears that hear” (2:31b) he can renew the covenant with them, once again promising them their own land in perpetuity (2:35). Such a theological affirmation of the arrangement created by the Persians was possible only as long as it proved to be relatively advantageous for the Jews. Until this arrangement no longer afforded them the status of an accepted minority within the empire, they could take the kind of exile it entailed as a di-

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

33

vinely ordained necessary evil that would someday—in a deliverance that was also divinely ordained—be overcome. Once the arrangement became dysfunctional, however, a profound theological crisis was posed. A breakdown could occur because of a malfunction of imperial rule, or a malfunction of the local priestly and civil authority in Jerusalem, or both. The status of the Jews could then become uncertain, even to the point of threatening their survival (e. g., 1 Macc 1). Such a crisis could be resolved only by God’s total destruction and recreation of the world order (e. g., Dan 7). There is no reflection of such a breakdown in Baruch. It regards the present imperial regime as relatively benign and prays for it to continue to be so. It also evidently regards the administration of the temple cult in Jerusalem as legitimate, since it requests that sacrifices be offered there on behalf of those in the diaspora. Thus although Baruch views the ongoing state of exile as a defective condition that will someday be overcome, it also considers the present as an advantageous situation in the sense that it offers God’s people an opportunity to discover and learn how to be faithful, which will eventually make possible their complete return and restoration in a new Jerusalem. In other words, Baruch presupposes that both imperial rule and the priestly administration of Judea are functioning just as God intended, according to the tenets of Deuteronomistic theology: to teach his people repentance and thus prepare for a renewal of the covenant. This makes Baruch somewhat distinctive in comparison with other documents that also portray the condition of Second Temple Jews as unrelieved exile. In most cases this concept goes hand in hand with characterizing imperial rulers as tyrannical, and/or characterizing Jerusalem’s priesthood as corrupt and its cult as illegitimate.⁹ Baruch’s distinctiveness in this regard implies that the book as a whole was written sometime before the arrangement originally created by the Persians found itself in crisis due to a malfunction on the imperial level and/or the local provincial level. A good number of scholars have dated Baruch to the time of the Maccabean crisis or later—even as late as the first or second century CE.¹⁰ But I find this doubly problematic. First, such a position typically entails identifying the characters of Nebuchadnezzar with a particular king and/or Jehoiakim with a particular high priest.¹¹ As noted above, this goes against the grain of the nature of the nar-

 Knibb, The Exile in Intertestamental Literature,  – . Knibb, however, does not have quite the same assessment of Baruch as the one presented here.  See the survey of opinions in Burke, Poetry of Baruch,  – .  For example Steck (Das apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – ) identifies Nebuchadnezzar with Antiochus V and Jehoiakim with the high priest Alcimus, as does Goldstein, The Apocryphal

34

Michael H. Floyd

rative, which intends to describe a general condition lasting over a stretch of time rather than a particular historical situation. Second, when one considers the chronic instability that plagued both the imperium and the high priesthood from the time of Antiochus IV through the Roman period, often to the detriment of many or most Jews, it would be difficult to find any stretch of time when the condition implied by Baruch—characterized by a complementary balance between the pole of imperial domination and the pole of local priestly administration—existed. After the Maccabean crisis when was there ever, for any extended period of time, an imperial overlord in whose benevolent eye the “exiles” might find favor and also, at the same time, an uncorrupt or uncontested high priesthood to which diaspora Jews might respectfully direct their petitions for sacrifices to be offered on their behalf? Jewish leaders made various arrangements with contenders for the Seleucid throne and with the Romans, intending to restore the pre-Antiochus IV status quo ante, thus showing that the Persian model of imperial domination was still alive as an ideal. In reality, however, these arrangements proved ineffectual and short-lived, thus showing that the model had become chronically dysfunctional. And of course post-70 CE the destruction of the temple left the arrangement originally created by the Persians without one of its two essential elements. Some Jews may have come to doubt the continued viability of this arrangement even before the Maccabean crisis (e. g., Zech 12– 14?),¹² but from that time on it became increasingly regarded as broken beyond repair (e. g., Dan 7). Therefore the terminus ad quem for the composition of the Book of Baruch must be placed just prior to the reign of Antiochus IV, around the early second century BCE, recognizing that it could have been considerably earlier.¹³

2.4 A comparable view of the Law and the Prophets A third clue reinforces this terminus ad quem. The previously noted dominant theme of the Law and the Prophets points in a similar direction. The complementarity of the Mosaic and prophetic traditions was a concept firmly rooted in Deuteronomistic theology. Over the course of the Second Temple period it came to imply the ongoing delimitation and organization of these traditions in corpora Book of I Baruch,  – . Kabasele Mukenge (L’unité,  – ) likewise bases his Maccabean dating partly on the identification of Jehoiakim with Alcimus.  Floyd, Minor Prophets,  – . The third century conflict between the Ptolemies and Seleucids for the control of Palestine may have been the context for this doubt.  So also Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah, .

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

35

of writings, thus functioning as an incipient canonizing principle.¹⁴ Baruch reflects this development through its many intertextual allusions to documents that were on the way to becoming biblical books.¹⁵ In significant respects, Baruch is similar to one such book that has a chronologically well-defined place in this process, namely, Sirach. Baruch and Sirach have a distinctive affinity because of the way they view the complementarity of the Law and the Prophets through the prism of wisdom. Baruch sees this complementarity as evident in the Deuteronomistic version of Israel’s history, extending from Moses and the exodus through the eras of the judges and kings (1:19; 2:1), particularly in the way the Law’s covenant curses (e. g., Lev 26:14– 39 and Deut 28) came to pass in accord with prophetic warnings (1:21). The Law also envisions the possibility that Israel will learn repentance in exile and the covenant will be restored (e. g., Lev 26:40 – 45 and Deut 30), just as the prophetic tradition does (e. g., Jer 24:4– 7; Bar 2:30b–35; 4:36 – 5:9). As Baruch identifies the Law with wisdom, the Law also takes on a prophetic dimension, appearing as a special revelation made only to Israel (Bar 3:20 – 4:4). Sirach sees much the same complementarity evident in a heroic version of Israel’s history that extends from Enoch to Nehemiah, and then back again to Adam (Sir 44– 49), particularly in the way that the prophetic figures interact with political and priestly leaders in attempts to maintain Israel’s faithfulness. Sirach also identifies the Law with wisdom (Sir 24) in a way that synthesizes law and prophecy (Sir 38:34b–39:3).¹⁶ Thus although Baruch and Sirach are of very different genres, they have basically the same wisdom-infused concept of the Law and the Prophets.¹⁷ This affinity does not necessarily indicate any direct dependence of either text on the other, nor does it help to pinpoint the origins of Baruch. It simply shows that a text like Baruch could have been current around the same time as Sirach. And since the composition of Sirach can be pretty definitely dated to ca. 190 BCE, this comparison corroborates the terminus ad quem established above. In all probability Baruch was written at least by the early second century

 Chapman, Law and the Prophets.  See, e. g., Beentjes, Canon and Scripture,  – .  Beentjes, Prophets and Prophecy,  – .  Sirach, particularly in its Greek form, is often taken as a witness to the tripartite canonical organizing principle of Law, Prophets, and Writings, rather than the bipartite principle of Law and Prophets. There may well be reference to the tripartite principle in the translator’s prologue, but in the book itself the tripartite principle is not fully formed (Beentjes, Canon and Scripture, ). In any case there is no need to regard these two different ways of referring to the growing canon as mutually exclusive (Dempster, Torah, Torah, Torah,  and passim).

36

Michael H. Floyd

BCE. Thus whatever it shows about the emerging synagogue will reveal something about the state of the institution around the turn of that century.

3 Glimpses of the Emerging Synagogue 3.1 Level of verisimilitude Before asking how Baruch sheds light on the emerging synagogue we must first determine the extent to which its admittedly fictional narrative is realistic. It is impossible to know whether the liturgy Baruch contains was ever actually conducted in a diaspora context similar to the one portrayed in the introduction. Each of the three basic elements—penitential prayer, including both confession of sin and petitions for deliverance, along with instruction and prophetic exhortation—has a place within the tradition of penitential liturgy.¹⁸ Thus this combination could have been intended for actual liturgical use, but in any case it provides an example of what a penitential liturgy might consist of. Thus Baruch reflects an ideal, informing the state of the liturgical practice of some sector of Second Temple Judaism. For present purposes it is significant that this ideal entails a concept of how such rites are related to the temple in Jerusalem.

3.2 Terminology We must also clarify the sense in which the context envisioned for this liturgy can be called a “synagogue”. Although neither συναγωγή nor any of the other related terms in its semantic field appear in the text,¹⁹ what the introductory narrative describes is obviously a synagogue in the root sense, i. e., a gathering or an assembly. This assembly, however, is more than just an occasional meeting because it involves Jewish liturgical practices, apart from the temple, that are to be institutionalized in several respects. In this sense Baruch reflects a manifestation of what would eventually become the synagogue.

 E. g.,  Chron : – ; Ezra : – ; : – :; Neh : – . See further Lipinski, liturgie pénitentielle.  Binder (Into the Temple Courts,  – ) gives a complete list.

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

37

3.3 The synagogue as sacred space It is argued that the synagogue had its roots in assemblies for civic, social, and educational purposes, and that in its early phases of development during the Second Temple period—even after some groups came to meet in buildings especially designed for them—participants therefore had no sense of being involved in any particularly sacred activity. Not until after the destruction of the temple did synagogues begin to meet in buildings that were understood to mark off sacred space, and not until then did the activity within such precincts become religious ritual.²⁰ Sometimes this argument is nuanced to make a distinction between synagogues in Palestine and those in the diaspora, allowing that those called proseuchai (“places of prayer”) in Egypt and Asia Minor might have entailed some sense of the sacred before 70 CE, in contrast with those in Palestine which did not.²¹ In Egypt the sanctity of the proseuchai was defined in terms of their buildings in which the Torah was publicly read and explicated and prayers were conducted—communal centers that resembled temples in every respect save sacrifice.²² The introductory section of Baruch says nothing about the site of the assembly it describes. According to Ps 137:1, “by the rivers of Babylon” is where the exiles mourned their plight, so the riverside could possibly be the place where a liturgy of penitence would be conducted, as well as a description of where the Jewish people lived (Bar 1:4b). In any case, there is no indication of whether or not the rite took place in a designated public area, nor of whether it was inside or outside. There is, however, an explicit indication in 1:5 that its setting was considered sacred space: The people “wept, and fasted, and prayed before the Lord” (ἐναντίον κυρίου). This phrase in itself does not necessarily connote anything with regard to ritual practices, but when it is used in connection with them it refers to the sense of divine presence that permeates sacred space. It commonly describes where sacrifices are offered, psalms are sung, and sacred vessels and furnishings are situated within the precincts of the tabernacle or temple. For present purposes it is particularly significant that this phrase can also apply to ritual practices

 E. g., Branham, Vicarious Sacrality, .. She argues that synagogues went through a process of competing with the temple, and then taking its place, before they became sanctuaries in their own right. Also Richardson, Early Synagogues as Collegia,  – . Steven Fine (This Holy Place,  – ) ties the sacredness of the synagogue to the holy scrolls enshrined there and the presence of temple motifs in the design and fabric of the building.  Most notably by Lee Levine in several of his writings. See, e. g., Nature and Origin,  – .  Kasher, Synagogues,  –  and passim.

38

Michael H. Floyd

that are not performed at previously designated sanctuaries or holy places, or at sites where hierophanies are said to have occurred. For example, it describes the settings in which Isaac bestows his paternal blessing (Gen 27:7), Daniel privately offers his prayer of penitence (Dan 9:20), and covenants are made and renewed (Deut 29:10; Josh 24:1, 26b; 1 Chr 11:3). When a ritual is conducted at a well-established holy place, where the sphere of the sacred is already marked off from the sphere of the profane, the atmosphere of holiness inherent in the symbolic structures and furnishings of the sanctuary converge with the atmosphere of holiness created by the rite itself. When a ritual is conducted somewhere else, however, the performance of the rite itself can be sufficient to transform the setting into a sacred space.²³ Such a transformation appears to be happening in the context of the liturgy of penitence being conducted in Baruch. There is no indication that the ritual happens in a designated holy place. Rather, the place becomes holy because the ritual happens there. Moreover, from the perspective of Baruch the context would be no different in this regard if the same liturgy were to be conducted within the precincts of the temple itself—which is what the letter accompanying the prayer book recommends. Thus the glimpse of the early synagogue that we get in Baruch suggests that sacred space is no less characteristic of local assemblies than of the temple, and that—at least with regard to the conduct of penitential liturgies—there is no distinction in this regard between Palestine and the diaspora.²⁴

3.4 Communal prayer The discussion regarding communal prayer in early synagogues has been framed in similar terms. It has been argued that although it was practiced in the proseuchai of the diaspora there was no communal prayer in the synagogues of Pales Smith, The Bare Facts of Ritual,  and passim. Smith is elaborating on Arnold van Gennep’s classic concept of “the pivoting of the sacred” (Rites of Passage,  – ).  Jonathan Z. Smith’s typology of the sacred, as it is further elaborated in Map Is Not Territory,  – , is helpful for understanding the emergence in the diaspora of this kind of sacred space, so different from the established sanctuary of the temple, as well as the co-existence of both kinds of sacred space in a complementary relationship. The kind of world view represented by a sanctuary like the temple, along with its corresponding concept of the sacred, fits the category that he calls “central-locative”. The kind of world view represented by the conduct of a ritual like the one described in Baruch, along with its corresponding concept of the sacred, fits the category that he calls “peripheral-utopian”. The relationship between them is a dynamic one, which he characterizes as “coexistential conflict”.

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

39

tine until after 70 CE,²⁵ and even that there was no communal prayer at all in any synagogues until after 70 CE.²⁶ From the perspective of Baruch the matter is obviously different. Here we have an early synagogue liturgy whose raison d’être is communal prayer. This liturgy is based primarily on a penitential prayer for which a fixed text is provided (1:15 – 3:8), and it is suggested that intercessory prayer for the king and the people’s well-being, for which there is no fixed form, would also be appropriate (1:11– 14). Moreover, the text envisions the same penitential prayer being used in both the diaspora and Palestine.

3.5 Torah reading It is widely assumed that Torah reading was the most basic act of synagogue worship, but in the case of Baruch we have an early synagogue liturgy that does not include it. The previously noted dominance of the theme of the Law and the Prophets assumes the importance of scripture study (4:1), but there is no indication of whether it also implies the ritualized practice of public scripture reading. If so, the complementarity of penitential and Torah-reading liturgies would not have been unprecedented (Neh 9:1– 3).

3.6 Sacred time: The liturgical cycle There has been fierce debate over the question of when the synagogue took up the custom of sabbath observance.²⁷ Baruch has no bearing on this question, since its liturgy is not specifically intended for the sabbath. However, the perspective of Baruch may have implications for the liturgical cycle of the synagogue. It proposes that the same penitential liturgy will become an established aspect of the temple’s observance of the major Jewish festivals (1:14).²⁸ In view of the complementary relationship that is envisioned between the temple and local assemblies, this presumably implies also making the penitential liturgy an established aspect of the synagogue’s observance of those same festivals.

 Levine, Synagogues, ..  Fine and Meyer, Synagogues, ..  In particular, see McKay, Sabbath and Synagogue; van der Horst, Synagogue,  – .  Some commentators take the phrase ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις καιροῦ to refer to a specific festival, but this is terminology for festal days and seasons in general, as shown by its use in Sir :. The ambiguity of the phrase is all of a piece with the ambiguity that systematically pervades the framing narrative.

40

Michael H. Floyd

The point of this proposal becomes evident in comparison with a contrary position taken by Zechariah (Zech 7– 8). Representatives come from Bethel to ask whether they should continue to observe the cycle of fasts commemorating the temple’s destruction. The prophet replies that since the temple is being restored the exile is, in effect, over with. They should therefore keep joyous feasts instead.²⁹ In Baruch it is just the opposite. The joyous festivals should be complemented with fasting and penitence to show that, despite the restoration of the temple, exile is ongoing. There was precedent for adding a liturgy of penitence to the celebration of a major festival. In Nehemiah 8:13 – 9:37 such a liturgy is conducted as the final part of the observance of Succoth. There is some evidence that the major festivals came to be observed in local assemblies as well as in Jerusalem, but aside from the aforementioned Succoth observance there is little to suggest that anything like what Baruch proposes was ever actualized.³⁰ In any case, it is significant that the ideal reflected in Baruch envisions the periodic observance of penitential liturgies within the already existing regular cycle of festivals. Adding a penitential element to the celebration of these festivals is a part of Baruch’s liturgical ideal that is in keeping with the intention of the book as a whole, which is to reinforce the awareness of restoration as exile.

4 Conclusion As a source of information about the emerging synagogue, Baruch obviously has limitations. It probably speaks for only some sector of Second Temple Judaism, and it is concerned with only one sort of liturgical activity. It nevertheless sheds some light on particular questions, such as synagogue sanctity and the practice of communal prayer. More generally, Baruch shows that by the second century BCE some local assemblies in the diaspora envisioned the institutionalization of certain penitential practices which they considered complementary to Jerusalem’s sacrificial cult. Groups that were synagogues in this sense thus saw themselves as outlying extensions or satellites of the temple.³¹

 Floyd, Minor Prophets,  – .  Binder, Into the Temple Courts,  – .  This conclusion is compatible with the thesis of Binder, Into the Temple Courts, but without entailing any archaeological assumptions about when synagogues began to meet in specially designed buildings.

A Glimpse of the Emerging Synagogue in the Book of Baruch

41

Bibliography Ackroyd, P. R., The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme, in: Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23) Leiden: Brill 1972, 166 – 81. Beenjtes, P.C., Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach / Ecclesiasticus), in: Magne, S. (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages, Part 2, The Middle Ages, Göttingen: V&R 2000, 591 – 605. Beenjtes, P.C., Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira, in: Floyd, M.H./Haak, R.D. (eds.), Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427) London: T&T Clark 2006, 135 – 150. Binder, D.D., Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS169) Atlanta: Scholars Press 1999. Branham, J.R., Vicarious Sacrality: Temple Space in Ancient Synagogues, in: Urman, D./Flesher, P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, Leiden: Brill 1998, 319 – 345. Burke, D.G., The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 (SBLSCS 10) Chico: Scholars Press 1982. Chapman, S.B., The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FAT 27), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Dempster, S.G., Torah, Torah, Torah: The Emergence of the Tripartite Canon, in: Evans, C.A./Tov, E. (eds.), Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology) Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008, 87 – 127. Feuerstein, R., Das Buch Baruch (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XXIII Theologie, 614), Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1997. Fine, S., This Holy Place: On the Sanctity of the Synagogue in the Greco-Roman Period, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1997. Fine, S./Meyer, E.M., Synagogues, in: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, 5.118 – 123, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997. Floyd, M.H., Minor Prophets: Part 2 (FOTL 22) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000. Goldstein, J.A., The Apocryphal Book of I Baruch, in: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 46 – 47 (1979 – 80) 179 – 199. Kabasele Mukenge, A., L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (EB 38) Paris: Gabalda 1998. Kasher, A., Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, in: Urman, D./Flesher, P.V.M. (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, Leiden: Brill 1998, 205 – 220. Knibb, M.A., The Exile in Intertestamental Literature, in: HeyJ 17 (1976) 253 – 272. Levine, L.I., The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered, in: JBL 115 (1996) 425 – 448. Levine, L.I., Synagogues, in: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4.421 – 24, Jerusalem and New York: Carta 1993. Lipinski, E., La liturgie pénitentielle dans la Bible (LD 52) Paris: Cerf 1969. McKay, H., Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism, Leiden: Brill 2001.

42

Michael H. Floyd

Moore, C.A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44), Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Richardson, P., Early Synagogues as Collegia in the Diaspora and Palestine, in: Kloppenborg, J.S./Wilson, S.G. (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Greaco-Roman World, London: Routledge 1996, 90 – 109. Saldarini, A.J., The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections, in: The New Interpreter’s Bible, 6.929 – 982, Nashville: Abingdon Press 2001. Smith, J.Z., The Bare Facts of Ritual, in: Idem (ed.), Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press 1982, 53 – 65. Smith, J.Z., Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions, Leiden: Brill 1978. Steck, O.H. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160) Göttingen: V&R 1993. van der Horst, P.W., Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?, in: Fine, S. (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period, London and New York: Routledge 1999, 18 – 43. van Gennep, A., The Rites of Passage, trans. Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1960.

Ruth Henderson

The Inter-textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12 – 20 in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

The poetic text in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 has been commonly labeled as a wisdom poem modeled on Job 28:12 – 28, a biblical poem which describes the search for wisdom. Affinities with other works such as Proverbs, Sirach 24, Wisdom 9, Psalms, Proverbs as well as Deutero-Isaiah, have also been suggested by scholars.¹ On the basis of common characteristics such as the place of wisdom in the cosmos, the search for wisdom, the trope of seeking and finding, creation imagery and others, C. Newsom classified the poem as belonging to the genre of “speculative wisdom” poem along with Proverbs 8, Job 28, Sirach 1 and 24.² However, while this generic definition could perhaps apply to an original poem comprising Baruch 3:15 – 38, it cannot be applied to the pericope as it now stands because the poem appears to have been subjected to editorial manipulation. A hortatory frame based on Deuteronomy 4 begins and ends the wisdom poem (Bar 3:9 – 15; 4:1– 4). In addition to this, intertextual references, which show affinities with Deuteronomy 4 and 30 have been interwoven into the poem itself (Bar 3:29 – 30, 36 – 37). For this reason the poem has been also been defined as a Mahnrede (speech of exhortation).³ While some scholars have drawn attention to the influence of Deuteronomy 4 and 30 on Baruch 3:9 – 4:4,⁴ there has been no extensive attempt to explain how and why these chapters have been used and the purpose of the relationship between the exhortatory frame and the wisdom poem itself. In this study I will endeavor to re-examine the nature and purpose of the inter-textual dialogue between the biblical texts Job 28 and Deuteronomy 4 and 30 which has influenced

 Moore, Additions,  calls it “a poem on the nature and importance of Wisdom”; Saldarini, Baruch,  describes it as “a poetic wisdom admonition and exhortation”.  Newsom, Job,  – . Other characteristics included by Newsom for this generic categorization were: the personification of wisdom as female; the use of creation imagery and the syntactical style of creation accounts; economic imagery or imagery of precious goods; spatial and temporal tropes; and a didactic quality in which the speaker, an authoritative figure, seeks to persuade the listener of the value of wisdom.  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, , followed by Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, .  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, . For a recent examination of the Deuteronomic influence on Bar : – :, see Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology,  – ).

44

Ruth Henderson

the composition and structuring of the poetic composition in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4. The study will proceed with an investigation of the affinity of Job 28 to Baruch 3:15 – 38. This will be followed by an investigation of the use of Deuteronomy 4 and 30 in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 with respect to (a) phraseology and (b) ideation. Finally, the nature and purpose of interrelationship between these two major biblical sources will be discussed.

1 The Wisdom Song Baruch 3:15 – 38 The wisdom song in Baruch 3:15 – 38, which is modeled on the structure and ideation of the wisdom song in Job 28:12– 28, may have circulated independently before being modified and incorporated into the Book of Baruch.⁵ Both poems are based on the expansion of the simple proverb or riddle consisting of question and answer or problem and solution.⁶ The simple question, “Where is wisdom to be found?” (Job 28:12//Bar 3:15) is answered by the statement that wisdom is found with God (Job 28:23//Bar 3:32). In both poems, the question on the location of wisdom is repeated and marks the beginning of two sections (Job 28:12, 20//Bar 3:15, 29 – 30).⁷ These two corresponding sections proceed to answer the question at first negatively (Job 28:12– 19, 20//Bar 3:15 – 18) and then positively (Job 28:20 – 27//Bar 3:29 – 35).⁸ This structure can be tabulated as follows: SECTION 

Job : –  (NRSV)

Bar : –  (NETS)

Opening question Job : But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?

Bar : Who has found her place, and who entered into her treasuries?

Where Wisdom is Job : mortals, land of the living. not found Job : –  Job : depth, sea

Bar : –  Wealthy rulers of the nations Bar : –  Peoples of the east famed for their wisdom Bar : Giants strong in warfare

Bar : – 

   

Job : –  gold, silver gold of Ophir, with the precious stones

Saldarini, Baruch, .. For this analysis of Job : – , see Westermann, Structure of Job,  – . Cf. Andersen, Job, , who sees Job : –  as the first section of the poem. Moore, Additions, .

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

SECTION 

Job : – 

45

Bar : – 

Opening question Job : But where shall wisdom be Bar : –  Who has gone up found? into the sky and taken her? And where is the place of understanding? Bar : Who has crossed over the sea and found her? Frame: Wisdom found with God alone

Job : God understands the way to it, Bar :a But He who knows and he knows its place. all things is familiar with her;

God’s wisdom demonstrated in creation

Job : –  For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens. Job : wind, waters Job : rain, thunderbolt

Frame: Wisdom found with God alone

Bar :b– He discovered her by his intelligence; Bar : earth, quadrupeds Bar : light Bar : stars

Job : then he saw it and declared it; Bar :a He discovered the he established it, and searched it out. whole way of knowledge

God’s wisdom Job : manifested to hu- And he said to humankind, ‘Truly, the fear manity of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.’

Bar : After this she appeared on earth and associated among humans Bar : b, c And gave her to his servant Iakob and to Israel who was loved by him.

As will be shown below, the structure of the poem in Baruch reflects editorial manipulation, by the addition of vv. 36 – 37 reflecting Deuteronomic covenantal theology, and by the possible displacement of verse 38 which may originally have belonged after the account of creation vv. 32– 35.⁹  Verse  continues to prove to be problematic for scholars. Its position and content do not mesh well with the context in which it stands. Many scholars dismiss it as a later Christian addition. See for example Steck, Das Baruchbuch, ,  – . In my opinion the verse is original to the composition of the song, but has been displaced. In the original song it may perhaps represent the intimation of general, cosmic wisdom to humanity as manifested in creation, and may have originally followed v. . In this way it would correspond to God’s manifestation of cosmic wisdom in creation and the subsequent command to humanity to fear Him in Job :. The understanding of cosmic wisdom being conversant with humanity in Bar : corresponds to the idea of God’s pouring wisdom on humanity in Sir : –  from the poem Sir : –  which also appears to have been influenced by Job : – . The subsequent specific revelation of Torah to Israel in Bar : –  (cf. Sir : ff.; Tg Job :) would then follow the con-

46

Ruth Henderson

In Section 1 the author of the wisdom song in Baruch has not followed the ideation of the song in Job 28:12 – 19. The latter takes up the theme of the search for and value of precious stones and metals from beneath the earth’s surface in Job 28:1– 11. While humanity has been able, through knowledge and technology, to unearth and value precious metals and stones, they have been unable to discover and value wisdom.¹⁰ In the hands of the author of Job 28 the first eleven verses become an allegory in which the search for precious metals functions as a metaphor for the search for wisdom described in vv. 12– 20.¹¹ In Baruch 3:16 – 28, the author of the wisdom song in Baruch takes up and develops only the thought of Job 28:13, “Mortals do not know the way to it, and it is not found in the land of the living”. He presents a survey of the various people groups from the past who, although famed for their wealth, knowledge or physical prowess, were unable to find and value wisdom and consequently perished. These include: the wealthy rulers of the nations (Bar 3:16 – 18); younger ones who followed them (Bar 3:20); the peoples of the east famed for their knowledge (Bar 3:22– 23); and the giants of renown (Bar 3:26).¹² The recounting of each people group ends with a similarly worded refrain, which serves to emphasize the passing of these people groups from the stage of human history because of their inability to find wisdom (Bar 3:19, 20 – 21, 23, 27– 28). The change of focus in Baruch 3:15 – 28 from places where wisdom cannot be found to the people groups who have been unable to find wisdom and have therefore perished, is in accordance with the exhortatory purpose of the song. The two sections of the poem (Bar 3:15 – 28 and 3:29 – 37) form a contrast between the nations who have not been able to discover the path to wisdom and thus have perished and Israel, to whom the true wisdom of Torah has been given. As will be shown below this contrast is influenced by the contrast of the wisdom of the nations with that of Israel in Deuteronomy 4. The contrast is emphasized by the concluding words of each section: “not give/give the way of knowledge”. Bar 3:27 Not these did God choose, nor did he give them the way of knowledge,

cept of general revelation. The present position of the verse may represent a Christian displacement by which the revelation of wisdom in Christ is seen as subsequent and superior to the revelation of wisdom in Torah.  Andersen, Job, .  Jones, Rumors of Wisdom,  – .  Sheppard, Wisdom,  –  suggests that peoples described in Bar : –  relate to the Nephilim of Gen : and their descendants whom the Israelites encountered in their conquest of Canaan (Num : – ) and wars with the Philistines ( Sam :).

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

47

Bar 3:37 He discovered the whole way of knowledge and gave her to his servant Iakob and to Israel who was loved by him

By means of this contrast the author is urging Israel to hold fast the teachings they have been privileged to receive, so that they do not perish in exile for lack of wisdom as the groups of gentiles, previously mentioned, have perished. The change in focus from the wisdom song in Job is demonstrated in the form of the opening question. While both are concerned with the location of wisdom, in Job 28:12 the emphasis is on the place of wisdom (“But where shall wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding?”), whereas in Baruch 3:15 the focus in on those who could find wisdom (“Who has found her place, and who entered into her treasuries?”). A similar change of focus is found in the opening to Section 2. Here again, in Baruch 3:29 – 30, the double interrogative pronoun “who” begins both parallel lines of the question. It is used rather than the twofold interrogative adverb “where” (implied in the second colon) as found in the question of Job 28:20. In Section 2 the author of the wisdom song in Baruch has followed the structure and thought of the model in Job 28 more closely. Both begin with a question concerning the location of wisdom (Job 28:20//Bar 3:29 – 30). Both frame the section with the statement that wisdom is to be found in and comprehended by God alone (Job 28:24, 27//Bar 3:32a-b, 37). In both, within this frame, the wisdom of God is demonstrated in His creation of the universe although different aspects of the creation are mentioned (Job 28:24– 26//Bar 3:32– 33) in accordance with the authors’ purposes in the poems.¹³ Both end with the statement that God has revealed this wisdom to humanity.¹⁴ In Job 28:28 it is stated in general terms: “And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding”. God commands humanity to fear him in response to their perception of the divine order of His handiwork in creation. This is to be the basis of their wisdom.¹⁵ In Baruch 3:37 the revelation is

 Jones, Rumors of Wisdom,  sees in Job : –  a combination of creation and storm motifs which are set in place for a revelation from the thunderstorm in which God issues his decree about the content of wisdom. In this it anticipates Job : in which YHWH addresses Job from the storm. In Bar : –  the focus is on the ongoing work of creation with echoes of Job . So Moore, Additions, ; Sheppard, Wisdom, ; and Jones, Rumors of Wisdom, .  For this understanding of the revelatory intention of Job : see Rowley, Job,  and Jones, Rumors of Wisdom, , the latter of whom understands v.  as an ancient divine utterance from the thunderstorm described in Job : – .  While earlier scholars often considered the final verse to be a late addition to the song, many today find this verse to be an essential climax to the progression of the thought of the poet. For a

48

Ruth Henderson

specific and comprehensive, “He discovered the whole way of knowledge and gave her to his servant Iakob and to Israel who was loved by him”. The ending in Job 28:28 provides the author of the wisdom poem in Baruch with a launching pad for the following verses (Bar 3:36 – 37; 4:1– 4). In these verses he shows that the Torah, as revealed in the covenant with Israel, is superior to international/ cosmic wisdom, which it includes, encompasses and surpasses. This conception of wisdom is developed in the deuteronomic frame of the composition (Baruch 3:9 – 14; 4:1– 4) and has also been interwoven into the text of the wisdom poem.

2 Deuteronomic Influence on the Wisdom Poem The similarity in phraseology and ideology between the book of Deuteronomy and wisdom literature, particularly the book of Proverbs, has been extensively documented.¹⁶ The author of the book of Baruch is aware of this similarity and in the frame of the wisdom poem (Bar 3:9 – 15; 4:1– 4), has adroitly exploited the commonalities in thought and expression between the two types of literature to fuse wisdom teaching with the teachings of Torah.¹⁷ In this way he encompasses wisdom within the bounds of the teaching of Torah expressed in the book of Deuteronomy. This fusion of wisdom with the Deuteromic Torah has been extended by the author of Baruch 3:9 – 4:4. The wisdom poem (Bar 3:15 – 38) which, as shown above, is modeled on Job 28:12– 28, has been viewed from the perspective of Deuteronomy 4 and 30. These two chapters, which form the beginning and conclusion of the long farewell address of Moses in the book of Deuteronomy, contain many correspondences and may be regarded as a type of inclusio for the main contents of the book.¹⁸ They are regarded as coming from a relatively later exilic layer and appear to sum up much of the book’s teaching.¹⁹

discussion on the integrity of this verse with the wisdom poem see Jones, Rumors of Wisdom,  –  and Newsom, Job,  – .  Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School,  – ; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  – . See Hogan, Theologies in Conflict,  –  for a discussion on the ideas of Weinfeld.  For example, the association of “law” with “wisdom” Deut : –  in Bar :; the metaphor of “path” or “way” for wisdom in Deut :, ; : ; :; Prov :; :; :; Bar :, , , ; the association of “wisdom/law” and “life” in Deut :; :; Prov :; Bar :; the association of “wisdom/law” and “light” in Prov :; Bar :; and “holding onto” / “not forsaking wisdom/law” in Deut :; Prov :, ; :; Bar :; See Saldarini, Baruch, . – .  See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  – .  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  – ; Mays, Deuteronomy ,  – .

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

49

The wisdom song of Baruch 3:15 – 38 is not only enclosed within a deuteronomically styled frame, but also interacts with the concerns and language of these chapters from Deuteronomy. These concerns have been interwoven into the structure and ideation of the poem in 1 Baruch. In this, the author may be reflecting an opinion found in later rabbinic writings that Moses was the author of the book of Job.²⁰

2.1 Deuteronomic phraseology The wisdom poem in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 begins with a type of introduction that is common to both the book of Deuteronomy²¹ and the book of Proverbs.²² This introduction names an addressee, admonishes them to listen and substantiates the admonition with motivating promises. Deut : So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live

Prov : Listen, children, to a father’s discipline, and pay attention, that you may come to know insight,

Bar : Hear, O Israel, commandments of life; give ear to learn insight.

All three texts reflect a hortatory situation. However, unlike the general, universal appeal of wisdom to hear the words of parents or teachers which begins many wisdom pericopes (such as Prov 1:4; 4:1, 10; 5:7; 8:32 – 33), this poem is addressed specifically to Israel with the imperative “to hear”.²³ This expression “Hear, O Israel”, though found elsewhere in the Bible, is predominately deuteronomic (Deut 4:1, 5:1; 6:4; 9:1; 20:3). Here it appears to be drawn from the prologue (Deut 4:1– 8) and epilogue (Deut 4:32– 40) of the words of Moses by which he introduces his exposition of the covenant law. By addressing the wisdom song specifically to Israel and drawing from Deuteronomy 4, the author frames the wisdom poem that follows with the words by which Moses begins his exposition of covenant law. In this way, the wisdom poem is endorsed with the authority of Moses and becomes, as it were, an extension of the Mosaic Torah. The expression ἐντολὰς ζωῆς “commandments of life” is found only here in the LXX, although in Sirach 45:5 the expression νόμον ζωῆς καὶ ἐπιστήμης “law  For this rabbinic opinion see b. B. Bat. b. On the relationship between the books of Deuteronomy and Job in contemporary scholarship, see Witte, Does the Torah,  – .  Miller, Deuteronomy,  – .  Waltke, Proverbs,  – .  Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, .

50

Ruth Henderson

of life and knowledge” is found in parallelism with the term ἐντολάς “commandments” with reference to the law of Moses and in Proverbs 6:23 the expression “commandment of the law” and “way of life” are found in parallelism. The expression ἐντολὰς ζωῆς in Baruch 3:9 which is in parallelism with the word φρόνησις, “insight”, sums up the purpose of Moses’ teaching in Deuteronomy 4:1, “So now, Israel, give heed to the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to observe, so that you may live”. In Deuteronomy 30:15, with reference to ἡ ἐντολὴ αὕτη (this commandment which Moses is teaching the people, Deut 30:11), he says, “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity”.²⁴ The motif of “life” is to be found in the frames of both Deuteronomy 4 (vv. 1, 40)²⁵ and the wisdom poem in Baruch (3:15; 4:1) and serves as an inclusio in both. In Deuteronomy 4:6, 8 wisdom and Torah are brought together. The statutes and ordinances, which God has commanded Moses to teach Israel, will be viewed by the nations as Israel’s superior σοφία (“wisdom”) and σύνεσις (“discernent”).²⁶ The wisdom poem in Baruch also equates wisdom with Torah in the parallelism of Baruch 4:1. The expression “the book of the decrees of God, the law that remains forever” is an expansion of the deuteronomic expression “the book of this law” or “this book of the law” (Deut 28:61; 29:20; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 1:8; 8:34; 2 Kgs 22:8, 11; 2 Chr 34:15; Neh 8:3). In both Sirach 24:23 and Baruch 4:1, a similar expansion of the deuteronomic expression combining “book” and “law” in parallelism, is to be found.²⁷

 See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School,  – ; Hogan, Theologies in Conflict,  – .  See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, .  See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, ; Hogan, Theologies in Conflict,  – .  Most scholars assume that in identifying wisdom with Torah, the author of Bar : – : is influenced by Ben Sira. See Hogan, Theologies in Conflict,  – , n. . Saldarini, Baruch, ., , however, is undecided and suggests that both texts, in identifying wisdom with Torah, may have drawn on a shared tradition from a similar source.

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

Deut :²⁸ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου Deut :; :; :; :; Josh :; :;  Kings :, ;  Chr :; Neh : In the book of this law

51

Sir : Bar : βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ἡ βίβλος τῶν προσταγμὑψίστου, νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλα- άτων τοῦ θεοῦ το ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς καὶ ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα book of the covenant of the book of the decrees of Most High God, God, the law that rea law that Moyses commains forever manded us

In both Baruch and Sirach the sacred wisdom writings are viewed from the perspective of Torah as summed up in the book of Deuteronomy and are circumscribed by it. In this way they are considered with Torah and the Prophets to be part of the Holy Scriptures.²⁹ The final words of Moses’ address to Israel close with a macarism in which Israel is considered fortunate because of their salvation from the Lord. In a similar way, Baruch’s wisdom address to Israel ends with a macarism addressed to Israel, telling them they are fortunate on account of their revelation of the things that please God, that is, the teaching that will bring them salvation and life.³⁰ Deut : μακάριος σύ, Ισραηλ· τίς ὅμοιός σοι λαὸς σῳζόμενος ὑπὸ κυρίου; Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord?

Prov : μακάριος ἄνθρωπος ὃς εὗρενσοφίαν καὶ θνητὸς ὃς εἶδεν φρόνησιν· Happy is the person who has found wisdom, and the mortal who perceived insight;

Bar : μακάριοί ἐσμεν, Ισραηλ, ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰτῷ θεῷ ἡμῖν γνωστά ἐστιν. Happy are we, O Israel, because what is pleasing to God is known to us.

 In this table, as well as in the following examples, the text of the LXX rather than that of the MT has been used for biblical books. This has been done for ease of comparison, because there is no extant text of Baruch in Hebrew and the Greek text of Baruch is preferable to Hebrew reconstruction. However, this is not to infer that Bar : – : was originally written in Greek, for there is still no final consensus on the original language of Bar : – : in scholarly discussion. The Greek text of the LXX (Rahlfs) has been copied from the Accordance Bible Software program. The English translation of passages from Baruch has been taken from the NETS. For English translation of quotations from biblical books the NRSV has been used.  However, as observed by Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, , the approach to wisdom is different in both books. While Ben Sira’s approach is more universal and minimizes the uniqueness of Israel’s experience of God, Baruch is more nationalistic and emphasizes Deuteronomic covenant theology.  Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology,  – .

52

Ruth Henderson

Here again the author has combined a form common to both Deuteronomy and Wisdom. The macarism (“ašrê” formula), found most frequently in the Psalms (26x), is also found in the wisdom writings of Proverbs (7x), in Job and Ecclesiastes (1x each).³¹ In Wisdom and the Psalms the macarisms are addressed indirectly and in general terms “happy is the person who… “ as in Prov 3:13 (above). The only place in the Bible in which this formula is addressed directly to Israel is Deuteronomy 33:29 as it is also in Baruch 4:4.³²

2.2 Deuteronomic ideation 2.2.1 The injunction against adding or detracting from the words of Moses (Deut 4:2) The injunction in Deuteronomy 4:2, which follows immediately after the opening address to Israel, presents a problem with regard to the wisdom writings, for these are not recorded as being given with Mosaic or prophetic authority. As mentioned above, by means of the frame which is modeled on Deuteronomy 4, the wisdom poem in Baruch 3:15 – 38, based on Job 28, appears to be presented as an extension of the words of Moses who is expounding the law of God. In this way, biblical wisdom is given the authority and legitimacy of Torah. As such it cannot be seen to be in violation of the injunction in Deuteronomy 4:2 that nothing must be added or taken away from Moses’ words (cf. the similar injunction in Prov 30:5 – 6).³³

2.2.2 The threat of exile and the possibility of return (Deut 4:26 – 29) As with the entire Book of Baruch, the devastation of exile and the possibility of return form the basis and theme of the poem. It begins with the call to Israel to recognize the degradation of their present position in exile and return to their God, “Why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the enemies’ land, that you became old in a foreign land?” In his exposition of this theme, the author of Baruch is following Deuteronomy 4 in which the threat of exile also forms a central  Psalms :; :; : – ; :; :; :; :; :; : – , ; :; :; :; :; : – ; :; : – ; : – ; :; :; Job :; Prov :; :, ; :; :; :; :; Eccl :.  On the meaning of the “ašrê” formula, see Janzen, Ašrê,  – .  See Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, .

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

53

concern.³⁴ As in Deuteronomy 4, exile means separation from God, and the worship of other gods (Deut 4:26 – 28; Bar 4:10 – 11). In both texts the possibly of return is presented. In Baruch 4:2 Israel is urged to turn, take hold of Torah wisdom and press on to greater enlightenment. In Deuteronomy 4:29 – 31 Israel is urged to seek God, turn and obey Him.

2.2.3 Israel’s superior wisdom compared with that of the nations In both Deuteronomy 4 and Baruch, Israel is reminded of their distinctive and privileged position by an extended comparison with the other nations (Deut 4:6 – 8, 32– 40; Bar 3:15 – 37; 4:3 – 4). In Deuteronomy 4:6 – 8, 32– 40 Israel is contrasted with the nations. Their status of having a God who is close to them and commandments that are righteous is claimed to be far superior to that of the nations. Their careful observance of these commandments will demonstrate their superior wisdom to the nations (Deut 4:5 – 6). In the Wisdom poem in Baruch there is also a contrast between the wisdom of Israel and that of the nations. The survey of the past history of earlier nations in Baruch 3:15 – 28 responds to the injunction of Deuteronomy 4:32, “For ask now about former ages, long before your own, ever since the day that God created human beings on the earth”. In both texts the conclusion is the same—that no other people has received direct revelation from God, whereas Israel is in the unique position of having been given the Torah directly from God (Deut 4:35 – 36, cf. Bar 3:37). Moreover, in both texts the purpose of this comparison is so that Israel might not forget their privileged position and lose their distinctiveness by falling into the sin of idolatry, thereby running the risk of passing from the scene of human history, as have the other nations (Deut 4:15 – 28; Bar 4:3). In Deuteronomy 4:33 Israel’s superiority lies in the fact that, like no other nation, they have heard the voice of God speaking to them directly and God has intervened directly in their history. In Baruch 3:36 Israel’s distinctiveness lies in the fact that, unlike the other nations, the wisdom of Torah has been given ἔδωκεν (Bar 3:37)/made known γνωστά (Bar 4:4) to them by God.

 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  –  and Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, .

54

Ruth Henderson

2.2.4 The allusion to Deuteronomy 30:12 – 13 in Baruch 3:29 – 30 This metaphor of the remoteness and inaccessibility of wisdom reflects a sapiential theme found elsewhere in the Bible and international wisdom.³⁵ Deut. : –  Τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ἡμῖν; Τίς δια περάσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ λήμψεται ἡμῖν αὐτήν; It is not in the heavens, saying, ‘Who shall go up for us into the heavens and take it for us that he would make us hear it, that we might observe it.’ And it is not across the Great Sea, saying, ‘Who will cross over the Great Sea for us and take it for us that he might make us hear it, that we might observe it.’

Bar : –  τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν. … τίς διέβη πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὴν… Who has gone up into the sky and taken her and brought her down from the clouds? has crossed over the sea and found her and will bring her in exchange for choice gold.

Although this allusion has been taken out of its deuteronomic context and placed in the more universal context of the wisdom poem, the phraseology, imagery and parallel structure of the rhetorical question, beginning with the interrogative pronoun, “who” and anticipating a negative answer mark, it as an allusion to Deuteronomy 30:12– 13.³⁶ Both have the interrogative pronoun τίς at the beginning of the parallel cola. In both the parallel clauses to go up to the heavens//to cross over the sea are used. In Deuteronomy 30 the verb is in the imperfect “who will go up”, whereas in Baruch the aorist tense “who has gone up” is used. The interrogative pronoun echoes the same form of the question, which begins the first section in Baruch 3:15. In addition to this, the rhetorical question is framed in the aorist rather that the imperfect of the passage from Deuteronomy. The covenantal language of the text of Deuteronomy 30:12– 15 has been removed in order to fit the universal language of the wisdom poem in Baruch. Thus the repeated words “for us” have been omitted from the allusion as have the repeated purpose clauses “that we might hear/observe it”. Instead, the clauses

 Hogan, Theologies in Conflict,  – . For the background to this allusion, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School,  – .  Moore, The Additions, ; Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology,  – . Similar expressions of the remoteness or inaccessibility of Wisdom are common in ancient Eastern literature and the Bible.

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

55

“and brought her down from the clouds?” and “will bring her in exchange for choice gold” have been added. The latter addition echoes Job 28:12– 19.³⁷ Moore has commented on the fact that in its placement in Baruch 4:29 – 30 this allusion gives the opposite idea from its context in Deuteronomy 30:12– 13.³⁸ It would appear that this is intentional. The purpose of this allusion, placed at the beginning of Section 2, is to reinforce the sense of the remoteness and inaccessibility of wisdom for the nations as described in Section 1. At the same time, by means of its resonance with the context in Deuteronomy, the allusion prepares for the coming declaration that wisdom, in the form of Torah, has been revealed to Israel.³⁹

2.2.5 The election of Israel The specific revelation Israel has received is due to their having been chosen by God (Deut 4:35 – 37; Bar 3:37), in contrast with the nations who have not been chosen (Deut 4:6 – 8; Bar 3:37). The election of Israel is expressed with the same word, “loved” (Deut 4:37 [cf. Deut 7:8; 23:5; 33:3]; Bar 3:37).

3.2.6 Confession of the incomparability of Israel’s God In both texts, linked with the conclusion of the superiority of Israel and as a climax to it, there is the confession of the incomparability of God:⁴⁰ Bar 3:36 This is our God; no other will be reckoned with him. Deut 4:35 (that you might know that) the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

This confession is obviously an editorial insertion into the existing wisdom song in Baruch, because it breaks into the continuity of the wisdom theme and is specifically addressed to Israel in a covenantal sense.⁴¹ The purpose of the insertion

 Moore, Additions, .  Moore, Additions, .  Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, .  Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, .  Moore, Additions,  notes that confessions of the incomparability of Israel’s God are also found in Deutero Isaiah.

56

Ruth Henderson

is to reinforce the teaching of Deuteronomy that the superiority of Israel is an adjunct of the incomparability of the God who has chosen them. Israel has superior laws and wisdom because of the revelation they have received from the only true God (Deut 4:35 – 36).

3 Conclusion In the poem Baruch 3:9 – 4:4, the two major scriptural influences, Job 28 and Deuteronomy 4, have been set structurally in dialogue with each other. Both appear to be regarded by the author as representative of a type of authoritative scripture—the book of Deuteronomy as representative of the Torah, the writings of Moses, and the book of Job as a representative of authoritative scriptural wisdom writings. It is interesting to observe that the section of Job alluded to in Baruch 3 – 4 is taken from what is considered by some to be one of the final sections in the composition of the book.⁴² Similarly, the allusions to Deuteronomy 4 and 30 are from chapters considered to be one of the later, exilic layers in the composition of this book.⁴³ The author thus displays knowledge of what appears to have been finalized or near final versions of both books and regards them as authoritative. By means of the deuteronomically styled frame, the author of the poem in Baruch is viewing the book of Job through the lens of the Torah, represented by its culminating and final book, the book of Deuteronomy.⁴⁴ In this way an exegetical problem is solved. In Deuteronomy 4:2 Israel is commanded not to add or to delete from the words which Moses is commanding them. The author, by using a deuteronomic frame, and by infusing the wisdom poem with concerns drawn from Deuteronomy 4 and 30, validates, or more probably affirms a validation already in existence, of the wisdom writings as an extension of the words of Moses and thus an authoritative part of Israel’s sacred scriptures.⁴⁵ In this, he is extending a process already begun in the scriptural fusing of the teachings of Proverbs and Deuteronomy.

 Rowley, Job,  – .  Mays, Deuteronomy ,  – .  See Saldarini, Baruch, ., who writes, “The identification of wisdom with Torah, the law and holy book of Israel, completes the incorporation of the wisdom of the ancient Near East into Israel’s developing biblical traditions”.  Unlike Witte, Does the Torah, , who regards the book of Job in its final form as a challenge to the teachings of the book of Deuteronomy, it is my opinion that what we have here in Bar : – : an embracing or inclusion of the book of Job within the revelation of Mosaic Torah.

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

57

A similar process may be seen in the other sections of the Book of Baruch. In the opening introduction (Bar 1:1– 14), the deuteronomistically edited biblical historical books are imitated. The penitential prayers (Bar 1:15 – 3:8) are modeled on that prayer of Daniel (Dan 9), from what is one of the latest books in the Hebrew authoritative scriptures. Here again the danielic influence of the prayer is viewed through the perspective of Deuteronomy.⁴⁶ The final section of the Book of Baruch (Bar 4:5 – 5:9) shows the influence of the books of Lamentations, Isaiah 40 – 66 and what appears to be a finalized version of the prophets.⁴⁷ These are all viewed from the perspective of the final chapters of Deuteronomy.⁴⁸ The wisdom poem in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 in its present form cannot be generically classified as speculative wisdom. It represents rather a perspective on biblical speculative wisdom viewed from the standpoint of Torah represented by the book of Deuteronomy. It may be considered as a particular hortatory genre whose purpose is to exhort Israel in exile to hold fast to the authoritative teaching of Torah and not to become engulfed in the false wisdom and practices of the nations which could destroy their privileged position and their very existence as a chosen nation.⁴⁹ Like Deuteronomy 4, on which the author’s exhortation is modeled, many of the motifs found in this poem have their roots in Israel’s liturgy.⁵⁰ These motifs include the distinctiveness of Israel’s laws and commandments (Deut 4:1– 8; Bar 3:37; 4:1– 4); the motif of God’s love for Israel and their election (Deut 4:19 – 22, 37; Bar 3:37; 4:2– 3); sin, confession and return (Deut 4:25 – 31; Bar 4:2); the motif of the promise of the land (Deut 4:38; Bar 3:10, 13 – 14); and the motif of the exclusivity of Israel’s God (Deut 4:35, 39; Bar 3:36). As M. Weinfeld has observed, the affinities of these motifs in Deuteronomy 4:1– 40 with those in many of the biblical pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic prayers reflect a hortatory address preached to exiles within a liturgical setting.⁵¹ M. Brettler, while admitting that Deuteronomy 4:1– 40 shares many characteristics posited for ancient preaching, refutes the idea that this composition should be generically classified as a sermon. He sees it as a literary composition that is deeply in-

 See Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – ; Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology,  –  and Adams, Reframing Scripture,  –  for a survey of the Deuteronomic influence on Bar : – :.  Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .  Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology,  –  for a survey of the Deuteronomic influence on this section. See also Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – ;  – .  See Newsom, Job,  on the purpose of Bar : – : in addressing the cultural context of the time in which it was written.  See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  –   See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy,  – .

58

Ruth Henderson

tegrated into the structure of the book of Deuteronomy.⁵² Nevertheless, this exilic literary composition may well have been influenced by the oral motifs and style of the ancient sermon. In its integration of the ideation of Deuteronomy 4:1– 40 within the ideation and structure of the wisdom poem of Bar 3:9 – 4:4, a literary form which has its roots in ancient preaching appears to be reflected. The purpose and theme of Baruch 3:9 – 4:4, as well as in its wide range of scriptural allusion and echoes all viewed from the perspective of the book of Deuteronomy, are similar to the other sections of the book of Baruch and thus may be said to form a unity of purpose with them. The genre and provenance of this composition can best be understood within the hortatory/parenetic framework of the early Palestinian synagogue teaching used to accompany the reading and instruction of Torah.⁵³

Bibliography Adams, Sean A., Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So‐Called ‘Citations,’ in: Géza Xeravits, Tobias Nicklas and Isaac Kalimi (eds.), Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity (DCLS 16) Berlin: De Gruyter 2013, 63 – 84. Andersen, Francis I., Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1976. Brettler, Marc Z., A ‘Literary Sermon’ in Deuteronomy 4, in: Saul, M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley (eds.), “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (Brown Judaic Studies 325) Providence, RI: Brown University Press 2000, 33 – 50. Henderson, Ruth, Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa XXII 1 – 15); Tobit 13:9 – 18 and 1 Baruch 4:30 – 5:9 (DCLS17) Berlin: de Gruyter 2014. Hogan, K.M., Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130) Leiden: Brill 2008. Janzen, Waldemar, Ašrê in the Old Testament: The Harvard Theological Review 58 (1965) 215 – 26. Jones, Scott C., Rumors of Wisdom: Job 28 as Poetry (BZAW 398) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Marttila, Marko, The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch, in: Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2011, 321 – 46. Mays, Andrew. D.H., Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy, in: Duane L. Christensen (ed.), A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 1993, 195 – 224.

 Brettler, A Literary Sermon,  – .  See Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .

The Inter-textual Dialogue in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4

59

Miller, Patrick D., Deuteronomy (Interpretation) Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44), Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Newsom, Carol A., The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003. Rowley, H.H., Job (NCB) London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1976. Saldarini, Anthony. J., The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections, in: K. Doob Sakenfeld (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville, Texas: Abingdon Press 2001, 6.929 – 82. Sheppard, Gerald T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151) Berlin: de Gruyter 1980. Steck, Odil H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Steck, Odil H., Das Buch Baruch (ATD 5) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Waltke, Bruce K., The Book of Proverbs Chapters 1 – 15 (NICOT) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe, Deuteronomy 1 – 11: A New Translation with Commentary (AB 5) New York: Doubleday 1991. Westermann, Claus, The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis, trans. C. A. Muenchow. Philadelphia: Fortress 1981. Witte, Markus. Does the Torah Keep its Promise: Job’s Critical Intertextual Dialogue with Deuteronomy, in: Katharine J. Dell and William K. Kynes (eds.), Reading Job Intertextually. New York: Bloomsbury 2013, 54 – 65.

Sean A. Adams

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 and Its Relationships with Jewish Scripture The impetus for this paper came from my reading of different scholars who claim that there is a strong relationship between Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 and Second Isaiah. For example, opinions range from Kabasele Mukenge, who says that this section “est une suite de chants de lamentation et de consolation de style deuteronisaïen”¹ to Moore, who states that “the psalm drew its inspiration primarily, if not almost exclusively, from Deutero-Isaiah”² to Burke, who claims that this third section is “composed very consciously in the style of Second Isaiah and, textually, heavily dependent on that prior work”.³ Thackeray claims that this part of Baruch shows “dependence on deutero-Isaiah, which dominates it”.⁴ Such dependency led Heinisch to suggest that this was written by a disciple of Deutero-Isaiah.⁵ Even more extreme is the claim by Weissenberg and others that, “Although perhaps slightly provocatively, it can be said that no sentence is original in this book but can be derived from the sources that the author or rather a group of authors had available”.⁶ One of the immediate issues with many of these comments is that the scholars who made these claims rarely go on to define exactly what they mean by important terms, such as “dependence”, “use of”, or “Isaianic style”, but rather claim similarities or reminiscences in “phrases” and “concepts”. Although I agree with the broad idea that Isaiah, specifically chapters 40 – 55, was important and influenced the author of Baruch 4:5 – 5:9, this paper will seek to determine the extent of that relationship. First, we will seek to understand how the stylistic features in Isaiah typically identified by scholars as models for the author of Baruch relate to those found in Baruch. Second, and more importantly, we will compare the depictions of Jerusalem to identify similarities and differences in content. Overall, I will argue that, although the author of Baruch knew and engaged Isaiah and other Jewish writings, there are notable con-

     

Kabesele Mukenge, L’unité, . Moore, Additions, . Burke, Poetry of Baruch, . Thackeray, Septuagint and Jewish Worship, . Heinisch, Zur Entstehung des Buches Baruch. Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, Introducing Changes in Scriptures, .

62

Sean A. Adams

tent and stylistic differences that indicate that Baruch is a distinctive work and needs to be understood, not as derivative of Isaiah, but as a unique piece of theological writing.

1 The Structure and Style of Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 Scholars typically divide Baruch into three or four parts: opening (1:1– 14), penitential prayer (1:15 – 3:8), wisdom section (3:9 – 4:4), and Jerusalem psalm (4:5 – 5:9).⁷ The most striking division occurs at 3:9 where prose language changes to asymmetric poetic metre, although thematic and vocabulary differences are also part of the rationale for this and other divisions. The final section of Baruch focuses on the return of Jerusalem’s children from exile. Although the narrative begins in a negative space with Jerusalem lamenting the loss of her inhabitants, the text proceeds to describe their return, which results in hope for Jerusalem and her children and is the dominant theme in 4:5 – 5:9. Both the characters in Baruch and the text’s readers (regardless of their temporal location) are assured that exile is not permanent, but will ultimately be followed by return.⁸ The dominant stylistic feature of Baruch’s Jerusalem psalm is the recurring use of an imperative followed by a vocative/nominative of address.⁹ This pairing occurs eleven times in these verses and has been used by authors as a means of delineating the structure of this section.¹⁰ Burke and others have claimed that, “Each individual unit in this third section is characteristically introduced in Isaianic fashion by an imperative plus a vocative.”¹¹ Although (wrongly) claim-

 For discussions of the (dis)unity of Baruch, see Adams, Baruch,  – ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, ; Kabesele Mukenge, L’unité.  Fraade,  Baruch, .  The differences in morphology mean that nominatives of address are technically not vocatives, although they have a similar function in the text. However, for convenience, in this paper I will use the term vocative for direct addresses of an individual or group.  Scholars have traditionally suggested that there are six (: – a, b–,  – ,  – , : – :, and : – ; Rost, Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen, ; Weiser, The Old Testament,  – ), seven (: – ,  – ,  – ,  – ,  – ; : – ,  – ; Thackeray, Septuagint and Jewish Worship,  – ; Baruch,  – ; Moore, Additions, ), eight (: – a, b–,  – ,  – ,  – ,  – , : – :, : – ; Fitzgerald, Baruch, ), or eleven (Burke, Poetry of Baruch,  – ) “stanzas”. For a recent discussion, see Adams, Baruch,  – ; Xeravits, “Take Courage”,  – ,  – .  Burke, Poetry of Baruch, 

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

63

ing that this structure indicates Hebrew origins,¹² Burke also misspeaks when he claims that this structure is “characteristically Isaianic”. Looking at Isaiah it is clear that the author made use of an imperative plus vocative formulation, and such pairs are found in 1:2; 8:9; 23:4; 26:13, 15; 33:2; 37:17; 38:3; 40:2; 54:1. Notably lacking in this list of ten examples are substantial instances in Second Isaiah to form a stylistic pattern from which the author of Baruch would draw. In looking at the occurrences of this formula in Jewish Scripture more broadly, it is clear that the pairing of an imperative with a vocative is not limited to Isaiah. Rather, it appears to be an important construction in the Psalms and wisdom literature. For example, there are sixteen clear occurrences in Proverbs (1:8; 4:1, 10; 5:7; 6:3, 20; 7:1, 24; 8:32; 19:20; 23:19, 22, 26; 24:13; 27:11; 30:1), twelve in Sirach (3:1, 12; 6:23; 16:24; 23:7; 31:22; 32:7; 33:19; 36:1, 11, 16; 41:14), and sixty-one in Psalms.¹³ Of particular interest are five of the twenty-one examples from Tobit which use the same lexical term, θαρσέω, as four of Baruch’s imperatives (Tobit 7:17 [x2]; 8:21 [x2]; 11:11; cf. Tobit 5:10 [‫ ;]א‬Joel 2:21). Similar examples of this structural feature are also found within the previous sections of Baruch, specifically the lament (2:14, 16, 17; 3:2) and the wisdom poem (3:9; 4:2), neither of which are thought to have been significantly influenced by Isaiah. A close inspection of Isaiah, moreover, determines that Second and Third Isaiah do not employ the imperative/vocative pairing, but utilise the distinctive double imperative with vocative, particularly in reference to Jerusalem. For example, the first occurrence of this pairing opens Second Isaiah (“Comfort, comfort, O my people”, 40:1), though it does not specifically address Jerusalem. The remaining occurrences, however, are clearly addressed to Zion/Jerusalem: 51:9 (“Awake, awake, O Jerusalem”), 17 (“Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem”); 52:1 (“Awake, awake, O Zion”); 60:1 (“Shine, shine, O Jerusalem”) (cf. 52:11 “Depart, depart” with no vocative). In these examples the two imperatives are identical (i. e., built on the same lexical item and morphologically similar) and both are placed prior to the vocative. When we evaluate the Baruchan text we see that this double imperative, which is distinctive to Second Isaiah’s references to Jerusalem, is lacking. Of the eleven pairings of an imperative with a vocative/nominative of address in

 This pairing was even recognised by ancient Greek grammarians. E. g., Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax, . – .  Psalms :; :; :; :, ; :, ; :, , ; :; :; :; :, ; :; :; :; :, ; :, ; :; :, ; :; :, ; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :, , , ; :; :; :; :, ; :; :, ; :; :; :; :, ; :; :; :, , ; :; :; :; :.

64

Sean A. Adams

Baruch (4:5, 9b, 14, 19, 21, 25, 27, 30, 36; 5:1, 5) five have a second imperative in near proximity:¹⁴ 4:14 ἐλθάτωσαν αἱ πάροικοι Σιων, καὶ μνήσθητε 4:19 βαδίζετε, τέκνα, βαδίζετε 4:27 θαρρήσατε, τέκνα, καὶ βοήσατε πρὸς τὸν θεόν 4:36 περίβλεψαι πρὸς ἀνατολάς, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ἴδε τὴν εὐφροσύνην τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ 5:4 ἀνάστηθι, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ στῆθι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ καὶ περίβλεψαι πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ ἴδε σου συνηγμένα

Out of these five examples, the imperatives in four verses (4:14, 27, 36; 5:4) are formed from different lexical items and are furthermore located on either side of the vocative and are separated with a καί.¹⁵ In 4:19 there is a repetition of βαδίζετε, though again they are not conjoined, but flank the vocative (τέκνα). These are important stylistic differences, especially when one highlights that the double imperatives are a distinctive part of Isaiah’s Jerusalem narrative. As a result, the stylistic feature of pairing an imperative with a vocative cannot be used to claim Isaianic indebtedness. Rather this comparison, along with the examples identified in other works, suggests the opposite conclusion: that the imperative plus vocative pairing that is prominent in Baruch is not dependent on Second Isaiah’s stylistic structuring of the personification of Jerusalem.¹⁶ More recently Henderson has argued, following Steck, that the vocative and imperative in Baruch 4:9b//4:14, with its reference to Zion’s neighbours, can be considered a “structural allusion” to Lamentations 1:12//1:18b.¹⁷ Baruch 4:9b ἀκούσατε, αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων Baruch 4:14 ἐλθάτωσαν αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων, καὶ μνήσθητε Lamentations 1:12 οὐ πρὸς ὑμᾶς πάντες οἱ παραπορευόυμενοι ὁδόν ἐπιστρέψατε καὶ ἴδετε Lamentations 1:18 ἀκούσατε δή πάντες οἱ λαοί ἴδετε τὸ ἄλγος μου

 This essay will engage exclusively with the Greek text of Baruch and not any retroversions (cf. Barr, Typology; Davila, How Can We Tell). Although there is debate over the original language of Baruch : – :, we will engage primarily with the Greek text of Isaiah as there is some support for the view that the final section was originally written in Greek. Cf. Burke, Poetry of Baruch; Kabesele Mukenge, L’unité,  – ; Tov, Septuagint Translation; Steck, Das Buch Baruch, ; Adams, Baruch,  – .  The Greek texts used in this article are taken from Ziegler, Jeremias.  Henderson’s (Second Temple Songs, ) claim that Baruch’s use of the vocative to address Jerusalem is a sign that the author modeled his text on Isaiah goes too far.  Henderson, Second Temple Songs, . Cf. Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, ; Steck, Das Buch Baruch, .

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

65

Although I would agree that the character of Jerusalem in both Baruch and Lamentations addresses her comments to those in close proximity to her, there is an important difference between the two addresses. In Baruch it is those dwelling around her (αἱ πάροικοι), whereas in Lamentations, Jerusalem speaks to those who are passing by (πάντες οἱ παραπορευόυμενοι). Although the difference is minor it plays an important role later in the narratives as those dwelling by Zion in Baruch will later be witness to her return to fortune, while the same is not the case in Lamentations. Returning to Henderson’s claim of Baruch’s “structural allusion” to Lamentations, the definition of which is unclear, Lamentations lacks the introductory imperative and the vocative in 1:12 (though there is a nominative of address in 1:18). This is an important difference for the structuring of the narratives, particularly for Baruch, the recurring pattern in which is a dominant feature (see above). Although I would agree with Henderson that there are significant similarities between the depictions of Jerusalem in Lamentations and Baruch (see below),¹⁸ I would question whether the claim of structural allusion/ imitation has sufficient textual support.¹⁹ Overall, the regular use of the imperative plus vocative to structure Baruch does not appear to have any strong parallels in Jerusalem texts. Although it is clear that this pairing is widespread in Jewish literature (and in Greek literature more broadly),²⁰ it is not clear that the author of Baruch was dependent on Isaiah or Lamentations for his stylistic structure.²¹ We now turn to the content of Baruch’s Jerusalem poem to determine the extent of its relationship with Isaiah and other Jerusalem personifications.

2 The Content of Baruch’s Jerusalem Psalm This section in Baruch (4:5 – 5:9) begins with a prophet-like character (presumably the narrative character of Baruch)²² addressing his people (λαός μου,

 Cf. Adams, Baruch, .  Cf. Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – , .  E. g., Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax, . – .  This argument does not imply that there are no vocabulary or linguistic similarities between Baruch and Isaiah (some of which are discussed below). There are a number of shared motifs and themes between the works that are associated by shared vocabulary. For a recent discussion, see Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .  Adams, Baruch,  – ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – . Simian-Yofre (Jerusalem) interprets Bar : – : in light of the Psalms in which Zion does not appear together with Jerusalem and suggests that the unnamed speaker is this passage is Zion.

66

Sean A. Adams

4:5 – 9a), providing a clear explanation as to why the current disaster has come: it is not to destroy them, but because they angered God by sacrificing to demons and forgetting their God who nursed them. It is not until 4:8 that Jerusalem is introduced by the prophetic speaker, and her reported speech begins at 4:9b (καὶ εἶπεν). The author of Baruch presents Jerusalem as a woman in a series of different emotional states and in doing so, the author focuses the narrative on the character of Jerusalem, her current condition, and future restoration. In Isaiah, addresses to Zion/Jerusalem are found in a number of places, though exclusively in the latter two sections: Second Isaiah (49:14– 50:1; 52:1– 12; 54:1– 17) and Third Isaiah (60:1– 22; 62:1– 12).²³ In these passages we can see a wide range of imagery used to describe the condition, relationships, and future of Jerusalem. For example, Zion/Jerusalem is first introduced through the image of being a child born by the Lord (49:15a). She is, moreover, a wife and mother who has been sent into slavery because of her sins and the sins of her children (40:2; 50:1; 54:7– 8a). However, despite this current position, this childless mother and abandoned wife will shortly be restored and see her children (49:14– 23; 50:1– 3; 54:1– 17). Accordingly, the Lord makes a promise to Zion/Jerusalem that she will receive a second exodus (51:9 – 11; 52:3) and implores her to make herself ready (51:17a; 52:11– 12). Captive daughter Zion/Jerusalem is called to rise, shake off the dust, and take the bond off her neck (52:1– 2); whereas Babylon/Chaldea is prophesied to sit on the ground and toil (47:1). Although Jerusalem is presently in darkness, the Lord has not forgotten her (49:15) nor has he rejected her completely (50:1; 54:7– 8); rather, the Lord will be her deliverer and bring her home (51:12– 16).

 Although we will focus primarily on select passages from Deutero-Isaiah, it should be noted that the Jerusalem passages are firmly embedded within a larger structure. For example, Patricia T. Willey has argued that Isaiah  –  alternates between the experiences of the servant and Zion-Jerusalem and so each motif should be interpreted in light of the other (Willey, Servant of YHWH, .) Similarly, the caution given by Hans Barstad regarding the “servant songs” is also applicable here, “Any attempt to remove the so-called ‘servant songs’ from their context, any attempt to make of them a separate corpus within Isa  – , is bound to fail”. (Barstad, Future of the ‘Servant Songs’, ). Unfortunately a thorough integration is beyond the purview of this work; nevertheless, it is important to note this relationship as it forms the structure of the section as a whole. “So, in this pericope we find, on the one hand, an oscillation between the people and a female figure, who is probably Zion, and, on the other hand, an oscillation between the people and a male figure, who is probably the Servant. Zion and the Servant are not identical” (Jeppesen, Mother Zion, Father Servant, 117). This is contrary to the argument of Wilshire, which drew attention to the many similarities in the Servant-imagery and the Zion-imagery and suggested a possible linking of these two figures (Wilshire, The Servant City, 356 – 67).

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

67

One feature of Baruch that is regularly compared with Isaiah is how Jerusalem is depicted as a woman. That Jerusalem is personified in Baruch is not without precedent as there are a number of passages in Jewish Scripture that present Jerusalem as a female (Ez 16:1– 63; Jer 4:11– 18; 6:2– 8; Zeph 3:1– 20; Lam 1, 2, 4). This, moreover, is a common ancient motif,²⁴ as personified cities were consistently depicted as female. In light of this widespread usage it is unlikely that Baruch took this idea solely from Isaiah, though it is possible that Isaiah was his primary source. What is more distinctive, although not totally unique, is Baruch’s presentation of Jerusalem as a mother, and not only a mother, but one who grieving the loss of her children. It is this theme of Jerusalem as mother and her (former) inhabitants as her children that is central to the remainder of Baruch’s narrative. Not only does Jerusalem address her distant children at length (4:19 – 29), but their absence is the primary reason for her lament. Although the depiction of Jerusalem as a mother is found in Tobit 13:9 and Jeremiah 5:7 through the references to Jerusalem’s “sons”, it is fair to say that nowhere else in the Greek Bible is Jerusalem consistently presented as a mother than in Isaiah. For example, making use of first and second person narrative, Isaiah 49:14– 50:1 presents a conversation between Zion/Jerusalem and the Lord. In this passage the Lord is the primary speaker and the exile of Israel is personified through the image of a mother losing her children: “From a Deutero-Isaianic point of view the exile was a period when Jerusalem was bereaved of her children and did not bear any new children; that is, Jerusalem was without inhabitants”.²⁵ This passage begins with a reported lament by Zion in which she asserts that she has been forsaken and forgotten by the Lord. This claim, however, is immediately repudiated (49:15) with the remainder of the passage comprising a promise and prophecy given to Zion/ Jerusalem of future restoration and a clarification that she in fact was not fully abandoned. Not only has Baruch’s Jerusalem lost her children, she has also lost her husband (μηδεὶς ἐπιχαιρέτω μοι τῇ χήρᾳ καὶ καταλειφθείσῃ ὑπὸ πολλῶν, 4:12, cf. 4:16). Calduch-Benages argues that in the ANE it was customary to describe cities, particularly capital cities, as wives of the patron gods (Cf. Hos 2:5 – 7;

 For an overview of ancient examples, see Biddle, Figure of Lady Jerusalem; Baltzer, StandTyche oder Zion-Jerusalem,  – .  Jeppesen, Mother Zion, Father Servant, . The view that Jerusalem in uninhabited is not found in Baruch, for the whole narrative situation of the work is that people in Babylon are sending the book to Jerusalem (which still has a functioning cult) with requests/commands to read the text and perform appropriate sacrifices (: – ,  – ).

68

Sean A. Adams

Isa 23:10; Lam 4:21).²⁶ The motif of the “widowed city” appears in three other scriptural passages, but only two refer to Jerusalem (Isa 49:21 and Lam 1:1; the other is Babylon, Isa 47:8 – 9).²⁷ The image and terminology of widow is interesting as, for modern readers, it refers to a woman who has survived her husband. Kabasele Mukenge rightly notes the emphasis on the children in Baruch, but goes too far with his claim that widow only refers to children and not to the loss of a husband.²⁸ If one sees God as Jerusalem’s husband the modern understanding and definition of widow would become theologically problematic (hence possibly Kabasele Mukenge’s avoidance of the issue), because even in the narrative world God is not dead. In light of this tension it is best to realise, as has been argued by Charlotte Methuen, that there exists a substantial amount of ambiguity in the term χήρα and that it does not necessarily imply the death of the woman’s husband.²⁹ The ancient commentator Theodoret of Cyrus (Com. Bar. 4.12), interprets χήρα in a similar fashion and argues that the term “widow” is metaphorical, not in terms of marriage, but regarding safety and security that are given from a protector; Jerusalem has been deprived of divine aid. This perspective highlights the vulnerability of Jerusalem, and sidesteps a potential theological difficulty. This fits with Cohen’s perspective that, “the widowed city motif seems to refer to a once independent city which has become a vassal of another state”, but one that was not without recourse to future help.³⁰ A similar depiction of Jerusalem is found in Isaiah 49:21 in which Zion claims that she is childless (ἄτεκνος), widowed (χήρα), and left alone (κατελείφθην μόνη). This resonates strongly with the images found in Baruch 4:12 and 16, though in the broader Isaiah narrative Jerusalem’s claim of widowhood is transformed to a discussion of divorce (50:1) and then in 54:4– 7 the Lord promises to take away the shame of her widowhood and return to her. In Baruch, despite the return of her children, there is no further mention of Jerusalem’s marital status. It is probably best to interpret God’s actions in restoring Jerusalem’s fortunes as also restoring her marriage. No longer is Jerusalem vulnerable and  Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem as Widow, .  Cohen, The ‘Widowed’ City,  – . Calduch-Benages (Jerusalem as Widow, , ) claims that, “Israel and Judah in Jer . (MT; Jer ., LXX) also fall into the category of ‘widowed cities’”. Although it is true that Jeremiah makes use of widow vocabulary (‫ ;אלמן‬χηρεύω), it is clear that he is claiming that neither Israel nor Judah have been widowed. Furthermore, these are not cites but nations.  Kabesele Mukenge, L’unité,  n., “Cette comparaison de la ville à une veuve a quelque chose de poétique, car le veuvage signifie ici la perte de ses enfants, et non pas, comme dans l’acception courante, la perte du mari”.  Methuen, ‘Virgin Widow’,  – . Cf. Tertullian, Ad ux. ...  Cohen, The ‘Widowed’ City,  – .

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

69

without a protector; rather, God is acting on her behalf and so her widowhood has come to an end.³¹ Although there are similarities between Bruch and other personifications of Jerusalem with regards to her state of widowhood, there are important differences regarding the reason for this state. Unlike the presentation of Jerusalem in other prophetic books, Baruch’s Jerusalem is portrayed as innocent, suffering not because of her own sin, but because of the sins of her children (4:12; cf. 1:13, 17; 2:5, 12; 3:2).³² In Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 there is no personal confession of sin by Jerusalem, nor is she accused of any wrongdoing. Rather, the actions and attitude of Jerusalem suggest that she is the innocent victim and it is her children that are responsible for her widowhood.³³ Evaluating Isaiah, Jerusalem’s children have been sent into slavery because of both her sins and theirs (40:2; 50:1; 51:17; 54:7– 8a). The two most explicit passages in which Jerusalem’s sinfulness is expressed are Isaiah 1:21– 26, in which Jerusalem is chastised for her prostitution and adultery, and 40:2, in which her humiliation for her sins is complete. In Jeremiah, Jerusalem is also presented as wicked (4:14, 18; 6:6), and she is denounced for her infidelity (Jer 4:30 – 31; 13:25 – 27). It is important, however, not to dismiss the perspective of the second half of Jeremiah, which focuses blame on the inhabitants, particularly as this section was an important source for and influence on the construction of Baruch.³⁴ The sinful portrayal of Jerusalem is also found in Ezekiel (16:15 – 22; 23:2– 4, 11) and Lamentations (1:2, 8; 4:16), both of which highlight her infidelity to the Lord. The assertion in Baruch that Jerusalem is entirely innocent is a major change from the other depictions of Jerusalem in Jewish Scripture. The only parallel example is Tobit 13:9 in which Jerusalem is not charged with any wrongdoing, “O Jerusalem, holy city, he will afflict you for the works of your sons…”³⁵ In Tobit

 It is possible that Jerusalem’s claim of widowhood is not accurate, and that her lament does not accurately depict her situation. Her husband has been absent, and so she has been vulnerable to attack. However, one day soon her husband will return and restore her fortunes and punish to those who harmed her.  Alonso Schökel, Jerusalem Inocente Intercede Baruc ,  – ; Alonso Schökel, Hermenéutica de la Palabra, .  Kabesele Mukenge, L’unité, ; Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem as Widow, .  Tov, Septuagint Translation; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – .  This perspective is only found in one of the Greek recensions (GI). In Sinaiticus (the primary text for GII) there is a lacuna for : –  and so we do not know if the claim of innocence for Jerusalem is part of the recension, though it likely is.

70

Sean A. Adams

13:10, however, Jerusalem is called to acknowledge the Lord, which might be a sign that this was not a practice for her or that she was not currently engaging in that activity. In light of Baruch’s depiction of Jerusalem as innocent, we cannot claim that the author of Baruch drew his perspective solely from Isaiah (which imputes sin to Jerusalem), but that he either developed this theological perspective himself or adapted it from another source/tradition (which I think is more likely).³⁶ Either way, Baruch strongly differs from the presentation of Jerusalem in the prophetic corpus and is nearly unique among extant texts regarding this point. In addition to the unique perspective of an “innocent” Jerusalem, CalduchBenages claims that Baruch also presents Jerusalem as an intercessor.³⁷ First claiming that the act of intercession is a typical prophetic activity, Calduch-Benages argues that the author of Baruch places Jerusalem in a prophetic role who intercedes for her people by “directing her supplication to the Lord for her sinful children”.³⁸ This, however, is inaccurate. Nowhere in Jerusalem’s monologue does she direct her speech to the Lord. Rather, she addresses her statements to either the neighbouring cites (4:9b–16), or her children (4:17– 29). This is not to claim that God is outside the hearing of Jerusalem’s statements, nor to claim that the author of Baruch did not see Jerusalem’s lament as functioning on multiple levels. Rather, the fact that none of Jerusalem’s statements are directed specifically to God undermines Calduch-Benages’ claim that Jerusalem is acting as an intercessor between her people and God. I would agree, however, with Alonso Schökel that Baruch portrays Jerusalem as acting in a prophetic role.³⁹ Here she not only laments (4:9b–20), which is an action commonly associated with the prophets,⁴⁰ but she actively calls out to her children to persuade them to take courage and to be confident in God’s ability to rescue them (4:21). Zion implores her children to return and call out to God (4:27– 28), promising that he will bring everlasting joy to them along with their salvation (4:29). This again is a unique action for Jerusalem that is not to be found in Isaiah or the other Jerusalem passages.

 In Psalms of Solomon  there is no mention of her sin, but the vision of the text is only of the future. The similarity between Baruch and Tobit might is most likely a result of both drawing from a common tradition. Similarly, there is no mention of sin in Q XXII  – .  Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem as Widow, .  Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem as Widow, .  Alonso Schökel, Hermenéutica de la Palabra, .  E. g., the book of Jeremiah is full of examples of both God and the prophet lamenting in response to the people’s sin and lack of obedience. Cf. Smith, Jeremiah IX ,  – ; Fischer, Jeremia, ..

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

71

The above discussion highlights the fact that Jerusalem in Baruch has a speaking role. That Jerusalem speaks within the narrative is not, in itself, original. What is unique to Baruch is the amount of uninterrupted speech that Jerusalem has. In Isaiah, we find Zion/Jerusalem in mourning, grieving the loss of her children and her abandoned state. But this lament is limited to a single sentence of reported speech: “The Lord has forsaken me; the Lord has forgotten me” (Isa 49:14). Such limited speaking roles are also found in Jeremiah in which Jerusalem speaks only twice and for just a single sentence each time (Jer 4:31; 28:35). In this aspect, the only comparable example to Baruch is found in Lamentations (1:12– 16, 18 – 22). Although Baruch parallels Lamentations in the amount of speech given to Jerusalem, their content and structure are notably different. Nevertheless, it is possible that the size of Baruch’s Jerusalem monologue was influenced by the way Jerusalem was presented in Lamentations. Once again, however, we see that Second Isaiah is a poor model for the speaking role given to Jerusalem in Baruch and that Baruch is distinctive for the amount of continual speech given to Jerusalem. There is one feature, however, that is an important component of both Baruch and Isaiah, namely, the encouragement given to Jerusalem and a positive perspective of the future. The Book of Baruch closes (4:30 – 5:9) with a prophet-like declaration to Jerusalem that she should take courage (θάρσει) and look to the east (περίβλεψαι πρὸς ἀνατολάς) because God, the one who named her,⁴¹ is going to bring her children back to her. Not typical of Jeremianic literature, this uplifting message has been rightly associated with Isaiah.⁴² The theme of restoration is particularly prominent when discussing Zion/Jerusalem’s children. There are repeated references to Jerusalem missing her children and being left alone (e. g., 49:14; cf. 1:8), most pointedly outlined in 51:18, “And there was none who comforted you from among all your children whom you have born and there was none who took hold of your hand, not even from among your sons, whom you have raised”. This recurring motif of being alone and abandoned provides the opportunity for the Lord to show his power to Jerusalem and the nations by bringing her children home (52:10; 62:11– 12). For example, in Isaiah 49:19 the Lord informs Jerusalem that she will have cause to rejoice, “Because your desolate and spoiled and ruined places will now be crowded on account of your inhabitants”. Isaiah 49:22 promises that the nations “shall bring your sons in their bosom and your daughters they will lift on their shoulders” (cf. 49:25; 60:4, 9; 66:12). Not only will Jerusalem receive her children,

 For a recent and thorough discussion of this theme in Baruch, see Calduch-Benages, Name.  E. g., Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration,  – .

72

Sean A. Adams

but she will be transformed by the putting off of mourning garments and putting on new clothes (52:1– 2; cf. Bar 4:20; 5:1– 2).⁴³ Although Isaiah is the most prominent work it is not the only prophetic book that attempts to encourage Jerusalem. Zephaniah 3:14– 21 is another prophecy to Zion/Jerusalem in which Jerusalem is called to trust and delight in God (3:14). Of particular note is Zephaniah 3:16, which says “At that time the Lord will say to Jerusalem: Take courage, O Zion; do not let your hands grow weak”. Once again we find an imperative using similar vocabulary (θαρσέω) paired with an address to Zion that is common in Baruch (4:5, 21, 27, 30). A positive future is also envisioned in Psalms of Solomon 11 in which the psalmist proclaims to Zion/Jerusalem that she will see her children returning from the east, west, and north (11:2 – 3). Furthermore, the way for their return has been paved by the Lord who has levelled the high mountains and provided trees as shade (11:4– 6). Accordingly, Jerusalem should put on her garment of glory in preparation (11:7).⁴⁴ Similarly, in Tobit 13 Jerusalem is encouraged to acknowledge the Lord and bless the King (13:10), and that, if she does, there will be great rewards for her: her tabernacle will be erected with joy (13:10), generations of people will worship in her (13:11), foreign nations who challenge or attack her will be cursed (13:12), and she will have joy forever (13:13 – 14), having been rebuilt with gold and precious materials (13:16 – 18).⁴⁵ In contrast to these uplifting narratives, Lamentations is much more reserved. There is some encouragement, but it is sparse and not consistently positive. For example, in Lamentations 4:22 the speaker informs Jerusalem that the punishment for her sins is over, though there is little discussion of Jerusalem’s restoration. The most hopeful section is definitely 3:21– 25, 31, in which the people are encouraged to remember God’s faithfulness and to seek and wait for the Lord. This leads to an examination by the people of their ways and a return to the Lord through repentance (3:40 – 42). Despite this positivity, the remainder of the book is decidedly sorrowful regarding their situation. In addition to the positive future outlook in Baruch there are some specific ideas and themes that Baruch shares with the above works. For example, the most notable similarity between Baruch and Isaiah is the theme of the return

 Cf. Ps. Sol. : in which this motif also occurs.  The similarities between Baruch and Ps. Sol.  have resulted in a number of scholars positing some sort of relationship between the two, either one of straight dependence (typically that Baruch use Psalms of Solomon) or that both drew from a common tradition. For discussion, see Moore, Additions,  – ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – .  A similar hopeful proclamation to Zion/Jerusalem is found in the Apostrophe to Zion (Q XXII  – ).

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

73

of Jerusalem’s children and that they will be lifted high on their return (Bar 5:6; Isa 49:22).⁴⁶ Both identify of the directions from which the offspring of Jerusalem will come, though there are some slight differences; Baruch simply says “east to west” (3:37), but Isaiah mentions east, west, north, and southwest (43:5 – 6; cf. 11:11).⁴⁷ Not only will Jerusalem’s children be returned, but the nation/city that originally deprived her of them will be punished.⁴⁸ The opening scene of Baruch emphasises that the Jewish people are exiled in Babylon (1:1, 4, 9, 12; 2:21);⁴⁹ however, in the declaration of retribution in 4:31– 35, there is no explicit identification of who will be punished.⁵⁰ Whitehouse claims that this distant nation is a clear reference to the Romans, and such an interpretation would be possible for those reading Baruch after Pompey’s invasion in 63 BC.⁵¹ Taking Baruch as a whole, the references to Babylon in the first section (1:1– 13) echo in this final section and encourage the reader to think in terms of the Babylonian exile. The absence of a named enemy allows for a variety of readings and a multiplicity of applications; any foreign nation could be inserted. This ambiguity allows this final part of Baruch to be used in a variety of ways at different times and in multiple liturgical contexts. In Isaiah, there is similar ambiguity over which foreign city will receive God’s retribution.⁵² In Isaiah 49:17 the Lord promises to Zion/Jerusalem that “you will be built by those by whom you were destroyed” and that her destroyers will be the ones who restore her (49:18; 60:5 – 7) and be thoroughly punished for their actions: “those who afflicted you will eat their own flesh and they shall drink their own blood like new wine and be drunk” (49:26). However, in other

 Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  A middle road is taken by the author of Ps. Sol.: – , who mentions east, west, and north. This theme of returning children is absent in Lamentations.  The destruction of foreign cities is not an unfamiliar concept in Judaism, especially in relation to end-time redemption (cf. Isa :; Sir : – ;  En. :), and it is found in other Jerusalem psalms.  Clearly not all are living in Babylon as the book of Baruch is sent to those living in Jerusalem (:). Nevertheless, the introduction is clear: the people are in exile in Babylon.  Henderson (Second Temple Songs, , ), assumes it is Babylon and claims that this was taken from Isa . I too think Bar : –  most likely has Babylon in mind (keeping with the overall theme of the book), though caution should be used in asserting this position. She does identify a number of parallels between these passages.  Whitehouse, Book of Baruch, ; Kneucker Das Buch Baruch,  – .  So too Tob : (GII), “Cursed are all who speak a harsh word; cursed will be all who cast you down and pull down your walls and all who overthrow your towers and set your homes on fire”.

74

Sean A. Adams

passages, the prophet specifically speaks against Babylon, foretelling her destruction (47:1– 15; cf. 13:1– 22; 14:3 – 22; 21:9) or against Edom (Isa 34– 35).⁵³ In particular, there are a number of shared images between Isaiah 47 and Baruch 4:31– 35, such as the enslavement of those who took the exiles (Bar 4:32; Isa 47:6), the coming desolation (Bar 4:33; Isa 47:11), and the city’s pride (Bar 4:34; Isa 47:7), loss of children and widowhood (Bar 4:34; Isa 47:8 – 9), and destruction by fire (Bar 4:35; Isa 47:14).⁵⁴ Isaiah, however, is not the only prophet that tells of the future destruction of Babylon. For example, Jeremiah 51(28):1– 58 provides a lengthy tirade against Babylon, which includes a declaration by Zion/Jerusalem that her blood will be upon the Chaldeans dwelling there (Jer 51[28]:35). In the Hebrew text Jerusalem only receives one line of speech; however, in the Greek text, the declaration of vv. 34– 35 is attributed to resident Zion (κατοικοῦσα Σιων). One of the potential issues of attributing so much emphasis on Baruch’s use of Isaiah is that it overlooks the highly developed personified Jerusalem motif in Jeremiah.⁵⁵ In the preceding sections of Baruch (e. g., 1:1– 4:4), the text and perspective of Jeremiah played a substantial role in the formation and development of the narrative. It is possible that Jeremiah might also play a formative role in Baruch’s Jerusalem psalm. This is not to deny the literary and linguistic parallels between Baruch and Isaiah (identified above), but rather to bring them into conversation with how the Jerusalem theme is established in Jeremiah. For example, the theme of Jerusalem’s restoration is very strong in Jeremiah 33(40):1– 18 and though the text does not personify Jerusalem like Isaiah or Baruch there is many similarities in themes and events (e. g., restoration, renewed inhabitation, peace, etc.).

3 Conclusion It is clear from the above examples that previous commentators are correct in noting similarities between Baruch’s Jerusalem and that found in Isaiah; however, many have gone too far in attributing all or almost all of Baruch’s content to Isaiah. This is not to claim that Isaiah did not influence Baruch, as there are a

 Cf. Matthews, Defending Zion. Lamentations also contains an element of retribution, though the author specifically identifies Edom as the recipient (: – ). In Ps : –  both Edom and Babylon are spoken against.  Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  Boase, Fulfillment of Doom, .

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

75

number of phrases and themes that show Isaianic character and parallels.⁵⁶ Rather, this paper highlighted a number of differences and unique features of Baruch. For example, Baruch is the only text that structures its Jerusalem section on regular use of the imperative and vocative/nominative of address. Baruch is also unique in the amount of material spoken by Jerusalem and distinctive in the way that Jerusalem’s innocence is emphasised. In light of these unique features that not only differ from Isaiah, but all Jerusalem songs in Jewish Scripture, scholars need to temper some of their statements regarding Baruch’s dependence on Isaiah. Accordingly, as opposed to saying that “The song 1 Bar 4:30 – 5:9 is heavily dependent on the Zion songs of Isaiah”,⁵⁷ it is better to say that the author of Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 made creative use of Isaiah. This phrasing not only highlights the unique features of Baruch, whose depiction of Jerusalem is by no means constrained by that of Isaiah, but it also emphasises the role of the author to shape a unique narrative with its own distinctive message.⁵⁸ True, elements of this message are shared with Isaiah, Lamentations, and other books of Jewish Scripture, but in none of these works is there a presentation of Jerusalem like that found in Baruch. It is time to move away from solely discussing Baruch’s literary borrowing (which is, of course, and important aspect of the text), and to recognise Baruch as an insightful reader and creative author in his own right. From this perspective we can begin to ask the question of Baruch’s theological perspective, literary ingenuity, and creative purpose.

Bibliography Ackroyd, P.R., Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (OTL) Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1968. Adams, Sean A., Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Greek Texts in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series) Leiden: Brill 2014. Alonso Schökel, L., Jerusalem Inocente Intercede Baruc 4, 9 – 19, in: D.M. Leon and A.D. Macho (eds.), Salvacion en la Palabra Targum—Derash—Berith En Memoria del Profesor Alejandro Diez Macho, Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad 1986, 39 – 51. Alonso Schökel, L., Hermenéutica de la Palabra, III. Interpretación teológica de textos bíblicos, Bilbao: EGA 1990. Baltzer, K., Stand-Tyche oder Zion-Jerusalem: Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Göttern der Zeit bei Deuterojesaja, in: J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zöbel (eds.), Alttestamentlicher Glaube

 For a recent study that identifies many such parallels, see Xeravits, “Take Courage”.  Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  Contra Moore (Additions, ) who claims that “Baruch has virtually no new or original religious ideas”.

76

Sean A. Adams

und Biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Horst D. Preuss, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1992, 114 – 20. Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 15). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1979. Barstad, H., The Future of the ‘Servant Songs’: Some Reflections on the Relationship of Biblical Scholarship to its Own Tradition, in: S. E. Balentine and J. Barton (eds.), Language, Theology, and the Bible: Festschrift for James Barr. Oxford: Clarendon 1994, 261 – 70. Biddle, M. E., The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East, in: K.L. Younger, W.H. Hallo, and B.F. Batto (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Scripture in Context 4) Lewiston: Edwin Mellen 1991, 172 – 94. Boase, E., The Fulfillment of Doom? The Dialogic Interaction between the Book of Lamentations and the Pre-Exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature (Library of Hebrew Bible 437) New York: T&T Clark 2006. Burke, David G., The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10) Chico: Scholars Press 1982. Calduch-Benages, N., Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5 – 5:9), in: edited by H. Lichtenberger, F.V. Reiterer and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Studies Yearbook 2008) Berlin: de Gruyter 2008, 147 – 64. Calduch-Benages, N., The Name of the Beloved City in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9: Biblische Notizen 164 (2015) 51 – 64. Cohen, C., The ‘Widowed’ City: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973) 75 – 81. Davila, James R., (How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?: Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15 (2005) 3 – 61. Fischer, G., Jeremia (2 vols., HTKAT) Freiburg: Herder 2005. Fitzgerald, Aloysius, Baruch, in: R.E. Brown, J.E. Fitzmyer, and R.E. Murphy (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1968, 614 – 19. Fraade, S.D. 1 Baruch in: L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, and L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 2013, 1545 – 64. Heinisch, P. Zur Entstehung des Buches Baruch: Theologie und Glaube 20 (1928) 696 – 710. Henderson, Ruth, Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa XXII 1 – 15); Tobit 13:9 – 18 and 1 Baruch 4:30 – 5:9 (DCLS 17), Berlin: W. de Gruyter 2014. Jeppesen, K., Mother Zion, Father Servant: A Reading of Isaiah 49 – 55, in: H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and Wisdom of the Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSS 162) Sheffield: JSOT Press 1993, 109 – 25. Kabasele Mukenge, André, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Études Bibliques 38) Paris: Gabalda 1998.

Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation

77

Kneucker, J.J., Das Buch Baruch: Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung auf Grund des Wiederhergestellten Hebräischen Urtextes, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus 1879. Matthews, C.R., Defending Zion: Edom’s Desolation and Jacob’s Restoration (Isaiah 34 – 35) in Context (BZAW 236) Berlin: de Gruyter 1995. Methuen, C., ‘Virgin Widow’: A Problematic Social Role for the Early Church?: Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997) 285 – 98. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 44) Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Rost, Leonhard, Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen einschliesslich der grossen Qumran-Handschriften, Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer 1971. Simian-Yofre, H. Jerusalem as Mother in Bar 4:5 – 5:9, in: A. Passaro (ed.), Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2012/2013) Berlin: De Gruyter 2013, 363 – 76. Smith, M.S., Jeremiah IX 9—A Divine Lament: VT 37 (1987) 97 – 99. Steck, Odil H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Steck, Odil H., Das Buch Baruch (ATD 5) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Thackeray, Henry St.J., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. Schweich Lectures 1920. London: British Academy 1921. Thackeray, Henry St.J., Baruch, in: C. Gore, H.L. Goudge, and A. Guillame (eds.), A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, New York: Macmillan 1929, 102 – 10. Tov, Emanuel, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29 – 52 and Baruch 1:1 – 3:8 (Harvard Semitic Monographs 8) Missoula: Scholars Press 1976. Weiser, Artur, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, translated from the fifth edition by Dorothea M. Barton. New York: Association Press, 1966. Weissenberg, Hanne von, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila, Introducing Changes in Scriptures, in: idem (eds.), Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419) Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 3 – 20. Whitehouse, O.C., The Book of Baruch, in: R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913, 569 – 95. Willey, P.T., The Servant of YHWH and Daughter Zion: Alternating Visions of YHWH’s Community, in: E.H. Lovering (ed.), SBLSP 1995 (SBLSP 34) Atlanta: Scholars Press 1995, 267 – 303. Wilshire, L.E., The Servant City: A New Interpretation of the ‘Servant of the Lord’ in the Servant Songs of Deutero-Isaiah: JBL 94 (1975) 356 – 67. Xeravits, Géza G., “Take Courage, O Jerusalem…” Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4 – 5 (DCLS 25), Berlin: de Gruyter 2015. Ziegler, Joseph (ed.), Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, XV: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremias. 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht 2006.

Johanna Erzberger

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9) Baruch 4:5 – 5:6 is primarily made up of intertextual allusions to other biblical and non-biblical texts. The nature of these allusions ranges from the use of common (biblical) motifs or formulas to references to specific texts. Inconsistencies between different parts of the poem as well as between the poem and the greater context of the book have been frequently explained by the poem being made up of quotations and allusions.¹ Interlocking references that connect distinct subsections of the poem attest to its literary unity and integrate it into the larger context of the book. According to a broad consensus, 4:5 – 5:6, does not reveal any redaction history other than making use of already existing texts and motifs.² This article will argue that the poem’s obvious polyphony, though it cannot be explained by distinct redactional layers, can also not be dissolved into distinct identifiable intertextual references which were subordinated to some author’s super-ordinated unifying voice. Recurring motifs that cannot be traced back to any known source text are therefore likely to represent the author’s genuine voice. These motifs are not the textual elements that provide the poem’s overall structure. Rather, they are subordinated textual elements that potentially undermine what seem to be the central statements of the text. They are part of a contradictious polyphony, which marks the author’s voice itself. After analyzing the poem’s structure and central themes, this article will concentrate on the interlocking references in 4:8, 11, 23, and 36 – 37, which, by connecting two distinct motifs (God and Jerusalem as a parenting couple and Zion actively sending its children away) that are not attested in any identifiable biblical or non-biblical intertext³ and whose connection seems even more cer-

The author is a research associate of the Department of Old Testament Studies at the University of Pretoria.  Cf. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, .  While Steck defends the unity of the poem on the basis of content (Steck, Baruchbuch,  – ) and Adams on the basis of the manuscripts, which nowhere attest a shorter version of the poem (Adams, Baruch, ), the possibility of an independent origin and a later addition of : – : expanded by : –  has once more recently been discussed by Henderson. See Henderson, Songs,  – .  For the singularity of the motif of God and Jerusalem as co-parents, see Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, ; Henderson, Songs, .

80

Johanna Erzberger

tainly genuine to Baruch 4:5 – 5:9, connect the four main sections of the poem. The interlocking references in 4:8, 11, 23, and 36 – 37 will be analyzed with regard to their function in the poem as well as with regard to the ideology they are transporting.

1 Baruch 4:5 – 5:9: Structure and Dynamics Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 can most convincingly be divided into paragraphs following the changes in its speaker and its addressees.⁴ In 4:5 – 29, the speaker, presumably the prophet, is addressing Israel (“my people”, “the remembrance of Israel”; 4:5) and in 4:30 – 5:9 the prophet addresses Jerusalem. Both 4:5 and 4:30 start with θαρσεῖτε, and 4:5 – 29 can be further divided into three paragraphs. In 4:5 – 9a the prophet addresses Israel directly, in 4:9b–16 the prophet quotes Jerusalem addressing its neighbors, and in 4:17– 29 the prophet quotes Jerusalem addressing its children. 4:5 – 9a⁵ Take courage, my people, memory of Israel. 6 You were sold to the nations—not for destruction, but because you angered God. You were given over to adversaries.⁶ 7 For you provoked the one who made you—by sacrificing to demons and not to God. 8 And you forgot the one who nursed you, the everlasting God and you also grieved the one who fed you, Jerusalem. 9a For she saw the anger that came upon you from God and she said: 5

Verses 6 – 8, which follow the initial address in v. 5, are marked by a coherent structure. This passage consists of two parallel propositions, each comprising a consequence and one or several causes. In both parts (v. 6a–b and vv. 6c– 8), Israel, having been delivered to its enemies (v. 6ac), is explained by Israel, having provoked its counterpart, which is identified with God (vv. 6b, 7, 8a) or

 Throughout the history of critical research into Baruch, : – : has been divided into a varying number of strophes following imperatives or vocatives as markers. For a more recent example, see Moore, Jeremiah, . For an overview, see Adams, Baruch, . Recently, a division according to the change of the speaker and the audience has been prevalent. See Steck, Baruchbuch,  – ; Henderson, Songs, ; Adams, Baruch, .  The translation keeps close to Adams, Baruch, without, however following it in every detail.  By starting a new phrase with v. c instead of with v. , the translation follows the phrase division proposed by Kabesele Mukenge, which corresponds more easily to a more coherent structure of the passage (Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, ).

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

81

Jerusalem (v. 8b).⁷ Vis-à-vis the explanation of Israel’s distress in the first half (v. 6b), the explanation of Israel’s distress in the second half (vv. 6c–8), offering three elements instead of one, seems greatly extended. In contrast to v. 6b, vv. 7 and 8ab further characterize the provoked counterpart as someone to whom Israel owes its life. The last two of the final three elements in v. 8 are even more closely connected by using synonyms (τροφεύω and ἐκτρέφω in v. 8 vis-à-vis ποιέω in v. 7) in order to characterize God and Jerusalem in relation to Israel. Two textual elements, οὐκ εἰς ἀπώλειαν (v. 6a), limiting Israel’s distress, and θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ (v. 7), characterizing the means by which Israel provoked God, supplement the described structure. The subject of Israel provoking God, to whom it owes its life, has a close parallel in LXX Deuteronomy 32:15 – 21, to which the passage is connected by several keywords,⁸ along with a nearly identical parallel between Baruch 4:7b, which supplements the described structure, and Deuteronomy 32:17 (θύσαντες [Bar 4:7]/ἔθυσαν [Deut 32:17] δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ).⁹ The phrase οὐκ εἰς ἀπώλειαν in v. 6a, which equally transgresses the described structure, echoes several other biblical intertexts.¹⁰ Israel’s provoking of Jerusalem has no reference point in Deuteronomy 32:15 – 21. The final focus on Jerusalem introduces the poem’s focus on Zion as addressee as well as speaker. Verse 9a creates a transition between the prophet’s talk about Israel culminating in Israel’s relation to Jerusalem and the following quotation of Zion’s speech addressing her children. :b– b Listen, neighbors of Zion, God has brought a great sadness on me;  for I have seen the captivity of my sons and daughters, which the Everlasting brought upon them.

 The varied connection of both causes by διά introducing a subordinate clause and γάρ introducing three main clauses, which seems to interfere with the parallelism, might be explained by their unequal length.  See Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – ; Adams, Baruch, . Most of the parallels between Bar : –  and Deut : –  concern keywords: three synonyms used to describe Israel’s acts of provocation (παροργίζω: Bar :; Deut :; παροξύνω: Bar :; Deut :, ; ἐπιλανθάνομαι: Bar :; Deut :). Further synonyms describing Israel’s provoking acts in Deut : –  are not used. One epithet characterizes God as Israel’s creator (τὸν ποιήσαντα: Bar :; Deut :). The epithet used for Jerusalem in Bar : (τὴν ἐκθρέψασαν) has a close, but not exact, parallel in one of the epithets used for God in Deut : (θεοῦ τοῦ τρέφοντός). The order of parallel elements in the two texts differs.  Bar :b changes the finite verb into a participle.  See Jer :; :, .

82

Johanna Erzberger





For I nourished them with gladness, but I sent [them] out with weeping and sadness.  Let no one rejoice before/over me, the widow and one left by many; I was made desolate because of the sins of my children, because they turned away from the law of God.  They did not know his righteous deeds/statutes; neither did they go in the ways of the commands of God, nor embark on the paths of training in his righteousness. Let the neighbors of Zion come; And remember the captivity of my sons and daughters, which the Everlasting brought upon them.  For he brought against them a far-off nation, a shameless nation and one speaking a different language, which/because they did not respect the old man or have mercy on the child.  And they led away the beloved sons of the widow, and they isolated the solitary woman from her daughters.

In 4:9b–16, the twofold address of the neighbors in 4:9bα (with a second person imperative) and 4:14a (with a third person followed by a second person imperative)¹¹ is followed by a twofold description of the catastrophe that came over Jerusalem (4:9bβ–12a; 14b–16). Both descriptions are introduced by nearly identical phrases that characterize God as having brought the captivity on his sons and daughters, once witnessed by Zion, once remembered by Zion’s neighbors (“the captivity of my sons and daughters, which the Everlasting brought upon them”) and are largely made up of intertextual references.¹² Verse 9b, which transgresses the parallel structure and precedes v. 10, defines God’s bringing (ἐπάγω) the captivity upon Zion’s sons and daughters as bringing (ἐπάγω) sadness (πένθος) upon Zion.¹³ Verses 11– 12 focus on the effect that the exile of her children had on Jerusalem. Verse 11a, according to which Jerusalem has nurtured her children, takes up v. 8 in the preceding section. Both motifs, Zion as a widow (τῇ χήρᾳ) and Zion as bereaved of many (καταλειφθείσῃ ὑπὸ πολλῶν), are attested in other biblical texts.¹⁴ Zion left desolate because of the sins of her children leads to the descrip-

 The neighboring cities might recall the addressees of Jerusalem in Lam , which might have served as a source text, without, however, constituting any literary parallels. Cf. Steck, Baruchbuch, ; Henderson, Songs, .  See the following.  God bringing suffering over Jerusalem has a parallel in Lam :. See Henderson, Songs, .  See Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, . The loss of Jerusalem’s sons and daughters is a central motif of Lam  and Isa . The wording of Isa : is relatively close to Bar :b. The

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

83

tion of the children’s sins (4:12b–13), which holds the center position within the section. The initial v. 12b has a near parallel in LXX Job 34:27. The second address of the neighbors (4:14b–16) focuses on the children’s fate as resulting from their sins. Verse 15 cites Deuteronomy 28:49 – 50, while v. 16 takes up central keywords and motifs of v. 12 (χήρα [2x]; καταλειφθείσῃ [v. 12]; ἠρημώθην [v. 12]//ἠρήμωσαν [v. 16]). : –   But I, how am I able to help you?  For the one who brought these bad things on you will deliver you from the hand of your enemies.  Walk away, O children, walk away; for I have been left desolate.  I have taken off the robe of peace and I have put on sackcloth for my petition; I will cry out to the Everlasting in my days.  Take courage, O children, and call out to God, and he will deliver you from domination, from the hand of enemies.  For I hoped in the Everlasting for your salvation, and joy came to me from the Holy One, because of the mercy that will come to you quickly from your everlasting savior.  For I sent you out with mourning and weeping, but God will give you back to me with joy and gladness forever.  For just as the neighbors of Zion have seen your capture now, so they will see quickly your salvation by God, which will come to you with great glory and the splendor of the Everlasting.  O children, bear patiently the wrath from God that has come upon you. The enemy has hunted you, but you will see his destruction quickly and you will stand upon their necks.  My delicate ones have traveled rough ways; they have been taken away as a flock seized by the enemies.  Take courage, O children, and call out to God, or your memory will be [preserved] by the one who brought [these things].  For just as your mind was led astray from God, Multiply by ten, turning to seek him.  For the one who brought these bad things on you will bring upon you everlasting joy with your salvation.

Baruch 4:17– 29 starts with a rhetorical question. The following speech is framed by vv. 18 and 29, both of which start with ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν τὰ κακὰ ὑμῖν (“For the

keyword “widow” is several times connected with Jerusalem. In Isa : the keyword “widowhood” (‫ ;אלמנות‬χηρεία) appears in both versions of the text. ‫ אלמנה‬in Lam : has no equivalent in the LXX; In Mic : χηρεία translates a Hebrew text without any reference to widowhood. In Isa : χήρα translates ‫גלמוד‬.

84

Johanna Erzberger

one who brought these bad things on you”) followed by the announcement of the addressees’ delivery from the hand of their enemies and their everlasting salvation, respectively.¹⁵ The identical imperatives in vv. 21a and 27a further structure the section. Verse 21b takes up and, with the addition of ἐκ δυναστείας to ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν, slightly modifies v. 18b, which is part of the frame of the section.¹⁶ Zion’s self-description in 4:19 as “left desolate” (κατελείφθην ἔρημος), using a verb and an adjective, takes up Zion’s self-description in both parts of 4:12 (καταλείπω; ἐρημόω) and in v. 16 (ἠρήμωσαν).¹⁷ Zion acts as a mourner (v. 19b), while Jerusalem’s announcement that she will cry out (κράζω) to the Everlasting (v. 20b) creates an imprecise transition to v. 21 (literally paralleled by v. 27 and part of the section’s structural frame), asking the children to call out (βοάω) to God. Verse 22a, in which Zion expresses having put her hope in the Everlasting, mirrors v. 20b. The reference is underlined by the denomination of God, which marks the poem as a whole. Verse 22b, once more using αἰώνιος and another of the poem’s keywords, χαρά, creates a transition to vv. 22c–25. The joy that Zion has already received from the Everlasting paves the way for vv. 22c, 23b, and 25c, which are formally connected by ἐν τάχει and describe a series of events: Mercy will soon come to Zion’s children from the Everlasting, their savior (v. 22c). The neighbors will witness their salvation (v. 24bc), and they themselves

 Vv. a, a (ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν τὰ κακὰ ὑμῖν) might be understood as taking up v.  (ἐπήγαγεν γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔθνος μακρόθεν) and creating an imprecise link to the preceding section. The reference, however, is limited to the grammatical subject God, to the verb ἐπάγω, and to the object being brought upon the addressees representing something negative.  See Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, . The four imperatives in vv. , , , and  have often been considered to structure the section. However, the four imperatives do not have the same structural value. The break established by vv. a and  (identical in wording!) is more incisive than that established by vv.  and . Structural elements as constituted by the sequence vv. c, b, and c are interrupted by the imperative in v. . Thackeray presupposes four original strophes, introduced by the imperatives in :, ,  and , and three strophes added later, introduced by the imperatives in : and :,. See Thackeray, Worship,  – . Cf. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, . According to Kabasele Mukenge the four imperatives in vv. , , ,  alternatingly call Jerusalem’s children to bear their distress and to take courage. While the subsections following vv.  and  focus on Jerusalem, those following vv.  and  focus on Jerusalem’s children. Cf. Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, . Kabasele Mukenge has to ignore several textual details not corresponding with the proposed structure, such as the central role of Zion’s neighbors in v.  or the designation of the children as “my delicate ones”, referring once more to Zion.  As here however the children are asked to go on because of Zion being left desolate, them going away is not made explicit as the reason for Zion’s state. It being clear from the context that Zion being left desolate is a consequence of Zion’s children going to exile, the demand addressed to the children to pass on because of Zion’s desolate state breaks the picture.

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

85

will witness their enemy’s downfall (v. 25c). Verses 24bc and 25c are preceded by v. 24a (in taking up vv. 10, 14) and v. 25b, each of which introduces a negative element concerning the past, contrasting the following announcement of salvation; the neighbors’ having witnessed the capture of Zion’s children (v. 24a) creates a link to the preceding passage.¹⁸ The structure created by vv. 22c, 24, and 25bc is interrupted by vv. 23 and 25a. Verse 23 constitutes an antagonistic parallelism, the first part taking up v. 11b: Zion sent her children away with sorrow and weeping, but God will bring them back with joy and gladness. Verse 22ab, which takes the perspective of Zion anticipating her children’s salvation, and vv. 22c–25, which takes the perspective of Zion’s children, constitute a coherent argument, in which v. 23, taking once more the perspective of Zion, creates a disruption. Verse 25a introduces an imperative, recalling the initial imperatives in vv. 19, 21, 25, and 27. Verse 28 varies the request to put hope in God by connecting it with the topic of return. 4:30 – 5:6 Take courage, O Jerusalem; the one who named you will comfort you. 31 Wretched will be those who injured you and who rejoiced at your fall. 32 Wretched will be the cities which your children served; wretched will be the one who took your sons. 33 For just as she rejoiced at your fall and was glad at your downfall, so she will be grieved at her own desolation. 34 And I will take away her rejoicing of [her] multitude, and her pride will become mourning. 35 For fire will come upon her from the Everlasting for many days, and she will be inhabited by demons for a long time. 36 Look around to the east, O Jerusalem, and see the joy that is coming from God to you. 37 Behold, your sons are coming, whom you sent out; they are coming, having been gathered together from the east to the west by the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God. 5:1 Take off, O Jerusalem, your robe of mourning and oppression, and put on the beauty of the glory from God forever. 2 Put on the double-cloak of the righteousness that comes from God; put a headband on your head of the glory of the Everlasting. 3 For God will show your brightness to all under heaven. 4 For your name will be called by God forever: “Peace of Righteousness” and “Glory of the Fear of God”. 30

 The neighboring cities link the passage to the preceding subsection. As the neighboring cities constitute an integral part of the described structure, vv. c, b, and c on the one hand and a and b on the other cannot be artificially divided between two authors, and neither can the reference to the neighboring cities be considered to have subsequently connected two hitherto independent passages.

86

Johanna Erzberger

5

Rise up, O Jerusalem, and stand upon the heights and look around to the east, and see your children gathered from the setting of the sun to its rising at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing at God’s remembrance. 6 For they went out from you on foot, being led away by your enemies; but God is bringing them to you, raising them with glory to a royal throne. 7 For God has ordered every high mountain and everlasting hill to be made low and the valleys to be filled in to make level the ground, so that Israel may walk securely in the glory of God. 8 And even the woods and every aromatic tree have provided shade at God’s command. 9 For God will lead Israel with joy, in the light of his glory, together with the mercy and righteousness that come from him.

Baruch 4:30 – 5:6 can be divided into four passages, each introduced by an imperative addressing Jerusalem. The initial call to take courage (θάρσει, 4:30) recalls the call to take courage (θαρσήσατε) addressed to Zion’s children in the preceding passage (v. 21, 27). It is followed by an announcement of disaster for the three groups of Jerusalem’s enemies and those profiting from Jerusalem’s fall, each of which is introduced by δείλαιοι.¹⁹ The call to look toward the east (4:36) is followed by a description of the return of Jerusalem’s sons, which recalls Isaiah 49:18; 40:4. The relative clause οὓς ἐξαπέστειλας in v. 37, designating Jerusalem as the one having sent her children to exile, creates a link to 4:11. The call to change clothes and put on clothes signifying Jerusalem’s glory (5:1) recalls texts such as Isaiah 52:1; 61:10. Within the context of the poem it takes up and is a reversal of Zion putting on clothes of mourning in v. 20.²⁰ The motif of God naming Jerusalem in the past (4:30) and in the future (5:4) frames 4:30 – 5:4. Another call to rise and stand and to look toward the east (5:5) recalls and summarizes 4:36 – 37. In what follows, the return of Jerusalem’s children is confronted with them going into exile. Verses 7– 8 depict the transformation of

 Concerning the possibly contradictious references, see Steck, Baruchbuch,  – ; Adams, Baruch,  – .  However, the passages do not literally refer to each other and do not share any significant keywords. According to :, the personified woman Jerusalem takes off the robe of peace (τὴν στολὴν τῆς εἰρήνης) and puts on the sackcloth of prayer (σάκκον τῆς δεήσεώς). According to :, she takes off the garment of mourning and distress (τὴν στολὴν τοῦ πένθους καὶ τῆς κακώσεώς) and puts on the beauty of the glory of God (τὴν εὐπρέπειαν τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης). Neither does the garment of mourning and distress (τὴν στολὴν τοῦ πένθους καὶ τῆς κακώσεώς) form an exact reference to the sackcloth of prayer (σάκκον τῆς δεήσεώς) nor does the beauty of the glory of God (τὴν εὐπρέπειαν τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης) take up the robe of peace (τὴν στολὴν τῆς εἰρήνης). The term στολή (:; :) is too unspecific to create a link other than to a common broader motif. Henderson considers these passages to be interrelated (Henderson, Songs, ).

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

87

nature, facilitating the return and recalling Isaiah 40:4– 5. Baruch 5:1– 9 has a close parallel in Psalm of Solomon 11, though the direction of the relationship is under debate.²¹

2 Baruch 4:8, 11, 23, 35: Interlocking References Baruch 4:8, 11, 23, 35 exhibit a number of interlocking textual elements: 4:8 and 4:11 are interrelated by the synonyms ἐκτρέφω (4:8) and τρέφω (4:11) describing Jerusalem nurturing Israel and Zion nurturing her children, respectively. Baruch 4:11 is related to 4:23 by both the synonyms ἐξαποστέλλω (4:11) and ἐκπέμπω (4:23), describing Zion sending her children to exile, and the nearly identical negative adverbials μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους (4:11) and μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ (4:23), which differ only in the order of the two elements πένθος and κλαυθμός and the adverbials determining the verb of the respective positive colon, building on the common element εὐφροσύνη. Baruch 4:11 and 3:23 are furthermore related to 4:37, which uses the same verb as 4:11, ἐξαποστέλλω, to describe Zion sending her children away.

2.1 Baruch 4:8, 11, 23, 35: Polyphonic contexts Baruch 4:8, 11, 23, and 35, which are not referring to any recognizable source texts (with the exception of 4:8, which varies its source text’s statements regarding God by converting them into a statement concerning Jerusalem), are integrated into their proper context to a very different degree.

2.1.1 Baruch 4:8 While all the textual elements common to Deuteronomy 32:15 – 21 and Baruch 4:6 – 8 only and exclusively concern Israel’s relationship to God, Baruch 4:6 – 8 introduces the subject of the relationship between Jerusalem and Israel. After vv. 5 – 8a having concentrated on the relationship between God and Israel, the mention of Jerusalem in v. 8b is unexpected. The overloaded second half creates a dynamic that leads to its characterization of the relationship between Israel

 For a presentation of the discussion, see Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – . For a summary of the main arguments, see Henderson, Songs,  – .

88

Johanna Erzberger

and Jerusalem as mirroring certain aspects of the relationship between Israel and God. Israel has provoked Jerusalem as it has provoked God. Jerusalem’s role vis-à-vis Israel mirrors God’s parenting role. The references to Deuteronomy 32:15 – 21, as eclectic as they might be, being evenly distributed over the whole of Baruch 4:6 – 8, argues against a redaction history of the passage. Baruch 4:6 – 8, which culminates in a description of Israel’s relationship to Jerusalem, creates a transition to the following sections, in which Zion appears as speaker and addressee.

2.1.2 Baruch 4:11 Verse 11 is made up of two antagonistic cola: in 11a, Zion nurtures her children with joy, while in 11b she sends them away with weeping and sorrow. As it is usually a foreign nation or God who is made responsible for sending Israel to exile, Zion is here put into God’s place.²² This reading is supported by the use of the verb ἐξαποστέλλω. In Exodus, ἐξαποστέλλω describes the pharaoh letting Israel return from exile, while in Jer 24:5, ἐξαποστέλλω refers to God sending his people there. Zion’s being the subject of ἐξαποστέλλω in v. 11 puts her into a position of power. The reading is further supported by the first colon. The motif of Zion nurturing (τρέφω) her children (v. 11a) puts Zion into God’s place only by taking up v. 8 (ἐκτρέφω) and building on an understanding of the motif as it is used in v. 8, where God and Jerusalem nurturing Israel are paralleled. The opposition of both cola in v. 11 is underlined by the adverbials μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης and μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους. Verse 11 is part of a passage, vv. 9b–12, in which Zion’s image shifts repeatedly. In vv. 11– 12a, her actively sending her children away, acting from a position of power, contradicts the image of Zion made up by the preceding vv. 9bβ–10. According to v. 9bβ, God has brought (ἐπάγω) sadness over Zion by making her witness (10a) him (not Zion!) bringing exile over Zion’s children (using the same word: ἐπάγω) (v. 10b). Zion experiencing sadness (πένθος)²³ links the otherwise contradictious vv. 9bβ and 11. Verses 9bβ–10 constitutes the first of two structuring elements of the subsection; in seeing her children’s exile, which is

 Adams argues that Jerusalem plays an active role in sending her children to exile based on the use of the same expression in v.  (Adams, Baruch, ).  If joy (εὐφροσύνη) characterizes Zion rather than her children, the same referent is likely for weeping (κλαυθμός) and sorrow (πένθος).

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

89

brought upon them by God, Zion is put into parallel with the neighboring cities, who are asked to remember the exile in v. 14. Verse 12a pictures Zion as a widow (τῇ χήρᾳ) and as left by many (καταλειφθείσῃ ὑπὸ πολλῶν). The implicit meaning of Zion being pictured as a widow, namely that she lost her husband, is not taken up by the context.²⁴ Though the motif of Jerusalem and God nurturing their children, Israel, might imply imagining Jerusalem and God as a couple, it is the relation of both to Israel, not the relationship between God and Jerusalem, that is the focus. Zion’s being left by many focuses on Zion being left by her inhabitants, that is, following the leading image, by her children. According to v. 12b, Zion is left desolate because of her children’s sins (introduced by διά). Only the following vv. 12b–13 identify those sins as having turned away from the law of God (introduced by διότι). It has repeatedly been remarked that Zion’s being made desolate because of the sins of her children marks Jerusalem as guiltless.²⁵ The image of Zion left by the many and desolate because of her children’s turning away from the law of God, which defines their sin, puts Zion into a structural analogy with God’s law (rather than with God himself) while putting both of the children’s acts, turning away from the law and leaving Zion, in a relation of consequence: Zion has been left by the many because they have sinned by turning away from God’s law.

2.1.3 Baruch 4:23 The two cola of v. 23, with their opposing adverbials μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ and μετὰ χαρμοσύνης καὶ εὐφροσύνης, constitute an opposition between Zion’s feelings while sending her children away in the past and while receiving them back in the future. Verse 23 interrupts vv. 22c and 24ab and v. 25bc, from which it is distinguished by the latter verses’ taking the children’s perspective and being formally connected by ἐν τάχει. Yet it shares the making up of an antagonistic opposition between a negative past and a positive future and takes up Zion’s perspective, which already marked v. 22ab. Verse 23 does not take up

 Calduch-Benages argues for a broader understanding of the motif of the widow in parallel texts, which signify a lack of legal protection rather than actual widowhood (Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem,  – ).  The guiltlessness of Zion distinguishes her from possible model texts such as Lam . See Alonso Schökel, Jerusalem; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, , ; Henderson, Songs, ; Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, ; Adams, Baruch, , .

90

Johanna Erzberger

Zion’s intercessory function, which is stressed in v. 22, and serves as a role model for her children, who are asked to cry to God in v. 21. ²⁶ Verse 23, according to which Zion has actively sent away her children, takes up v. 11. While v. 11 has ἐξαποστέλλω, v. 23 has ἐκπέμπω, which appears only eleven times in the LXX and only here in Baruch. Though the term is less frequent, the semantics of ἐκπέμπω are less significant than those of ἐξαποστέλλω.

2.1.4 Baruch 4:35 Within a passage concentrating on the return of the children of Zion and a positive future, the relative οὓς ἐξαπέστειλας unexpectedly recalls their leaving in distress.

2.2 Baruch 4:8, 11, 23, 35: Interaction in suspense Verse 11 combines two motifs which are used independently in v. 8 and vv. 23 and 35. Verse 8 and v. 11 are connected by the common motif of Jerusalem nurturing Israel and Zion nurturing her children, respectively, using similar but not identical verbs (v. 8: ἐκτρέφω; v. 11: τρέφω). The introduction of Jerusalem in v. 8a not only is well integrated into its closer context and constitutes the passage’s climax but it also creates the necessary transition between the preceding parts of the book and the following sections of the poem. While v. 8 in its context parallelizes Jerusalem’s and God’s parenting role, a similar understanding of v. 11a solely builds on the corresponding understanding of v. 8 as well as on Zion taking on God’s role in sending her children away in v. 11b.²⁷ Verse 11 and v. 23 are connected by the common motif of Zion sending her children away into exile. It is, however, not the verb describing the act that

 While Calduch-Benages understands Zion crying to God as illustrating her prophetic role (Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, ), Adams objects, pointing out that Zion only asserts that she is doing so (Adams, Baruch, ). Regardless of whether Zion cries to God or merely asserts that she is doing so, in presenting herself as a role model (and being presented a doing so by the text’s author), she identifies herself with her children, not with God, who figures as the addressee of her cries.  Though the exile has already been mentioned in v.  in terms of God having brought it on Israel as a consequence of Israel having provoked God, the explicit parallel between God and Zion is limited to them having brought up Israel and been provoked by Israel. It is not extended to them both being responsible for Israel’s exile in vv.  – .

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

91

most precisely connects v. 11 and v. 23. While the verb describing the act differs (v. 11: ἐξαποστέλλω; v. 23: ἐκπέμπω), a more precise link is constituted by the adverbial μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους (v. 11) and μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ (v. 23), characterizing the act. Both verses are further connected by the adverbial μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης, characterizing the verb of the opposing colon. The positive cola describing Zion nurturing her children (v. 11) and the children’s future return (v. 23) are not linked but by their more closely connected counterpart as well as by the adverbial μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης, which in v. 23 is extended by a second element (μετὰ χαρμοσύνης καὶ εὐφροσύνης). The term εὐφροσύνη as well as πένθος are key words appearing elsewhere in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9. Only in v. 11 and v. 23, however, do they appear as a pair.²⁸ In v. 23, the antagonistic parallelism constituted by the two cola of the verse first and foremost concerns the opposition between Zion’s feelings while sending her children away in the past and while receiving them back in the future. The grammatical structure of the verse (the lyrical subject Zion is the grammatical subject of both verses) does not highlight the parallelism between Zion’s and God’s roles. In contrast to ἐξαποστέλλω, used in vv. 11 and 35, ἐκπέμπω does not underline Zion’s state of power. While v. 23 enables a reading according to which Zion plays God’s role by sending her children into exile, such an understanding is suggested by v. 11, where it is reinforced by the choice of ἐξαποστέλλω in v. 11a as well as by a reading of τρέφω in v. 11a against the background of the use of ἐκτρέφω in v. 8. The combination of two elsewhere independently-used motifs as well as the strengthening of the parallelism in v. 11 by reading v. 11a on the background of v. 8 and by reinforcing a reading of v. 11b according to which Zion is playing God’s role based on the choice of the verb argues for v. 11 establishing this connection. The rejection of identical wording, which would have to be expected if v. 11 were to be considered to connect two hitherto unconnected motifs used on their own in other parts of the poem, can be explained by the change of the verb underlining Zion’s position of power and reinforcing the motif of Zion playing God’s role in sending her children away.²⁹ Verses 36 – 37 constitute an independent subsection.³⁰ The verb ἐξαποστέλλω is part of a relative clause (οὓς ἐξαπέστειλας), which could be deleted without

 In :, the counterpart of εὐφροσύνη is κακά, not πένθος.  The second of two elements of the adverbial of the second colon in v. , πένθος, creates a link to v. bβ, which contradicts the more active or even God-like image of Zion in v. . The correction might have taken place in either direction.  Links to the preceding sections are constituted by the above-mentioned intertextual references. : –  gives the impression of an expanded doublet.

92

Johanna Erzberger

leaving any obvious gap. The motif of Zion having sent her children away links this last section of the poem concentrating on the children’s return to the preceding passages.³¹ In contrast to vv. 8, 11, and 23 and without being read in the context of these verses, v. 23 does not enforce an understanding of Zion’s role as it is introduced by vv. 6 – 8 and suggested by the ensemble of the interrelated vv. 8, 11, 23, and 37. Baruch 4:5 – 8 were likely composed as a transition between the greater part of the Book of Baruch and the poem. Baruch 4:5 – 9a, which culminates in the motif of shared parenthood, might have stimulated the inscription of the expanded motif in v. 11, but the passage does not seem to have been created for that purpose. The parallel between God and Zion established by vv. 6 – 8 is not extended to them both being responsible for sending Israel into exile, though this is a role attributed to Zion in the following passage. Verse 11 not only reinforces the link established by vv. 5 – 8 by taking up its culminating motif but connects this motif with another characterization of Zion, which is reinterpreted in this context. It does so at the price of creating tensions between the verse and its immediate context. Verse 35 reinforces the link between the last section of the poem and the preceding parts by referring to this second motif in its reinterpreted form. There are some modes of Zion’s presentation as well as some traits of Zion’s character that are unconnected with the motif of God’s and Zion’s parallelization but still support it. Neither Zion’s addressing her children nor personified Zion’s being presented as guiltless has a parallel in other texts.³² Zion being presented as guiltless prevents any interpretation of Zion representing her children and in this way introduces the opportunity to present Zion as its children’s counterpart and finally as a parallel to God.³³

 The preceding v. , according to which Jerusalem is asked to see the joy (εὐφροσύνη) that is coming to her from God, takes up a keyword of the poem, which has been used in the immediate context of the textual elements v.  is referring to in v.  and v. . εὐφροσύνη likewise occurs in : and :. Bar : furthermore echoes :, according to which joy (χαρά) is coming to Zion from the Holy One. εὐφροσύνη in v.  might have provoked the insertion of the relative phrase at that point.  For Zion addressing her children, cf. Steck, Baruchbuch, , . For Zion being guiltless, see Alonso Schökel, Jerusalem; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, , ; Henderson, Songs, ; Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem, ; Adams, Baruch, , .  This presentation of Zion might be influenced by oriental presentations of the city’s personification as wife of the patron God or by Greek goddesses tied to a particular city. See CalduchBenages, Jerusalem,  – . Instead of identifying Zion with a goddess, some traits of her role are parallelized with that of God, while preserving a clear subordination.

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

93

Excursus: Further Interlocking References: αἰώνιος Within the book of Baruch, the designation of God as αἰώνιος (4:8, 10, 14, 20, 22, 24, 35; 5:2) is limited to Baruch 4:5 – 5:9, with αἰώνιος being the predominant designation for God in this section.³⁴ The predominant use of αἰώνιος has been explained by the literary genre of the text or by references to particular intertextual parallels.³⁵ As the epithet αἰώνιος traverses the whole poem and is not frequent in any of the biblical texts that are intertextually connected with Baruch 4:5 – 5:9,³⁶ it is likely a product of the text’s author or redactor. The assumption that αἰώνιος characterizes the language of the author of the poem creates no difficulties whatsoever in 4:8 if 4:6 – 8 is regarded as the author’s work. Verses 22 and 24 might not be of the same origin as v. 23, but the specific image of Zion described above is entered by 4:8 and 11, which refer to and reinterpret 4:23. Verses 36 – 37 having θεός, not αἰώνιος, does not create any difficulties if the relative phrase represents the author’s more genuine voice. Two occurrences of αἰώνιος, however, 4:10 and 14, do create difficulties. Baruch 4:10 and 14 are not only part of the frame of the passage 4:9b–16 but are in tension with v. 11, which would more particularly represent the author’s voice. In establishing the frame of his text, the author refers to a well-known motif. The more original voice of the author expresses itself in small additions commenting on the frame while moving the focus.

3 Conclusion: One Author’s Polyphony The partially contradicting motifs of the poem can better be explained as having been introduced by different sources, texts, or motifs that the compiler is quoting or referring to than as representing distinguishable redactional layers. Not all of the motifs recognizable in the text, however, are identifiable with specific source texts or motifs known from other texts. Whenever the compiler makes use of existing texts and motifs, which he arranges and changes in order to express himself, he adopts these foreign voices as his own. Voices that cannot be identified with other known motifs might originate from motifs or texts unknown to a mod-

 See Steck, Baruchbuch, . That it does not, however, appear in every subsection of the poem—notably not in : – , which is considered to be parallel to Pss. Sol. —underlines the composite character of the poem itself. Another epithet that is limited to Bar : – :, but which does not dominate the poem in the same way, is ἅγιος (:, ; :).  See Steck, Baruchbuch, .  See Assan-Dhôte/Moatti-Fine, Baruch, .

94

Johanna Erzberger

ern reader or represent the compiler’s voice in a more direct sense. One of these voices consists of the sequence built by the intertextually interrelated verses of 4:8, 11, 23, and 36 – 37. There is a remarkable difference between textual elements representing adopted voices and those likely to represent the more genuine voice of the compiler with regard to their importance in the poem’s structure: those textual elements that take a superordinate place in the structure of the poem, by, for example, framing or structuring single sections are primarily made up of otherwise known material. Baruch 4:5 – 9a is for the most part heavily influenced by Deuteronomy 32:15 – 21. Verses 9b, 10, and 14, structuring 4:9b–16, which offer the address of the neighboring cities and present Zion as suffering from her children’s destiny and God as bringing that destiny over them, relies heavily on Lamentations. The passage’s center, which is constituted by the children turning away from God’s law, is building on a literal quote from Job 34:27 and further imprecise parallels in wisdom literature. Baruch 4:17– 29 for the most part builds on motifs known from prophetic texts, and 4:30 – 5:6 specifically builds on texts from Isaiah. The motif of God and Zion as parallel, which is in tension with some of the motifs presented by super-ordinated textual elements according to the poem’s structure, in contrast to them mostly does not concern textual elements constituting super-ordinated elements of structure: The parallel of God and Zion, who is nurturing her children and sends them to exile, constitutes a subordinated passage in 4:9b–16. The mention of Zion’s having sent her children away, which constitutes a relative phrase in v. 37, marks it as subordinated even on the level of the grammatical structure of the phrase. By being inscribed into superordinate structures featuring better known and widely accepted motifs of God being responsible for both Israel’s exile and return and Zion suffering with her children, the idea of God and Zion sharing parenthood and the responsibility for sending Jerusalem’s children away infiltrates and partly deconstructs these overruling ideas.³⁷ As these deconstructing textual elements cannot be attributed to a separate textual layer, the author of 4:5 – 5:9 has to be considered the author of both the poem’s central statement of Israel’s exile and return, which heavily builds on well-known biblical motifs, and the potentially deconstructing and partly contradicting elements concerning Zion’s role. Both the affirmative and deconstructing voices are elements of the same author’s polyphonic work.

 The distinction between superordinated and subordinated textual elements is less obvious in : – . V. , however, does not stress the parallel nature of God and Zion if read on its own. This meaning is underlined by it being read in the context of :, , , and .

One Author’s Polyphony: Zion and God Parallelized (Bar 4:5 – 5:9)

95

Bibliography Adams, Sean A., Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. A commentary based on the texts in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series) Leiden: Brill 2014. Alonso Schökel, Luis, Jerusalen inocente intercede. Baruc 4,9 – 19, in: Domingo Muñoz León and Alejandro Díez Macho (eds.), Salvacion en la palabra. Targum, Derash, Berith. Madrid: Cristiandad 1986, 39 – 51. Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle and Jacqueline Moatti-Fine, Jacqueline, Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie (La Bible d’Alexandrie 25.2) Paris: Cerf 2005. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5 – 5:9), in: Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures: Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008) Berlin: de Gruyter 2009, 149 – 64. Henderson, Ruth, Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Literary and Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa XXII 1 – 15), Tobit 13:9 – 18 and 1 Baruch 4:30 – 5:9 (DCLS 17) Berlin: De Gruyter 2014. Kabasele Mukenge, André, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (EB 38) Paris: Gabalda 1998. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions; A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44) New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press 2007. Steck, Odil Hannes, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Thackeray, H. St.J., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. A Study in Origins. The Schweich Lectures 1920. London: Oxford University Press 1921.

Géza G. Xeravits

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 In their introduction to an excellent and recently published volume on rewriting and interpreting authoritative traditions in the Second Temple period, the editors rightly remark concerning the Book of Baruch, “Although perhaps slightly provocatively, it can be said that no sentence is original in this book but can be derived from the sources that the author or rather a group of authors had available”.¹ In this rather technical contribution to the present volume I intend to explore the biblical background of the prophetic psalms that close the Book of Baruch (4:5 – 5:9).² I intend to discover here what kind of passages prove to be authoritative or influential for the author(s) of the psalms; which in turn will help to define the interest and intention of those responsible for these passages. Within Biblical scholarship a number of studies have been devoted to the phenomenon by later athors of quoting/alluding to pre-existing scriptures. Most of these studies centre on the manner in which the New Testament writings or the Dead Sea Scrolls use source texts, but make useful methodological clarifications and illuminating case studies for the present investigation, too.³ In the introduction to their invaluable collection of Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature, Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold make important distinctions between the various types of use of anterior texts in later literature.⁴ According to their view the main difference between allusion and quotation is that in the case of the former the secondary text is morphologically not identical with the underlying text, whereas in the case of the latter, the two texts must display morphological identity. It has to be borne in mind, however, that—as Julie Hughes rightly remarks—in antiquity “the accurate reproduction of the actual words of the quoted text does not appear to have been a

 Weissenberg, Pakkala, and Marttila, Introducing Changes in Scripture, .  I consider this section as the combination of three independent units (: – ; : – :; : – ). Detailed reasoning is found in Xeravits, Take Courage, O Jerusalem.  Just very recently, see, e. g., Hughes, Scriptural Allusions; Loader, Creating New Contexts,  – ; Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations; Evans and Zacharias, Early Christian Literature; Porter and Stanley, As It Is Written; Beetham, Echoes of Scripture, esp.  – . Theoretically: Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric,  – .  Lange and Weigold, Biblical Quotations,  – .

98

Géza G. Xeravits

priority”.⁵ Consequently, to differentiate between quotation and allusion in the manner that Lange and Weigold do, is somewhat unsatisfactory. Thus, I would propose to understand quotation not primarily on the basis of formal characteristics; but, instead, on the intention of the author. A quotation is, accordingly, a portion of text in a larger context, which is taken from other, existing source, and the author’s intention is to make it clear that these words are not his own words.⁶ In the case of the quotation, therefore, the reader must know that he or she reads a text borrowed from somewhere else. To quote Julie Hughes again, quotation is a portion of text, “which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition”.⁷ Another kind of intertextuality is very close to the quotation. Authors might borrow considerable portions of text from an existing source, often with great morphological fidelity, without, however, identifying the borrowed text as a quotation. Scholars often identify this as implicit quotation, contrary to the above, which they label explicit quotation.⁸ I cannot consider this terminology fortunate because it does not differentiate enough between the two phenomena, but for the sake of convenience, I will use it below. Finally, in this paper, and related to allusion rather than quotation, I mean a combination of the three categories listed by Stanley Porter: i. e., paraphrase, allusion, and echo.⁹ Thus, allusion is a referential use of existing literary material, without specifying either its source, or indicating the fact that an external speaker’s words are woven into the actual text.¹⁰ An allusion must not be morphologically exact, neither does it require lengthy intertextual overlaps. The referential nature of the allusions, however, must be evident both for the author and the

 Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, .  See, e. g., Moyise, Quotations, : “when an author clearly indicates that the words that follow are not his or her own but are taken from another source”; or see Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, : “Strictly speaking, it is absolutely certain that a part of the New Testament text is a quotation from the Old Testament only when the quotation is stated to be so by the author”.  Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, .  Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, : “a quotation is implicit when finding it is left to the reader’s ingenuity”. Earlier, e. g., Tenney, The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel, , speak about citation (viz. explicit quotation) and quotation (viz. implicit quotation).  Porter, Use of the Old Testament,  – ; see further Porter, Allusions and Echoes,  – .  For a deeper understanding the problem of allusions, see, e. g., Hebel, Towards the Descriptive Poetics,  – , with further pertinent literature. From a Biblical angle, see Eslinger, Inner-Biblical Exegesis,  – ; Sommer, Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality,  – ; Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture,  – ; and Hylen, Allusion and Meaning,  – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

99

readers. This means that the subtle or esoteric aspect of the allusion—that scholars sometimes emphasise—might be disregarded in this case.¹¹

1 The Main Textual Units of the Psalms 1.1 Baruch 4:5 – 9a The first psalm begins with the call θαρσεῖτε λαός μου. Although the verb θαρσέω occurs 29 times in the Septuagint, there are just seven cases (except Baruch), where plural imperative forms appear.¹² The direct combination θαρσεῖτε λαός (μου) is unattested. However, there are several passages where the context and wording reminds the reader of the context and wording as it is used in Baruch. Exodus 14:13, for example, shares several key concepts with Baruch: εἶπεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν λαόν θαρσεῖτε στῆτε καὶ ὁρᾶτε τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν ποιήσει ἡμῖν σήμερον ὃν τρόπον γὰρ ἑωράκατε τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους σήμερον οὐ προσθήσεσθε ἔτι ἰδεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον

In both passages, the people (λαός) are addressed. The speech of Moses mentions the liberation (σωτηρία), a characteristic word of the first psalm of Baruch (4:22, 24, 29). The liberation comes from God (παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ), a recurrent expression in Baruch (eight times in the psalms, of which six refers to positive gifts of God, and are connected on two occasions with the negative ὀργή). The idea of the liberation coming from God (σωτηρία… παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) also appears in Baruch (4:24). The general context of the two passages is also similar: liberation from the oppressing dominion of the gentiles—these represented by the Egyptians in Exodus, and by the unspecified gentile enemy in Baruch. Another possible influence of the use of the term θαρσεῖτε in this verse comes from the Book of Zechariah, where, in the context of chapter 8 a prophetic encouragement is found, providing the following passage (Zech 8:13 – 15): 13 καὶ ἔσται ὃν τρόπον ἦτε ἐν κατάρᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν οἶκος Ιουδα καὶ οἶκος Ισραηλ οὕτως διασώσω ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔσεσθε ἐν εὐλογίᾳ θαρσεῖτε καὶ κατισχύετε ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν 14 διότι τάδε λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ ὃν τρόπον διενοήθην τοῦ κακῶσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ παροργίσαι με τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ καὶ οὐ μετενόησα 15 οὕτως παρατέταγμαι

 See, e. g.,, Abrams, Glossary, : “most literary allusions are intended to be recognized by the generally educated readers of the author’s time, but some are aimed at a special coterie” (emphasis mine).  See Exodus :; :; Judith :; Joel :; Haggai :; Zechariah :, .

100

Géza G. Xeravits

καὶ διανενόημαι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις τοῦ καλῶς ποιῆσαι τὴν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ τὸν οἶκον Ιουδα θαρσεῖτε

In the text of Zechariah one of the keywords is the twice used imperative θαρσεῖτε, which addresses the people paraphrased first as οἶκος Ιουδα καὶ οἶκος Ισραηλ and then as Ιερουσαλημ καὶ οἶκος Ιουδα. The vision of the encouragement regards the liberation (διασώζω) and restoration of the people after a desolating period connected with the gentiles (ἦτε ἐν κατάρᾳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) —a situation which is considered as the result of divine punishment (διενοήθην τοῦ κακῶσαι ὑμᾶς). The cause of this punishment is clearly defined: this is because the people had angered God (παροργίσαι με). The unnamed gentiles in this passage are evidently the Babylonians, seeing the time of the emergence of Zechariah. Again, as in the previous passage alluded from Exodus, Zechariah provides a series of thematic parallels with the psalms in Baruch; viz. the Deuteronomistic concept of 1) the sins of the people, that resulted in 2) their exile by God through the gentiles, and 3) the hope of the imminent liberation. Moreover, the shared vocabulary passages is also important, see the verbs παροργίζω and κακόω—the first occurs immediately in Baruch 4:6, while the second appears somewhat later, in the text of the closing psalm (Bar 4:31). With these Scriptural passages at the background, the opening of the first psalm of Baruch obtains a universal scope, for both typical arch-enemies of Israel are alluded by the same expression (the Egyptians and those from the East). Finally, one must take into consideration a text from the prophecies of Joel, which solemnly celebrate the cosmic dimensions of the restoration of Jerusalem (2:21– 23). The importance of this passage is especially obvious for the occurrence of θαρσέω in Baruch 4:30, but the mention of Σιων in both Joel 2:23 and repeatedly in the first psalm of Baruch might suggest an influence at this instance, too. The term μνημόσυνον is a real crux interpretum in the psalm. Scholars have tried to tie it to a number of scriptural texts as background,¹³ but it seems, in fact, that the author did not have any special passage in mind when using this expression. The μνημόσυνον Ισραηλ refers here the remnant of Israel, and this meaning is unique in the Septuagint—therefore, most scholars, and especially those hypothesizing an underlining Hebrew original, would like to emend it, generally to the imperative form of the Hebrew ‫זכר‬. One must bear

 See, e. g., Burke, Poetry of Baruch,  – ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – ; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – . The periphrastic translation of Moore, Additions, ,  –  is gratuitous.

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

101

in mind, however, that there is a Septuagint passage, in which μνημόσυνον as the remnant is in parallel with an expression that refers to the remnant of Israel, in 1 Maccabees: ἀποστεῖλαι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς δύναμιν τοῦ ἐκτρῖψαι καὶ ἐξᾶραι τὴν ἰσχὺν Ισραηλ καὶ τὸ κατάλειμμα Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἆραι τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου (1 Macc 3:35).

In this passage three expressions form a synthetic parallelism: ἰσχύς Ισραηλ, κατάλειμμα Ιερουσαλημ and μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν. All of these expressions refer to Israel plundered by the gentile enemy. Of course, I do not pretend that the passage in 1 Maccabees might be a source for this problematic passage in Baruch, but the similar use of the term is remarkable. The beginning of verse 4:6 has an obvious relationship with the Book of Esther, where the Jewish queen summarises the situation of the Jews for Artaxerxes as ἐπράθημεν γὰρ ἐγώ τε καὶ ὁ λαός μου εἰς ἀπώλειαν (Esth 7:4).¹⁴ The author of the psalm creatively modifies the sinister tone of Esther’s complaint, testifying to the belief of liberation, when he inserts the negative particle οὐκ before ἀπώλεια.¹⁵ The subject of the term πιπράσκω in Baruch is God, who sells Israel because of their sins (διὰ δὲ τὸ παροργίσαι ὑμᾶς τὸν θεόν). This aspect is absent in Esther 7:4, but is characteristic in two further possible sources of the author’s allusions. The first is from Deutero-Isaiah—one of the most important sources for the thinking of the author(s) of the psalms in Baruch. Here God in his disputation with the people states that ἰδοὺ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν ἐπράθητε (Isa 50:1), a divine act that results Israel’s exile—similarly to Baruch. The other passage comes from the end of the Blessings and Curses section of Deuteronomy 28. The closing threat for the people violating the covenant predicts an inevitably forthcoming second exile in Egypt (πραθήσεσθε ἐκεῖ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ὑμῶν εἰς παῖδας καὶ παιδίσκας), where the people will be driven back by God (καὶ ἀποστρέψει σε κύριος, Deut 28:68). Deuteronomy 28 is a well-known text for the author of the psalm, somewhat later he inserts a larger allusion from this chapter, and it is thus very probable that the verb πιπράσκω alludes to this Deuteronomic passage. And if this is the case, one has to recognise that Baruch 4:6 uses the Septuagint tradition of Deuteronomy instead of the Hebrew text, for in the latter a reflexive form is used

 This important parallel is not mentioned in the treatment of Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – .  It is not clear what Kabasele Mukenge (L’unité, ) meant when he speaks of “l’originalité de Baruch” in this context.

102

Géza G. Xeravits

(‫)והתמכרתם‬, whereas the Greek translation, similarly to Baruch, uses a passive indicative verbal form (πραθήσεσθε and ἐπράθητε). The short passage of 4:6b–7 is a pastiche from the material of Deuteronomy 32; nearly every word is borrowed from various verses of the Deuteronomic song. The synonymous pair παροργίζω and παρωξύνω—as Kabasele Mukenge rightly notices—occur in parallel in Psalm 77(MT 78):40 – 41:¹⁶ ποσάκις παρεπίκραναν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ παρώργισαν αὐτὸν ἐν γῇ ἀνύδρῳ καὶ ἐπέστρεψαν καὶ ἐπείρασαν τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Ισραηλ παρώξυναν

Psalm 77 accuses Israel that during the wandering in the wilderness they did not recall of the mighty acts of God revealed in Egypt. The image of the rebellious people appears in Deuteronomy 32:21, too, where—at least according to the reading of Codex Vaticanus—the two verbs in question also paralleled with each other: αὐτοὶ παρεζήλωσάν με ἐπ᾽ οὐ θεῷ παρώξυνάν με ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν κἀγὼ παραζηλώσω αὐτοὺς ἐπ᾽ οὐκ ἔθνει ἐπ᾽ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ αὐτούς

Again, Baruch seems to follow a Greek reading (reflected by Vaticanus), because the Hebrew text, and the Greek version of the Codex Alexandrinus uses the same verb παροργίζω/‫ כעס‬both in cola 32:21aβ and 32:21bβ. The closing expression of verse 6 (παρεδόθητε τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις) is a striking parallel with the opening ἐπράθητε τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. The two terms used here appear within the Deuteronomic song, in a context that considers various aspects of the divine punishment of Israel. In Deuteronomy 32:27 ὑπεναντίος represent the gentiles whose boastful attitude after their victory will cause God to hold back from the complete annihilation of the people. Some verses later, in Deuteronomy 32:30 παραδίδωμι occurs in a divine speech expressing God’s frustration because of the unwise attitude of Israel, who is unable to understand that the cause of their doom is God’s wrath. The combination of these elements in Baruch emphasise the significance of the exile.

 Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

103

The expression at the beginning of verse 7 (παρωξύνατε γὰρ τὸν ποιήσαντα ὑμᾶς) appears twice in the Book of Proverbs (παροξύνει τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτόν, Prov 14:31 and 17:5). In both instances the addressee of the wisdom saying is the one who despises the poor (ὁ συκοφαντῶν πένητα in 14:31 and ὁ καταγελῶν πτωχοῦ in 17:5), which suggests another scriptural passage in the background. And indeed, Deuteronomy 32:15b–16a refers to the prosperous Jacob, who, when doing well, turns away from God to venerate false divinities: καὶ ἐγκατέλιπεν θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπέστη ἀπὸ θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ παρώξυνάν με ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις. Note, that the term θεός σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ is alluded later on, in Baruch 4:22, where God is characterised as αἰώνιος σωτῆρος ὑμῶν. The passage in Baruch finishes then with the expression θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, which continues the reading of the Deuteronomic passage, where verse 32:17 begins with exactly the same formulation: ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ. Verse 4:8 continues the allusions to Deuteronomy 32, although significantly less in the level of vocabulary. The opening verb ἐπιλανθάνομαι, nevertheless, comes from Deuteronomy 32:18: θεὸν τὸν γεννήσαντά σε ἐγκατέλιπες καὶ ἐπελάθου θεοῦ τοῦ τρέφοντός σε

The parallel is confirmed by the presence of the synonymous verbs τρέφω (in Deuteronomy) and τροφεύω (in Baruch) in 4:8a,¹⁷ and by the occurrence of ἐκτρέφω in 4:8b—although in the latter case the subject of the verb changes from God to the personified Jerusalem. In view of this change of subject another scriptural allusion is obvious, to Isaiah 49:14– 15: εἶπεν δὲ Σιων ἐγκατέλιπέν με κύριος καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐπελάθετό μου μὴ ἐπιλήσεται γυνὴ τοῦ παιδίου αὐτῆς τοῦ μὴ ἐλεῆσαι τὰ ἔκγονα τῆς κοιλίας αὐτῆς εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπιλάθοιτο ταῦτα γυνή ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐκ ἐπιλήσομαί σου εἶπεν κύριος

The Isaianic passage itself alludes to Deuteronomy 32:18, and, furthermore, the verb ἐπιλανθάνομαι establishes a contact between Isaiah and Baruch. The two

 Note that the rare form τροφεύω, which occurs in the LXX only here and in Exodus :, clearly mirrors the Greek version of Deuteronomy instead of the Hebrew, see, e. g., Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .

104

Géza G. Xeravits

passages contrast each other: while Deutero-Isaiah comforts Jerusalem that God will never forget her, Baruch stresses that the people have forgotten God, their wet-nurse. The closing verse of the strophe (4:9a) returns once more to Deuteronomy 32, and alludes to verse 19, where God is told to see (εἶδεν) the sins of the people, and is jealous because of their anger and idolatry (ὀργή). In Baruch, Jerusalem sees (εἶδεν) the wrath (ὀργή) of God against the people. The thematic contrast is obvious between the two verses. Finally, both verses end with the formula καὶ εἶπεν: in Deuteronomy the direct speech of God follows, whereas in Baruch the lament of Jerusalem begins: Deut: καὶ εἶδεν κύριος… καὶ παρωξύνθη δι᾽ ὀργὴν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρων καὶ εἶπεν Bar: εἶδεν γὰρ τὴν ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν

Rhetorically, verses 4:6b–9a present an interesting chain of allusions, where the recurrent presence of material from Deuteronomy 32 is discernible. The intensity of the Deuteronomic presence is visualised below, where in the text of Baruch words coming from Deuteronomy 32 is underlined, and morphologically unidentical parallels are italicised: διὰ δὲ τὸ παροργίσαι ὑμᾶς τὸν θεὸν παρεδόθητε τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις 21, 27 +30 7 παρωξύνατε γὰρ τὸν ποιήσαντα ὑμᾶς θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ 21, 15 – 17 8 ἐπελάθεσθε δὲ τὸν τροφεύσαντα ὑμᾶς θεὸν αἰώνιον 18 ἐλυπήσατε δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐκθρέψασαν ὑμᾶς Ιερουσαλημ 18 9 εἶδεν γὰρ τὴν ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν 19 – 20

This passage (the main part of the first strophe) works in a similar way to the implicit quotation which will be discussed below, in 4:15. The initial problem for the author is the captivity of Israel as is raised in 4:6a (ἐπράθητε τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), and with the alluded Deuteronomic material he reveals the reasons of the captivity. The central verses for the present concern are Deuteronomy 32:17– 18 and 21, which relate that Israel has turned away from God and served false divinities. These verses are a direct allusion and dominate the other material borrowed from the same context, such as the verb of the expression θεὸν τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτόν in Deuteronomy is ἐγκαταλείπω, which is changed here to παροξύνω, a verb coming from verse 32:21. The creativity of the present author is shown furthermore by the manner of supplementing this material with other reminiscences from the broader Deuteronomistic context. The expression παρεδόθητε τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις is composed of two terms occurring separately, in Deuteronomy 32:27 and 30. Verse 4:8b alludes

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

105

to 32:18—the relationship between 4:8a and 4:8b makes this claim clear—although in the Baruchian context, it refers expressis verbis to Jerusalem, and not to God as in Deuteronomy. The wording of the closing colon in Baruch is also interesting (see above, on 4:9a): the Deuteronomic background is completely transformed, just three Leitwörter provide the connection between the two passages (ὁράω, ὀργή, λέγω). Whereas Deuteronomy speaks about the wrath of the Israelites, in Baruch the wrath of God is related. An important difference between the passage in Baruch and its Deuteronomic pretext is that in this instance Baruch omits completely the detailed treatment of Israel’s punishment (cf. Deut 32:20, 21b–26.). In the present case, the author intends to relate the reasons which led to the captivity of the people, and will treat its particular details later.

1.2 Baruch 4:9b–13 Sayings introduced by the imperative ἀκούσατε are characteristic of prophetic literature of the Old Testament. They are especially frequent in Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah, the former provides 12 occurrences, while the latter has 24. The author of the psalm in Baruch does not allude here to a specific passage; rather, he imitates the style of these prophetic books. The addressees, αἱ πάροικοι Σιων, do not appear in this form in the Bible; nonetheless here and there, a similar combination appears. In Jeremiah 38(MT 31):10 the formula ἀκούσατε… ἔθνη is found, the context is the gathering of the dispersed Israel. For the present perspective, Lamentations 1:18b is much more important: ἀκούσατε δή πάντες οἱ λαοί καὶ ἴδετε τὸ ἄλγος μου παρθένοι μου καὶ νεανίσκοι μου ἐπορεύθησαν ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ

In this passage, the gentiles are addressed, the object of the message is Jerusalem’s grief (ἄλγος) caused by the captivity of her children—these aspects will be treated by the following verse in Baruch. The closing expression of 4:9, πένθος μέγα, seems to reflect Esther 4:3, where the Jews are told to have κραυγὴ καὶ κοπετὸς καὶ πένθος μέγα because of the terrible decree of the king. Nowhere else does the Septuagint mention the πένθος of Jerusalem. A similar situation is reflected, however, in 1 Maccabees 1:39 – 40, where the plundering of Jerusalem is mourned. A possible scriptural background for the use of πένθος here might also be Jeremiah 6:26, where θυγάτηρ λαοῦ μου is summoned to grieve over the attack of the enemy against θυγάτηρ Σιων—the expression “daughters” will appear in the following verse at Baruch.

106

Géza G. Xeravits

The grief of Jerusalem is caused by the captivity of her sons and daughters (4:10). As suggested earlier, the influence of Lamentations 1:18 on this passage is very probable (there the synonymous terms παρθένοι μου καὶ νεανίσκοι μου appear). A much closer parallel is provided by Deuteronomy 28:41, where a threatening prophecy envisages the exile of Israel’s offspring: υἱοὺς καὶ θυγατέρας γεννήσεις καὶ οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι ἀπελεύσονται γὰρ ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ

Three key terms from this passage reappears in Baruch 4:10: υἱός, θυγάτηρ, and αἰχμαλωσία. This parallel becomes even clearer if one realises that the conclusion of the actual strophe in Baruch recalls the lawless behaviour of Israel, in other words, they deserved the fulfilment of the curse prophesied by the Deuteronomy. The idea of the change between joy and grief (4:11) occurs in a couple of biblical passages. Most of the cases πένθος contrasts terms denoting feasts like ἑορτή (Am 8:10; 1 Macc 1:39),¹⁸ γάμος (1 Macc 9:41), χορός (Lam 5:15). Jeremiah 38 (MT 31):13 uses similar terms as Baruch, although in a reverse order, proceeding from mourning to joy: τότε χαρήσονται παρθένοι ἐν συναγωγῇ νεανίσκων καὶ πρεσβῦται χαρήσονται καὶ στρέψω τὸ πένθος αὐτῶν εἰς χαρμονὴν καὶ ποιήσω αὐτοὺς εὐφραινομένους

Although the direct parallel of πένθος here is χαρμονή, the verse closes with the verb εὐφραίνω, which might be reflected by the term εὐφροσύνη in Baruch. The beginning of verse 11 does not seem to have a direct biblical antecedent at first sight, the verb τρέφω occurs in different contexts in the Septuagint. Seen, however, together with the following verse, it is clear that the author alludes here to Isaiah 49:21;¹⁹ where the passages share three common terms: ἐκτρέφω/ τρέφω, χήρα and καταλείπω. Moreover, both passages speak about Jerusalem. καὶ ἐρεῖς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου τίς ἐγέννησέν μοι τούτους ἐγὼ δὲ ἄτεκνος καὶ χήρα τούτους δὲ τίς ἐξέθρεψέν μοι ἐγὼ δὲ κατελείφθην μόνη οὗτοι δέ μοι ποῦ ἦσαν

 The terms occur also in Tobit :, the passage cites Amos directly: καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς προφητείας Αμως καθὼς εἶπεν στραφήσονται αἱ ἑορταὶ ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ εὐφροσύναι ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον καὶ ἔκλαυσα.  Henderson’s hypothesis that the Hebrew of Lamentations : could influence the author here is not convincing. See Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

107

The wording of this passage is very likely to have been influenced by another Deutero-Isaianic passage. In Isaiah 54:4– 6 a salvation—or “fear-not”—oracle is pronounced to Jerusalem,²⁰ who is depicted as a forsaken female. The term ὄνειδος τῆς χηρείας reminds the reader of the use of χήρα in Baruch. Later on, in 54:6 God made a promise that οὐχ ὡς γυναῖκα καταλελειμμένην καὶ ὀλιγόψυχον κέκληκέν σε κύριος, where the verb καταλείπω is used by the author of Baruch’s psalm. The opening imperative of verse 12 which charges the nations not to rejoice over the doom of Jerusalem (μηδεὶς ἐπιχαιρέτω) seems to echo some psalms of lament.²¹ It appears to me, however, that the author alludes here rather to various passages of the Book of Micah: καὶ νῦν ἐπισυνήχθη ἐπὶ σὲ ἔθνη πολλὰ οἱ λέγοντες ἐπιχαρούμεθα καὶ ἐπόψονται ἐπὶ Σιων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν (Mi 4:11), and μὴ ἐπίχαιρέ μοι ἡ ἐχθρά μου (Mi 7:8a). What makes these occurrences important from the present perspective, is that the object of the enemy’s rejoicing is explicitly Zion. Moreover, Micah 7:8 comes from a passage where the speaker is Zion herself,²² just like in Baruch; the parallelism between the two acclamations μὴ ἐπίχαιρέ μοι and μηδεὶς ἐπιχαιρέτω μοι is obvious. One can further notice that both terms that designate Zion’s opponents in Micah (ἔθνοι and ἐχθρός) will soon appear in the next strophes of Baruch’s psalm. The beginning of the explanation of the causes of Zion’s abandonment—it is well known among scholars—appears in the form of an implicit quotation of Job 34:27: ὅτι ἐξέκλιναν ἐκ νόμου θεοῦ δικαιώματα δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν

The only differences between the two passages are the opening conjunction (ὅτι in Job and διότι in Baruch), and the closing, albeit synonymous, verbs (ἐπιγιγνώσκω in Job and γινώσκω in Baruch).²³ The rest of the material of verse 13 uses a vocabulary familiar from both prophetic and sapiential literature; the author does not rely on specific sources—he simply imitates the language of these corpora. The closest passages are Jeremiah

 The literature on this genre is vast, see e. g., Begrich, Priesterliche Heilsorakel,  – ; Westermann, Sprache und Struktur,  – ; Harner, Salvation Oracle,  – ; Conrad, Second Isaiah,  – ; and Conrad, Fear Not,  – .  See, e. g., Psalms (MT ):, ; (MT ):; (MT ):.  Cf. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, .  This quotation comes undeniably from the Septuagint; the Hebrew text displays a different reading, cf. Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .

108

Géza G. Xeravits

18:15 and Sirach 2:12, where the words ἐπιβαίνω and τρίβος appear in the same context. The passage in Jeremiah deals with the disloyalty of the people, depicted as forgetting God, and walking in false ways (ἀσθενήσουσιν ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν σχοίνους αἰωνίους τοῦ ἐπιβῆναι τρίβους οὐκ ἔχοντας ὁδὸν εἰς πορείαν). Ben Sira introduces woe sayings (οὐαί), which highlight characteristics of sinners/apostates who, among others, ἐπιβαίνοντι ἐπὶ δύο τρίβους, and lose faith.

1.3 Baruch 4:14 – 16 Verse 4:14—with a different introduction—repeats nearly verbatim the material of 4:10. The supplementary verbs at the beginning of the verse, ἔρχομαι and μιμνήσκομαι, do not mirror a specific scriptural background. In verse 4:15 the author uses material from Deuteronomy 28:49 – 50: ἐπάξει κύριος ἐπὶ σὲ ἔθνος μακρόθεν ἀπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς ὡσεὶ ὅρμημα ἀετοῦ ἔθνος ὃ οὐκ ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἔθνος ἀναιδὲς προσώπῳ ὅστις οὐ θαυμάσει πρόσωπον πρεσβύτου καὶ νέον οὐκ ἐλεήσει

The biblical passage here is not simply quoted or alluded to; it is rather rewritten or applied in accordance with the author’s understanding. The text he creates intends to relate to the fulfilment of the Deuteronomic prophecy of doom, and he heralds this at the very beginning, by changing the grammatical form of the opening verb from future to aorist. Deuteronomy 28:49a is slavishly copied, but the second half of the verse (ἀπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς ὡσεὶ ὅρμημα ἀετοῦ) is omitted. Attention has already been called to the fact that the author of the psalm aims to produce a more concise text²⁴—nevertheless, the reasons for this omission are not clear. In the Bible, other, shortened forms of this kind of oracles appear—the closest to our passage is Jeremiah 5:15 – 17, and in some sense Jeremiah 6:22– 26²⁵—but these do not explain the variant in Baruch, for the vocabulary used makes it certain that the Deuteronomic version lies behind the Baruch verses. The clause ὃ οὐκ ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ of Deuteronomy is shortened simply to ἀλλόγλωσσον. This rare term has just one further occurrence in the Septuagint, in Ezekiel 3:6, but the context there is very different. The word γλῶσσα appears in Jeremiah’s version of the curse, as an explanatory element (οὗ οὐκ

 Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, .  See, e. g., McKane, Jeremiah, : – ,  – ; Lundbom, Jeremiah  – ,  – ,  – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

109

ἀκουσῃ τῆς φωνῆς τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ); this might have influenced the wording in Baruch. The choice of the verb αἰσχύνομαι is unexpected, Burke is right when he underlines that in this sense the verb is used just twice in the Septuagint, in the Book of Job;²⁶ but it is clear that Baruch’s author is not influenced by Job in this instance. The pair ᾐσχύνθησαν πρεσβύτην and παιδίον ἠλέησαν fit the euphonic character of Baruch’s rewriting of the Deuteronomic passage.²⁷ Furthermore, Ruth Henderson rightly claims that the use of the terms ἀναιδές and παιδίον reflects an interpretive tradition witnessed also by the Targumic readings of Deuteronomy 28.²⁸ Rhetorically, this verse might be labelled the largest implicit quotation of a biblical passage inserted into the prophetic psalms. The author does not quote here Deuteronomy explicitly—nothing shows on the surface of the text that any alien material has been inserted here. The context is striking, nevertheless. The Deuteronomic material is prefaced by 4:11, a verse of mixed ancestry (cf. Lam 1:18 and Deut 28:41), which evokes, as in the quasi-identical 4:10, the captivity of Jerusalem’s children. The Deuteronomic material serves here to pointedly stress this captivity, as executed by a distant, foreign, and ferocious foe. The author of the psalm seems to catalogue the characteristics of the enemy from Deuteronomy, his interest is to present their concrete features—which might be the reason of the omission of the metaphorical elements found in the original passage (ὡσεὶ ὅρμημα ἀετοῦ). What is emphasised, is the geographical distance of the enemy (μακρόθεν); their foreign character illustrated by their different language (ἀλλόγλωσσον); and their exceptional cruelty (οὐκ ᾐσχύνθησαν… οὐδὲ ἠλέησαν), which extends to the vulnerable sectors of the people (πρεσβύτης and παιδίον). The change of the grammatical form of the verb governing the passage (from future to indicative aorist) has an interpretative aspect. It presupposes that the readers of Baruch are aware of the text of Deuteronomy (at least they are familiar with the Blessings and Curses section in chapter 28). Therefore, to insert into the text a curse foreseen by the Deuteronomic author, and to present it as one has already taken place, means that the prophetic psalm suggests that this passage of Deuteronomy has been fulfilled. The double effect of the allusion is thus to authorise the message of the prophetic psalm by a prior text on the one hand, and to verify the message of the authoritative scripture on the other. In this way the two texts have a kind of reciprocal relationship with each other.²⁹

   

Burke, Poetry of Baruch, . See Xeravits, Take Courage, O Jerusalem,  – . Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – . On this aspect see Loader, Creating New Contexts, ,  – .

110

Géza G. Xeravits

The term ἀγαπητός in 4:16 is not very frequent in the Septuagint; from its occurrences the most plausible sources for its use in Baruch might be Jeremiah 6:26 and Amos 8:10. In Jeremiah, in the context of the Deuteronomistic curse treated above, Jerusalem is called to πένθος ἀγαπητοῦ ποίησαι σεαυτῇ; while in Amos, in a prophecy of doom God will declare that καὶ θήσομαι αὐτὸν ὡς πένθος ἀγαπητοῦ. The pair ἀγαπητός τῆς χήρας is unique in the Septuagint. The image of the solitary widow, deprived of her children echoes again in Isaiah 49:21, the two common terms in this case are χήρα and μόνη. On the latter word, see the next paragraph below.

1.4 Baruch 4:17 – 20 Formally, the closest parallels to the acclamation of Jerusalem are provided by two passages in the Book of Job—both readings are invented by the Septuagint’s translators rather than lifted from other versions of the text. In Job 4:20 mortal human nature is labelled as παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς βοηθῆσαι ἀπώλοντο; whereas in 20:14 the wicked are told they will perish, because they οὐ μὴ δυνηθῇ βοηθῆσαι ἑαυτῷ. The fact that the sin of the people, and the impossibility of any immanent help have been emphasised in the prophetic psalm, indicate that these passages might well influenced the psalm’s wording. On the other hand, a verse in Esther, which asks the help of God, shows also a striking parallel: ἡμᾶς δὲ ῥῦσαι ἐν χειρί σου καὶ βοήθησόν μοι τῇ μόνῃ καὶ μὴ ἐχούσῃ εἰ μὴ σέ κύριε (Esth 4:7 C 25). The broader context echoes three terms from this verse: βοάω occurs here, in 4:17; μόνη appears in 4:16; and χείρ (although in antithetical meaning) will appear in 4:18. The image of the lonely queen and the solitary Jerusalem nicely parallel each other, and the opening ἡμᾶς in Esther mirrors the community aspects in the need of divine help. Moreover, the rhetorical question of Jerusalem obtains an implicit answer from Esther: How can I help? The answer: God is the one who is able to help (this will explicitly be elaborated in the following verse 4:18). The expression ἐπάγειν κακά denoting the divine punishment occurs in various biblical passages, and is used more intensively by Jeremiah and in some instances by the Deuteronomistic History.³⁰ The idea of the liberation from the hands of the enemy (ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν) recurrent in Scripture is indicated mainly by verbs as ῥύομαι, σῴζω, λυτρόω. In a few cases, however, it is combined with

 See, e. g., Jeremiah :; :; :, ; :; :; : (MT :); and  Kingdoms :;  Kingdoms (MT ):, ;  Kingdoms :, latter rewritten in  Chronicles :.

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

111

ἐξαιρέω, as here, in Baruch—these instances come exclusively from 1 and 2 Kingdoms.³¹ Henderson argues that the closest parallel for the use of ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν is Zephaniah 3:15b,³² which is part of a passage that has most probably influenced the present author already in the first verse of the prophetic psalm. The broader context in Zephaniah makes this claim very probable. There is no biblical antecedent of the joint occurrence of the two expressions ἐπάγειν κακά and ἐξαιρεῖν ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν, but—along with Burke and Henderson³³—one can highlight a passage of Jeremiah, which uses the expression ἐπάγειν κακά, on the one hand, and envisages the liberation, on the other hand (Jer 39[MT 32]:42). Here the Lord asserts that, καθὰ ἐπήγαγον ἐπὶ τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον πάντα τὰ κακὰ τὰ μεγάλα ταῦτα οὕτως ἐγὼ ἐπάξω ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς πάντα τὰ ἀγαθά ἃ ἐλάλησα ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς

The plural form of the imperative βαδίζετε occurs seven times in the Septuagint (of which two are provided by the present verse of Baruch), but these instances differ so much from this verse in meaning, that it seems to be certain that they have not influenced it. There is another occurrence, however, in singular form, which might be considered as a point of reference for this verse, viz. Isaiah 26:20: βάδιζε λαός μου εἴσελθε εἰς τὰ ταμίειά σου ἀπόκλεισον τὴν θύραν σου ἀποκρύβηθι μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου

The prophet urges his people (λαός μου) to go (βαδίζω) and hide until God’s anger (ὀργή) will pass away. The connections between this verse and the psalm in Baruch are clear. First, the most obvious is the mutual presence of the imperative of the verb βαδίζω in both passages. Second, the term λαός μου echoes the identification of Israel at the opening colon of the prophetic psalm (4:5). Third, the psalm in Baruch has already identified the disasters the people have to suffer as a result of the divine wrath (ὀργή has already occurred in 4:9a). Thus, this reference to Isaiah 26:20 has a broader contextual significance. As was said above (see verse 12), the primary source for the use of the verb καταλείπω is highly probably Isaiah 49:21. In this instance, however, more Isaianic parallels might also influence his wording. The composite expression

 See  Kingdoms :, ;  Kingdoms :. In some sense one can also cite here  Kingdoms : where, in the same context both σῴζω and ἐξαιρέω occur, and  Kingdoms :, where the idiom appears in a variant manner: ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἡμῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξείλατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς ἀλλοφύλων.  See Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  Burke, Poetry of Baruch, ; Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .

112

Géza G. Xeravits

κατελείπειν ἔρημος occurs in three passages of Isaiah, and all are telling from the present perspective. In the commission narrative, during his throne room vision, the prophet asks God about the duration of the people’s wickedness; the answer is ἕως… ἡ γῆ καταλειφθήσεται ἔρημος (Isa 6:11b). In his dark oracle in chapter 24, the prophet lists among the effects of the divine curse against Israel, that καταλειφθήσονται πόλεις ἔρημοι (Isa 24:12). Finally, in a great oracle of salvation for Jerusalem, at the end of the book, Isaiah consoles the Holy City that καὶ οὐκέτι κληθήσῃ καταλελειμμένη καὶ ἡ γῆ σου οὐ κληθήσεται ἔρημος (Isa 62:4a). The word pair ἐκδύω/ἐνδύω of verse 4:20 appears less than 10 times in the Septuagint; most of these passages are irrelevant for the present context. The closest text is Isaiah 52:1– 2, the meaning of which is parallel—albeit antethically—with this verse: ἐξεγείρου ἐξεγείρου Σιων ἔνδυσαι τὴν ἰσχύν σου Σιων καὶ ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου Ιερουσαλημ πόλις ἡ ἁγία οὐκέτι προστεθήσεται διελθεῖν διὰ σοῦ ἀπερίτμητος καὶ ἀκάθαρτος ἐκτίναξαι τὸν χοῦν καὶ ἀνάστηθι κάθισον Ιερουσαλημ ἔκδυσαι τὸν δεσμὸν τοῦ τραχήλου σου ἡ αἰχμάλωτος θυγάτηρ Σιων

In Isaiah the liberation of Jerusalem is proclaimed, which is marked by putting on strength and glory (ἔνδυσαι τὴν ἰσχύν σου and ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου), and taking off the chains of the exile (ἔκδυσαι τὸν δεσμὸν τοῦ τραχήλου σου). Baruch reverses the order, because he speaks about the ongoing exile here, and not its expected end. The objects of the clothing, στολή τῆς εἰρήνης and σάκκος τῆς δεήσεως are unattested composite expressions in the Septuagint. The origin of the clause ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις μου is located in Psalm 114(MT 116):2.³⁴ This expression is very rare in the Septuagint. Twice it occurs in the same context: Ezekiah declares God’s words good for the sake of continuous peace in his land (4 Kgs 20:19 and Isa 39:8); and once it occurs in the Prayer of Manasseh (v. 12), where the king states that he will praises God always. In Psalm 114 the psalmist expresses his confidence in the enduring help and attention of God (εἰσακούσεται κύριος τῆς φωνῆς τῆς δεήσεώς μου, 114:1b), and states that ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις μου ἐπικαλέσομαι. Thus this passage—that contains two characteristic terms of Baruch 4:20—may have served as a biblical antecedent for the author of the prophetic psalm. It must be remarked however, that one can find other parallels, too. The verbal form κεκράξομαι occurs in Psalm 29 (MT 30):9, in parallel with δέομαι (cf. the related noun δεήσις in Baruch); where Burke, Poetry of Baruch, , and Moore, Additions, .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

113

as in Psalm 85(MT 86):3, the psalmist is crying to God all day long (πρὸς σὲ κεκράξομαι ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν).

1.5 Baruch 4:21 – 24 Baruch 4:21 builds with elements incorporated already into earlier verses of the prophetic psalm, except the use of the verb βοάω. Cry out to God (βοᾶν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν/κύριον) is a very frequent phrase in the Bible. An interesting possible parallel could be Isaiah 42:13, where God is told to shout against his enemy (κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων… βοήσεται ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτοῦ μετὰ ἰσχύος). If this text influenced the author of the prophetic psalm, he ingeniously inverts the cry of the people for liberation against the enemy, and the powerful shout of God that overcomes the enemy. The Book of Judith provides furthermore a couple of factual parallels, where, during a national distress, the people cry out to God.³⁵ The verb ἐλπίζω—one can say—is a technical term of the Psalms, which provides a predominantly great number of its occurrences (to a much lesser degree, it is also true for Isaiah). Burke calls the attention to two passages, the context of which might suggest Baruch’s dependence on them.³⁶ In Psalm 12(MT 13):6 the psalmist declares: ἐγὼ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἐλέει σου ἤλπισα ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ καρδία μου ἐπὶ τῷ σωτηρίῳ σου, whereas in Isaiah 25:9 it is stated that in the days to come God will be celebrated as ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἠλπίζομεν καὶ ἠγαλλιώμεθα καὶ εὐφρανθησόμεθα ἐπὶ τῇ σωτηρίᾳ ἡμῶν. These passages have in common, and in the same context the verb ἐλπίζω, and a term deriving from the verb σῴζω—like σωτήριος in the Psalm, σωτηρία in Isaiah, finally, σωτηρία and σωτήρ in Baruch. In the broader context of the Psalms passage also the term ἐχθρός occurs, which appears repeatedly in Baruch. The ἐλεημοσύνη in the Septuagint predominantly means the kind deeds of a human being. Sometimes, however, it could denote, as here, something that comes from God, the mercy that comes from God (παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου in Baruch). And indeed, there are some passages that might influence the present wording. In Deuteronomy 6:25, the effect of observing the commandments is that ἐλεημοσύνη ἔσται ἡμῖν—obviously from God. One might also mention Isaiah 38:18, the importance of which is provided by the fact that it features in the same context the verb ἐλπίζω and the noun ἐλεημοσύνη that belongs to God: οὐδὲ ἐλπιοῦσιν οἱ ἐν ᾅδου τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην σου. The closest parallel is, nevertheless, Psalm 23(MT

 See Judith :, , ; :; :.  Burke, Poetry of Baruch,  – .

114

Géza G. Xeravits

24):5, where the author explicitly speaks about the righteous, who λήμψεται εὐλογίαν παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ἐλεημοσύνην παρὰ θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ. Note, that Baruch 4:22 evokes God in nearly identical terms: παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου σωτῆρος ὑμῶν. The image of God as liberator (σωτήρ) is widespread in the bible. Besides Psalm 23 the closest formal parallel of Baruch 4:22 is Habakkuk 3:18: Habakkuk ἐγὼ δὲ Baruch

ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ ἀγαλλιάσομαι χαρήσομαι ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤλπισα

ἐπὶ τῷ αἰωνίῳ…

παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου σωτῆρος ὑμῶν

Besides the identical structure, and the similar divine names, the two passages are interconnected by the presence of the verb χαίρω of Habakkuk, the parallel of which is the word χαρά in Baruch. The change between grief and joy as witnessed by verse 4:23 is a recurrent topic in the Bible, and some important passages were listed at 4:11 above. To this list now one can add Esther 9:22, which relates that after the fall of their enemy (ἀνεπαύσαντο οἱ Ιουδαῖοι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐχθρῶν), the attitude of the Jews has changed ἀπὸ πένθους εἰς χαρὰν. One can further note a good number of biblical passages, where χαρά and εὐφροσύνη/εὐφραίνω stand in parallel—these at least strengthen the homogeneity of verses 4:22– 23. Here two word pairs are contrasted by the author. The first pair, πένθος and κλαυθμός occurs just once, in Deuteronomy 34:8, where the dead Moses is mourned, which, I believe, could have just been an outside parallel for Baruch. The pair χαρμοσύνη and εὐφροσύνη, on the contrary, has two telling occurrences in Jeremiah. The first relates that the divine punishment sweeps away χαρμοσύνη καὶ εὐφροσύνη from Israel’s enemy (in this case, Moab, Jer 31[MT 48]:33). The other appears in a proclamation of liberation for Jerusalem and Judah, according to which God’s deeds will be celebrated, among others with φωνὴ εὐφροσύνης καὶ φωνὴ χαρμοσύνης (Jer 40[MT 33]:11). The latter passage especially could be important for the present purpose, for it has clearly influenced another part of the Baruchian collection: it is alluded to in Baruch 2:23. Verse 4:24 begins with a complex comparative construction, which contrasts the future experiences of Zion’s neighbours in the past and in the near future. The verbal form ἑωράκασιν appears in the Septuagint generally within the idiom ἑωράκασιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί. In Isaiah 66, it occurs independently, but in a highly noteworthy context: the collecting of the nations, when they experience the glory of God—which they have never before seen (οἳ οὐκ… ἑωράκασιν τὴν δόξαν μου, Isa 66:19). Baruch uses this verse to demonstrate, that the liberation

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

115

of the people by God (παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν σωτηρίαν) is his glorious deed (μετὰ δόξης μεγάλης) that will be witnessed by the nations (αἱ πάροικοι Σιων… οὕτως ὄψονται). The expression τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν σωτηρίαν might have been borrowed from several sources. Burke mentions two of them, Exodus 14:13 and Isaiah 52:10,³⁷ both of which are important for the present passage. Isaiah speaks about the liberation of God, which will be revealed for the nations: καὶ ἀποκαλύψει κύριος τὸν βραχίονα αὐτοῦ τὸν ἅγιον ἐνώπιον πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ὄψονται πάντα τὰ ἄκρα τῆς γῆς τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ

Besides the analogies in vocabulary, the thematic correspondence of this verse with Baruch 4:24 is obvious. As for the Exodus passage, although Moses speaks here directly to the Israelites, he states that the liberation of God will be seen by the hostile nation: εἶπεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πρὸς τὸν λαόν θαρσεῖτε στῆτε καὶ ὁρᾶτε τὴν σωτηρίαν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἣν ποιήσει ἡμῖν σήμερον ὃν τρόπον γὰρ ἑωράκατε τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους σήμερον οὐ προσθήσεσθε ἔτι ἰδεῖν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον

This passage is even more interesting from the present perspective, for it contains one of the main Leitwörter of Baruch 4– 5: θαρσεῖτε. In this way, it has broader contextual importance. I would finally cite a neglected passage from Psalms; in this case also, the context provides its special significance (Ps 36 [MT 37]:39 – 40): σωτηρία δὲ τῶν δικαίων παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ὑπερασπιστὴς αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως καὶ βοηθήσει αὐτοῖς κύριος καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐξελεῖται αὐτοὺς ἐξ ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ σώσει αὐτούς ὅτι ἤλπισαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν

In colon 39a, it is stated that liberation (σωτηρία) is derived from God (in this case, παρὰ κυρίου). In the following verse, however, which specifies the effects of the liberation, the psalmist lists a couple of verbs which reappears in the broader context of the prophetic psalm of Baruch: βοηθέω, ἐξαιρέω, ἐλπίζω.

 Burke, Poetry of Baruch, .

116

Géza G. Xeravits

From the four occurrences of the term λαμπρότης in the Greek Bible,³⁸ just one can be considered as a probable background of this verse from Baruch, Isaiah 60:2– 3, where it occurs together with the word δόξα. The context is similar in Baruch: God’s glory will be revealed over Israel, and the nations (in this case ἔθνη) will witness this (ὀφθήσεται): ἰδοὺ σκότος καὶ γνόφος καλύψει γῆν ἐπ᾽ ἔθνη ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ φανήσεται κύριος καὶ ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σὲ ὀφθήσεται καὶ πορεύσονται βασιλεῖς τῷ φωτί σου καὶ ἔθνη τῇ λαμπρότητί σου

1.6 Baruch 4:25 – 26 The rare verb μακροθυμέω may refer to the patience of both God and humans. A tiny allusion is made here perhaps to Ben Sira, where the patience of the one who fears God is praised, and the sage recommends this to his disciples ἐν ἀλλάγμασιν ταπεινώσεώς σου μακροθύμησον (Sir 2:4b). The object of μακροθυμεῖν, viz. the wrath coming from God has been treated at 4:9a above. The verb καταδιώκω is predominant in the Deuteronomistic History, and in the Psalms. The composite expression κατεδίωξέν σε ὁ ἐχθρός echoes Psalm 142 (MT 143):3, where the psalmist laments that κατεδίωξέν ὁ ἐχθρός τὴν ψυχήν μου; or Hosea 8:3, where the prophet declares that the disobedience of Israel caused this situation: ὅτι Ισραηλ ἀπεστρέψατο ἀγαθά ἐχθρὸν κατεδίωξαν. Nevertheless, the term ἐχθρός here alludes rather to Deuteronomy 33:29—again, according to the Greek version: καὶ ψεύσονταί σε οἱ ἐχθροί σου καὶ σὺ ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτῶν ἐπιβήσῃ. The parenthetical clause in Baruch has two main elements: καὶ ὄψει αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀπώλειαν and τὴν ἀπώλειαν ἐν τάχει. The first composite expression is not found in the Septuagint. Burke suggests that the second is influenced by Deuteronomy 28:20:³⁹ ἐξαποστείλαι κύριός σοι τὴν ἔνδειαν καὶ τὴν ἐκλιμίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνάλωσιν ἐπὶ πάντα οὗ ἂν ἐπιβάλῃς τὴν χεῖρά σου ὅσα ἐὰν ποιήσῃς ἕως ἂν ἐξολεθρεύσῃ σε καὶ ἕως ἂν ἀπολέσῃ σε ἐν τάχει διὰ τὰ πονηρὰ ἐπιτηδεύματά σου διότι ἐγκατέλιπές με

I would be cautious, however, in assigning here a definite parallel as, thematically, Baruch reverses Deuteronomy. And while it is not impossible that Baruch’s

 Psalm (MT ):; (MT ):; Isaiah :; Daniel :, latter according to Theodotion.  Burke, Poetry of Baruch,  – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

117

author uses Deuteronomy but opposes its meaning, there is no supporting evidence for this kind of use. The term τρυφεροί is generally thought to be derived from Deuteronomy 28:54– 56 or Micah 1:16. In the first passage the Israelites are called τρυφεροί and τρυφερά; the text relates the severe consequences of divine punishment after Israel’s sins. The second passage comes also from a pericope with sinister tone, and visualises the grief of Zion over her children:⁴⁰ ξύρησαι καὶ κεῖραι ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα τὰ τρυφερά σου ἐμπλάτυνον τὴν χηρείαν σου ὡς ἀετός ὅτι ᾐχμαλωτεύθησαν ἀπὸ σοῦ

The first colon of the prophecy parallels τέκνα and τρυφερά, two dominant terms in the present strophe of Baruch, whereas the next cola mention χηρεία and αἰχμαλωτεύω, both being familiar concepts in the prophetic psalm. One might, however, take into consideration Isaiah 47 in this case. This passage is a lengthy prophecy against the virgin Babylon, the instrument of God that exceeded her power. Here Babylon is labelled twice τρυφερά; the passage might thus be a counter-example, which shows, who are the real τρυφεροί. That Isaiah 47 might have influenced this verse is strengthened by the fact that the pericope shows more parallels with the larger Baruchian context, such as, in verse 6 the verb παρωξύνω, the image of the enemy’s hand (εἰς τὴν χεῖρά σου), or the concept that the enemy shows no mercy towards the aged (σὺ δὲ οῦκ ἔδωκας αὐτοῖς ἔλεος τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου). The following expression, ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδοὺς τραχείας, has two possible pretexts. If one interprets it as a metaphor for Israel’s sins (thus, walk on rough roads will become the description of their walk when taken away by the enemy), then it is originated obviously from the Greek version of Jeremiah 2:25, which denotes Israel’s sinful behaviour. If, however, one interprets the expression as a broader image of the exile (thus, walk on rough roads is the effect of their being taken away by the enemy), then the most probable pretext is Isaiah 40:4, where τραχεῖα means the rough places that will become smooth at the arrival of God the liberator. The verb ἁρπάζω most often evokes metaphorically the image of the lion seizing its prey. There is one instance, where it is associated with the term ποίμνιον, Job 24:2. In Job, the wicked are depicted as ποίμνιον σὺν ποιμένι ἁρπάσαντες, it might thus be a convenient source for the author of this part of Baruch.

 See Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .

118

Géza G. Xeravits

1.7 Baruch 4:27 – 29 The first part of verse 4:27 is composed of earlier material of the prophetic psalm; see 4:21. The only difference is the grammatical form of the opening imperative— which is a unique reading in the Septuagint. The image of God as the one bringing misfortune upon the disobedient people is widespread in the Bible. The use of the participial form ἐπάγων is, nevertheless, limited. Two important biblical passages deserve attention in this regard. The first is the well-known Exodus 34:7, where the new tablets of the covenant are given to Moses: καὶ δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ οὐ καθαριεῖ τὸν ἔνοχον ἐπάγων ἀνομίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα καὶ ἐπὶ τέκνα τέκνων ἐπὶ τρίτην καὶ τετάρτην γενεάν

This passage explicitly states that the sins of Israel are punished by God, who is ἐπάγων ἀνομίας. The other passage is the Greek version of Psalm 7:12—part of an individual lament—where the psalmist states that ὁ θεὸς κριτὴς δίκαιος καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ μακρόθυμος μὴ ὀργὴν ἐπάγων καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν

God is depicted here as ὀργὴν ἐπάγων, an idea which nicely fits with the beginning of Jerusalem’s lament in Baruch, where the Holy City is depicted as εἶδεν γὰρ τὴν ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (4:9a). The term μνεία might reflect Zechariah 13:2, where God says about the idols that οὐκέτι ἔσται αὐτῶν μνεία. The context of this verse is noteworthy: it is part of a passage which predicts the cleansing of the people from false prophets and unclean spirits, it thus envisages the end of Israel’s sins. Therefore, the allusion in Baruch reverses the idea of Zechariah: the idols will not remembered, but Israel will be remembered by the Divine ἐπάγων during the liberation. Although the expressions of verse 4:28 have strong biblical roots, it is not possible to find a specific passage that has undoubtedly influenced its composition. It could also be noted that regarding its vocabulary and its loose use of biblical material, this verse is somewhat idiosyncratic within the context of the prophetic psalm. Verse 4:29 repeats material from previous verses of the prophetic psalm (cf. 4:18, 23, 24). The phrasing in this case may very well be influenced by the Greek text of Zephaniah 3:17, where the bringing of joy (LXX ἐπάξει instead of MT ‫ )ישיש‬and the liberation is viewed in parallel: κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἐν σοί

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

119

δυνατὸς σώσει σε ἐπάξει ἐπὶ σὲ εὐφροσύνην. ⁴¹ The verb σῴζω of Zephaniah is most naturally echoed by the noun σωτηρία in Baruch.

1.8 Baruch 4:30 – 35 The second larger literary unit, Baruch 4:30 – 5:6, begins with the familiar imperative θάρσει, the addressee of which is in this case Jerusalem herself, and for reference to the verb, see 4:5. It is obvious, however, that one might take here into consideration further biblical passages, which serves as a possible background especially for this verse. The most evident is Zephaniah 3:16—note that the previous literary unit has been closed with an allusion to the same context. In the Greek version of the verse, Zephaniah communicates the direct speech of God, by which Jerusalem/Zion is comforted: ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐρεῖ κύριος τῇ Ιερουσαλημ θάρσει Σιων. Similarly, the above mentioned Joel 2:21– 23 seems to influence especially the present verse: θάρσει γῆ χαῖρε καὶ εὐφραίνου ὅτι ἐμεγάλυνεν κύριος τοῦ ποιῆσαι 22 θαρσεῖτε κτήνη τοῦ πεδίου ὅτι βεβλάστηκεν πεδία τῆς ἐρήμου ὅτι ξύλον ἤνεγκεν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ ἄμπελος καὶ συκῆ ἔδωκαν τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτῶν 23 καὶ τὰ τέκνα Σιων χαίρετε καὶ εὐφραίνεσθε ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ὑμῶν διότι ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὰ βρώματα εἰς δικαιοσύνην καὶ βρέξει ὑμῖν ὑετὸν πρόιμον καὶ ὄψιμον καθὼς ἔμπροσθεν

In this passage, in three successive steps the prophet utters words of consolation addressed to the earth, the animals, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, respectively: θάρσει γῆ χαῖρε καὶ εὐφραίνου… θαρσεῖτε κτήνη τοῦ πεδίου… καὶ τὰ τέκνα Σιων χαίρετε καὶ εὐφραίνεσθε ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ὑμῶν. The importance of this passage is provided by the fact that its vocabulary has parallels in other parts of the psalms of Baruch.⁴² The following verb, παρακαλέω, is an obvious echo to Isaiah 40:1 (παρακαλεῖτε παρακαλεῖτε τὸν λαόν μου). One can list a couple of passages, mainly from Isaiah 40 – 66 and Lamentations where God comforts the people or Jerusalem, but it is clear from Ben Sira, that the book now called Deutero-Isaiah was regarded in early Judaism as the book of consolation par excellence (παρεκάλεσεν τοὺς πενθοῦντας ἐν Σιων, Sir 48:24). The verb ὀνομάζω is not frequent in the Septuagint. It denotes God as giving name for his people in Isaiah 62:2: καὶ καλέσει σε τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ καινόν ὃ ὁ

 Cf. Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .  See terms like χαίρω, εὐφραίνω, ἔρημος, ξύλον, τέκνον, δικαιοσύνη.

120

Géza G. Xeravits

κύριος ὀνομάσει αὐτό. In a passive form, and in the pericope of an oracle of doom, the verb occurs in Jeremiah 32:15(MT 25:29): ὅτι ἐν πόλει ἐν ᾗ ὠνομάσθη τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ’ αὐτήν ἐγὼ ἄρχομαι κακῶσαι. Seeing the context in Baruch, it is much more probable that the author has been influenced by the former passage. The recurrent Leitwort of verses 4:31– 32 is δείλαιος. Henderson has suggested that at the background of this verse one must identify Psalm 136(MT 137):8, even if the Greek text does not contain this word, and uses instead ταλαίπωρος.⁴³ Two of the tree occurrences of δείλαιος outside Baruch, however, display a similar context and meaning as in these verses; therefore, it seems to be unnecessary to consider Psalm 137 as a direct source for the present passage. Hosea 7:13 is a less appropriate passage for the present concern: the prophet threatens Israel because of the wickedness of the people, and preaches their doom: δείλαιοί εἰσιν ὅτι ἠσέβησαν εἰς ἐμέ. Much more interesting is another occurrence of the term, in Nahum 3:7. The prophet utters here a fierce prophecy against Nineveh personified as a beautiful harlot, the climax of which rhetorically quotes her prior victims: δείλαία Νινευη τίς στενάξει αὐτήν. On the concept of ἐπάγειν κακά over Israel, see 4:18. In the present verse, however, the verb κακόω appears, which, especially in Jeremiah, means the punishment of Israel—but the agent of the punishment there is always God, and not the enemy.⁴⁴ The closest biblical passage is the Greek version Hosea 9:7, where it is told that in the days of the punishment κακωθήσεται Ισραηλ. The passive verb does not make clear who is the one punishing Israel, the previous verse, nevertheless, suggests that the nations execute it. The Bible provides a good number of exemplars of the expression ἐπιχαίρω with the meaning of rejoicing over someone’s misfortune. The object of this rejoicing is generally Israel, as above, in 4:12. Henderson proposes that the author alludes here to Jeremiah 27(MT 50):11. It must be remarked, however, that on the one hand, the wording is different (ηὐφραίνεσθε καὶ κατεκαυχᾶσθε διαρπάζοντες τὴν κληρονομίαν μου), and on the other hand, in Jeremiah the rejoicing is over the fall of Babylon, while Baruch recalls the derision of Jerusalem.⁴⁵ The term πτώσις denoting the fall of an enemy is found especially in Ezekiel, but the related loci in Ezekiel have no parallels with the context in Baruch, and do not seem to influence directly the wording.⁴⁶  Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  See Jeremiah :; (MT ):; (MT ):; (MT ):.  Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .  See Ezekiel :, ; :; :,; :; see further Jeremiah (MT ):; Zechariah :, .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

121

The verb δουλεύω—although predominantly denoting the serving of God/ gods—relates in a couple of cases where Israel is serving her oppressors. In two passages the verb appears in a context that combines serving by Israel and the fall of the oppressor, as in Baruch. Isaiah 14:3 forms part of the short introduction to a taunt against Babylon, and promises Israel that ἀναπαύσει σε ὁ θεὸς ἐκ… τῆς δουλείας σου τῆς σκληρᾶς ἧς ἐδούλευσας αὐτοῖς. Zechariah 2:13 is an oracle of doom against Israel’s oppressors, and asserts that God will punish them and ἔσονται σκῦλα τοῖς δουλεύουσιν αὐτοῖς. The parallel occurrence of the verbs χαίρω and εὐφραίνω might recall again in verse 4:33 Joel 2:21– 23, with a reversed meaning. The desolation of the enemy of Israel is described as ἐρημία in Isaiah 60:12: τὰ γὰρ ἔθνη καὶ οἱ βασιλεῖς οἵτινες οὐ δουλεύσουσίν σοι ἀπολοῦνται καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐρημίᾳ ἐρημωθήσονται

A similar image is depicted in Ezekiel 35:4, in the context of an oracle against Edom: καὶ ταῖς πόλεσίν σου ἐρημίαν ποιήσω καὶ σὺ ἔρημος ἔσῃ. A slightly variant example is found in Jeremiah 27(MT 50):12, in the great complex of oracles against Babylon: ᾐσχύνθη ἡ μήτηρ ὑμῶν σφόδρα μήτηρ ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθὰ ἐσχάτη ἐθνῶν ἔρημος, where the synonymous term ἔρημος occurs.⁴⁷ Both terms ἀγαλλίαμα and ἀγαυρίαμα occur once in a similar context, within oracles against a gentile nation (Moab). The former appears in Isaiah 16:10: καὶ ἀρθήσεται εὐφροσύνη καὶ ἀγαλλίαμα ἐκ τῶν ἀμπελώνων σου; whereas the latter in Jeremiah 31(MT 48):2: οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι ἰατρεία Μωαβ ἀγαυρίαμα ἐν Εσεβων ἐλογίσαντο ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν κακά. I have commented before on the change between joy and grief, see 4:11 above. The main source for verse 4:35 is evidently Isaiah 13:20 – 21, an oracle about the desolation of Babylon, which shares several key terms with Baruch, such as κατοικέω, δαιμόνιον, and, with variations, the expression αἰῶνα χρόνον. The latter is changed in Baruch to πλείονα χρόνον, and the word αἰών is altered to the divine title αἰώνιος: οὐ κατοικηθήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον οὐδὲ μὴ εἰσέλθωσιν εἰς αὐτὴν διὰ πολλῶν γενεῶν οὐδὲ μὴ διέλθωσιν αὐτὴν Ἄραβες οὐδὲ ποιμένες οὐ μὴ ἀναπαύσωνται ἐν αὐτῇ 21 καὶ ἀναπαύ-

 Note that the idea of the devastated state of Israel’s enemies is recurrent in the context of Jeremiah, but the term used for depicting it is different: ἀφανισμός.

122

Géza G. Xeravits

σονται ἐκεῖ θηρία καὶ ἐμπλησθήσονται αἱ οἰκίαι ἤχου καὶ ἀναπαύσονται ἐκεῖ σειρῆνες καὶ δαιμόνια ἐκεῖ ὀρχήσονται

A similar passage can be found in Isaiah 34:10 – 14, an oracle against Edom, where—although in a less concentrated manner—all of the above mentioned terms occur (αἰῶνα χρόνον in 34:10; κατοικέω in 34:11; δαιμόνιον in 34:14). This pericope of Isaiah presupposes additionally the burning of the enemy when the author writes that ἀναβήσεται ὁ καπνὸς αὐτῆς (34:10). The idea that Babylon will be consumed by fire occurs in the Book of Jeremiah—as scholars generally remark—but passages like Jeremiah 27(MT 50):32, 42 or 28(MT 51):32 do not seem to directly influence the present verse.

1.9 Baruch 4:36 – 37 The most obvious sources of these verses come from Isaiah, where two nearly identical passages occur in 49:18 and 60:4:⁴⁸ Isaiah 49:18: ἆρον κύκλῳ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου καὶ ἰδὲ πάντας ἰδοὺ συνήχθησαν καὶ ἤλθοσαν πρὸς σέ ζῶ ἐγώ λέγει κύριος ὅτι πάντας αὐτοὺς ἐνδύσῃ καὶ περιθήσῃ αὐτοὺς ὡς κόσμον νύμφης Isaiah 60:4: ἆρον κύκλῳ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου καὶ ἰδὲ συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα σου ἰδοὺ ἥκασιν πάντες οἱ υἱοί σου μακρόθεν καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες σου ἐπ᾽ ὤμων ἀρθήσονται

Although verses from Isaiah 49 have been alluded to in the first prophetic psalm of Baruch, the immediate context suggests that 60:4 is a more likely allusion here. In this case, the prophetic call to “look around” is directly followed by the description of the returning children of Jerusalem (τὰ τέκνα σου… καὶ αἰ θυγατέρες σου), just as in Baruch 4:37 (οἱ υἱοί σου).⁴⁹ The opening expression περίβλεψαι πρὸς ἀνατολάς might find parallels in the Pentateuch, where the synonymous expression ἀνάβλεψας… ἀνατολάς occurs.⁵⁰ It must be noted, nevertheless, that in both cases the expression refers to the dimensions of the Promised Land, and definitively not the place of Israel’s exile. Burke wants to combine furthermore the “seeing eastwards” and the “coming”, and understands the verse as an allusion to Jeremiah 13:20a, too (ἀνάλαβε

 On the problem of the relationship of these verses, see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah  – ,  – ; Blenkinsopp, Isaiah  – , ; Merendino, Jes , – ,  –   Similarly Henderson, Second Temple Songs,  – .  See Burke, Poetry of Baruch, .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

123

ὀφθαλμούς σου Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἰδὲ τοὺς ἐρχομένους ἀπὸ βορρᾶ).⁵¹ Considering the vocabulary of the passage, however, I do not see as much significance as Burke attributes to this passage. The main differences are: who/what is coming (Jeremiah: persons, viz. the exiles; Baruch: an abstract concept, viz. εὐφροσύνη), and the direction (Jeremiah: ἀπὸ βορρᾶ; Baruch: πρὸς ἀνατολάς). The joy coming from God might parallel Baruch 4:22, although the vocabulary is not entirely identical. The idea that Jerusalem has sent out her children appears twice in the first prophetic psalm of Baruch (4:11 and 23, former contains the verb ἐξαποστέλλω, too). The verb συνάγω refers, again, to the Isaianic passages cited above, esp. Isaiah 60:4. This is enriched, however, by integrating other biblical texts. One kind of passages highlights the geographic emphasis of the verse, i. e. places from which Israel shall be drawn, as in Isaiah 43:5 (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἄξω τὸ σπέρμα σου καὶ ἀπὸ δυσμῶν συνάξω σε), Psalm 106(MT 107):3 (ἐκ τῶν χωρῶν συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν), or Zechariah 8:7 (ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀνασῴζω τὸν λαόν μου ἀπὸ γῆς ἀνατολῶν καὶ ἀπὸ γῆς δυσμῶν). Other passages combine the themes of return and joy, such as, e. g., Isaiah 35:10 (καὶ συνηγμένοι διὰ κύριον ἀποστραφήσονται καὶ ἥξουσιν εἰς Σιων μετ᾽ εὐφροσύνης καὶ εὐφροσύνη αἰώνιος ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς αὐτῶν), or Isaiah 51:11.

1.10 Baruch 5:1 – 4 The metaphor of changing clothes has already appeared in Baruch, see 4:20 above. The most probable biblical background is, again, Isaiah 52:1– 2, in this case the instruction is in conformity with the one found in Isaiah (ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου vs. ἔκδθσαι τὸν δεσμόν τοῦ τραχήλου σου). Neither terms στολὴ τοῦ πένθους and στολὴ τῆς κακώσεως occur in this form in the Septuagint. The idea that one can get dressed in πένθος appears in Esther, where it is written about the queen that, when being informed about the consequences of Haman’s conspiracy, she ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτια στενοχωρίας καὶ πένθους (4:17 C 13). The term κακώσις does not occur in such a context. Elements of the composite expression εὐπρέπεια τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης recall also Isaiah 52:1 (ἔνδυσαι τὴν δόξαν σου), and “glory” as garment appears in the above mentioned verse of Esther, too: ἀφελομένη τὰ ἱμάτια τῆς δόξης αὐτῆς. It is interesting that similar use of the term εὐπρέπεια is connected

 See Burke, Poetry of Baruch, .

124

Géza G. Xeravits

twice with God—both occurrences are in the Psalms: ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν εὐπρέπειαν ἐνεδύσατο (Ps 92[MT 93]:1), and κύριε ὁ θεός μου… εὐπρέπειαν ἐνεδύσω (103[MT 104]:1). In the famous passage of praise of the good wife, however, the concept is applied to a female: ἰσχὺν καὶ εὺπρέπειαν ἐνεδύσατο (Prov 31:26). The term διπλοΐς (5:2) means, in most cases, the cloak of either Samuel or Saul (1 Kingdoms provides most of the occurrences). The remaining two occurrences of the word are noteworthy, because of the figurative sense they represent. In Psalm 108(MT 109):29 the accused psalmist asks against his false prosecutors that περιβαλέσθωσαν ὡσει διπλοΐδα αἰσχύνην αὐτῶν. The meaning here is the opposite of the Baruch verse, but the expressed idea, and the combination of the verb περιβάλλω with διπλοΐς is telling. The other passage, Job 29:14, might be considered also, because it features in parallel the terms διπλοΐς and δικαιοσύνη in the great summary speech of Job: δικαιοσύνην δὲ ἐνεδεδύκειν ἠμφιασάμην δὲ κρίμα ἴσα διπλοΐδι. The mitre/diadem, also occurring in this verse, is presumed to be the crown for Jerusalem’s head.⁵² The same symbolic headdress appears in Isaiah 61:10 (περιέθηκέν μοι μίτραν), and a similar image emerges in Judith 10:3, where, preceding her mission of liberation, the heroine is told ἐπέθετο μίτραν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. Scholars have recognised that the Hebrew version of Isaiah 61:10 has influenced this verse: διπλοΐς δικαιοσύνης reflects rather the ‫ מעיל צדקה‬of the Masoretic Text than the χιτών εὐφροσύνης found in the Septuagint.⁵³ The reasons for this peculiarity here are not clear, however, for the context leans towards the Septuagint, even concerning Isaiah 61:10 (cf. ἐπίθου τὴν μίτραν and περιέθηκέν μοι μίτραν). The problem is reduced if one considers Judith 10:3 as the premier source of the expression. The expression ὑπ’ οὐρανόν has a couple of occurrences, predominantly in the Book of Job. I believe, however, that the author borrowed the term from a context, which he referred to above in 5:1, viz. the Addition C of the Book of Esther, at the beginning of which God is related as σὺ ἐποίησας… πᾶν θαυμαζόμενον ἐν τῇ ὑπ’ οὐρανόν (4:17 C 3). The image of God who reveals (δείκνυμι) his great deeds is recurrent in the Bible, especially in influential passages such as Deuteronomy 5:24 (ἰδοὺ ἔδειξεν ἡμῖν κύριος ὁ θεός ἡμῶν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ), Sirach 45:3 (ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ), or Isaiah 30:30 (καὶ ἀκουστὴν ποίησει ὁ θεός τὴν δόξαν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βραχίονος αὐτοῦ δείξει). In most cases the object of

 Paul, Isaiah, .  Burke, Poetry of Baruch, ; Henderson, Second Temple Songs, .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

125

the verb is δόξα; the λαμπρότητα in Baruch might very well reflect Isaiah 60:3, as in 4:24 above. Verse 5:4 is a parallel of 4:30 and the shared image of Israel named by God goes back to Isaiah 62:2– 4. In 62:2 καλέσει σε τὸ ὄνομά σου is obviously the basis for κληθήσεται γάρ σου τὸ ὄνομα in Baruch, whereas in 62:4 the future passive form of the verb (that is found in Baruch, too), is repeated three times: καὶ οὐκέτι κληθήσῃ καταλελειμμένη καὶ ἡ γῆ σου οὐ κληθήσεται ἔρημος σοὶ γὰρ κληθήσεται θέλημα ἐμόν καὶ τῇ γῇ σου οἰκουμένη

Note that the verb καταλείπω of Isaiah is recurrent in the prophetic psalms of Baruch, appearing in 4:19 and 29 above. It is clear thus, that the author of this verse used not only Isaiah 62:2, but also 62:4—this is the background from which the transformation of Jerusalem from forsaken widow to liberated city becomes evident. The composite expressions of the new names of the Holy City are unattested in these forms in the Bible. The term θεοσέβεια is extremely rare in the Septuagint, and none of its eight occurrences seem to influence the present author. There are several passages, however, where εἰρήνη and δικαιοσύνη occur in parallel. The fact that the present author uses here a couple of Isaianic allusions, it might be reasonable to assert that either Isaiah 48:18 or 60:17 influenced his wording. The former passage is a prophetic wish to follow God’s commandments, the effect of which is ἐγένετο ἂν ὡσεὶ ποταμὸς ἡ εἰρήνη σου καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου ὡς κῦμα θαλάσσης. The latter passage comes from a great apostrophe to Zion, and promises that δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

1.11 Baruch 5:5 – 6 The closing stanza of the second prophetic psalm of Baruch begins with a solemn address to Jerusalem, which evidently refers back to Isaianic passages. The most natural text of influence is Isaiah 52:2, the effect of which has twice been detected above (see 4:20 and 5:1): ἐκτίναξαι τὸν χοῦν καὶ ἀνάστηθι κάθισον Ιερουσαλημ; but also Isaiah 51:17 might be considered as a source for the present author: ἐξεγείρου ἐξεγείρου ἀνάστηθι Ιεροθσαλημ. The continuation, στῆθι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ, derives undoubtedly from Isaiah 40:9: ἐπ’ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι; although the term ὄρος is missing from Baruch, the addressees are the same in both passages (Zion).

126

Géza G. Xeravits

The following part of verse 5:5 echoes the material of 4:36 – 37 above (for its main sources see there). One considerable difference is the closing term μνεία, which reminds Baruch 4:27 above. Verse 5:6 is an independent composition of the author, with less obvious biblical antecedents in comparison to the other verses of the prophetic psalms. The composite expression αἰρομένους μετὰ δόξης may be a reflection of a couple of Isaianic passages that imply that Israel will be lifted up during the homecoming. One passage is the already used Isaiah 60:4 (par. 49:18 and 22), where about the verse is concerned with the return from the exile that αἱ θυγατέρες σου ἐπ’ ὤμων ἀρθήσονται.⁵⁴ I believe, however, that Isaiah 66:12 might have also been important for the present author, because it contains in the same context the verb αἴρω, and the term δόξα: ὅτι τάδε λέγει κύριος ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐκκλίνω εἰς αὐτοὺς ὡς ποταμὸς εἰρήνης καὶ ὡς χειμάρρους ἐπικλύζων δόξαν ἐθνῶν τὰ παιδία αὐτῶν ἐπ᾽ ὤμων ἀρθήσονται καὶ ἐπὶ γονάτων παρακληθήσονται

In this passage the returning Israel—lifted up on shoulders—surmounts the glory of the nations. This image provides the perfect background for the closing verse of the prophetic psalm of Baruch. Moreover, the verb παρακαλέω, which closes the Isaianic verse, is repeated elsewhere in Baruch (cf. 4:30 above).

1.12 Baruch 5:7 – 9 After a short introduction, which does not have clear biblical antecedents (συνέταξεν γὰρ ὁ θεός), most of the material in verse 5:7 is a creative rewriting of Isaiah 40:4– 5a: πᾶσα φάραγξ πληρωθήσεται καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ἔσται πάντα τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθεῖαν καὶ ἡ τραχεῖα εἰς πεδία καὶ ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου

The author reverses the colometric order of the Isaianic sequence when he inverts the two verbs πληρόω and ταπεινόω. The objects of ταπεινόω in Isaiah are πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς, which is altered here to πᾶν ὄρος ὑψηλὸν καὶ θῖνας ἀενάους. The tendency of the author is to create composite expressions, and there Note that the parallel verse Isaiah : plays consciously with its three occurrences of the verb αἴρω, when it means twice the signs that God gives to the nations (αἴρω εἰς τὰ ἔθνη τὴν χεῖρά μου, and εἰς τὰς νήσους ἀρῶ σύσσημόν μου), and once it refers to the homecoming (τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας σου ἐπ’ ὤμων ἀροῦσιν).

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

127

fore increase the weight of this passage, this might compensate for the shortening of the original Isaianic material (see the omission of καὶ ἔσται πάντα τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθεῖαν καὶ ἡ τραχεῖα εἰς πεδία). The adjective ὑψηλός is reflected in Baruch 5:5 above, and is influenced by Isaiah 40:9. The composite expression θῖνας ἀενάους originates from Genesis 49:26, the Blessing of Jacob, where it is told that εὐλογίας πατρός σου καὶ μητρός σου ὑπερίσχυσεν… ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις θινῶν ἀενάων. The object of πληρόω obtains also a complementary element: εἰς ὁμαλισμὸν τῆς γῆς. If it has a biblical antecedent, it cannot be other than Isaiah 45:2: ἐγὼ ἔμπροσθέν σου πορεύσομαι καὶ ὄρη ὁμαλιῶ. The concept of God’s glory is recurrent in the Bible. The present form τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ occurs in Baruch 4:37, too. In this case, it obviously reflects Isaiah 40:5, καὶ ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου, and with this, the present author ends his reference to Isaiah 40:4– 5a. Rhetorically, if one interprets quotation only in the strictest sense noted above, verse 5:7 might be the only explicit quotation in the whole of Baruch 4:5 – 5:9. The verse begins with συνέταξεν γὰρ ὁ θεός, which is followed by a text strongly dependent on Isaiah 40:4– 5a, and identified as a statement of God. In this context, one might interpret the opening expression as a kind of introductory formula.⁵⁵ It is true that neither συντάσσω nor its predominant Hebrew equivalent ‫ צוה‬is used in such contexts in early Jewish literature—unless one interprets the enigmatic καθὰ συνέταξέν μοι κύριος of Matthew 27:10 as an irregular example of that device. The author of the passage in Baruch is, however, clear in stating that he will communicate a divine utterance and immediately after he inserts a scriptural passage. While the material of the previous verse attaches rather closely to its Biblical antecedent, verse 5:8 shows only loose verbal connections with—otherwise important—scriptural passages. The first of these is Isaiah 4:5, part of an oracle of salvation: καὶ ἥξει καὶ ἔσται πᾶς τόπος τοῦ ὄρους Σιων καὶ πάντα τὰ περικύκλῳ αὐτῆς σκιάσει νεφέλη ἡμέρας καὶ ὡς καπνοῦ καὶ ὡς φωτὸς πυρὸς καιομένου νυκτός πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ σκεπασθήσεται

The peculiarity of this passage is that the terms σκιάζω and δόξα appear in the same context. Although the former refers to a cloud (νεφέλη) in Isaiah and not woods and trees, the milieu of the passage reminds the reader that for Baruch: the liberation of Zion, is the moment in which the glory is revealed. The terms

 On the introductory formulae, see, e. g., Fitzmyer, Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations,  – ; Metzger, Formulas Introducing Quotations; Horton, Formulas of Introduction; Bernstein, Introductory Formulas.

128

Géza G. Xeravits

δρυμός and πᾶν ξύλον occur in parallel in Psalm 95(MT 96):12, where the reign of God is celebrated by the nature, too: χαρήσεται τὰ πεδία καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς τότε ἀγαλλιάσονται πάντα τὰ ξύλα τοῦ δρυμοῦ

Some of the elements of the third passage (Isaiah 44:23) influenced the material of this verse and the following verse: εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοί ὅτι ἠλέησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν Ισραηλ σαλπίσατε θεμέλια τῆς γῆς βοήσατε ὄρη εὐφροσύνην οἱ βουνοὶ καὶ πάντα τὰ ξύλα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἐλυτρώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν Ιακωβ καὶ Ισραηλ δοξασθήσεται

The actual Septuagint version of this Isaianic verse provides two clear parallel expressions for Baruch. Firstly, the recipient of the divine mercies is Ισραηλ, while the second expression is πάντα τὰ ξύλα. It seems, however, that the author of Baruch 5:7– 9 has a text in his mind which rather resembles the Masoretic version of Isaiah 44:23, for the expression of οἱ δρυμοὶ καὶ πᾶν ξύλον is much closer to the ‫ ַיַער ְוָכל־ֵעץ בּוֹ‬of the MT, than to the οἱ βουνοὶ καὶ πάντα τὰ ξύλα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς of the Septuagint. On the other elements of this verse that are alluded to in 5:9, see below. The verse ends with the expression προστάγματι τοῦ θεοῦ, which—either in this form or as προστάγμα τοῦ κυρίου—is a recurrent expression in the Septuagint. Its position here is due to structural reasons,⁵⁶ and it parallels συνέταξεν γὰρ ὁ θεός, by which the present small unit opens. The closing verse of the Book (5:9) contains a good number of lexical borrowings from Isaiah 44:23, these are θεός, Ισραηλ, εὐφροσύνη (in Isaiah both as a noun, and also as the verb εὐφραίνω), δόξα, and ἐλεημοσύνη (in Isaiah the verb ἐλεέω appears). It seems, however, that another Isaianic passage has equally influenced the formulation of this verse, Isaiah 49:13: εὐφραίνεσθε οὐρανοί καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ γῆ ῥηξάτωσαν τὰ ὄρη εὐφροσύνην καὶ οἱ βουνοὶ δικαιοσύνην ὅτι ἠλέησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ταπεινοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ παρεκάλεσεν

The parallels between this verse and Baruch 5:9 are italicised above. But this verse provides further connecting points with the broader context in Baruch; the terms ὄρος and ταπεινός are characteristic concepts in verses 5:7– 9, and  See Xeravits, Take Courage, O Jerusalem,  – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

129

the verb παρακαλέω appears in an emphatic position, at the opening verse of the second prophetic psalm (4:30). The expressions σὺν ἐλεημοσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ appear in parallel in several passages of the Septuagint, but the most probable background for their use here is from Isaiah 59:16b–17a, in the body of a prophetic answer to a complaint of the community: καὶ ἠμύνατο αὐτοὺς τῷ βραχίονι αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ ἐστηρίσατ καὶ ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα

In Isaiah, this passage relates God’s mighty deeds against the sinners, but the author of Baruch here turns the expressions to describe the coming liberation executed by God in his glory. A further parallel might be Psalm 102(MT 103):17, where the parallel terms ἔλεος and δικαιοσύνη refer to the divine attitude towards the righteous (ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτόν).

2 The Basic Biblical Passages The material collected above on the base passages used in the prophetic psalms of Baruch reinforces the view that these passages very strongly depend on earlier written texts—and their sources are biblical. Although there is a debate on which versions are followed by the psalms, the predominancy of Septuagint readings is striking. In some cases, e. g., in 4:6b–9a; 4:12 or 4:17 the inner logic of the phrasing suggests that it was the author who used Greek underlying texts, and the passing connections with Greek Deuterocanonical material reinforces this impression. The amount of material relating to the Hebrew version of the Old Testament is proportionally much less, and does not suggest an underlying Hebrew original for the earlier texts informing Baruch’s author. The present study has revealed the high indebtedness of the prophetic psalms to various biblical passages, the material of which proves to be starting point for the present author. His main approach of working up this material is predominantly allusive. In doing this, he drapes the texture of his text in a highly creative manner, with two main concerns: firstly, he creates a new text crafted with quality artistry; secondly, he leaves his pretexts recognisable for the intended readers. Besides the allusions, some implicit quotations also occur in the text. It is an important aspect of his dealing with existing scriptural material, however, that he avoids working with direct quotations. It has been seen above, that the entire material of 4:5 – 5:9 provides just one passage which might be interpreted as a direct quotation (5:7), but even this instance has a dis-

130

Géza G. Xeravits

putable character. I emphasise this aspect especially because the communal confessional unit of the Book of Baruch seems to follow a very different strategy, when it tends to quote material directly. This tendency is especially striking when one compares the communal confession of Baruch with other known exemplars of the genre, especially with Daniel 9:4b–19, with which Baruch 1:15 – 3:8 is most closely akin.⁵⁷ A self-evident example comes from Baruch 2:2– 3 and its parallel in Daniel [OG] 9:13. The Danielic version here reads κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν διαθήκῃ Μωσῆ, a classical introductory formula. This is followed, however, by a summarising statement πάντα τὰ κακὰ ἐπῆλθεν ἡμῖν, which evidently is not a quotation. Then, the verse continues by καὶ οὐκ ἐξεζητήσαμεν τὸ πρόσωπον κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν, by which the Danielic author clearly moves a step further, and opens a new logical unit. Baruch is very different at this point. It uses the introductory formula, too, in a form nearly identical to Daniel: κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ, this, however, is followed by a text of considerable length, but missing in Daniel (Baruch 2:3 – 7a). This additional material begins with τοῦ φαγεῖν ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον σάρκας υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον σάρκας θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ, which is a quotation—with slight alterations—of Leviticus 26:29: καὶ φάγεσθε τὰς σάρκας τῶν υἱῶν ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς σάρκας τῶν θυγατέρων ὑμῶν φάγεσθε.⁵⁸ Similar expansions are inserted later on, too, into the communal confession of Baruch. Verses 2:20 – 3:2 is a lengthy addition—except 2:27b which parallels a clause of the Theodotion version of Daniel 9:18b. Within this additional material three successive quotations are inserted, all of them follow the well known setting introductory formula followed by a quotation: verse : –  :

introductory formula καθάπερ ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ τῶν παίδων σου τῶν προφητῶν λέγων ἔστησας τοὺς λόγους σου οὓς ἐλάλησας ἐν χερσὶν τῶν παίδων σου τῶν προφητῶν

quotation οὕτως εἶπεν κύριος κλίνατε τὸν ὦμον ὑμῶν καὶ ἐργάσασθε τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος τοῦ ἐξενεχθῆναι τὰ ὀστᾶ βασιλέων ἡμῶν καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν

 A useful synopsis of the passages is found in Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – , the relationship of the two passages is treated in  – . Below, I follow the Old Greek version of Daniel.  Regarding their wording, this verse of Leviticus is obviously a much more certain pretext for Baruch : than the more or less similar passages of Deuteronomy :; Jeremiah :, or  Kingdoms : – .

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

131

: – καθὰ ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ παιδός σου Μωυσῆ ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου ἦ μὴν ἡ  ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐντειλαμένου σου αὐτῷ γράψαι βόμβησις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ πολλὴ αὕτη ἀποστὸν νόμον σου ἐναντίον υἱῶν Ισραηλ λέγων τρέψει εἰς μικρὰν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν οὗ διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ

In the first two cases, the base texts are evident. 2:21 quotes Jeremiah 34(MT 27):12; while 2:24 quotes Jeremiah 8:1. From 2:29 a mixture of various biblical passages constitutes the quotation introduced in 2:28.⁵⁹ The sapiential poem of Baruch uses Scripture in the same manner as the prophetic psalms. What makes difference between the two great units is the nature of the biblical passages on which they draw. It is well known, the influence of Job 28 on the sapiential poem is comprehensive, such as some passages that retell the story of the creation, and the primordial facts.⁶⁰ One might mention also the impact of several wisdom passages, such as Proverbs 4 or Sirach 24. Pentateuchal passages are also discernible at the background (apart from Genesis 6, see Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 30). Nevertheless, the influence of Isaiah 40 – 66; Deuteronomy 28 and 32; or—despite the conviction of Odil Steck⁶¹—the entire Book of Jeremiah, is either scant or completely missing. The observations above show that both the techniques for the use of existing scriptural material and the scope of the biblical background argue for the independence of the prophetic psalms from the larger Baruchian context.

Bibliography Abrams, Meyer H., Glossary of Literary Terms (ninth edition), Boston: Wadsworth 2009. Andersen, Francis I. and Freedman, David N., Micah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 24E) New York: Doubleday 2000. Beetham, Christopher A., Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (BIS 96) Leiden: Brill 2008. Begrich, Joachim, Das priesterliche Heilsorakel, in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Tzheologische Bücherei: Altes Testament 21) München: C. Kaiser 1964, 217 – 31 (original: 1934). Bernstein, Moshe J., Introductory Formulas for Citation and Re-Citation of Biblical Verses in the Qumran Pesharim: Observations on a Pesher Technique: Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994) 30 – 70.

 On this passage see Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – .  See esp. Steck, Israels Gott statt anderer Götter; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – ; Nicklas, Schöpfungstheologie,  – ; Sheppard, Wisdom,  – .  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – .

132

Géza G. Xeravits

Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Isaiah 40 – 55. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 19A) New York: Doubleday 2000. Blenkinsopp, Joseph, Isaiah 56 – 66. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 19B) New York: Doubleday 2003. Burke, David G., The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10) Chico: Scholars Press 1982. Conrad, Edgar W., Second Isaiah and the Priestly Oracle of Salvation: Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981) 234 – 46. Conrad, Edgar W., The “Fear Not” Oracles in Second Isaiah: Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984) 129 – 152. Eslinger, Lyle, Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category: Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992) 47 – 58. Evans, Craig A./Zacharias, H. Daniel (eds.), Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality (2 vols., LNTS 391 – 392) London: Bloomsbury 2009. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament, in: idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament (2 vols.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997, 1. 3 – 58. Harner, Philip B., The Salvation Oracle in Second Isaiah: Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969) 418 – 34. Hebel, Udo J., Towards a Descriptive Poetics of Allusion, in: H.F. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality, Berlin: W. de Gruyter 1991, 135 – 64. Henderson, Ruth, Second Temple Songs of Zion: A Generic Analysis of the Apostrophe to Zion (11QPsa XXII 1 – 15); Tobit 13:9 – 18 and 1 Baruch 4:30 – 5:9 (DCLS 17) Berlin: W. de Gruyter 2014. Horton, Fred L., Formulas of Introduction in the Qumran Literature: Revue de Qumrân 28 (1971) 505 – 14. Hughes, Julie A., Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (STDJ 59) Leiden: Brill 2006. Hylen, Susan, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (BZNW 137) Berlin: W. de Gruyter 2005. Kabasele Mukenge, André, L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch (Etudes Bibliques 38) Paris: Gabalda 1998. Lange, Armin/Weigold, Matthias, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (JAJ Supplements 5) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2011. Loader, James A., Creating New Contexts: On the Possibilities of Biblical Studies in Contexts Generated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: A. Lange, E. Tov and M. Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Structures (VT Supplements 140) Leiden: Brill 2011, 1.27 – 45. Lundbom, Jack R., Jeremiah 1 – 20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 21A) New York: Doubleday 1999. McKane, William, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume I: Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah I–XXV (International Critical Commentary) Edinburgh: T&T Clark 1999. Merendino, Rosario P., Jes 49,14 – 26: Jahwes Bekenntnis zu Sion und die Neue Heilszeit: Revue Biblique 89 (1982) 321 – 69.

The Biblical Background of the Psalms in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9

133

Metzger, Bruce M., The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the New Testament and in the Mishnah: Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951) 297 – 307. Meynet, Roland, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric (ISHR 3) Leiden: Brill 2012. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 44) Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Moyise, Steve, Quotations, in: S. E. Porter and Ch.D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBL Symposium 50) Atlanta: Scholars Press 2008, 15 – 28. Nicklas, Tobias, Schöpfungstheologie im Buch Baruch: Bedeutung und Funktion, in: idem and K. Zamfir (eds.), Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity: In Honour of Hans Klein (DCLS 6) Berlin: de Gruyter 2010, 81 – 93. Paul, Shalom, Isaiah 40 – 66 (Eerdmans Critical Commentaries) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2012. Porter, Stanley E., Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, in: Th.L. Brodie, D.R. MacDonald and idem (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (NTM 16), Sheffield: Phoenix Press 2007, 98 – 110. Porter, Stanley E., Allusions and Echoes, in: Porter/Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written, 29 – 40. Porter, Stanley E./Stanley, Cristopher D. (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBL Symposium 50) Atlanta: Scholars Press 2008. Sheppard, Gerald T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct (BZAW 151) Berlin: de Gruyter 1980. Sommer, Benjamin D., Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger: Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996) 479 – 89. Sommer, Benjamin D., A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66, Stanford: University Press 1998. Steck, Odil H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Steck, Odil H., Israels Gott statt anderer Götter—Israels Gesetz statt fremder Weisheit: Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Hi 28 in Bar 3,9 – 4,4, in: I. Kottsieper, J. van Oorschot, D. Römheld and H.M. Wahl (eds.), “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1994, 457 – 71. Tenney, Merrill C., Literary Keys to the Fourth Gospel: The Old Testament and the Fourth Gospel: Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963) 300 – 308. Weissenberg, Hanne von, Pakkala, Juha, and Marttila, Marko (eds.), Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419) Berlin: W. de Gruyter 2011. Westermann, Claus, Sprache und Struktur der Prophetie Deuterojesajas, in: idem, Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien (Theologische Bücherei: Altes Testament 24) München: C. Kaiser 1964, 92 – 170. Xeravits, Géza G., “Take Courage, O Jerusalem…” Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4 – 5 (DCLS 25) Berlin: de Gruyter 2015.

David G. Burke

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6 The text and content of the Book of Baruch (also called 1 Baruch) has been given careful attention in standard works since the nineteenth century, usually with fresh translations,¹ and needs no rehearsal here. This study will focus on the Greek text of Baruch 5:6, particularly on the metonymic phrase, hōs thronon basileias, and how that has been translated, and mistranslated, over centuries. The broad consensus on how it should be translated, which has now solidified in the twenty-first century will also be shown.

1 Baruch 5:6: A Key Image in the Consolation Message to Jerusalem In the final section of Baruch (the consolation poem, 4:30 – 5:9) Jerusalem is comforted by the author with words of consolation and hope that envision a rescue and homecoming, thanks to divine mercy.² As Nickelsburg has described it, the “controlling metaphor” of this closing (third) poetic section is “Second Isaiah’s image of mother Zion and her children”.³ In brief, the essence of mother Jerusalem’s lament (4:5 – 29) is that God has seen fit to allow the Judean citizens, her “children”, to be taken away from her into exile because of their grievous sins (4:5 – 8). With the turn to the consolation message in 4:30, Jerusalem is now addressed by the author, reminding her that Babylon the oppressor will soon be destroyed by God (4:30 – 35), after which her exiled “children” will be able to return home again to mother Jerusalem (4:36 – 37). In the most transparently deutero-Isaianic rhetoric mother Jerusalem is exhorted to ascend the heights and to look to the East to see her dispersed “chil-

 See, e. g., Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch; Whitehouse,  Baruch,  – ; Thackeray, Baruch,  – ; Tov, Book of Baruch; Moore, Additions,  – ; Burke, Poetry of Baruch; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch; Steck, Das Buch Baruch,  – .  Steck, Das Buch Baruch, , observes that the first subsection here (: – ) expands the Hauptteil as a whole and also links back remarkably to the encouragement voiced in the opening verses of the Wisdom Poem (Bar : – a).  Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, . See, e. g., Isa :; :; cf. also Isa :, ; :.

136

David G. Burke

dren”, as they begin to return to her, gathered together from East and West (5:5),⁴ in a majestic homecoming cavalcade under the protective aegis of the Eternal God (5:5 – 9). The prospect of return resolves the predicament with which the book of Baruch begins.⁵ The 2007 NETS LXX translation of Baruch 5:5 – 6 reads: 5 Arise, O Jerousalem, and stand upon the height, and look around toward the east, and see your children gathered from the setting of the sun until its rising at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing at God’s remembering. 6 For they went out from you on foot, led away by enemies, but God will bring them to you, taken up with glory, as on a royal throne.⁶

The imagery here is clearly that of an anticipated homecoming. Although Carey A. Moore in his commentary has labeled this concluding locution in Baruch 5:6, hōs thronon basileias, “a troublesome phrase”,⁷ this study will show that, rightly translated, it is integral to the writer’s conception of the majestic homecoming envisioned in this verse.⁸

 This pivotal verse sets the stage for Bar : with its evocative deutero-Isaianic echoes. It builds on Bar : and is itself, even more than :, a pastiche of borrowings from deuteroIsaianic texts such as Isa : “arise”; : “stand on the height”; : “children gathered”; : “from west to east”.  Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, , describes that resolution between chapters  and  aptly: “Prayer has been answered. Exile and dispersion have ended. Sorrow has turned to joy”.  Translation by Michael, Barouch, .  Moore, Additions, , calls hōs thronon basileias “a troublesome phrase”, and refers to the discussion on it between Whitehouse in his treatment of the Book of Baruch ( Baruch, ) and his APOT  editor, R. H. Charles (pp.  – ). Whitehouse concluded (as Kneucker and others had before him) that what has made the Greek phrase “troublesome” is that the author had mistranslated a Hebrew construction which used the “pregnant k-” (in an assumed Hebrew locution, kksˀ mlkwt) and thereby missed the “as on” sense. In his  commentary on the text of Baruch, E. H. Gifford remarks on the difficulty most interpreters have had with this comparison to “a royal throne”, reflecting that the Alexandrinian reading, “as sons of a kingdom”, is probably to be traced to this supposed difficulty. But he further notes that “the use of a ‘moving throne’ among the Persians and of litters or palanquins by the Egyptians, makes it probable that what is here meant is such a seat or throne either carried on men’s shoulders or as a horse litter. The figure is then most appropriate to the triumphant return of the captives in regal state”. Gifford, Baruch, .  Steck, Das Buch Baruch, , characterizes this majestic homecoming as Jerusalem’s children being carried home as it were in a royal procession (“in einem Königsprozession”), noting as well that this picture of God guiding and carrying the exiles home fittingly closes this section

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

137

2 The Homecoming Image in Baruch 5:6: hōs thronon basileias In Baruch 5:6 the author’s conception of an appropriately triumphant return by Jerusalem’s long dispersed “children” is expressed by borrowing the image of a royal procession in which the vindicated exiles are being carried homeward by bearers (as royalty were) in a sedan chair or palanquin. There could scarcely have been a more impressive or grander depiction of a glorious reentry by the dispersed “children” into Jerusalem. The import of this image is the striking contrast it presents between the anticipated grandeur and honor manifest in the exiles return, and the recollection of their humiliating exit (forced to leave home ignominiously on foot under foreign military escort).⁹ This point is further underscored by another facet of the image—metonymy. The Hebrew word kissēˀ occurs 136 times in the Hebrew Bible, regularly translated in the LXX by Greek thronos. In all but seven instances it is used of royal or divine thrones, and when combined with malkût or mamlākâ, “kingdom” (= LXX basileia) this locution is metonymic for royal rule or status.¹⁰ This combination always has figurative meaning—for royal status and grandeur—and even the word kissēˀ used alone without a modifier very rarely refers to the actual physical object of a throne chair (e. g., 1 Kgs 10:18; Ezek 1:26; 10:1). So numinous are its associations that even by itself the word usually carries overtones of royal power (e. g., 1 Kgs 1:20, 27; Isa 14:13; Zech 6:13). Clearly, the poet who wrote this third section of Baruch (4:5 – 5:9) was fond of metonymic language, witness ruined Jerusalem personified as desolate widow in 4:12; “hand” in 4:21 for the controlling presence of the oppressors; “garments of mourning” in 5:1 for the pervading gloom of destruction; “west and east” in 5:5 for the broad spectrum of the diaspora; and “as on a royal throne” in 5:6 for a well-deserved homecoming in the fullest pomp and glory comparable to a royal procession. From this perspective of metonymic usage there can be little likelihood that this Hebraism, epi thronon basileias, could mean anything other than carried home into Jerusalem in high honor “as on a royal throne”.

and ties in the message of the whole book—that the rescue and return of the dispersed will come solely from the compassion of God.  Moore, Additions, .  Cf.  Kgs :, ˁal kissēˀ hammĕlûkâ (= LXX epi thronon basileias), “[and Solomon is seated] on the royal throne” (lit., “on the throne of the kingdom”). See also  Kgs :;  Chr :; Esth :; :;  Macc :; Wis :.

138

David G. Burke

The Greek construction, hōs thronon basileias, taken absolutely literally, admits only the meaning “as a royal throne”. This led some early commentators to interpret this image to mean that the returning exiles would be carried in honor, just as royal thrones are at times so carried (i. e., on high, lifted up), at once a more concrete and decidedly vaguer way of implying a return in dignity. An early example of this can be seen in the 1851 rendering by Otto F. Fritzsche into German: “getragen…wie ein thron des Königsreiches”.¹¹ J. J. Kneucker, however, recognized this Greek construction, hōs thronon, as a Hebraism in the Greek,¹² behind which in the Hebrew would have been the elliptical or so-called “pregnant” use of the Hebrew prefixal preposition k-, to mean “as on, as in, as with” rather than the more usual “as”.¹³ In his 1911 translation and commentary on the text of Baruch in APOT 1, O. C. Whitehouse noted that, because the Greek of this third section of Baruch is good, it would be improbable that “the author would have written hōs thronon basileias if he had meant hōs epi thronon basileias”. Because the context of this homecoming clearly calls for “as on a royal throne”, Whitehouse saw confirmation of the distinctive Hebrew usage of the “pregnant k-” that lay behind this Greek locution, and that this nuance had been missed by the LXX translators.¹⁴ Already in 1868, Heinrich Ewald had also pointedly observed that the meaning of the Greek phrase hōs thronon is clarified by assuming that the Hebrew construction using the pregnant k- lies behind this Greek phrase.¹⁵ Further, against the idea that the returnees would be carried “as royal thrones are carried”, Whitehouse subtly observed that the wording “as on royal thrones” does not say that they will in fact be carried on royal thrones, but on something resembling such conveyances. The import is the grandeur and honor of this return.¹⁶

 Fritzsche, Kurzgefasstes, . Kneucker (Das Buch Baruch, ) quotes (without reference) the similar translation of W. M. L. de Wette, “erhöhet gleich einem Königsthron”.  This Hebraism was also recognized and affirmed by later commentators; e. g., Rothstein, Das Buch Baruch, ; Whitehouse,  Baruch, , and Thackeray, Baruch, .  See Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar §  s–w for discussion with examples of this Hebrew usage; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, , .  Whitehouse,  Baruch, . Regarding the likelihood that both poetic sections of Baruch had Hebrew originals, see Burke, Poetry,  – ,  – , and Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch,  – .  Ewald, Propheten, .  Whitehouse,  Baruch, . In the text which inspires this Baruch verse—Isa :—it is Gentiles, Whitehouse notes, who convey the returnees on wagons and the like. But in Bar : it is God who will be conveying them in a far more majestic style. And since the actual conveyances cannot be definitively described in words, the author can only say that they will be conveyed in the manner of a royal throne procession.

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

139

3 Helpful Examples from the Hebrew Bible There are several helpful examples from the Hebrew Bible that illustrate how this inseparable Hebrew preposition k- can be seen clearly carrying the double force of the pregnant k-, a usage which may perhaps be better understood as a comparative particle that conveys the fuller sense of “as in”, “as on”, or “as with”. That the subtlety of this Hebrew construction was not easily picked up by the LXX translators can be seen very clearly by comparing the following example in MT and LXX. In Hosea 9:9 the prophet makes a very pointed reference to the shockingly decadent behavior of people in the Benjaminite town of Gibeah reported in Judges 19:12– 30 (the notorious incident of the Levite and his concubine). Hosea says: “They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah” (KJV). The Hebrew at the end of this Hosea verse is: kîmēy haggibˁāh, “as in the days of Gibeah”, alluding to that ancient horror that occurred in Gibeah. The LXX translators clearly missed the pregnant k- construction here, rendering the Hebrew kata tas hēmeras tou bounou, “[they were corrupted] according to the days of the hill” (NETS, 2011).¹⁷ In fact, the LXX translators completely missed the allusion to the incident in Gibeah, translating the Hebrew word haggibˁāh with the essential meaning of that word, “hill, height”, rather than as the orthographically-identical toponym intended in the Hebrew text. Further to this point, Kneucker cited other illustrative examples.¹⁸ In Isaiah 9:3 MT kĕyôm midyān is translated in LXX (9:4) hōs tē hēmera tē epi Madiam. The Hebrew construction here translates “as in the day of Midian”, while the Greek is literally “as the day that was upon Madiam”.¹⁹ The reference is to the surprising defeat of the Midianites by the Ephraimite forces led by the judge Gideon in Judges 7. In 1 Samuel 15:22, the Hebrew kišmōˁa bĕqôl YHWH is rendered in the LXX as hōs to akousai phōnēs kyriou. Here the Hebrew reads “as in obeying (hearing) the voice of YHWH”, while the Greek is “as the hearing (obeying) of the voice of the Lord”.²⁰ In both of Kneucker’s above examples the “pregnant” sense of the Hebrew inseparable preposition k- was missed by the LXX translators, pointing to a recognizable Hebraism in the LXX text.

 English translation by George E. Howard, Hosee, NETS, .  Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch,  – . Some further examples include  Kgs :; Hos : [], []; :.  The NETS translation of the LXX Isa :[] renders this phrase more according to the Hebrew intent: “as in the day that was upon Madiam”. See Moisés Silva, Esaias, NETS, .  The NETS LXX translation here comes close to the intent of the Hebrew Vorlage by rendering: “as hearkening to the voice of the Lord”. See Bernard A. Taylor,  Reigns (Old Greek), NETS, .

140

David G. Burke

Thus it appears that hōs thronon basileias is clearly one of those Hebraisms in the Greek text, as noted by Kneucker. Thorough analysis of LXX-MT translational equivalencies reveals that the Hebrew behind this was very likely kĕkissēˀ malkût, “as on a royal throne”.²¹ “As on” is also the sense demanded by the context of Baruch 5:6 (as well as its deutero-Isaianic sources), and it would surely be an unnatural use of this processional image if the author were assumed to have in mind the mere carrying of royal throne-chairs (as though the only point was how those are carried), rather than the stately and exalted manner in which royal personages were carried on such conveyances in great dignity and honor.²² Further confirmation of this understanding of the text can be seen in the clearly secondary Alexandrinian LXX reading, hōs huious basileias, “as royal sons” (lit., “as sons of the kingdom”). This Alexandrinian reading was followed in Old Latin texts (most notably Codices Cavensis and Vallicellianus) and then also by Jerome’s Vulgate translation.²³ This variant betrays the translational reasoning of attempted clarification; since the point cannot be how throne chairs are carried, it must then be about the identity of those who are carried upon them. Thus, in this Alexandrinian reading the returnees will be carried as royal sons or sons of the kingdom. The reading of the Syriac, ˁal kursĕyāˀ dĕmalkūtāˀ, “upon the royal throne”, is thus also a slight translational facilita-

 The correspondence between LXX thronos and MT kissēˀ is highly regular; see Hatch and Redpath, Concordance, .. Malkût is found in MT  times in combination with kissēˀ ( Chr :; :;  Chr :; Esth :; :). The Hebrew substantive mamlākâ has roughly the same meaning as malkût and also occurs five times in combination with kissēˀ, but malkût is the much more likely equivalent for LXX basileias, given the lateness of the writings in which the combination of kissēˀ with malkût occurs. Also in its favor is the fact that malkût is five times more prominent than other synonyms for “kingdom” in the Qumran literature. See Kuhn, Konkordanz,  – .  In this regard Gray, Psalms of Solomon, , has noted that the LXX translation for Bar : “seems to be due to a thoughtless disregard of a well-known use of the Hebrew particle k (BDB, a): the sense requires ‘borne as on a throne’; this the Hebrew kksˀ would admit, but the Greek yields only the unsuitable meaning ‘borne as a throne.’” See also Whitehouse,  Baruch, , and the apposite editorial remarks of R. H. Charles (p. ), to the effect that this Greek phrase is a mistranslation from the Hebrew and that an author familiar with Greek (i. e., if original authorship in Greek were presumed) would not likely have written hōs thronon if he had meant hōs epi thronon. For the association of kissēˀ, “throne”, with kābôd, “glory” (LXX doxa), see  Sam :; Isa :; Jer :; :; Sir :; QpIsaᵃ D.  See Ziegler, Jeremias, .

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

141

tion that attempts to make the easily missed Hebraic sense underlying the Greek phrase completely obvious: “[raised up in glory] upon the royal throne”.²⁴ Jerome’s Vulgate reading, portatos in honorem sicut filios regni, “carried in honor as royal sons”, reflects the Alexandrinian LXX reading (huious “sons” instead of thronon “throne”) which, as noted, was also common in Old Latin manuscripts (filios, “sons”, instead of a more expected solium “throne” or sedes “chair”). It is known that Jerome (and his translation assistants) left the book of Baruch and others for which he could find no Hebrew Vorlagen unchanged from the Old Latin, thus leaving the Alexandrinian LXX reading for Baruch 5:6 intact.²⁵ Because this fourth century translation decision was taken by Jerome, the Vulgate reading for Baruch 5:6 (with filios) would appear to have been very influential on early English Bible translations from that of Wyclif through those of the English Renaissance and Reformation eras. Compare these early English translations of hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6: Wyclif (1395): “borun in to honour, as the sones of rewme”. Coverdale (1535): “carried with honoure, as children off the kyngdome”. Geneva (1560): “exalted in glorie, as children of the kingdom”. Bishops’ Bible (1568): “caryed with honour, as children of the kingdome”. Douai-Rheims (1609 – 10): “exalted with honour as children of the kingdome”. KJV (1611): “exalted with glory, as children of the kingdome”.²⁶

 In contrast, the Syro-Hexaplar text has instead ˀayk kursĕyāˀ dĕmalkūtāˀ, “as a royal throne”, literally reflecting the LXX text. On the character of these two Syriac witnesses to the text of Baruch, see Burke, Poetry,  – .  Regarding the book of Baruch, Jerome noted in his Incipit Prologus Hieronymi in Libro Hieremiae Prophetae [Prolegomena to Jeremiah], in Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, rd ed. emended, ed. Robert Weber (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, ), ., “As for the book of Baruch, his [Jeremiah’s] secretary, a book which the Hebrews neither have nor read, I have omitted it” (Librum autem Baruch, notarii eius, qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur, praetermisimus). Jerome preferred to designate these LXX books for which he could find no Hebrew Vorlagen “apocrypha”. Nevertheless, he continued to value them as scripture, though as it were of a secondary status. By Jerome’s time these books had long been integral to the canon of the LXX, but enigmatically for Jerome, held no place in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Jerome’s solution to this quandary, as he declared in his Prolegomenon to the Books of Solomon, was to revise/emend only the canonical scriptures (those with a Hebrew pedigree). See Jellicoe, Septuagint,  – .  It is noteworthy that two other Reformation era Bible translations also reflect the same base text: Luther’s German (), “erhöhet mit ehren als Kinder des Reichs”, and Reina’s Spanish, “leuantados en Gloria y en dignidad, como hijos de reyes”.

142

David G. Burke

4 Why Does the KJV Reflect the Alexandrinian Reading for Baruch 5:6? All the early English translations reflect the Alexandrinian reading in Baruch 5:6. Aware of this, the KJV translation companies were mandated by the first rule of Bishop Bancroft’s Rules for translating not to make a fresh translation, but to use the church-approved 1586 Bishops’ Bible as a baseline text and to make adjustments wherever needed in light of the original language texts. They made judicious use of textual notes in the margins, but overall they were rather parsimonious about appending these textual notes,²⁷ and in the case of Baruch 5:6 (thronon/huious) the Second Cambridge Company (the team of seven scholars assigned to translate the Apocrypha) did not append a marginal note.²⁸ This is no doubt only to be expected since the KJV companies, working in the first decade of the seventeenth century did not yet have the advantage of access to the great Greek codices of the fourth and fifth centuries CE, later discovered and/or fully brought into text-critical use in the mid-nineteenth century. The KJV companies did their best with the limited manuscript sources available to them in the Jacobean era. What would clearly be most salutary regarding the translation of this closing phrase in Baruch 5:6 would be to know precisely what LXX text(s) the Second Cambridge Company had in hand for consultation. Further, what is possibly the most glaring gap in the otherwise carefully devised rules for translating articulated by Bishop Richard Bancroft²⁹ is the total lack of any guidance as to what edition(s) of the original language texts they were to consult. This may well imply that there was a certain degree of eclecticism assumed, which may have been either deliberate or accidental.³⁰

 The use of marginal notes was not new for the KJV; they were commonly used by Tyndale and profusely used in the Geneva Bible, but very largely in those Bibles to assert interpretive points or make polemical critiques, especially against the ecclesial establishment and royalty. Rule  of Bishop Bancroft’s Rules for translating proscribed the use of interpretive or polemical notes; by decision of King James I, the only notes allowed were textual: indicating alternate readings where a word in the Hebrew or Greek was capable of more than one meaning, or where an alternate reading in an ancient language text might represent a valid translation choice. See further, Burke, Vital Aspects, xv–xvi.  Though it is an argument from silence, it is not without significance that the Second Cambridge Company has given no indication that they either knew of or valued as a textual witness the Vaticanus reading here, thronos.  See Norton, King James Bible,  – , for the  Bancroft Rules.  David Norton, in a personal email to the writer,  January .

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

143

Nevertheless, much can be learned and inferred from the contents of the private library of the Cambridge University Greek scholar, William Branthwaite. He was at the time of his appointment to the Second Cambridge Company the Master of Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge, and would later bequeath to the college a truly impressive (for that day) collection of scholarly works. Branthwaite possessed a copy of Philipp Melanchthon’s 1545 Greek Bible containing the LXX text for the Old Testament and Apocrypha, and he also had the very recently published Christopher Plantin Interlinear Bible of 1584.³¹ David Norton observes helpfully: “The Plantin Interlinear and the Melanchthon Greek Bible would have been particularly significant for a translator of the Apocrypha. The Plantin gave the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot, while the Melanchthon used the reputedly superior Aldine Press text of 1518 – 19”.³² The import of this library inventory, then, is that the translators of the Second Cambridge Company (and certainly Branthwaite) patently had access to the text of the Complutensian Polyglot of 1514– 17, as well as the Aldine LXX edition of 1518. That they had access to the LXX text of the Complutensian Polyglot³³ is of great significance because of its prestige in that day, seen by some as an editio princeps. ³⁴ This LXX text also evidences recognizable agreements with Old Latin versions, and from this it has been inferred that whatever (long lost) Greek text the Complutensian LXX text was based on, it probably transmits early readings in a number of places.³⁵ The Aldine edition of 1518 actually presents a late text, based on minuscule manuscripts, and is now considered to have little critical importance.³⁶ The Sixtine LXX, commissioned by Pope Sixtus V and printed in 1587,³⁷ was a rather recent publication when the KJV project was initiated in 1604 and might have been known to the KJV translators, though, perhaps tellingly, it is not in the Branthwaite library. The potential significance of the Sixtine edition is that its

 Norton, King James Bible, .  Norton, King James Bible, .  So called because it was produced under the aegis of Cardinal Archbishop Ximenes in Complutum (= Alcala), Spain.  Barrera, Jewish Bible, .  Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament,  – , reflecting the extensive LXX textual research of Joseph Ziegler.  Danker, Multipurpose Tools, ; Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament,  – .  See Wevers, Septuagint, .; Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament,  – .

144

David G. Burke

text is based largely on Codex Vaticanus, with its lacunae filled in from other Vatican Library manuscripts.³⁸ From this information it can be reasoned with a good degree of confidence that the Second Cambridge Company, having registered no apparent awareness of the Sixtine LXX’s Vaticanus reading (thronon), most likely worked chiefly with the LXX text of the Complutensian Polyglot. And, if that is the case, it can then be seen as very consequential that the Greek column of the Complutensian Polyglot reads hōs huious basileias, precisely the Alexandrinian reading that the Second Cambridge Company has translated, and its Latin Vulgate column has the requisite equivalent, sicut filios regni. It would thus appear that the Complutensian LXX text was the basis for the KJV translation of this final phrase in Baruch 5:6. And even if they had access to the Sixtine text it may simply have been too new, and its readings not yet familiar enough, for the KJV translators to have privileged it over the prestigious Complutensian LXX. At any rate, their translation, “as children of the kingdome”, clearly reflects the Alexandrinian reading of both the Greek and Latin in the Complutensian Polyglot.

5 Literal Renderings of hōs thronon basileias: Nineteenth Century to the Present As noted above, some nineteenth century scholars who studied and translated Baruch chose to read the Greek of Codex Vaticanus very literally; e. g., Otto F. Fritzsche, “getragen…wie ein Thron des Königsreiches”,³⁹ and W. M. L. de Wette, “erhöhet gleich einem Königsthron”.⁴⁰ The British scholar, Edwin Cone Bissell, similarly woodenly translated Baruch 5:6 in an 1890 publication: “exalted with glory, as the throne of a kingdom”.⁴¹ There are also modern Bible translations in which this phrase of Baruch 5:6 has been translated in this same literal way; i. e., with the sense, “carried in glory … as a royal throne (is carried)”. The 1939 Edgar J. Goodspeed translation has: “Carried aloft in glory, like a royal

 Würthwein, Text of the Old Testament, . See Soderlund, Septuagint, ., for a different view of the Sixtine text. Significantly, the Sixtine edition also includes references to manuscript variants.  Fritzsche, Handbuch, .  Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, .  Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament, .

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

145

throne”.⁴² Likewise Carey A. Moore’s Anchor Bible commentary has: “borne aloft in glory, like a royal throne”.⁴³

5.1 The English Revised Version (ERV): A new departure for Baruch 5:6 It is not surprising that it was the work of translators from the companies of the English Revised Version (ERV, 1895) that marked a departure from the long-standing pattern (from Wyclif through the KJV) of privileging the Alexandrinian reading at the end of Baruch 5:6. It is unsurprising because it was the essential task of the ERV companies of translators to bring the by-then almost 300-year-old KJV English text into coherence with all the recent nineteenth century manuscript discoveries and scholarly advances since 1611 that were rapidly making the manuscript base of the KJV obsolete. This major revision of the KJV was undertaken in the late 1800s for this very purpose: to bring the KJV English text into harmony with the vastly improved understandings of the original language texts.⁴⁴ When the ERV New Testament company had completed its work in 1880, it was divided into three committees whose assignments were: (1) the London Committee to translate the book of Ecclesiasticus; the Westminster Committee to translate the books of 1 Maccabees, Tobit and Judith; and (3) the Cambridge

 Goodspeed, Complete Bible. The other acclaimed individual Bible translator of the early twentieth century was the Scot, James Moffat, who published his Bible translation in , with a revision in . Moffat’s death in  prevented his completion of the Apocrypha.  Moore, Additions, , . Cf. also Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible (nd ed., ), “portés glorieusement comme un trône royal,” and New Jerusalem Bible [], “carried gloriously, like a royal throne”. The earlier Jerusalem Bible [], influenced by the Vulgate, had “like royal princes carried back in glory”, with an appended textual note: “lit., ‘sons of the kingdom,’ Vulg; some Greek mss., ‘as (on) a royal throne.’” Similarly, the  translation by Knox, Holy Bible, has: “borne aloft like royal princes”.  The ERV translators did manage to square the KJV text with the many new advances in the textual base of the Greek New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament and Apocrypha, but their English style was widely judged to be too literal and wooden. Particularly annoying to scholars and general readers, as Paul Ellingworth has noted, was that “readers found it pedantic, not least in its attempt to translate Greek words uniformly by the same English terms”. Ellingworth, From Martin Luther, . Ultimately, the ERV failed to replace the KJV in Britain. See further Orlinsky and Bratcher, History of Bible Translation, .

146

David G. Burke

Committee to translate Wisdom and 2 Maccabees.⁴⁵ Then when the ERV Old Testament company had completed its work, another committee was formed to handle the translation of 1 and 2 Esdras, the Additions to Esther, Baruch, the Daniel Additions, and the Prayer of Manasses.⁴⁶ The ERV Preface states in regard to the work of this committee on these last assigned books of the Apocrypha: “For the text of these portions, with the exception of 2 Esdras they were entirely dependent upon the inadequate materials already existing, and did not therefore attempt any complete revision”.⁴⁷ It must be said, however, that to whatever extent this ERV committee’s revision work was limited by the “inadequate materials already existing”, their handling of the locution at the end of Baruch 5:6—“as on a royal throne”—was a pivotal and influential turning point in the translation history of this Baruch 5:6 phrase. In roughly this same time period an American committee was also formed, beginning in 1870, for the purpose of revising the KJV.⁴⁸ But it was not until August 26, 1901, that the American revision was published.⁴⁹ Unfortunately, the ARV committee chose not to translate the Apocrypha (no doubt under the influence of the considerable conservative bias against this intertestamental corpus).

5.2 The ERV and its successor translations: A growing consensus on Baruch 5:6 It is most enlightening, then, to compare the ERV translation of Baruch 5:6 and the renderings of its more modern “descendants” (below) with those (above) that predate the great nineteenth century manuscript discoveries and biblical text advances: – English Revised Version (ERV Apocrypha, 1895): “as on a royal throne”.⁵⁰ – Revised Standard Version (RSV Apocrypha, 1957): “as on a royal throne”.

 As noted in its Preface the English Revised Version Apocrypha was published under the title, The Apocrypha: Being the Version set forth A. D.  Compared with the most Ancient Authorities and Revised A. D.  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), viii.  Ibid., x–xi.  Ibid., xi  From the very outset of the British ERV project, the British revisers invited duly appointed American scholars to participate, but it soon became clear that basic differences in approach and usage preferences would make a fully joint project impossible and a decision was taken to prepare an American Revised Version (ARV) as well. See further Smith and Bromiley, English Versions,  – .  See further Orlinsky and Bratcher, History of Bible Translation,  – .  An ERV textual note has: or, “as children of the kingdom”.

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

– – – – – – – – – – – –

147

Confraternity Revision of Douay-Rheims (1961): “as on royal thrones”.⁵¹ New English Bible (NEB, 1970): “like a king on his throne”. New American Bible (NAB, 1970, 1986, 1991, 2010): “as on royal thrones”. Today’s English Version (TEV, 1979, 1992): “carried in royal spendor”. Revised English Bible (REB, 1989): “as on a royal throne”. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989): “as on a royal throne”. La Sainte Bible en français courant (BFC, 1990): “comme des rois sur un trône”. Gute Nachricht Bibel (GNB, 1997 ed.): “wie Könige auf ihren Thron”. Contemporary English Version (CEV, 1999, 2006): “as if they were kings carried on beautiful thrones”. De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (NBV, 2004): “maar vorstelijk is hun intocht”.⁵² English Standard Version (ESV, 2009): “as on a royal throne.⁵³ New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS, 2011): “as on a royal throne”.⁵⁴

There are other notable Bible translations extant, but they are not consultable because they exclude the Apocrypha from the Bible.⁵⁵

5.3 The translation of Baruch 5:6 in scholarly works since the mid-nineteenth century Since the time of Heinrich Ewald⁵⁶ and J. J. Kneucker in the latter half of the nineteenth century, a considerable consensus began to build for translating hōs thronos basileias in a way that assumes the Hebraism lying behind the Greek text: kksˀ mlkwt, “as on a royal throne”. Kneucker’s 1879 translation and commentary, Das Buch Baruch, argued comprehensively that all the sections of the book of Baruch were translated from a Hebrew original and he translated Baruch 5:6 ac This is a striking revision, abandoning the Vulgate base.  The Dutch translators viewed the Syriac, with its “upon a royal throne”, as best reflecting the underlying Hebrew for Bar :, “as on”. See above, p. .  Per RSV, this translation’s base text.  As the NETS translator of the book of Baruch, Tony Michael, notes in his introductory comments: “Though the Greek itself from the perspective of Greek metrics is not poetry, it does reflect Hebrew poetic technique in terms of form and style”. Michael, Barouch, .  For example, New American Standard Bible (NASB), New International Version (NIV), and New Living Translation (NLT), translations prepared for and by Evangelical Christians who do not accept the Apocrypha.  Ewald, Propheten, .

148

David G. Burke

cordingly: “wie in königlichen Thron”.⁵⁷ Two decades later, Wilhelm Rothstein’s 1900 translation and commentary, “Das Buch Baruch”, appeared in volume 1 of Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, edited by Emil Kautzsch. Rothstein’s translation at Baruch 5:6 similarly affirms the assumption of a Hebraism and translates with “as on”: “wie auf einem Königsthron”.⁵⁸ In 1913 the British scholar, O. C. Whitehouse, also contended vigorously that epi thronon basileias was a Hebraism in Baruch 5:6 in his chapter, “1 Baruch”, in APOT 1. He also endorsed the recently completed ERV translation of Baruch 5:6, “as on a royal throne”, and used it in his commentary.⁵⁹ R. R. Harwell’s 1915 Yale University dissertation, The Principle Versions of Baruch, likewise strongly contends for translation from Hebrew for all the Baruch sections, declaring of Baruch 5:6: “hōs thronon basileias is a mistranslation of kksˀ mlkwt. The Hebrew will bear the translation ‘as on a royal throne,’ while the Greek must mean ‘as a royal throne’”.⁶⁰ Conducting his research in the early twentieth century, Harwell further noted that commentators on Baruch tend to describe Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 as two poems written in Greek. He finds that notion quite unlikely from the standpoint of Greek metrics: these poems scan well in reconstructed Hebrew, but not at all in Greek.⁶¹ He thus states that these commentators cannot mean: to assert that any part of Baruch is written in the form of Greek poetry which is based on a regular succession of long and short syllables, for that would be meaningless. Why do they speak of poetry at all? It is because this section [3:9 – 5:9], though not metrical in Greek, exists in a certain measured form which makes itself felt even in a Greek translation. There is an unbroken series of short sentences which betray their origin.⁶²

The renowned LXX scholar, Henry St. John Thackeray in his 1929 commentary on Baruch did not include his own translation, but did comment on Baruch 5:6: “‘as (on) a royal throne’: The marginal reading [huious] is inferior. The picture is based on Isa 49:22 (the children borne on the shoulders) … The ellipse of ‘on’,

 Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, .  Rothstein, Das Buch Baruch, .  Whitehouse,  Baruch, .  Harwell, Principal Versions, .  Also affirmed in Burke, Poetry,  – .  Harwell, Principal Versions, . See also Michael, Barouch, , who notes in the introduction to his NETS translation that the literary style, especially the use of the vocative or imperative and the strong use of parallelism, allow for the possibility of a Hebrew original … [and] a few instances where the Greek appears to be a mistranslation of the Hebrew.

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

149

possible in Hebrew, suggests translation”.⁶³ Carroll Stuhlmüller’s 1971 Old Testament Reading Guide, in a commentary series developed by Liturgical Press, covers the books of Jeremiah and Baruch. In it the series editors and Stuhlmüller make use of the text of the 1970 NAB translation, thereby affirming for Baruch 5:6 a preference for the reading, “as on royal thrones”.⁶⁴ In 1975 Emanuel Tov presented a reconstructed Hebrew text and an English translation from that Hebrew text for the prose section of Baruch (1:1– 3:8) in his brief publication, The Book of Baruch: Edited, Reconstructed and Translated. While Tov did not attempt a reconstruction of the Hebrew for the two poetic sections of Baruch in this work, he did however provide an English translation for the two poems from the Greek of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9, in which he renders the ending of Baruch 5:6, implying the Hebraism thusly: “but God will bring them back to you, carried in glory, as (on) royal thrones”.⁶⁵ In his 1982 publication, The Poetry of Baruch, David G. Burke presented a reconstruction and analysis of the original Hebrew text of the two poetic sections (Bar 3:9 – 5:9). His translation, also affirming the Hebraism “as on”, similarly reads: “But God will bring them back to you, carried in glory, as on a royal throne”.⁶⁶ Similarly, Odil Hannes Steck, in his comprehensive 1993 commentary on the book of Baruch, Das Apokryphe Baruchbuch, also offers his own translation of Baruch. At Baruch 5:6 he translates “as on”: “Gott aber bringt sie heim zu dir, getragen mit Herrlichkeit wie auf einem Königsthron”.⁶⁷ Roger A. Bullard and Howard A. Hatton authored the 2006 handbook for Bible translators, A Handbook on the Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. The modus operandi of the UBS Handbook Series is to discuss translation and exegetical issues in the texts, using two Bible translations as models of contrasting translation approaches (RSV and TEV), all by way of helping indigenous Bible translation teams with their task. Thus for Baruch 5:6, comparing both RSV and TEV they offer these comments: “RSV takes some liberty here, but so do

 Thackeray, Baruch, .  Stuhlmüller, Jeremiah and Baruch,  – .  Tov, Book of Baruch, .  Burke, Poetry,  (translation),  –  (explanatory comments on reconstruction and translation).  Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, . Steck appends a footnote for “wie auf” with regard to the “deficient preposition” (hebraisierende Breviloquenz), as Kneucker had characterized the Hebrew construction involved here. By way of affirming the conclusions on this by prior researchers, Steck also references here Kneucker (,  f); Whitehouse (); Charles (), Moore (), and Burke ( f.). Steck gives this same translation for Bar : in his later  commentary on the book of Baruch, and appends a shorter version of the same footnote, with references in this case to Kneucker () and Burke ( f.).

150

David G. Burke

most other versions. The Greek is difficult, and seems to say ‘carried with glory as a king’s throne.’ Whatever the exact wording of the original text may have been, its meaning is surely what [TEV] expresses with ‘carried in royal splendor.’”⁶⁸ The translation of LXX Baruch by Tony S. L. Michael in the 2011 NETS translation, cited above, also affirms translating the Greek phrase hōs thronos basileias with “as on a royal throne”.⁶⁹ Last and most recent is the translation of Baruch by Steven D. Fraade in the 2013 publication Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, in which Fraade also has translated the closing phrase in Baruch 5:6 with “as on”, though without any explanatory note or comment: “but God will bring them back to you, carried in glory, as on a royal throne”.⁷⁰

6 Conclusion Having thoroughly reviewed the problematics of this so-called “troublesome phrase”⁷¹ at the end of Baruch 5:6, and having surveyed with detailed analysis the history of how it has been translated (and mistranslated) in Bibles and commentaries over many years, particularly into English versions (but also some versions in other world languages) from the time of Wyclif in the late 1300s to the recent NETS LXX translation of 2011 and that in the 2013 publication, Outside the Bible, it has now become very clear that a solid scholarly consensus has emerged in support of the translation for the closing phrase of Baruch 5:6—“as on a royal throne”—confirming that this is how the “troublesome phrase” must be translated.

   

Bullard and Hatton, Handbook, . Michael, Barouch, . Fraade,  Baruch,  – . Moore, Additions, .

Receiving the Royal Treatment: Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5:6

151

Bibliography Barrera, Julio Trebolle, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Leiden: Brill 1998. Bissell, E.C., The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, Vol. XV in: John P. Lange (ed.), A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, New York: Scribner’s 1890, 410 – 32. Bullard, Roger A. and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on the Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon, New York: UBS 2006. Burke, David G., The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10) Chico: Scholars Press 1982. Burke, David G., Vital Aspects of the KJV Genius, in: David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, and Philip H. Towner (eds.), The King James Version at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2013, ix–xix. Danker, Frederick W., Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1993. Ellingworth, Paul, From Martin Luther to the English Revised Version, in: Philip A. Noss (ed.), A History of Bible Translation, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 2007, 105 – 39. Ewald, Heinrich, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. Band 3, Die Jüngsten Propheten des Alten Bundes mit den Büchern Barukh und Daniel (2nd ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht 1868, 251 – 82. Fraade, S.D., 1 Baruch, in: L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, and L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 2013, 1545 – 64. Fritzsche, Otto, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments. Band 1, Leipzig: Weidman 1851. Gifford, E.H., Baruch, in: Henry Wace (ed.), The Speaker’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, The Apocrypha: with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and Revision of the Translation (2 vols.) London: John Murray 1888, 241 – 86. Goodspeed, E.J., The Complete Bible: an American Translation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1939. Gray, George Buchanan, The Psalms of Solomon, in: R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913, 2.625 – 52. Harwell, R.R., The Principal Versions of Baruch, Yale University dissertation, 1915. Hatch, E. and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) (2 vols. and 2 supplements) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1897 – 1906. Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1968. Kautzsch, Emil (ed.), Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (2nd English ed., trans. and rev. with the 28th German edition by A. E. Cowley) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1960. Kneucker, J.J., Das Buch Baruch: Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung auf Grund des wiederhergestellten hebräischen Urtextes, Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus 1879. Knox, Ronald, The Holy Bible: A Translation from the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, New York: Sheed & Ward 1944. Kuhn, K.G., Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht 1960.

152

David G. Burke

Michael, Tony S. L., Barouch, in: Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 2007, 925 – 31. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 44) Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Nickelsburg, George W.E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.) Minneapolis: Fortress Press 2005. Norton, David, The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011. Orlinsky, Harry M. and Robert G. Bratcher, A History of Bible Translation and the North American Contribution, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 1991. Rothstein, W., Das Buch Baruch, in: Emil Kautzsch (ed.), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 vols.) Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1900, 1.213 – 25. Smith, W.M. and G.W. Bromiley, English Versions, in: idem (ed.), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 2 vols.) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982, 2.83 – 102. Soderlund, S.K., Septuagint, in G.W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 4 vols.) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1988, 4.400 – 409. Steck, Odil H., Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Steck, Odil H., Das Buch Baruch (ATD 5) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Stuhlmüller, Carroll, The Books of Jeremiah and Baruch (Old Testament Reading Guide 17) Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press 1971. Thackeray, Henry St. John, Baruch, in: Charles Gore, H. L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume (eds.), A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, New York: Macmillan 1929, 102 – 11. Tov, Emanuel, The Book of Baruch (Greek and Hebrew) (SBL Texts and Translations 8 and SBL Pseudepigrapha Series 6) Missoula: Scholars Press 1975. Tov, Emanuel, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29 – 52 and Baruch 1:1 – 3:8 (Harvard Semitic Monographs 8) Missoula: Scholars Press 1976. Wevers, John W., Septuagint, in: G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols. and supplement) Nashville: Abingdon, 1962, 4.273 – 78. Whitehouse, O.C., The Book of Baruch, in: R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (2 vols.) Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913, 569 – 95. Würthwein, Ernst, The Text of the Old Testament (2nd rev. ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995. Ziegler, Joseph (ed.), Septuaginta, Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum, XV: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremias (3rd ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2006.

Nuria Calduch-Benages

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4) Between the two readings from Isaiah and the one from Ezekiel—the leading figures of biblical prophecy along with Jeremiah—the Lectionary of the Easter Vigil inserts a passage from the scroll of Baruch.¹ Accepted only in the Christian canon,² this small book was officially declared canonical by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546 (though it was rejected as apocryphal by many Protestant Reformers in the 16th century). Baruch is, therefore, ‘deutero-canonical’ and is the only book of this category which is read in the light of the Paschal candle. How on earth has it been placed after Isaiah and before Ezekiel? Moreover, the passage which has been chosen (Bar 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4) is completely focused on the Wisdom of God. Why alternate the prophetic oracles with this meditation on Wisdom? In addition to introducing the figure of Baruch and his book, we will put forward a detailed reading of the passage chosen in the Lectionary before setting it in dialogue with the readings which precede and follow it. We shall thus be able to give an answer to the questions which we have just posed. We shall discover that prophecy and Wisdom have to be brought together in witness to Christ who “appeared on earth”, and lived, died, and rose “among humans”.

1 The Book of Baruch and the Drama of the Exile Baruch, the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah,³ the disciple through whom the work of the master lives again and continues, is the one to whom the book of the same name is attributed. The work was written, probably, at the time of the Maccabees (second half of the 2nd century BCE)⁴ by a Palestinian Jew

 This is the English version (slightly adapted) of an Italian text, cf. Calduch-Benages, ‘Beati siamo noi’.  The book of Baruch does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. In the LXX, it is found among the prophetic books after Jeremiah. The Vulgate, however, places Lamentations between the two books. Here I leave aside the Letter of Jeremiah, included in the Vulgate as Baruch chapter .  Cf. Ballhorn, Sekretär des Jeremia,  – ; Fischer, Jeremiah’s Secretary?,  – .  Other proposals for the historical background of the book are the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey in  BCE or else the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus in  CE. Cf. Corley, Emotional Transformation,  – .

154

Nuria Calduch-Benages

about whom we know nothing. Set in the period of the Babylonian Exile (cf. 1:1 and Jer 29[36]:1), the aim of the book of Baruch is to help the Jews of the diaspora live their faith to the full, without deviating from the thing that constitutes the foundation and the ground of their unity, that is, the Law (the Torah). The drama of the Exile and its consequences are present in almost all the pages of the book. First of all, the Exile is presented as the result of the divine wrath (2:13, 20) which brings with it subjugation and humiliation (2:5), disgrace, curse and condemnation (3:8), premature old age (3:10), early death (3:11) and slavery (4:31– 35). However, this divine wrath is not groundless but wholly justified. It is the way in which God reacts against the disobedience and rebellion of his people. It is their sin, in fact, which has brought on the present situation. In 1:13, this sin is not specified (“we have sinned against him”), but in 1:17– 22, the author proceeds to make clear its nature, that is, having disobeyed and not listened to the voice of the Lord, the same error which “the fathers” committed in the wilderness. The sin is also that of “forsaking the fountain of wisdom” (3:12), angering God by sacrificing to demons, forgetting the teaching which they had received from him and grieving the mother who reared them, namely, Jerusalem (4:6 – 8). The latter will be punished, not for her own sins but for the sins of her children who “turned away from the law of the Lord, did not regard his statutes, did not follow his commandments and did not tread the paths of teaching according to his righteousness” (4:12– 13).⁵ The exile represented a profound crisis for the people, indeed, one of the worst disasters in their history: How was it possible to believe in the lordship of Yhwh when his temple had been profaned and destroyed, his Davidic king dragged off into captivity, and his promised land subjected to Babylonian domination? It was a disaster which no one could ever blot out from memory. “We know—say Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz—that for the apocalyptic writers in general, the period of the divine wrath had begun with the destruction of the temple. For them, the Babylonian exile became the example and symbolic key of all the subsequent exiles, the diaspora included. Babylon constitutes the paradigmatic punishment”.⁶ For Baruch this is the moment for reflecting on what has happened, for grasping its profound sense, for maturing in faith and in the understanding of a troubled history which, humanly speaking, seemed to offer nothing but slaughter and desolation. This reflection on their own political, social, and religious experience helped the Jews of the diaspora to advance in their search for Wisdom;

 On the exile in Baruch, cf. Asurmendi, Causes,  – .  Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, Profetas, II,  –  (translation ours).

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

155

in other words, to advance in their search for God. In Baruch, the exile follows the Deuteronomic scheme according to which sin leads to punishment but repentance can result in forgiveness and so the reestablishment of the covenant. Aware of their wicked actions, the exiles turn to God in prayer in order to seek salvation (2:11– 3:8). In fact, he is the only One who can give it to them. If they repent of their sin, God will pardon them and make them return to Jerusalem, the mother city who represents the welcoming and fertile community (4:5 – 5:9).⁷

2 Baruch 3:9 – 4:4: Context, Delimitation and Structure Whether one accepts a division of the book into two parts, one written in prose, the other in poetry (1:1– 3:8; 3:9 – 5:9),⁸ or in three parts (1:15aβ–3:8; 3:9 – 4:4; 4:5 – 5:9)⁹ preceded by an historical introduction (1:1–15aα), the sapiential exhortation of 3:9 – 4:4 forms its centre. Its position, after a collective supplication (1:15aβ–3:8) and before a promise of liberation (4:5 – 5:9), could reflect the development of a liturgy in three stages. It begins with the reading of the penitential prayer, followed by a homiletic exhortation of a sapiential kind addressed directly to the assembly, and, finally, concludes with the divine oracle promising restoration. At any rate, as Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz rightly note, “The most original aspect is that within the brief space of these chapters, we find the confluence of three or four great literary currents: the liturgical one, represented by the penitential prayer; the Deuteronomic one woven together with the sapiential one with its parenetic style; and the prophetic one belonging to the eschatological genre”.¹⁰ It seems to be beyond doubt that 3:9 – 4:4 is a unit, because it is clearly marked out from both the formal and conceptual points of view.¹¹ The initial summons, “Hear, O Israel” (3:9) signals a radical change of style compared with the previous passage, that is, the penitential prayer where we hear the voice of the people. In the first part of the prayer, Israel makes a public confes On the figure of Jerusalem as mother and widow, cf. Simian-Yofre, Jerusalem as Mother,  – ; Calduch-Benages, Jerusalem as Widow,  – .  Thus, for example, Lüdy, Baruc,  – .  Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, Profetas, II, ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, V–VII; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, .  Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, Profetas, II,  (translation ours).  Cf. Anoz, Estudio,  – .

156

Nuria Calduch-Benages

sion of its sins, referring to God in the third person (1:15aβ–2:10), whereas, in the second part, God is addressed directly in the second person (2:11– 3:8). If we then move to the end of the poem, we observe the conclusive function of 4:4. We should note in this verse the use of the macarism together with the first person plural (“blessed are we”) and the double inclusion with 3:9 (Israel and the verb to know/understand). The following verse (4:5, “Courage, my people…”) marks the beginning of the oracle of consolation, that is, the divine response to the people’s prayer. From the point of view of content too, 3:9 – 4:4 is separate both from the preceding and the following passages. The theme around which the whole pericope turns is inaccessible wisdom and its close relationship with the Law which some interpret as identification,¹² others as a summary¹³ or even as an amalgamation (Verquickung)¹⁴ of the two realities. There has been (and still is) much discussion on the composition of our passage. Scholars disagree as to the number of the units which oscillates between two as far as seven,¹⁵ although a ternary composition is the most frequent.¹⁶ Bearing in mind the argumentative thread of the poem and the formal indications, we too are proposing a division of 3:9 – 4:4 into three sub-units. The first (3:9 – 14) introduces the problem and indicates its solution; the second (3:15 – 4:1) constitutes the central body where the argument is developed, first, negatively and, second, positively; the third (4:2– 4), which is exhortatory in character, acts as a conclusion. In sum, to the question “where can wisdom be found?”, the author offers two answers. The first is negative: wisdom is inaccessible to power and wealth, to peoples and to giants. The second, on the other hand, is positive: God, the only one who knows the way, has given it to Israel in the book of the Law. In the final exhortation, the poet urges Israel to welcome wisdom and to walk in her ways.

 Cf. Bargellini, Torah,  – .  Hogan, Covenantal Wisdom, .  Reiterer, Verstehst du, .  On the opinions of authors up to , cf. Anoz, Estudio,  – . More recently, Adams, Baruch, .  Moore, Additions, ; Schreiner, Baruch,  – ; Steck, Apokryphe Baruchbuch, ; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  –  and, more recently, Bargellini, Torah, . According to Hogan (cf. Covenantal Wisdom, , n.), Reiterer (cf. Verstehst du,  – ) and Harrelson (cf. Wisdom Hidden,  – ), however, the poem is composed of , , and  strophes respectively.

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

157

3 Baruch 3:9 – 4:4: A Sapiential Exhortation A glance at the literature on Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 reveals that several authors consider it a “eulogy on wisdom”¹⁷ or a “hymn to wisdom”.¹⁸ However, wisdom does not deliver a eulogy, nor does she receive one. She neither praises nor is praised. The poet is not focusing on the figure of wisdom per se, or, if we wish, on her way, but on the way which leads to her. In fact, he exhorts the people to commit themselves seriously to finding her and following her. In other words, wisdom becomes not the object to be praised but the goal to be reached.¹⁹ Since the exhortatory character of the passage is beyond doubt, it is better, therefore, to speak of a sapiential exhortation or an exhortation to wisdom.

3.1 Initial summons (3:9 – 14) The first unit of this sapiential exhortation (3:9 – 14) is a warm summons addressed to Israel to listen to the divine commandments by which life is gained and to observe them. Formulated in the second person singular, this summons is clearly laid out: it opens with a programmatic exhortation in proverbial style (v. 9); four verses follow in which the exile is presented as a punishment for having broken the covenant (vv. 10 – 13); and, finally, it closes with another exhortation which refers back to the previous one (v. 14). With Bargellini, we can say that “With v. 9, there thus begins a path which, by means of a series of successive stages (3:15 – 37), will return to the exhortation (4:1– 3) in order to emerge into the final macarism (4:4)”.²⁰ Here is the text. 3:9

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life, Lend your ear to understand prudence. 10 Why, O Israel, why do you find yourself in an enemy land and growing old in a foreign country? 11 Why are you defiled with corpses and numbered among those who go down into Hades? 12 You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom! 13 If you had walked in the paths of God, you would have lived for ever in peace. 14 Learn where there is prudence,

   

Cf. for example Moore, Additions, ; Anoz, Estudio, . Cf. for example Conti, Sapienza personificata, . Cf. Swart, Listen, . Bargellini, Torah,  (translation ours).

158

Nuria Calduch-Benages

where there is strength, where there is understanding, in order that you may discern where there is also length of days and life, where there is light for the eyes and peace.

The exhortation opens with the summons, “Hear, O Israel…”, the same one as we hear in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 4:1; 5:1; 6:4) and the same one which devout Israelites recite every day in the morning, in the evening, and before going to sleep. It is a summons to listen and to lend an ear, an indispensable condition if the teaching is to bear fruit (cf. Prov 1:8; 4:1, 10; 5:7; 8:22– 23): “If you desire to listen, you will learn; if you lend your ear, you will be wise”, says Ben Sira to the young pupils who frequent his school (Sir 6:33). But what is it that one must listen to? In our passage, as elsewhere, listening indicates the attention given to the word of the Lord. Baruch summons his hearers to listen to “the commandments of life” (entolai zōēs) and to “prudence” (phronēsis).²¹ The prudence of which he speaks here is none other than the “knowledge” (synesis) and the “wisdom” (sophia) which is expressed in the law of the Lord, that is in his commandments which, alone, are able to lead a person to life (cf. Deut 30:16). The “ten words” of the Decalogue which the Lord gave to Israel on Sinai are the way of prudence and of wisdom for Israel, namely, its way to life and good. In the words of Jacob Neusner, “the Torah is the Way (not our Way, but the Way) to love and serve the only God, Creator of heaven and earth, who has called us to serve and to hallow the Name of God”.²² To observe the Law (or to follow Wisdom) is synonymous with living; to forsake it is equivalent to dying. This is the principal message of vv. 10 – 13 which, by means of a series of questions, evokes the situation described in 1:1– 3:8. The scattered ones of Israel are languishing because they are separated from the Law. They are growing old in a foreign country, they are defiled in the midst of the pagans, they have gone down into the pit, wrapped in darkness and deprived of all hope. Even if they seem to be alive, in reality, they are the living dead because they have turned their backs on the fountain of wisdom (pēgē tēs sophias),²³ that is, on the divine commandments, on God himself. If we look back within the Old Testament, we hear in our text the echo of the words of Jeremiah: “My people has forsaken me, the fountain of living water, and they have

 On the relation between wisdom and Torah, cf. de Vos, ‘You have forsaken’,  – ; Ballhorn, Weisheit,  – ; Grätz, ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Torah’,  – .  Neusner, Rabbi, xiii.  Cf. Sir (GII) :: “A fountain of wisdom (pēgē sophias) is the word of God in the heavens, his ways are the eternal commandments”.

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

159

dug themselves cisterns, cracked cisterns which do not hold water” (Jer 2:13).²⁴ If we look forward to the New Testament, we hear the echo of the words which Jesus addressed to the Samaritan woman beside Jacob’s well: “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water which I shall give him, will never thirst again. On the contrary, the water which I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water welling up for eternal life” (John 4:15). To search for Wisdom to the point of reaching its source is a somewhat difficult undertaking. There are so many obstacles to overcome, so many false tracks to avoid! Israel must do everything to know her, must learn where prudence, “strength” (referring to moral and spiritual strength), and understanding can be found. These three “virtues” are matched by four gifts which are presented in pairs: longevity and life, the light of the eyes and peace (cf. Prov 3:13 – 18; Sir 1:18 – 19). By means of the mention of the key words: “prudence”, “know/understand” and “life”, v. 14 is joined to v. 9 in the manner of an inclusion, and, at the same time, by means of the use of sapiential vocabulary, it acts as a bridge with the following unit where the question to be resolved will be put forward and developed.

3.2 Central body of the poem (3:15 – 4:1) Along the lines of Job 28,²⁵ Baruch introduces the main argument, that is, the inaccessibility of wisdom, using the form of a double rhetorical question: “Who has discovered her dwelling, who has gone into her storehouses?” (3:15; cf. 3:30). The repetition of the interrogative pronoun “who” (tis) is meant to indicate that the true problem is not wisdom per se but rather identifying who knows her and knows where to find her. The question is followed by a long discourse which is developed in two stages: a negative phase (3:15 – 31), which Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz call “the great search in vain”,²⁶ and a positive phase (3:32 – 4:1) where it is stated categorically that wisdom has been revealed. We shall present them separately. 3:15

Who has discovered her dwelling, who has gone into her storehouses?

 Cf. also, the oracle of the prophet in Jer :, “Those who turn away from you shall be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, fountain of life (pēgēn zōēs).  Steck, Israels Gesetz,  – .  Alonso Schökel and Sicre Díaz, Profetas, II, : “la gran búsqueda fracasada”.

160

Nuria Calduch-Benages

16

Where are the leaders of the nations, those who rule over the beasts who are on the earth? 17 Those who amuse themselves with the birds of heaven, those who amass silver and gold, in which men have placed their trust. and there is no limit to their possessions? 18 Those who work silver and engrave it Without revealing the secret of their work?²⁷ 19 They have vanished, they have gone down to Hades, and others have taken their place. 20 Generations have seen the light and dwelt upon the earth, but they have not known the way of wisdom, 21 they have not understood her paths and they have not seized her; their sons have strayed from their way. 22 She has not been heard of in Canaan, nor been seen in Teman. 23 The sons of Hagar, who seek wisdom on the earth, the merchants of Merran and of Teman,²⁸ the storytellers and the seekers of understanding have not considered the way of wisdom, have not remembered her paths. 24 O Israel, how great is the house of God, how vast the place of his dominion! 25 It is great and has no end, it is high and cannot be measured! 26 There were born the famous giants of ancient times, tall in stature, expert in war; 27 but God did not choose them and did not give them the way of wisdom: 28 they perished because they did not have wisdom, they perished through their idleness. 29 Who has gone up into heaven and taken her and made her come down from the clouds? 30 Who has crossed the sea and found her and has bought her for pure gold? 31 No one knows her way, no one is concerned about her path.

 The mention of these workmen is not suited to the context. Cf. the proposal of Kabasele Mukenge based on the Syriac version: “those who acquire money and are worried when their activities leave no mark?” (L’unité, ,  – ). Cf., also, Moore, Additions, , .  On the name of Merran (probably a corruption of Media or Midian), the only time that it appears in the Bible, and on the repetition of Teman (:b and b), cf. Moore, Additions, .

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

161

In these verses, the poet reviews three categories of human groups who believe they are on the right path for seeking wisdom: the princes of the nations and their descendants (3:16 – 21); the inhabitants of some Oriental nations noted for their wealth and wisdom (3:22– 23); and the famous giants of ancient times (3:24– 28); three categories in which the whole of humanity is included. The result of their search, however, is totally in vain. Wisdom is inaccessible to all without exception. No one knows the way to reach her; no one can follow the tracks of her path. The mention of the leaders of the nations who even manage to rule over nature (!) could be an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar whose power extended not only over all the nations (Jer 27:5; 28:14), but also over humans, beasts of the field and birds of heaven (cf. Dan 2:38 and Jdt 11:7). Generation after generation, powerful kings and their descendants have accumulated power and wealth. In doing this, instead of coming near to wisdom, they have gone away from her all the more. The path that they pursued was not the right one; it did not lead to wisdom but elsewhere. The same goes for Canaan (Phoenicia is also understood here) and for Teman (Edom), foreign nations known in the Bible for their wealth, astuteness and commercial ability (cf. Ezek 28:3 – 5; Jer 40:7; Obad 8 – 9; Job 2:11), and also for the Ishmaelites (“the sons of Hagar”), a nomad people whose lifestyle is associated with the search for wisdom. And what is to be said about the giants of ancient times? By contrast with the nations mentioned, the giants²⁹ were born in Israel, but, although they were superhuman creatures, the path that leads to wisdom was not revealed even to them. They were giants, but proud. They too died without reaching her. As Bargellini rightly notes, “vv. 29 – 31 do nothing other than gather up and summarise the path described in the previous unit, giving the conclusive answer (v. 31) to the question of v. 15”.³⁰ The conclusive answer is clear: no one can attain the divine wisdom; no human activity, effort or success can gain wisdom because she is inaccessible to humans (cf. Deut 30:12– 13).³¹ 3:32

But he who knows all things knows her and investigated her with understanding. It is he who established the earth for ever and filled it with animals;

 It is probable that the author is identifying the antediluvian giants (Gen :b) with those of the time of the conquest (Num : – ; Deut :; : – ,  – ). Cf. Sheppard, Wisdom  – ; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité,  – .  Bargellini, Torah,  (translation ours).  For the affinities between Bar : –  and Deut : – , cf. Sheppard, Wisdom,  – ; Reiterer, Verstehst du,  – .

162

Nuria Calduch-Benages

33

he who sends out the light and it goes, who calls and it obeys him with dread. 34 The stars shine in their watches and rejoice; 35 he calls, and they reply: “Here we are!” and shine with joy for the one who created them. 36 He is our God, and no other can be compared with him. 37 He investigated the whole way to knowledge and made a gift of it to Jacob his servant, to Israel his beloved. 38 For this reason, she appeared on the earth and lived among humans. 4:1 She is the book of the commandments of God, and the law which lasts forever; all those who reach her will have life, those who forsake her will die.

The initial “but” sets off a change in the text. Having insisted on the inaccessibility of wisdom, the poet now offers a positive answer to the question of 3:15. The path of wisdom is accessible only to “the one who knows all things”, the Creator of the universe (cf. Job 28:23 – 27). Wisdom is, therefore, the exclusive prerogative of God. Only God, “our God” (3:36), who possesses her and knows her, can grant her as a gift to whom he wills.³² At this point, I make my own the words of Paul-Émile Bonnard, “It is to the children of Israel, in fact, that God entrusted his Wisdom: divine like him, through them she will become human; invisible like him, through them she will become visible; silent like him, through them she will become eloquent”.³³ Jacob-Israel, the chosen people, is the intended recipient of this gift of life. Through its mediation, all humans will be able to see Wisdom, will be able to hear her and understand her on this earth. Verse 38 of our text puts it thus: “For this reason, she appeared on earth and lived among humans”. The two Greek verbs referring to Wisdom (ōphthē, from horaō, “see, look, appear” and synanestraphē, from synanastrephō, “live with”) should logically be translated in the feminine even if their form is common to both genders. However, the Latin version, and also the Syriac, have preferred the masculine: “For this reason, he appeared on earth and lived among humans”. The motive is deliberate and clear. For Christian translators who read Baruch in the light of the Christ event, the divine Wisdom can be none other than Jesus, the Son of God who, as Word of the Father, came to dwell among us (cf. John 1:14). This Christological  Cf. Nicklas, Schöpfungstheologie,  – .  Bonnard, Sagesse,  (translation ours).

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

163

reading is that of the Greek and Latin Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Eustathius of Antioch, Athanasius and Cyril, among others),³⁴ especially during and after the Arian controversy of the 4th century AD. Because of this interpretation, many authors have regarded this verse as a Christian interpolation.³⁵ In Baruch, however, wisdom is not thought of as a person but as “the book of the commandments of God”, namely, the Law. In Baruch, in line with Deuteronomy (4:5 – 14) and Ben Sira (24:23), the Wisdom which God gives to Israel is identified with the book of the Law (Torah) as divine revelation and connected closely with life: “She is the book of the commandments of God and the law which lasts forever; all those who reach her will have life, those who forsake her will die” (4:1).³⁶ The antithetical word pair life-death, frequent in the instructions of Proverbs, is to be understood here along the lines of the covenant, that is, referring to the salvation or destruction of Israel. Thus, faithfulness to the Law becomes decisive, that is, a matter of life and death.

3.3 Final summons (4:2 – 4) Following the surprising revelation of 4:1, the author suddenly addresses Israel with a lively exhortation which refers, by contrast, to the beginning of our poem. If the introduction of 3:9 – 14 presented the situation of Israel in exile, a people “dead” because of sin, the poem now culminates with a summons to joy and happiness. 4:2

Return, O Jacob, and welcome her, walk in the brightness of her light. 3 Do not give your glory to others or your privileges to a foreign people. 4 Blessed are we, O Israel, because what is pleasing to God has been revealed to us.³⁷

 Cf. Cavalcanti, Osservazioni,  – .  Marko Marttila doubts the authenticity of : because its content does not fit in with Baruch’s thought. In fact, the verse contradicts the concept of wisdom as a divine gift exclusive to Israel. Cf. Marttila, Deuteronomistic Ideology, .  The relationship between the Torah and life resounds strongly in Pirqe Abot. Here is the teaching of the Jewish masters on this subject: “The one who has much Torah, has much life; whoever gains a good reputation, gains it for himself; but whoever gains the words of the Torah, gains eternal life” (II:). “The Torah is great because it gives life to those who observe it, in this world and in the world to come (VI:).  Literally: “and known by us” (hēmin gnōsta estin). Note the inclusion with : (gnōnai).

164

Nuria Calduch-Benages

The three imperatives of 3:9 – 14 (hear, lend your ear and learn) are matched by another three imperatives in 4:2 (return, welcome her and walk), which express the movement of return to the law and the urgency of conversion.³⁸ In order to attain wisdom, the chosen people (Jacob-Israel, cf. 3:37) must welcome the Law and allow themselves to be guided by its teachings. The Law, described as a shining light,³⁹ constitutes the glory of Israel; a glory which is to be recognised and preserved, and never given to foreign nations (“to others”). The final macarism (4:4) proclaims that the happiness of Israel consists in knowing the divine will, expressed in the book of the Law (“what is pleasing to God”). The chosen people (“we”) declare themselves blessed because they know what is pleasing to God. And it is at this point that we are reconnected with the beginning of our passage because, in fact, this blessedness depends on knowing how to hear and put into practice the commandments of the Lord (3:9, “the commandments of life”), that is, the law which lasts forever. Only the listening which is transformed into obedience becomes fruitful and renders one blessed.

4 The Choice of the Lectionary (Bar 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4) After having commented on the sapiential exhortation of Baruch 3:9 – 4:4 just as it appears in our Bibles, we would now like to examine the passage proposed by the Roman Catholic Lectionary as the sixth reading in the second part of the Easter Vigil (the Liturgy of the Word). What we have here is Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4, that is, a somewhat abbreviated version of the biblical text.⁴⁰ Why this abbreviation? To what criterion does it respond? Was there any real need to shorten the passage? Before answering these questions, it is worth remembering that the lectionary does not provide an exegetical reading of the biblical texts but rather a liturgical one in which, as Renato De Zan explains, “the law of ‘the whole’ (the Paschal mystery)” dominates “in the part (of each individual biblical reality)”.⁴¹

 Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, .  Cf. Isa :; Ps :; Wis :.  In the Lectionary before , the passage was still shorter: Bar : – . However, between  and  it wasn’t read at all, because the number of readings had been reduced to four.  De Zan, Leggere,  (translation ours). For a more extensive treatment of the liturgical reading, cf. the same author’s, ‘Molteplici tesori’.

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

165

Faithful to this law, the liturgy performs two fundamental operations. The first consists of adjusting the biblical pericopes and the second in recontextualizing them within a ritual programme proper to each celebration. We shall now concern ourselves with the first operation in so far as it involves Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4. The abbreviation conducted by the Lectionary concerns 3:16 – 31, a good sixteen verses which belong to the extensive reflection on the inaccessibility of Wisdom (3:15 – 31), what we have called the negative phase of the discourse. It should be noted, however, that, according to our presentation, the aforesaid reflection does not begin in v. 16 but in v. 15.⁴² But since the double question of v. 15 (“Who has discovered her dwelling, who has gone into her storehouses?”) poses the fundamental issue of the entire passage, it cannot be separated from the subsequent answers. For this reason, the Lectionary keeps v. 15. It omits, however, vv. 16 – 31 (the negative answer) so as to be able to connect the question of v. 15 directly with 3:32– 4:1 (the positive answer). In other words, by eliminating those intermediate passages which slow down the appearance of the definitive answer, all the weight falls on the figure of the Creator of the universe, the one who knows everything and can do everything, the one who is the fountain of wisdom. In the last resort, the liturgical reading of Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4 prepares the hearer so that, fully engaged within the liturgical context of the Easter Vigil, his or her gaze is directed as quickly as possible on Jesus, the Wisdom of God, the light and life of humanity.

5 Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4 in the Context of the Easter Vigil We come on now to consider the second liturgical operation mentioned previously, namely, the recontextualization of the biblical pericopes. For the Easter Vigil, the Lectionary provides nine biblical readings, seven from the Old Testament and two from the New, and these are “a compendium of the fundamental moments in the history of salvation”.⁴³ Among these readings, there is an order of precedence.⁴⁴ After the first three (Gen 1:1– 2:2; Gen 22:1– 18; Exod 14:15 – 15:1),

 This opinion is shared by the majority of authors. For J.R. Busto Saiz, however, : –  is the first of the five strophes of which the poem is made up. Cf. Busto Saiz, Baruc , – ,,  – .  Bonneau, Lezionario domenicale, .  If one has to reduce the number of readings for pastoral reasons, it is possible to have three Old Testament readings, and, in more urgent cases, only two. However, the Lectionary warns

166

Nuria Calduch-Benages

which are held to be essential because they recall the foundational events of the history of salvation, there follow the prophetic texts with Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4 among them. Placed after the two Isaianic texts (Isa 54:5 – 14 and 55:1– 11) and before Ezek 36:16 – 28, the Baruch passage occupies third place among the prophetic readings. In this way, representation is given to the three great prophets of the exile: Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah (through Baruch) and Ezekiel.⁴⁵ Each in its own way, the four prophetic texts announce a divine promise of salvation and a new covenant after the drama of the exile. In Isa 54:1– 17, the Lord transforms his city-spouse, afflicted, shaken and distressed, into the new Jerusalem and, in so doing, confirms his will to maintain forever the covenant that he has established. In Isa 55:1– 11, this eternal covenant is extended to all those who, after the experience of the desert, return to the Lord and are converted. In Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4, the gift of the Law becomes a sure guide which lights up the pathway and leads to life. Finally, in Ezek 36:16 – 28, the text par excellence of reconciliation, the Lord gathers up the scattered people of Israel, uses water to purify them clean from all their sins, and grants them a “new heart” and a “new spirit”. After this interior renewal, the Lord pronounces the covenant formula, “You shall be my people and I will be your God” (v. 28), which acts as a conclusion to the prophetic passages. “In the context of the Vigil—asserts Normand Bonneau—these passages proclaim the realisation, in the death and resurrection of Jesus, of the promises of God for all peoples and for all times”.⁴⁶ Let us return to our passage in this new literary-theological context. The reading of Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4 is introduced into the Lectionary with the title, “In the radiance of the Lord, make your way to light” which condenses in a single sentence the main theme of the biblical passage. On the one hand, the imperative “walk/make your way” is there to indicate the exhortatory tone of the poem; on the other hand, the expression “in the radiance of the Lord … to light” highlights the thematic harmony between the Old Testament and the New. In fact, the title is slightly modifying the wording of Baruch 4:2b: “walk in the brightness of her light” referring to Wisdom so as to be able to apply it

that the Exodus reading on the crossing of the Red Sea “must always be read” (Lectionary I, ), because it is the most important Old Testament passage chosen for the Vigil.  Bonneau, Lezionario domenicale, : “If, for pastoral reasons, the four prophetic texts cannot be proclaimed […] for year B, the sixth reading suggests itself, since there the prophet Baruch tackles themes similar to those emphasised in the second readings of the Sundays in Eastertide dealt with in the First Letter of John” (translation ours).  Bonneau, Lezionario domenicale,  (translation ours).

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

167

to the Lord. In this way, the Christological reading of the sapiential instruction is being suggested. Our passage, like the rest of “the passages of the Old Testament which are proclaimed in the light of Christ which consumes the Paschal candle not only recall the story of which Jesus is the protagonist but continue to this day all that the risen Christ did one day with the disciples on the road to Emmaus: ‘and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself’ (Luke 24:27)”.⁴⁷ Let us add a final observation on the relationship between the text of Baruch and the baptismal rites which are celebrated in the Easter Vigil. If, in the fifth (Isa 55:1– 11) and seventh reading (Ezek 36:16 – 28),⁴⁸ it is the image of water which stands out, in the sixth (Bar 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4), what dominates is, as we have just mentioned, the figure of light. In the Christian tradition, both images evoke baptism which is mentioned explicitly and not by chance in the prayer after the text of Baruch and its Responsorial Psalm: “O God, who constantly increase your Church by your call to the nations, graciously grant to those you wash clean in the waters of Baptism the assurance of your unfailing protection. Through Christ our Lord”.⁴⁹ The light of Wisdom becomes the light of the risen Christ which we receive in order to be, in our turn, light for the world.

6 Conclusion In Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32– 4:4, divine Wisdom is identified with the Law and has come on the earth to set up her dwelling among us. Jesus, living Word of God (cf. John 1:1– 18), did the same. Just like Wisdom, Jesus, as gift of the Father, is identified with the Law, light, and life of humankind. For Baruch, to follow Wisdom (to observe the Law) is to live; to reject her, on the other hand, is to die. Similarly, to follow Jesus and his gospel is to welcome life; to spurn it is to set out on a way that leads inexorably to death. In imitation of Baruch, who concluded his exhortation with a sapiential macarism (4:4), we shall conclude with a Paschal beatitude: “Blessed are we and all those to whom has been revealed Jesus Christ, Wisdom of God and salvation for humanity” (cf. 1 Cor 1:22– 24).⁵⁰

 Bonneau, Lezionario domenicale,  (translation ours).  So too in the respective responsorial psalms (Isa : – , “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation”, and Ps :, “My soul is yearning for you, my God”).  Cf., also, the prayer after the reading of Ezek : –  and its responsorial psalm.  Cf. Calduch-Benages, Perfume,  – .

168

Nuria Calduch-Benages

Bibliography Adams, Sean A., Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. A Commentary Based on the Texts of Codex Vaticanus (SEPT) Leiden: Brill 2014. Alonso Schökel, Luis and José Luis Sicre Díaz, Profetas, II (NBE. Comentario) Madrid: Cristiandad 1980, 1311 – 1340. Anoz, José, Baruch 3,9 – 4,4: Mayéutica 7 (1981) 161 – 77. Asurmendi, Jesús M., Causes, Effects and Remedies for a Disaster, in: N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen (eds.), History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History) (DCLY 2006) Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2006, 187 – 200. Ballhorn, Egbert, Weisheit, die zur Tora führt. Die Israel-Mahnrede im Buch Baruch (Bar 3,9 – 4,4), in: U. Dahmen and J. Schnocks (eds.), Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit. Herrschaft—Widerstand—Identität. Festschrift für Heinz-Joseph Fabry (BBB 159) Göttingen/Bonn: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and Bonn University Press 2010, 259 – 80. Ballhorn, Egbert, Vom Sekretär des Jeremia zum schriftgelehrten Weisen. Die Figur des Baruch und die kanonische Einbindung des Buches, in: T. Hieke (ed.), Formen des Kanons. Studien zu Ausprägungen des biblischen Kanons von der Antike bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (SBS 228) Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2013, 209 – 24. Bargellini, Francesco, La Torah e la Sapienza in Bar 3,9 – 4,4: Quale rapporto?: Rivista Biblica 60 (2012) 475 – 92. Bonnard, Paul-Émile, Sagesse dans le livre de Baruch (Ba 3,9 – 4,4), in: Idem, La sagesse en personne annoncée et venue: Jésus Christ (LD 44) Paris: Cerf 1966, 81 – 88. Bonneau, Normand, Il lezionario domenicale. Origine, struttura, teologia, Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2012. Busto Saiz, José Ramón, Baruc 3,9 – 4,4: estructura y contenido, in: A. Vargas Machuca and G. Ruiz González (eds.), Palabra y Vida. Homenaje a J. Alonso Díaz (Publicaciones de la Pontificia Universidad de Comillas. Serie I. Estudios 28. Teología I.15) Madrid: UPCM 1984, 121 – 29. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5 – 5:9), in: H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2008) Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2009, 147 – 64. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, The Perfume of the Gospel: Jesus’ Encounters with Women (Theologia 8), Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press 2012. Calduch-Benages, Nuria, ‘Beati siamo noi’: La Sapienza di Israele, dono di Dio e luce per l’umanità (Bar 3,9 – 15.32 – 4,4), in: J.-P. Sonnet (ed.), La Bibbia si apre a Pasqua. Il lezionario della Veglia (Lectio 9) Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press 2016, 133 – 153. Cavalcanti, Elena, Osservazioni sull’uso patristico di Baruch 3,36 – 38, in: Memorial Dom Jean Gribomont 1920 – 1986 (Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum 27) Rome: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum” 1988, 145 – 65. Conti, Martino, La sapienza personificata negli elogi veterotestamentari (Pr 8; Gb 28; Sir 24; Bar 3; Sap 7) (SPAA 36) Rome: Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum 2001, 127 – 52. Corley, Jeremy, Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch, in: R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley (eds.), Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul (DCLY 2011) Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 225 – 51.

The Baruch Reading at the Easter Vigil (Baruch 3:9 – 15; 3:32 – 4:4)

169

De Zan, Roberto, I molteplici tesori dell’unica parola”. Introduzione al Lezionario e alla lettura liturgica della Bibbia (Dabar-logos-parola) Padua: Messaggero 2008. De Zan, Roberto, Leggere la Bibbia nella Liturgia: Rivista Liturgica 6 (2001) 869 – 80. Fischer, Georg, Baruch, Jeremiah’s Secretary?, in: E. Tigchelaar (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (BETL 270) Leuven: Peeters 2014, 137 – 55. Grätz, Sebastian, ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Torah’ in the Book of Baruch, in: B.U. Schipper and D.A. Teeter (eds.) Wisdom and Torah. The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 163) Leiden: Brill 2013, 187 – 201. Harrelson, Walter, Wisdom Hidden and Revealed according to Baruch (Baruch 3.9 – 4.4), in: E.C. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll, and P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (JSOTSup 149) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1992, 158 – 71. Hogan, Karina M., Covenantal Wisdom: Sirach and Baruch 3:9 – 4,4, in Eadem, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra (JSJSup 130) Leiden: Brill 2008, 71 – 100. Kabasele Mukenge, André, L’unité littéraire du Livre de Baruch (Études Bibliques 38) Paris: J. Gabalda 1998. Lectionary I: Proper of Seasons; Sundays in Ordinary Time, London: Collins 1981. Lüdy, José Hector, Daniel, Baruc, Carta de Jeremías. Texto y Comentario (El Mensaje del Antiguo Testamento 15) Estella: Verbo Divino et al. 1995. Marttila, Marko, The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch, in: H. von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala and M. Marttila (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419) Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 321 – 46. Moore, Carey A., Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 44) Garden City: Doubleday 1977. Neusner, Jacob, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. An Intermillennial Interfaith Exchange, New York: Doubleday 1993. Nicklas, Tobias, Schöpfungstheologie im Buch Baruch: Bedeutung und Funktion, in: T. Niklas and K. Zamfir (eds.), Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity in Honour of Hans Klein (DCLS 6) Berlin: de Gruyter 2010, 81 – 93. Reiterer, Friedrich V., Verstehst du die Tugenden der Klugheit? Anfrangen zu Gott und zum Wert der von Ihm geschenkten Einsicht, in: G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books. Selected Studies (DCLS 5) Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2010, 77 – 125. Schreiner, Josef, Baruch, in: H. Gross and J. Schreiner, Klagelieder. Baruch (Die Neue Echter Bibel. Altes Testament) Würzburg: Echter 1986, 43 – 84. Sheppard, Gerald T., Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct. A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW 151) Berlin: de Gruyter 1980. Simian-Yofre, Horacio, Jerusalem as Mother in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9, in: A. Passaro (ed.), Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2012/2013) Berlin: de Gruyter 2013, 363 – 76. Steck, Odil Hannes, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zur Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Steck, Odil Hannes, Israels Gesetz statt fremder Weisheit. Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Hi 28 in Bar 3,9 – 4,4, in: I. Kottsieper, J. van Oorschot, D. Römheld and H.M. Wahl (eds.), ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?’ Studien zur Theologie und

170

Nuria Calduch-Benages

Religionsgeschichte Israels, FS O. Kaiser, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1994, 457 – 71. Swart, Gerhard, Listen, Learn, Live: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of Baruch 3:9 – 37, in: R. Egger-Wenzel, K. Schöpflin and J.F. Diehl (eds.), Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag (DCLS 15) Berlin: de Gruyter 2013, 345 – 57. de Vos, Jacobus Cornelis, ‘You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom?’. The Function of Law in Baruch 3:9 – 4:4: ZABR 13 (2007) 176 – 86.

Contributors Sean A. Adams is Lecture in New Testament and Ancient Culture at the University of Glasgow, UK. David G. Burke is Dean Emeritus of the Eugene A. Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship (ABS) in the USA. Nuria Calduch-Benages is Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, Italy. Johanna Erzberger is a Feodor Lynen Research Fellow of the Humboldt Foundation at the Department of Old Testament Studies at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Georg Fischer SJ holds the chair for Old Testament and Oriental Languages at the Theological Faculty of the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Michael H. Floyd is formerly Professor of Old Testament at the Seminary of the Southwest, Austin, Texas and Centro de Estudios Teológicos, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Ruth M. Henderson is an Honorary Research Scholar at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. Géza G. Xeravits, Professor of Old Testament, Selye J. University, Komárno, SK.

Author Index Abrams, M.H. 99 Ackroyd, P.R. 28, 71 Adams, S.A. 3, 5, 9, 11, 57, 62, 64, 65, 79, 80, 81, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 156 Alonso Schökel, L. 69, 70, 89, 92, 154, 155, 159 Andersen, F.I. 44, 46, 107 Anoz, J. 155, 156, 157 Assas-Dhôte, I. 93 Asurmendi, J.M. 17, 19, 154 Ballhorn, E. 9, 18, 19, 20, 21, 153 Baltzer, K. 67 Bargellini, F. 156, 157, 161 Barr, J. 64 Barrera, J.T. 143 Barstad, H. 66 Bartelmus, R. 13, Beentjes, P.C. 35 Begrich, J. 107 Bernstein, M.L. 127 Biddle, M. E. 67 Binder, D.D. 25, 36, 40 Bissell, E.C. 144 Blenkinsopp, J. 122 Boase, E. 74 Bonnard, P.-É. 162 Bonneau, N. 165, 166, 167 Branham, J.R. 37 Bratcher, R.G. 145, 146 Brettler, M.Z. 57 Bromiley, G.W. 146 Bullard, R.A. 149, 150 Burke, D. 3, 30, 33, 61, 62, 64, 100, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 122, 123, 124, 135, 138, 141, 142, 148, 149 Busto Saiz, J.R. 165 Calduch-Benages, N. 3, 15, 18, 68, 69, 70, 71, 82, 89, 90, 92, 153, 155, 167 Cavalcanti, E. 163 Chapman, S.B. 35 Charles, R.H. 136, 140, 149 Cohen, C. 68

Conrad, E.W. 107 Conti, M. 157 Corley, J. 17, 20, 153 Danker, F.W. 143 Davila, J.R. 64 De Zan, R. 164 Dempster, S.G. 35 Ellingworth, P. 145 Erzberger, J. 3 Eslinger, L. 98 Evans, C.A. 97 Ewald, H. 138, 147 Feuerstein, R. 7, 20, 21, 30 Fine, S. 37, 39 Fischer, G. 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 70, 153 Fitzgerald, A. 62 Fitzmyer, J.A. 127 Floyd, M. 2, 34, 40 Fraade, S.D. 62, 150 Freedman, D.N. 107 Fritzsche, O.F. 138, 144 Gifford, E.H. 136 Goldstein, J.A. 33 Goodspeed, E.J. 145 Grätz, S. 158 Gray, G.B. 140 Haag, E. 19, 21 Harner, P.B. 107 Harrelson, W. 156 Harwell, R.R. 148 Hatch, E. 140 Hatton, H.A. 149, 150 Häusl, M. 15, Hebel, U.J. 98 Heinisch, P. 61 Henderson, R. 3, 57, 58, 64, 65, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 92, 103, 106, 107, 109, 111, 117, 119, 120, 122, 124 Hogan, K.M. 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 156

174

Author Index

Howard, G.E. 139 Hughes, J.A. 97, 98 Hylen, S. 98 Janzen, W. 52 Jellicoe, S. 141 Jeppesen, K. 66, 67 Jones, S.C. 46, 47, 48 Kabasele Mukenge, A. 11, 15, 30, 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 79, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89, 92, 100, 101, 102, 108, 130, 131, 155, 156, 160, 161, 164 Kasher, A. 37 Kautzsch, E. 138 Kneucker, J.J. 73, 135, 138, 139, 148 Knibb, M.A.. 33 Knox, R. 145 Kuhn, K.G. 140 Lange, A. 97 Levine, L.I. 37, 39 Lipinski, E.. 36 Loader, J.A. 97, 109 Lüdy, J.H. 155 Lundbom, J.R. 108 Martilla, M. 17, 18, 43, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61, 97, 163 Matthews, C.R. 74 Mays, A.D.H. 48, 56 McKane, W. 108 McKay, H. 39 Merendino, R.P. 122 Methuen, C. 68 Metzger, B.M. 127 Meyer, E.M. 39 Meyer, I. 16, Meynet, R. 97, 98 Michael, T.S.L. 136, 147, 148, 150 Milani, M. 21 Miller, P.D. 49 Moatti-Fine, J. 93 Moffat, J. 145

Moore, C.A. 34, 43, 44, 47, 54, 55, 61, 62, 72, 75, 80, 100, 112, 135, 136, 137, 145, 148, 150, 156, 157, 160 Moyise, S. 98 Neusner, J. 158 Newsome, C.A. 43, 48, 57 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 135, 136 Nicklas, T. 131, 162 Norton, D. 142, 143 Nurmela, R. 16 Orlinsky, H.M.

145, 146

Pakkala, J. 61, 97 Paul, S. 124 Perdue, L.G. 7 Porter, S. E. 97, 98 Redpath, H.A. Reiterer, F.V. Richardson, P. Rossi, B. 13 Rost, L. 62 Rothstein, W. Rowley, H.H.

140 156, 161 37

138, 148 47, 56

Saldarini, A.J. 26, 43, 44, 50, 56 Scalise, P.J. 5, Schreiner, J. 17, 156 Sheppard, G.T. 46, 47, 131, 161 Sicre Díaz, J.L. 154, 155, 159 Silva, M. 139 Simian-Yofre, H. 15, 65, 155 Smith, J.Z. 38 Smith, M.S. 70 Smith, W.M. 146 Soderlund, S.K. 144 Sommer, B.D. 98 Stanley, C.D. 97 Steck, O.H. 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 33, 43, 45, 57, 62, 64, 65, 69, 72, 79, 80, 82, 86, 93, 100, 101, 131, 135, 136, 138, 149, 155, 156, 159 Stephens, F. 5 Stipp, H.-J. 5, 7, 10, 16, 17 Stulman, L. 19

Author Index

Stuhlmüller, C. 149 Swart, G. 157 Taylor, B.A. 139 Tenney, M.C. 98 Thackeray, H.St.J. 61, 62, 84, 135, 138, 149 Tov, E. 64, 69, 135, 149 van der Horst, P.W. 39 van Gennep, A. 38 de Vos, C.J. 21, 158 Waltke, B.K. 49 Weber, R. 141 Weigold, M. 97 Weinfeld, M. 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57

175

Weiser, A. 62 Weissenberg, H. 61, 97 Westermann, C. 44, 107 de Wette, W.M.L. 138 Wevers, J.W. 143 Whitehouse, O.C. 73, 135, 136, 138, 140, 148, 149 Willey, P.T. 66 Wilshire, L.E. 66 Witte, M. 49, 56 Würthwein, E. 143, 144 Xeravits, G.

3, 62, 75, 97, 109, 128

Zacharias, H.D. 97 Ziegler, J. 64, 140, 143

Index of Ancient Sources Old Testament Genesis 1:1–2:2    165 6    131 6:4    46 22:1–18    165 27:7    38 49:26    127 Exodus 2:7    11, 103 14:13    99, 115 14:15–15:1    165 20:20    99 34:7    118 Leviticus 26    131 26:14–39    35 26:29    130 26:40–45    35 Numbers 13:28    161 13:33–34    46 Deuteronomy 1:28    161 2:10–11    161 2:20–21    161 4    3, 43, 44, 46, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57 4:1–40    57, 58 4:1–8    49, 57 4:1    49, 50, 158 4:2    52, 56 4:5–6    53 4:6–8    48, 53, 55 4:6    50 4:8    50 4:19–22    57 4:26–29    52 4:26–28    53 4:29–31    53

4:32–40    49, 53 4:32    53 4:33    53 4:35–37    55 4:35–36    53, 56 4:35    55, 57 4:37    55, 57 4:38    57 4:39    57 4:40    48, 50 5:1    49, 158 6:4    49, 158 6:25    113 7:8    55 9:1    49 9:12    48 9:16    48 11:22    48 11:28    48 20:3    49 23:5    55 28    35, 101, 109, 131 28:10    116 28:41    106, 109 28:49–50    83 28:49    108 28:53    130 28:54–56    117 28:61    50, 51 28:68    101 29:10    38 29:20    50, 51 30    3, 35, 43, 44, 54, 56, 131 30:1–5    29 30:10    50, 51 30:11    50 30:12–15    54 30:12–13    54, 55, 161 30:15    48, 50 30:16    158 31:26    50, 51 31:29    48

32    102, 104, 131 32:1–21    81 32:15–21    81, 87, 88 32:15–16    103, 104 32:15    81 32:16    81 32:17    81, 103 32:18    81, 104, 105 32:19    81, 104 32:20    105 32:21–26    105 32:21    102, 104 32:27    102, 104 32:30    102, 104 33:3    55 33:29    51, 52, 116 34:8    114 Joshua 1:8    50, 51 8:34    50, 51 24:1    38 24:26b    38 Judges 19:12–30    139 1 Samuel 2:8    140 15:22    139 2 Samuel 21:20    46 1 Kings 1:20    137 1:27    137 8:24    139 9:5    137 10:18    137

178 

 Index of Ancient Sources

2 Kings 22:8    50, 51 22:11    50, 51 24:13    17 24:18–25:30    14, 19 25:9    20 25:13–17    8 25:14    27 25:27    16 1 Chronicles 3:16–17    16 3:16    16 11:3    38 18:5    140 22:10    137, 140 2 Chronicles 7:18    140 20:1–20    36 34:15    50, 51 34:24    110 36:8–9    16 36:15    13 Ezra 1:7–11    8, 28 8:21–23    35 9:1–10:1    35 Nehemiah 8:3    50, 51 8:13–9:37    40 9:1–37    36 9:1–3    39 Esther 1:1    16 1:2    137, 140 2:6    16 4:3    105 4:7    110, 123 4:17    124 5:1    137, 140 7:4    101 9:22    114

Job   11, 109 4:20    110 5:17    52 20:14    110 24:2    117 28    3, 30, 43, 44, 46, 56, 131, 159 28:1–11    44, 46 28:12–29    44 28:12–28    43, 44, 45 28:12–20    3, 46 28:12–19    46, 55 28:12    44, 47 28:13–19    44 28:13    44, 46 28:14    44 28:15–19    44 28:20–28    45 28:20–27    44 28:20    44, 45, 47 28:23–27    162 28:23    44, 45 28:24–26    45, 47 28:24    47 28:25–26    47 28:25    45 28:26    45 28:27    45 28:28    45, 47, 48 29:14    124 34:27    83, 107 38:1    47 Psalms 1:1    52 2:10    63 2:12    52 3:8    63 5:2    63 6:3    63 6:5    63 7:7    63 7:9    63 7:12    118 9:14    63 9:20    63 9:33    63

11:2    63 12:4    63 12:6    113 13:6    113 15:1    63 16:1    63 16:13    63 19:9    164 19:10    63 20:14    63 23:5    114 24:4    63 24:5    114 25:1    63 25:2    63 26:7    63 26:11    63 29:9    112 30:9    112 30:10    63 32:1–2    52 33:12    52 34:8    52 34:1    63 34:19    107 34:23    63 34:24    107 36:39–40    115 37:16    107 37:39–40    115 38:5    63 39:14    63 39:17    63 40:4    52 40:11    63, 107 41:1    52, 167 43:27    63 44:11    63 50:20    63 54:10    63 55:2    63 65:4    52 68:17    63 77:40–41    102 84:4–5    52 84:12    52 85:1    63



85:3    63, 113 85:6    63 85:11    63 86:3    113 88:51    63 89:13    63 89:15    52 89:17    116 90:17    116 92:1    124 93:1    124 94:12    52 95:12    128 96:12    128 101:2    63 102:17    129 103:17    129 103:1    124 104:1    124 104:27–28    12 105:4    63 105:47    63 106:3    52, 123 107:3    123 108:26    63 108:29    124 109:3    116 109:29    124 110:3    116 112:1    52 114:1    112 114:2    112 116:2    112 118:33    63 118:149    63 119:1–2    52 122:3    63 124:4    63 125:4    63 127:5    52 128:1–2    52 131:1, 8    63 136:7–8    74 136:7    63 137:1    36 137:4    63 137:8–9    52

Old Testament 

139:2    63 139:5    63 139:7    63 140:3    63 142:3    116 142:7    63 143:3    116 144:10    63 144:15    52 145:15–16    12 146:5    52 147:1    63 Proverbs 1:4    49 1:8    63, 158 2:8    48 3:13–18    159 3:13    51, 52 4    131 4:1    49, 63, 158 4:6    48 4:10    49, 63, 158 4:11    48 4:13    48 5:7    49, 63, 158 6:3    63 6:20    48, 63 6:23    48, 50 7:1    63 7:24    63 8    43 8:22–23    158 8:32–33    49 8:32    52, 63 8:34    52 14:21    52 14:31    103 16:20    52 17:5    103 19:20    63 20:7    52 23:19    63 23:22    63 23:26    63 24:13    63 25:20    16

26:23    16 27:11    63 28:14    52 30:1    63 30:5–6    52 31:26    124 Ecclesiastes 10:17    52 Isaiah 1:2    63 1:8    71 1:21–26    69 2:5    164 4:5    127 6:11    112 8:9    63 9:3    139 11:11    73 12:2–6    167 13:1–22    74 13:20–21    121 14:3–22    74 14:3    121 14:13    137 21:9    74 22:23    140 23:4    63 23:10    68 24    112 24:12    112 25:9    113 26:13    63 26:15    63 26:20    111 30:30    124 33:2    63 34–35    74 34:10–14    122 34:10    122 34:11    122 34:14    122 35:10    123 37:17    63 38:3    63 38:18    113

 179

180 

 Index of Ancient Sources

39:8    112 40–55    61 40–66    57, 119, 131 40:1    63, 119 40:2    63, 66, 69 40:4–5    87, 126, 127 40:4    86, 117 40:9    125, 127, 136 42:13    113 43:5–6    73 43:5    123, 135 44:23    128 45:1–7    32 45:2    127 47    73, 74, 117 47:1–15    74 47:1    66 47:6    74 47:7    74 47:8–9    68, 74 47:11    74 47:14    74 48:18    125 49–55    66 49    82, 122 49:13    128 49:14–50:1    66, 67 49:14–23    66 49:14–15    103 49:14    71 49:15a    66, 67 49:17    73 49:18    73, 86, 122, 126 49:19    71 49:21    68, 82, 83, 106, 110, 111 49:22    71, 73, 126, 135, 148 49:25    71 49:26    73 50:1–3    66 50:1    66, 68, 69, 101 51:9–11    66 51:9    63 51:11    123 51:12–16    66 51:17    63, 66, 69, 125, 136 51:18    71

52:1–12    66 52:1–2    66, 72, 112, 123 52:1    63, 86, 123 52:2    125 52:3    66 52:10    71, 115 52:11–12    66 52:11    63 54:1–17    66 54:1    63 54:3    73 54:4–7    68 54:4–6    107 54:4    83 54:5–14    166 54:6    107 54:7–8a    66, 69 55:1–11    166, 167 58:8    12 59:16b–17a    129 60:1–22    66 60:1–2    12 60:1    63 60:2–3    116 60:3    116, 125 60:4    71, 122, 123, 126, 135, 136 60:5–7    73 60:9    71, 135 60:12    121 60:17    125 61:10    86, 124 62:1–12    66 62:2–4    125 62:2    119, 125 62:4    112, 125 62:11–12    71 66    114 66:12    71, 126 66:19    114 66:20    135, 138 Jeremiah 1–25    19 1:1–3    19 1:1    17, 154 1:3    14

1:4    19 1:9    13 1:10    13 2:3    159 2:11    12 2:13    10 2:20–24    10 2:20    11 2:25    117 2:29    10 3:5    11 3:12    11 3:17    14 3:18    16 4:6    110 4:11–18    67 4:14    69 4:18    69 4:27    81 4:30–31    69 4:31    71 5:1–5    18 5:7    67 5:10    81 5:14    11, 13 5:15–17    108 5:18    81 5:22    10 6:2–8    67 6:6    69 6:13    18 6:19    110 6:22–26    108 6:26    105, 110 7    15 7:2    19 7:3    21 7:5–6    21 7:9    21 7:10    15 7:11    14 7:13    13 7:16    13 7:23–38    10 7:25    13 8:1    131 9:1    12



9:9    12 10    10 10:6–7    10 10:10    11 10:12    10 11:7–8    10 11:7    13 11:11    110 11:14    13 11:23    110 12:7    12 12:8    12 12:14–16    18 13:16    12 13:20    122 13:25–27    69 14:11    13 14:17    12 14:21    12, 140 15:1    13, 17 15:16 16:13    10 17:12    12, 140 17:13    10 17:25    18 18:15    108 19:3    110 19:9    130 20:1–3    14 20:9    13 22:2    18 22:24    16 22:28    16 23:5–6    18 23:12    110 23:23    13 23:24    10 23:28    13 23:29    13 24:1    16 24:4–7    35 24:5    88 25    19 25:3    13 25:4    13 25:6    120 25:9    29

Old Testament 

25:11    29 25:17–23    8 25:29    120 25:30    13 26    14 26:5    13 27:5    161 27:6–14    17 27:11    120 27:12    131 27:16–22    8 27:20    16 27:32    122 27:42    122 28:3    8 28:14    161 28:32    122 28:35    71 29    7 29:1–7    32 29:1    17, 154 29:7    13, 17 29:11    13 29:19    13 29:21    120 30:2    17 30:9    18 30:18    14 31:2    121 31:3    10 31:10    105 31:13    106 31:20    10, 13 31:23    14 31:28    120 31:33    114 32:12    5, 27 32:14    5 32:15    120 32:29    120 32:33    13 32:40    10 32:42    111 32:44    14 33:1–18    74 33:6    14 33:11    114

33:14    16 33:15–17    18 33:20–21    18 33:25–26    18 33:26    10 34:12    131 34:20    16 35:4    16 35:14–15    13 36    19 36:1    154 36:2    16 36:4    5 36:5–6    5 36:8    5 36:9–10    5 36:13–19    5 36:19    5 36:26    5 36:32    6 37:1    16 38:10    105 38:13    106 38:28    120 39    19 39:42    111 40–44    19 40:7    161 40:11    114 41–43    7 42    6 42:1–7    13 42:6–7    6 42:7    6 42:12    10 43    6 43:2–3    6 43:6–7    27 43:6    7 44:3    10 44:4    13 44:27    120 45    6 45:3    6 45:4–5    6 45:5    110 46:26    18

 181

182 

 Index of Ancient Sources

48:2    121 48:18    12 48:26    18 48:32    12 48:33    114 48:47    18 49:6    18 49:21    120 49:39    18 50–51    18 50:11    120 50:32    122 50:42    122 51:1–58    74 51:5    68 51:27    120 51:32    122 51:34–35    74 51:35    74, 110 51:59–64    27 51:59    6, 27 52    14, 19 52:13    14 52:13–23    14 52:29    7 52:30    7 52:31    16 Lamentations 1    67, 82, 89 1:1    83 1:2    69 1:8    69 1:12–16    71 1:12    64, 65, 82 1:18–22    71 1:18    64, 65, 105, 109 2    67 2:22    106 3:21–25    72 3:31    72 3:40–42    72 4    67 4:16    69 4:21–22    74 4:21    68 4:22    72 5:15    106

Ezekiel 1:2    7, 16 1:26    137 3:6    108 8–9    12 10:1    137 16:1–63    67 16:15–22    69 23:2–4    69 23:11    69 26:15    120 26:18    120 27:27    120 28:3–5    161 31:13    120 31:16    120 32:10    120 35:4    121 36:16–28    166, 167 Daniel 2:38    161 7    33, 34 9    30, 57 9:1–3    29 9:4b–19    130 9:13    130 9:18    130 12:3    116 13:35    11 13:42    11 Hosea 2:3    139 2:5–7    67 2:5    139 2:15    139 2:17    139 7:13    120 8:3    116 9:7    120 9:9    139 9:15    12 12:9    139 Joel 2:21–23    100, 119, 121 2:21    63

2:22    99 2:23    100 Amos   11, 106 8:10    106, 110 Obadiah 8–9    161 Micah 1:16    83, 117 7:8    107 Nahum 3:7    120 Habakkuk 3:18    114 Zephaniah 3:1–20    67 3:14–21    72 3:14    72 3:15b    111 3:16    72, 119 3:17    118 Haggai    11 2:5    99 Zechariah    11 1:12    29 2:13    121 3–4    32 6:13    137 7–8    40 8    99 8:7    123 8:13–15    99 8:13    16, 99 8:15    99 12–14    34 13:2    118 14:12    120 14:14    120 Malachi    11



Septuagint and Apocrypha 

Septuagint and Apocrypha 1 Kingdoms 4:3    111 12:10    111 12:11    111 2 Kingdoms 17:14    110 19:10    111 22:1    111 3 Kingdoms 20:21    110 20:29    110 4 Kingdoms 6:28–29    130 20:19    112 22:16    110 24:6    16 24:8    16 25:27    16

5:10    63 7:17    63 8:21    63 11:11    63 13:7–9    69 13:9    67, 69 13:10    70, 72 13:11    72 13:12    72, 73 13:13–14    72 13:16–18    72 1 Maccabees 1    33 1:39–40    105 1:39    106 3:35    101 9:41    106 10:53    137 2 Maccabees    11

1 Esdras 1:9    16 1:32    16 8:89    16

Wisdom of Solomon 9    43 18:4    164 18:15    137

Additions to Esther C 3 124 C 13    123 C 25    110

Sirach 1    43 1:1–10    45 1:5    158 1:9–10    45 1:18–19    159 2:4b    116 2:12    108 3:1    63 3:12    63 4:22    45 6:23    63 6:33    158 16:24    63 23:7    63 24    21, 35, 43, 131 24:23    50, 51, 163

Judith 4:9    113 4:12    113 4:15    113 6:18    113 7:30    99 9:1    113 10:3    124 11:7    161 Tobit 2:6    106

31:22    63 32:7    63 33:8    39 33:19    63 36:1–12    73 36:1    63 36:11    63 36:16    63 38:34b–39:3    35 41:14    63 45:3    124 45:5    49 47:11    140 48:24    119 Psalms of Solomon 11    30, 70, 72, 87, 93 11:2–3    72, 73 11:4–6    72 11:7    72 Baruch 1:1–4:4    74 1:1–3:8    149, 155, 158 1:1–15a    29, 155 1:1–14    1, 8, 57, 62 1:1–13    73 1:1–2    25 1:1    5, 6, 27, 73 1:2    7, 14, 20, 27 1:3–15a    25 1:3–4    7 1:3    7, 16, 19 1:4    7, 73 1:4b    37 1:5    37 1:5–10    19 1:5–6    8, 67 1:6    28 1:7    14 1:8    7, 8, 15, 27, 28 1:9    9, 14, 16, 73 1:10–14    67 1:10    8, 28

 183

184 

 Index of Ancient Sources

1:11–14    39 1:11–13    19 1:11–12    9, 32 1:11    8, 13, 17 1:12    17, 27, 28, 73 1:13    8, 10, 12, 17, 69, 154 1:14    7, 15, 19, 20, 39 1:14b    32 1:15–5:9    8, 26 1:15–3:8    1, 19, 26, 29, 30, 32, 39, 57, 62, 130, 155 1:15–2:10    29, 156 1:15    14, 19 1:17–22    154 1:17    69 1:18    10 1:19    10, 35 1:20–21a    32 1:20    9 1:21    10, 35 1:21b    32 1:22    10, 16 2    9 2:1    35 2:2–3    130 2:2    9 2:3–7a    130 2:5    69, 154 2:8    16 2:10    10 2:11–3:8    29, 155, 156 2:11    19 2:12    69 2:13    12, 154 2:14    63 2:16    17, 63 2:17    63 2:20–3:2    130 2:20–21    130 2:20    10, 12, 154 2:21–26    9 2:21    73, 131 2:24    10, 130, 131 2:26    15, 16 2:27–35    29 2:27    10, 130 2:28–29    131

2:28    9 2:29    131 2:30b–35    35 2:30b–33    32 2:31    29 2:31b    32 2:34–35    32 2:34    9 2:35    32 3–4    56 3:1    11 3:2    10, 18, 63, 69 3:4    11, 18 3:7–8    20 3:7    10, 18, 32 3:8    154 3:9–5:9    51, 148, 149, 155 3:9–4:15    51 3:9–4:4    1, 2, 3, 19, 26, 29, 30, 43, 44, 48–50, 56–58, 62, 155–57, 164 3:9–38    164 3:9–15    4, 48, 153, 164–67 3:9–14    48, 156, 157, 163, 164 3:9    20, 49, 50, 62, 63, 155–57, 159, 164 3:10–13    157, 158 3:10    57, 154 3:11    154 3:12    10, 154 3:13–14    57 3:13    48 3:14    157, 159 3:15–4:1    156, 159 3:15–38    43, 44, 48, 49 3:15–37    53, 157 3:15–31    159, 165 3:15–28    46, 53 3:15–18    44 3:15    44, 40, 159, 162, 165 3:16–31    165 3:16–21    161 3:16–18    44, 46 3:16    165 3:19    46, 163 3:20–4:4    35

3:20–21    46 3:20    46, 48 3:21    48 3:22–23    44, 46, 161 3:22    160 3:23    46, 48, 160 3:24–28    161 3:24    11, 20 3:26    44, 46 3:27–28    46 3:27    46 3:29–38    45 3:29–37    46 3:29–35    44 3:29–31    161 3:29–30    43–45, 47, 54 3:30    45, 159 3:31    161 3:32–4:4    4, 153, 164–67 3:32–4:1    159 3:32–35    10, 45 3:32–33    47 3:32    11, 44, 45 3:32a    45, 47 3:32b–35    45 3:33    45 3:34    45 3:36–37    43, 45, 48 3:36    10, 53, 55, 57, 162 3:37    10, 19, 45, 47, 53, 55, 57, 73, 164 3:38    45, 162 4–5    115 4:1–4    48, 57 4:1–3    157 4:1    10, 39, 48, 50, 51, 163 4:2–4    156, 163 4:2–3    57 4:2    48, 63, 164, 166 4:3–4    53 4:3    53 4:4    51–53, 156, 147, 164, 167 4:5–5:9    1, 3, 19, 26, 29, 30, 32, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 69, 75, 80, 91, 93, 94, 97, 129, 137, 155



4:5–5:6    79 4:5–29    80, 97, 135 4:5–20    62 4:5–14    163 4:5–9a    62, 66, 80, 92, 94, 99 4:5–8a    87, 92, 135 4:5–6    135 4:5    20, 64, 72, 80, 111, 156 4:6–8    81, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 154 4:6    80, 81, 100, 101, 104 4:6b–9a    104, 129 4:6b–7    102 4:7    80, 81, 103 4:8    11, 14, 66, 79, 80–82, 87, 88, 90–94, 103–105 4:9    20, 88, 105, 111, 116, 118 4:9b    64, 66, 82, 91, 94 4:9b–20    70 4:9b–16    62, 70, 80–82, 93 4:9b–13    62, 105 4:9b–12    82, 88 4:10    11, 15, 82, 88, 93, 94, 106, 108, 109 4:11–12    82, 88 4:11    79, 80, 87, 88, 90–94, 106, 109, 114, 121, 123 4:12    15, 67, 69, 82–84, 89, 107, 111, 120, 129,137 4:12b–13    83, 89, 154 4:14–20    62 4:14–16    82, 108 4:14    11, 15, 64, 82, 89, 93, 94, 108 4:15    83, 104, 108 4:16    67, 83, 84, 110 4:17–29    62, 70, 80, 83, 94 4:17–20    110

Septuagint and Apocrypha 

4:17    110, 129 4:18    83, 110, 118, 120 4:19–29    67 4:19    15, 64, 84, 85, 125 4:20    11, 72, 84, 93, 112, 123, 125 4:21–5:9    32 4:21–26    62 4:21–24    62, 113 4:21    15, 64, 69, 72, 84–86, 90, 113, 118, 137 4:22–25    84, 85 4:22–23    114 4:22    11, 84, 85, 89, 90, 92, 93, 99, 103, 114, 123 4:23    79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 89–94, 114, 118, 123 4:24    11, 85, 89, 93, 99, 114, 115, 118, 125 4:25–29    62 4:25–26    116 4:25    15, 18, 64, 84, 85, 89 4:25a    32 4:27–29    62, 118 4:27–28    70 4:27    15, 64, 72, 84–86, 118, 126 4:28–29    32 4:28    85 4:29–30    55 4:29    15, 70, 83, 84, 92, 99, 118, 125 4:30–5:9    71, 75, 80, 135 4:30–5:6    85, 86, 94, 97, 119 4:30–5:4    79, 86 4:30–35    62, 119, 135 4:30    15, 19, 20, 64, 72, 86, 100, 125, 126, 129, 136 4:31–35    73, 74

 185

4:31    100 4:32    74 4:33    74, 121 4:34    19, 74 4:35    11, 19, 74, 87, 90–93, 121 4:36–5:9    19, 28, 32, 35 4:36–5:4    62 4:36–37    62, 79, 80, 86, 91, 93, 94, 122, 126, 135 4:36    15, 64, 84, 86, 92, 136 4:37–5:9    12 4:37    86, 88, 92, 94, 122, 127 5:1–9    87 5:1–4    62, 123 5:1–2    72 5:1    12, 15, 64, 84, 86, 124, 125, 137 5:2    11, 93, 124 5:4    12, 15, 86 5:5–9    62, 79, 91, 93, 136 5:5–6    125, 136 5:5    15, 64, 84, 86, 93, 126, 127, 136, 137 5:6    4, 73, 126, 135–38, 140–42, 144–50 5:7–9    19, 97, 126, 128 5:7–8    86 5:7    126, 127, 129 5:8    127 5:9    10, 92, 128 Epistle of Jeremiah    8 Prayer of Manasseh 12    112

186 

 Index of Ancient Sources

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 91:9    73

Vita Jeremiae    8 Paralipomena Jeremiae    8

Qumran Literature 11Q5 XXII 1–15    70, 72

4QpIsa D3    140

New Testament Matthew 27:10    127 Luke 24:27    167

John 1:1–18    167 1:14    162 4:15    159

1 Corinthians 1:22–24    167

b. B. Bat. 14b    49   

Pirqe Abot II:8    163 VI:6    163

Rabbinic Literature Targum Job 28:22    45

Graeco–Roman Authors Apollonius Dyscolus, Syntax 3:116–19    63, 65

Christian Authors Tertullian, Ad uxorem 1.6.4    68 Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Baruch 4.12    68