3

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY OF THE SYRIAC APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH

A.F.J. Klijn
Dilgtweg 18-A,
9751 NG

Haren, The Netherlands

Initially this article was intended to survey recent developments in the study of the Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) in which the recently discovered Arabic manuscript would be one of the subjects. Fred Leemhuis, who was mainly responsible for the edition of the Arabic text and who was supposed to write this part of the present article, arrived at conclusions which can better be given separately because they go beyond the scope of a survey. His ideas have an impact not only on the text but also on the transmission of 2 Baruch in the Arabic world. After some general remarks on the text, the main emphasis in this article will, therefore, be upon the structure and the contents of this pseudepigraphon, according to a number of books and articles which have appeared since P. Bogaerts edition in
1968.1

the Text

Until the discovery of the Arabic manuscript chs. 1-78 of 2 Baruch known only in one Syriac manuscript.2 This lack of textual tradition opened the way to an endless number of corrections and emendations. The corrections are to be found at the foot of the pages in S. Dederings edition of the Syriac text.3 The emendations are brought together by W. Baars, and can be found at the end of Dederings edition.4 This situation opens the possibility for editors to choose freely from the available material and to add their own ideas on the text. The discovery of a second version, the Arabic translation, has not changed this state of affairs decisively.5 It appears to be a translation
were

4
text which is definitely not the same, but is closely related the one we have. We were able to check a number of modern corrections and emendations with the help of the Arabic text, but for the rest we came to the conclusion that the Arabic translation is a very free rendering of a Syriac original. It, therefore, contributes to our knowledge of the text in a very limited way. Our ideas can be 6 found in the introduction of the edition of the Arabic text.6 With regard to chs. 78-87, the final letter,7 it can be said that the Arabic text deviates from the one in the Syriac Bible to such an extent that it would be unwise to compose a so-called critical text. Both the Syriac and Arabic manuscripts must be treated as two texts 8 in their own right and with their own textual tradition. to

of a Syriac

Structure

Apocalypse of Baruch consists of a great number of narratives, laments, conversations, dialogues, visions, speeches, along with a final letter (chs. 78-87). The author composed his apocalypse from well-known traditions, following the literary examples in the Old Testament and later Jewish literature. Initially scholars tried to disentangle the various sources which were supposed to have been used by a final redactor. At present attention is being drawn to the
The
structure

of the work and the intended message of the author.10

we

two approaches are more of a than of a complementary contradictory nature; the author of this work must have been a creative writer who was able to use traditional material to compose a writing with a recognized structure l and a coherent meaning.11 It appears from the outset that the author used a number of literary devices to end or to begin a particular section of his work. He continuously interrupts his work with a formulaic remark that Baruch is fasting until the evening (5.7) or during seven days (11.1-2; 12.5; 21.1; 47.1-2). In other passages it is said that Baruch went to another place. Note the following examples: And after these things, it happened that I, Baruch, was standing on Mount Zion ... (13.1), I went from there and sat in the valley of Kidron ... (21.1), And I, Baruch, went to the holy place ... (35.1), Behold, I go to Hebron ... (47.1), and And I, Baruch, went away from there ... (77.1). Important passages end with a speech introduced with words like the following: And it happened after these things, that I went to

However,

may say that these

the people and said to them ... (31.1), And I, Baruch, went from there and came to my people ... (44.1 ), and And I, Baruch, ... came to the people ... (77.1 ).12 The work has been usually divided with help of these remarks. This division, however, can not be done in a purely mechanical way. It is evident that we must look at the work as a whole in order to detect the leading themes and the overall message. 13 It is generally agreed that the message of the work is connected with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This destruction brings the author to ask a number of questions: How will the name of Israel be remembered again?, How shall we speak again about your glorious deeds? To whom again will that which is in your Law be explained? Will the universe return to its nature?, and Where is all that which you said to Moses about us? (3.5-9). These questions are gradually answered in two ways. In the first place it is said that the earth and also the Temple of Jerusalem are to disappear. Hence, and secondly, the incorruptible world will come, so that those who live according to the Law will inherit the benefits of the coming age. This two-fold message is summarized and clearly explained in a number of very important passages, viz. the final letter (chs. 78-87) and in the three speeches to the representatives of the people, or the people themselves, after three visions which Baruch received. The first speech (31.1-32.7) follows upon a vision about twelve disasters which will come (27.1-13); the second (44.1-46.5) upon a vision about a forest and a cedar (36.1-37.1); and the third (77.1-17) upon a vision about a cloud which is filled with black and white water (53.112). Apart from these speeches the visions are surrounded by
.

prayers, questions, an explanations. The way in which the speeches and the final letter express their message can be summarized in the following way: The first speech: Do not forget Zion ... the days are coming, that all that has been will be taken away to be destroyed ... You, however, if you prepare your minds to sow into them the fruits of the law, he (the Mighty One) shall protect you (31.4-32.1). The second speech: ... do not withdraw from the way of the law ... do not forget his law ... for everything will pass away which is corruptible (44.3-9). The third speech: If you, therefore, look upon the Law and are intent upon wisdom, then the lamp will not be wanting and the shepherd wil not give way and the fountain will not dry up (77.16). In the final letter we read: And give this letter and the traditions of the Law to your

children after you

as

also your fathers handed down

to

you

(84.9). 14
It is remarkable that the contents of the speeches and the final letter show a constantly recurring message although the three visions differ completely. From this we derive the conclusion that the three visions with their surrounding material are the nucleus of this apocalypse and that the final letter is its climax. 15 This conclusion is the starting point for a structural approach to the work. It is obvious that we can agree with most scholars that 21.1-34.1 and 35.1-47.1 are two separate sections, each with a vision in the middle surrounded by other materia1.16 We disagree with all those who suppose that 47.2-52.7 and 53.177.17 are two separate sections. 17 Such a division would mean that the second of these two sections begins with a vision. 18 This deviates from the two earlier sections. We, therefore, assume that 47.2 is the beginning of a long section with a vision again in the middle and ending with 77.26.19 There seems to be no reason to end this section at 77.17. If that were the case, this would mean that the last section, with the final letter, begins at 77.18 with an account of the preparations to write the letter. 211 These preparations are the result of Baruchs speech to the people. The letter itself is a clear-cut entity with a characteristic beginning: The Letter of Baruch... These are the words of the letter which Baruch... (78.1 ).21 Our opinion about the structure of the beginning of 2 Baruch is less clear. The passage 1.1-20.6 is broken up at 5.7 where it is said: And we sat there and fasted until the evening.22 Others, however, assume that the first section ends at 9.223 or 12.5,24 where in both passages it is said that Barch is fasting for seven days. This shows that these interjections are not generally supposed to be the end of a particular section. Elsewhere we proposed to divide 1.1-20.6 into three sections, viz. 1.1-9.2; 10.1-12.4 and 13.1-20.5,25 but it is difficult to give good reasons for this or any other division. It seems as if 1.1-20.6 is one long introduction to the three main sections and the final letter. From what precedes, we come to the following conclusion with regard to the structure of this apocalypse. There are a number of formulaic phrases which can be used to divide this writing. Such division, however, does not lead to a better understanding of its
message. It is

obviously built up around supporting material, and a final letter. It

three visions, each with is especially in the final

7
to express his own ideas. All this is introduction preceded by lengthy (1.1-20.6) in which the author of the immediate cause his explains writing and where he gives a number of other preliminaries. The introduction can be divided into some subsections, but it is supposed to be essentially an entity composed of traditional material, especially about the Temple.
a

letter that the author felt free

Religious Background While discussing the structure of this work, we already touched upon
the reason for the message of this apocalypse. We may now pursue this subject. The central message of 2 Baruch is that one has to live according to the Law. But that does not say much about the reason for, and the purpose of, the apocalypse. Regarding this subject scholars do not differ substantially; but they do differ in emphasis. Bogaert writes: LApocalypse de Baruch est un cri desp6rance. La fin que se propose 1auteur sappuie tout naturellement sur une th6ologie profond6ment pharisienne et messianique qui, A linverse de celle de IV Esdras, demeure ouverte et optimiste.26 Harnisch writes in the Schlussbetrachtung of his Verhangnis und Verheissung that both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra deal with den Zweifel an der Wahrheit und Verlassigkeit des gottlichen Verheissungswortes. 27 The emphasis on theodicy in 2 Baruch is also apparent with Stone: The chief issues of concern of the book are the problems of theodicy arising out of the situation of Israel after the destruction of the Temple, and out of the condition of man in general. 21 On the other hand, Nickelsburg argues that unlike the author of 4 Ezra, however, he has not produced studied speculations on theodicy. His interest is primarily pastoral and practical. His own grief has given way to consolation. 21 For Sayler the primary issues are both the vindication of God as just and powerful in the wake of the destruction; and the survival of the Jewish community in the aftermath of the destruction,.30 The question is: Has God nullified his covenantal relationship with the faithful Jews who constitute &dquo;Israel&dquo;? The answer to this question is a resounding &dquo;No&dquo;.31 Murphy draws attention to the emphasis on the future world: The author of 2B wanted to direct the attention of Israel away from the destruction of the Temple and Zion as a cause of mourning towards the real place of Gods presence, heaven.32 This can be compared with Licht: The very notion that there may be no other (scil. life) is unendurable.33

Motivation and

8
that some of the above-mentioned scholars assume that the for writing 2 Baruch is the destruction of the Temple or the questions which arise as the result of the destruction, Gods promises or covenant; others suppose that the author of 2 Baruch tries to show that God did not leave his people, and that the present world is temporary. But whatever the emphasis the subjects grief and consolation are never absent in studies on 2 Baruch. It may seem remarkable that in the quotations given in this section the word Law is absent in spite of our earlier conclusions. However, we must not forget that always somewhere between the ideas of grief and consolation the word Law can be found. This means that from this point of view Collins is able to say that the central message of 2 Baruch is quite clearly the need to observe the law.35 The Law is the ever-present connection between the deuteronomistic sequence sin, punishment, repentance, and restoration which pervades this writing from the beginning until the end.36 It is characteristic that Baruch fits into this scheme as a second Moses. 37 In this connection it is plausible that 2 Baruch is often seen as the product of rabbinical circles.38 Even Johannan ben Zakkai, or his disciples, have been suggested as the author of 2 Baruch.39 We
see

reason

Prospects for Further Study

It is under this heading that Murphy draws attention to some aspects of the Apocalypse of Baruch which ask for further investigation. He speaks about the historical situation.40 We might add that for some time the relation between 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra has been at the center of interest, but a consensus has not yet been reached.41 It may be that those who emphasize the general structure of 2 Baruch are inclined to forget historical questions and to lose sight of minor problems. Finally we want to go into two of these questions. They have to do with some generally accepted subjects. The first one is that the work has been written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and the second is that 2 Baruch is an apocalyptic writing. Both statements are of a general character and ask for a number of modifications.

Apocalypse of Bczruch and the Destruction of the Temple The work begins with an introduction in which the Lord speaks to Baruch. He says to him that the two remaining tribes have been sinning and that, Behold, therefore, I shall bring evil upon ,this city

The

and its inhabitants.... And I shall scatter this people among the nations... (1.4). Here two subjects are spoken about, viz. the city and the coming captivity. The city is Jerusalem, commonly called Zion: we have seen those affliction of Zion and that which has befallen Jerusalem (10.7); Do not forget Zion but remember the distress of Jerusalem (31.4); For how shall I be sad over Zion and lament over Jerusalem (35.3); And see what has befallen Zion and what happened to Jerusalem (44.5); and Zion has been delivered up and Jerusalem laid waste (67.6). In the midst of the city is the Temple (4.3) and when the enemies capture Zion they will pollute your sanctuary {5.1 ). It is only in an occasional passage of a traditional nature that the Temple is spoken of as an independent institution. In 4.3-6 it is said that this building will be handed over, but that the new Temple is in heaven. It has already been revealed to Adam, Abraham, and Moses. 42 In 32.2-4 the author mentions the building of Zion which will be shaken, then rebuilt, but will not remain. Finally it will be renewed.43 The remainder of the book speaks about the devastation of Zion and Jerusalem. In the famous passage about the angels who came from heaven it is said that they have overthrown the walls of Zion (7.1).44 This means that it is not so much the Temple which is the cause of Baruchs lamentations but the fall of Jerusalem, the city of God. The occupation of the city and the devastation of the Temple is one unbearable event. When the author speaks about the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem he does not mention the Temple. In this connection he always refers to the captivity of the people. The following list of passages shows that the captivity is our authors main concern. We have already referred to 1.4. Now observe the subsequent ones: The city will be delivered up... and the people will be chastened (4.1); ... your haters ... will pollute your sanctuary, and carry away your heritage into captivity... (5. 1): And I was grieving over Zion and sighed because of the captivity which had come upon the people (6.2); ... the Chaldaeans ... seized the house... And they carried away the people into captivity... (8.4-5); ... this mother is lonely, and her children have been carried away in captivity (10.16); ... that which has befallen us and our city... (21.21); They have also bound your brothers and carried them away to Babylon... (80.4); and We have left our land, and Zion has been taken away from us.. > (85.3). Throughout this work we notice a correlation between the devastation of Zion and the captivity. In the final letter there is a

10

remarkable lack of interest in the Temple;4s it is said to the nine and a half tribes (78.1) that your brothers have been made to go to Babylon and that That is the affliction about which I write to you. For truly I know that the inhabitants of Zion were a comfort to you (80.4-7). It appears that the destruction and depopulation of Zion, especially for the people in exile, is the main cause of concern. This agrees with the general set-up of this writing. It is obvious that the entire writing was probably written in Jerusalem or its environs. Baruch stayed in Jerusalem while Jeremiah went with the rest of our brothers to Babylon (33.2). The author of 2 Baruch portrays Baruch, and those who are not carried away, as writing two letters, one to our brothers in Babylon (77.12), and one to the nine and a half tribe in Assyria (76.17). It is remarkable that those still in Jerusalem or its environment are promised that they will not be carried away: If, therefore, you will make straight your ways, you will not go away as your brothers went away, but they will come to

you (77.6).
The situation seems to be clear. A small group of Jews, still living in Jerusalem which is devastated and obviously mainly depopulated, feels itself responsible for the other Jews in exile. For those outside Palestine there is hardly any reason to go to Zion anymore, since the Temple is destroyed and the city is in the hands of enemies. The author of 2 Baruch exhorts them not to forget the Law: we have nothing now apart from the Mighty One and his Law (85.3). But apart from this they are reminded that Zion and the Temple must not be forgotten: And remember Zion and the Law and the holy land and your brothers and the covenant and your fathers, and do not forget the festivals and the sabbaths (84.8). The presence of enemies in Jerusalem is for a time only (1.4; 4.1; 5.3; 6.9; etc.). The fall of Jerusalem and the devastation of the Temple is not the ultimate problem for our author. These crises created a situation in which Jews in exile lost their religious center. The danger exists that they will be absorbed by the gentiles. Living according to the Law and apocalyptic expectations may help to overcome this situation. 46

of Time We came to the conclusion that the fall of Jerusalem was supposed to be the beginning of the captivity of the Jewish nation. Now we confront the question what this particular event was supposed to mean in the apocalyptic time table. 47 Apocalypse of Baruch
and the End
.

the

11 To answer this question is difficult. The problem derives from the authors attempts to speak about the historical situation in 70 CE in terms of the destruction in 587 BCE. Next we see that the author of 2 Baruch-and this applies to all apocalyptic writers-freely used traditional material which dated from earlier times. For this reason it is not easy to determine the historical situation in which the author supposed himself to live. However, it appears that 2 Baruch explicitly speaks about its own time in two different passages. In 39.3-5 the author contends that the kingdom that destroyed Zion will be destroyed, and that it will be subjected to a following one that in its turn will also be destroyed. Subsequently, a fourth kingdom will appear whose power is harsher and more evil than those which were before it (39.5). This is obviously the last kingdom because when its time is fulfilled the dominion of the Messiah will be revealed (39.7). The second passage is part of the explanation of the vision about the bright and black waters which will come down upon the earth. The eleventh black water is that evil which has befallen

Zion now (67.1). The twelfth bright water is the time in which Zion will be rebuilt (68.5). The last, unnumbered black water applies to the whole world and is even blacker than the earlier ones (69.1). The final bright water means the coming of the Messiah (72.1-2). We may conclude that the time in which the author supposed himself to live is characterized by evils of which the destruction of Zion and the captivity are the most important. It is, however, also clear that the times that are coming are going to be even worse. The devastation of Zion is the beginning in order to visit the world in its own time more speedily (20.2). There is still a time to come between the authors own time and the end of time. Also this time is limited since everything happens in its own time (cf 1.4; 4.1; 5.2, 3; 6.9; 12.4). The end of time is a matter of revelation: I shall show you after these days what will happen at the end of days (10.3); I shall command you with regard to the course of times, for they will come and will not tarry (20.6); and And further, it is given to you to hear that which will come after these times (23.6). From these revelations it appears that the end of time will especially be a time of horror, not only for Israel, but also for the whole world. But the same time is the time of renewal and the end of corruption. Now we have to answer the question what is the significance of both the destruction of the first and second Temple in the apocalyptic course of events. First of all we conclude that the destruction of the first Temple is not a definite break in the history of the world. In the

12

explanation of the vision of the black and bright water it is said that
after the black water which denotes the time of the destruction of the first Temple, bright water will return at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple. One can say that the regular times are going on until the fall of the second Temple. Conversely, we also notice that the fall of the first Temple is supposed to be the beginning of the four wicked kingdoms which will suppress Israel. One has to imagine that at least four kingdoms will arise before the end of time will arrive. But whatever the ideas of the traditional material used by the final redactor, or the author himself, it appears that in retrospect the time after the fall of the first Temple is marked by signs that speak about a coming end of the world. giowever, none of these individual disasters are part of the end itself. That time lies in the future and will be even

worse.

For the time being Israel has to face captivity with nothing apart from the Mighty One and his Law (85.3). But this seems sufficient to overcome the coming end of times and to enter into the incorruptible world.

NOTES

Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch. Introduction, Tradition du Syriaque Commentaire, 2 vols. (SC, 144 and 145; Paris, 1969). 2. See A.M. Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana. Opera Collegii Doctorum Biliothecae Ambrosianae (Mediolani, 1866-1871), I,2, pp. 1-11, 731. P.
et

98 ; V, 2, pp. 114-180.
3. S. Dedering, Apocalypse of Baruch (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, IV, 3; Leiden 1973), pp. I-IV and 1-50. 4. W. Baars, Conspectus Emendationum, on pp. 45-50, in S. Dedering, Apocalypse of Baruch. 5. See F. Leemhuis, A.F.J. Klijn and G.J.H. van Gelder, The Arabic Text of the Apocalypse of Baruch (Leiden, 1986). 6. Ibid., pp. 5-12.

7. The final Letter has not yet been edited in the Leiden Old Testament in

Syriac.
8. For the

Syriac text according to the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, see Van Gelder, The Arabic Text, pp. 117-137. 9. See Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp.222-41; and G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Narrative Traditions in the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch, CBQ 35 (1973), pp. 60-68; L. Prijs, Die Jeremia-Homilie Pesikta Rabbati Kapitel 26 (Stuttgart, 1966).
Leemhuis, Klijn and

13
10. Cf. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 88: ... on reconnaît la main dun écrivain, non dun compilateur. 11. See A.F.J. Klijn, The Sources and Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 65-70. 12. Cf. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp. 58-60. 13. See G.B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS, 72; Chico, CA, 1984), pp. 11-13. 14. It is generally assumed that the need to observe the law is the central message in 2 Baruch, cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia 1981), p. 286: Second Baruch focuses on two poles: Temple and Torah; A.B. Kolenkow, The Fall of the Temple and the Coming of the End: The Spectrum and Process of Apocalyptic Argumentation in 2 Baruch and other Authors, SBL 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA, 1982), pp. 243-50, cf. esp. p. 250: ... 2 Baruch, the advocate of law, and J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York, 1984), p. 172: The central message of 2 Baruch is quite clearly the need to observe the law. 15. For the three speeches being the central element of this writing, see W. Harnisch, Verhangnis und Verheissung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverstandnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLNT, 97; Göttingen 1969), pp. 208-13. In a summary of the contents given by L.J. Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Pauls Eschatology (JSNT Sup, 19; Sheffield, 1987, p. 67), the three speeches are regarded as three separate items. Chr. Münchow ( Ethik und Eschatologie. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik [Göttingen 1981], pp.97-80) divides the entire writing in three parts around these speeches: Daher ist eine ungezwungene Gliederung in drei Teile möglich (Kap. 1-34; 35-46; 4777, bzw. 87). 16. Sayler ( Have the Promises Failed?, p. 13), however, suggests: Block 3—Chapters 21-30, Block 4—Chapters 31-43. 17. Like Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 66; M. Grinz, Baruch, Apocalypse of (Syriac), Enc. Jud. IV, cols. 270-72, Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 284-85; J.H. Charlesworth, assisted by P. Dykers and M.J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. With a Supplement (SBLSCS, 7S; Chico, CA, 1981), p. 84; Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 13 and passim, with the following sections: Block 5—Chapters 44-52, Block 6—Chapters 53-76; E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC—AD 135), revised by G. Vermes, M. Black et al. (Edinburgh, 1987), III, 2, pp.750-56, cf. esp. p.751; and J. Hadot, Apocalypse syriaque de Baruch, La Bible. Écrits intertestamentaires, eds. A. Dupont-Sommer et M. Philonenko (Paris, 1987) Introduction, pp. CXVIICXXII; translation pp. 1471-1557. 18. Cf. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 35: The vision (53.1b-11)

14
breaks

abruptly

structure

and in

parallelism 19. See A.F.J. Klijn, Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse (JSHRZ 5; Gütersloh, 1976), pp. 104-191, cf. esp. p. 119; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 28485, and M.E. Stone, The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, II, 2; Assen-Philadelphia, 1984), p. 409,
grapha,

with the conversation which precedes it (48.26-52.7) in content. Different from the previous blocks, there is no between the structure of this and another block.

Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 12; Charlesworth, Pseudepi84; F.J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS, 78; Atlanta, 1985), p. 12; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, p. 752; and J. Hadot, Apocalypse syriaque, p. CXVII. 21. Cf. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 88, who writes that there is a broad consensus that the Epistle of Baruch (chaps. 78.1-87.1) is an integral part of 2 Baruch, but who himself rejects this idea because of the dissimilarities between the letter and the rest of this writing. Murphy, Structure and Meaning, pp. 25-27, on the contrary, defends the integrity of
p.

n.144. 20. Cf.

the letter. 22. Cf. Stone, The Syriac Apocalypse, p. 408, n. 144: 1.1-5.7; 6.1-9.2; 10.1-12, and 13.1-20.5; and Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 13: 1-5 and 8-20. 23. Cf. Klijn, Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse, p. 118: 1.1-9.2, 10.1-12.5, and

13.1-20.6; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 281-84: 1-9, 10-34; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p.170: 1.1-9.2; 10.1-12.5, and 13.1-20.6; and Murphy, Structure and Meaning, p. 14: 1.1-9.2; 10.1-20.6. 24. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp. 64-65: 1.1-12.4 and 13.1-20.6. The same is found in Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, p. 84; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, p. 751; and Hadot, Apocalypse syriaque, p. CXVII. 25. Klijn, Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse, p. 118; cf. also Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination; and Grintz, Baruch, cols. 270-71: 1.4; 5-8; 9-12 and 13-20. 26. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 386. 27. Harnisch, Verhängnis, p. 323. 28. Stone, The Syriac Apocalypse, p. 410. 29. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 287. 30. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 41.
31. Ibid., pp. 85-86. 32. Murphy, Structure and Meaning, p. 114. 33. J. Licht, An Analysis ofBaruchs Prayer (Syr. Bar. 21), JSJ 33 (1982), pp. 327-31, cf. esp. p. 331. 34. Cf. G. Sayler, 2 Baruch: A Story of Grief and Consolation, SBL 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA, 1982), pp. 243-50. 35. Cf. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 177. 36. Cf. Kolenkow, The Fall of the Temple and the Coming of the End, p. 247: 2 Baruch returns to the Deuteronomic process of divine retribution

15

time) as related to the fall of the temple...; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 177: The dependence on Deuteronomy is explicit at several points (e.g. 19.1; 84, 1-6); and Murphy, Structure and Meaning, pp. 120-26: Deuteronomy and Second Baruch. 37. Harnisch, Verhängnis, p.209, n.2: Es hat den Anschein, als sollte Baruch als zweiter Mose gekennzeichnet werden (vgl. sBar 76,2f. mit Dt 34,1-4; vgl. auch in der Ep.Bar. die Stelle 84,1f.), and Murphy, Structure and Meaning, p. 129-30: Baruch paralleled to Moses. 38. See Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp. 438-44, but J. Hadot (Le Problème de lApocalypse syriaque de Baruch daprès un ouvrage récent, Sem 20 [1976], pp. 59-76) states: LEffort de P. Bogaert nous parait donc

(for

trop exclusivement tributaire dune recherche des contacts rabbiniques (p. 72). See also Harnisch, Verhängnis, p. 227: ... Zeugnisse einer pharisäischen Apokalyptik...; and Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 178: Even more obviously than 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch is related to the Rabbinic Judaism of the day. 39. Cf. L.L. Grabbe, Chronography in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, SBL 1981 Seminar Papers (Chicho, CA, 1981), pp. 49-63: The conclusion was that 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch could have been written by a rabbi of the Yavnean period (p. 63); Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 178; and Kolenkow, Review of JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 91-93: II Baruch is indeed a possible product Murphy in of Johanan ben Zakkais students (p. 93).
40. Murphy, Structure and Meaning, p. 136-42. 41. See Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p.237; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 178-79; and J. Murphy-OConnor, Review of Murphy, RB 94 (1987), p. 296: The two (2 Bar. and 4 Ezra) are closely related but the
are not identical. 42. For the tradition behind these verses see Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, II, pp. 14-18; and Klijn, Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse, p. 125. Similar ideas occur in Ps. Philo, Liber Antiquitates Biblicae. 43. See Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 423: Il faut observer dabord que les versets 2-5 ( scil. of ch. 32) sont insérés entre deux mentions dévénements concernant toutes les créatures (v. 1 et v. 6), and Klijn, The Sources and Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 65-70. The isolated prophecy has to be dated after the destruction of the second Temple, in spite of Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, p. 424: La première destruction et la ruine qui sensuit rappellent les événements de 70 et les séquelles de la guerre. Lauteur ne les distingue pas de celles de 686 La première reconstruction, prochaine et provisoire, est celle de lage messianique. La seconde destruction... marque la fin de lâge messianique... La deuxième reconstruction... a pour objet lédifice de la Jérusalem céleste du "monde à venir". 44. Also cf. the parallel passage in Pesikta Rabbati where the walls of Jerusalem are spoken of, see L. Prijs, Jeremia-Homilie, pp. 63-64.

perspectives

...

16
45. See Klijn, The Sources, pp. 70-72. 46. Kolenkow, The Fall of the Temple, p. 250, may be right in saying: For 2 Baruch, the advocate of law and government, the danger is that one may unite with the Gentiles and not attain the end promised to the

righteous.
47. In the

following we

shall have

to

touch upon

controversy between
und seine Geschichte

Harnisch, Verhängnis, and E. Janssen, Das Gottesvolk

(Neukirchen, 1971). Harnisch approached the apocalyptic ideas in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra from the point of view of this world and the coming world. Janssen writes: Harnisch übersieht... die Zäsur in dem apokalyptischen Geschichtsbild, die... im Jahr des Zerstörung des ersten Temples, 587 a.Chr., liegt (p. 70); and Der Bestand des ( scil. ersten) Tempels ist... für den Apokalyptiker Zeichen des intakten Welt... (p. 53).
Literature
on

the

Apocalypse of Baruch

Bogaert, P., Apocalypse de Baruch. Introduction, Traduction du Syriaque et Commentaire. 2 vols. (SC, 144 145), Paris, 1969. Harnisch, W. Verhngnis und Verheissung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverstandnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (FRLANT, 97), G6ttingen, 1969. Klijn, A.F.J., The Sources and Redaction of the Syriac

Apocalypse of Baruch, &dquo;~S~ 1 (1970), pp. 65-70. Hadot, J., Le Probl~me de IApocalypse syriaque de Baruch dapr~s un ouvrage rdcent, Sem 20 (1970),
pp. 59-76. Janssen, E., Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte. Geschichtsbild und Selbstverstdndnis im paldstinensischen Schrifttum von Jesus Sirach bis Jehuda ha-Nasi, Neukirchen, 1971. Grintz, Y.M., Baruch, Apocalypse of (Syriac), Enc. Jud. IV cols. 270-72. Kolenkow, A.B., An Introduction to 2 Baruch 53,56-74: Structure and Substance, Harvard Ph.D. 1972. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., Narrative Traditions in the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah and 2 Baruch, CBQ 35 (1973), pp. 60-68. Dedering, S. Apocalypse of Baruch (The Old Testament in Syriac, IV, 3), Leiden, 1973. Bogaert, P., Le nom de Baruch dans la littrature pseud6pigraphique: 1apocalypse syriaque et le livre deut6rocanonique, La Litterature Juive entre Tenach et Mischna, ed. W.C. Van Unnik (Rech Bib, 9), Leiden, 1974, pp. 56-72. Koningsveld, P.Sj. van, An Arabic Manuscript of the Apocalypse of Baruch, ,~S,~ 6 (1975), pp. 205-207. Klijn, A.F.J., Die Syrische Baruch-Apokalypse (JSHR2;, 5), Giitersloh, 1976, pp. 104-91. Bogaert, P., Les Apocalypses contemporaines

de Baruch, dEsdras et de Jean, LApocalypse,Johannique et 1Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht (BETL, 53), GemblouxLeuven, 1980, pp. 47-68. Nickelsburg, G.W.E.,Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction, Philadelphia, 1981, pp. 281-87. Grabbe, L.L., Chronography in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, SBL 1981 Seminar Papers, Chico, CA, 1981, pp. 49-63. Miinchow, Chr., Ethik und Eschatologie. Ein Beitrag zum Verst3ndnis der frhjdischen

17
cf esp. pp.96-111. Charlesworth, J.H., assisted by P. Dykers and M.J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research. With a Supplement, (SBLSCS), Chico, CA, 1981, pp. 8386. Kolenkow, A.B., The Fall of the Temple and the Coming of the End: The Spectrum and Process of Apocalyptic Argumentation in 2 Baruch and other

Apokalyptik, G6ttingen, 1981,

Authors, SBL 1982 Seminar Papers, Chico, CA, 1982, pp. 243-50. Sayler, G., 2 Baruch: A Story of Grief and Consolation, SBL 1982 Seminar Papers, Chico, CA, 1982, pp. 243-50. Licht, J., An Analysis of Baruchs Prayer (Syr. Bar. 21), JJS 33 (1982), pp. 327-31. Mfiller, K., &dquo;Die Propheten~ sind schlafen gegangen&dquo; (syrBar 85, 3), BZ, n.F. 26 (1982), pp. 179-207. Klijn, A.F.J., 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. I: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by J.H. Charlesworth, Garden City, NY, 1983, pp. 615-52. Sayler, G., Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLDS, 72), Chico, CA, 1984. Munoz Leon, D. Tradiciones targumicas en el Baruc Siriaco, Simposio Biblico Espunol, Madrid, 1984, pp. 523-55. Stone, M.E., The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (CRINT, II, 2x Assen-Philadelphia, 1984x pp. 408-10. Collins, J J., The Apocalyptic Imagination. An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity, New York, 1984. Charles, R.H., rev. by L.H. Brockington, The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H.F.D. Sparks, Oxford, 1984, pp. 835-95. Munoz Leon, D., La estructura del Apocalipsis de Juan. Una aproximacion a la luz de la composici6n del 4 de Esdras y del 2 de Baruc, Est Bib 43 (1985), pp. 12572. Desjardins, L., Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, in: SR 14 (1985), pp. 25-37. Murphy, F.J., The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS, 78), Atlanta, 1985. Klijn, A.F.J., Review G.B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, 3S~ 16 (1985), pp. 155-56. Klijn, A.F.J., The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,
Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge (Cambridge Commentaries on Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, 4), Cambridge, 1985, pp. 193-212. Leemhuis, F., Klijn, A.F.J. and van Gelder, G.J.H., The Arabic Text of the Apocalypse of Baruch. Edited and Translated zvith a Parallel Translation of the Syriac Text, Leiden, 1986. Murphy, F.J., Sapiential Elements in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, JQR 76 (1986), pp. 311-27. Hadot, J., Apocalypse Syriaque de Baruch, Le Bible. crits intertestamentaires. eds. A. Dupont-Sommer et M. Philonenko, Paris, 1987, Introduction, pp. CXVII-CXXII, et Texte, pp. 1471-1557. Schiirer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 A C-AD 135), new edition by G. Vermes, M. Black, et al., Edinburgh, 1987, Vol. III, 2, pp.750-56. Kolenkow, A.B., Review F.J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch, JSJ 18 (1987), pp. 91-93. Murphy-OConnor, J., Review of F.J. Murphy, The Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch, RB 94 (1987), p. 296. Bogaert, P., Review Leemhuis, Klijn, van Gelder, The Arabic text of the Apocalypse of Baruch, Le Muson 100 (1987), pp. 420--21.

Writings of the Jewish &