Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha

Vol 18.1 (2008): 23-32

2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/0951820708096649
http://JSP.sagepub.com

The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah

and the Date of 2 Baruch

DANIEL M. GURTNER
Bethel Seminary, 3949 Bethel Drive, St Paul, Minnesota 55112, USA

Abstract
This article argues that the phrase twenty-fth year of Jeconiah reects a formula
attested in the Hebrew Bible which provides a basis for dating the composition and
setting of 2 Baruch of 95 CE.

Keywords: 2 Baruch, date, Jeconiah.

1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to 2 Baruch. 2 Baruch is a pseudepigraphon from
the late rst or early second century CE. Written after the destruction
of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, 2 Baruchs purpose is to exhort
the people of God to adhere faithfully to the Law despite the then
present crisis, using the Babylonian destruction of 587/6 BCE as a
backdrop for its exhortations. 2 Baruch is extant in two sections: an
apocalypse (2 Bar. 177) and an epistle (2 Bar. 7887). Though it
may be debated, for our purposes we will take these two sections as a
single coherent unit with the same provenance. 1 The text of the

1. Following Mark F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form

and Message (JSPSup, 42; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 2003).
24 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.1 (2008)

Apocalypse (2 Bar. 177) is extant in full in a single, Syriac manu-

script (7a1), which remains the best and earliest full text of the
Apocalypse.2 This manuscript was itself translated from Greek,3 and
scholars have debated a Semitic original behind the Greek. Also
extant are excerpts from 2 Bar. 1214 in Greek on a single fragment4
and a Latin excerpt, perhaps translated from the Greek.5 The Epistle
of 2 Baruch (2 Bar. 7887) is extant also in full in 7a1, but also
thirty-ve additional Syriac manuscripts6 that do not vary in wording
signicantly for our purposes.

2. The manuscript is Bibliotheca Ambrosiana B. 21 Ins, in Milan, folios 257f-

265b, #7a1. It dates from the sixth or seventh century. A.F.J. Klijn, 2 (Syriac
Apocalypse of) Baruch, in OTP, I, p. 615. Also extant are several Syriac lection-
aries. An Arabic version is also extant, though it is thought to be a free rendering of
the Syriac.
3. The superscription to the primary manuscript witness of 2 Baruch reads (The
book of the revelation of Baruch, son of Neriah. Translated from Greek into Syriac,





   
). Whether the
Greek itself is derived from a Semitic origin is the subject of some debate. The vari-
ous scholars and their views on the issue are outlined by P.M. Bogaert, Apocalypse
de Baruch, introduction, tradition du Syriaque et commentaire (SC, 144, 145; Paris:
Cerf, 1969), I, pp. 353-54. See most recently the discussion in James R. Davila,
(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated
from Hebrew or Aramaic?, JSP 15.1 (2005), pp. 3-61. Throughout, translations are
taken from Daniel M. Gurtner, Second Baruch: A Critical Edition of the Syriac Text.
With Greek and Latin Fragments, English Translation, Introduction, and Concor-
dances (forthcoming).
4. Verso (11.113.2) and recto (13.1114.3) from the Oxyrhynchus papyri cache.
It dates to the fourth or fth century. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, 8, and n. 17.
Cf. A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudpigraphes dAncien Testament.
Concordance, corpus des textes, indices (Leuven: Peeters, 1987), p. 905. Bogaert,
Apocalypse de Baruch, pp. 1.40-43; K. Aland, Repertorium der griechischen christ-
lichen Papyri (1. Biblische Papyri: Altes Testament, Neues Testament, Varia,
Apokryphen; PTS, 18; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976), p. 367.
5. The one surviving Latin fragment of 2 Baruch is a single citation found in
Cyprian, Test. 3.29, which corresponds to 2 Bar. 48.36, 33-34.
6. See, most recently, Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, pp. 4-23; more com-
prehensively for the Epistle of 2 Baruch, R. H. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch
Translated from the Syriac. Edited with Introduction, Notes and Indices (London:
A. & C. Black, 1896); B. Violet, Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in
deutscher Gestalt (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahr-
hunderte, 32; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1924), pp. LVI-LXII; Bogaert, Apocalypse de
Baruch, I, pp. 67-72.
 GURTNER The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah 25

1.2. The Date of 2 Baruch. There is some question as to the date of

this book. Most scholars have recognized that since 2 Baruch (32.2
4) seems to allude to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and since
there is no apparent indication of the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 135 CE),
the writing of 2 Baruch occurred somewhere in between. 7 Within
that range, however, a variety of options and approaches have been
employed. Arguments based on its relationship to 4 Ezra are difcult
to assess because of the complexity and uncertainty of that issue. This,
coupled with the apparent nearness of the 70 CE tragedy, suggests to
Nickelsburg that a date sometime toward the end of the rst century
CE is to be preferred.8

2. Date Markers in the Body of the Apocalypse?

Scholars trying to date 2 Baruch frequently look to the small handful
of texts within the Apocalypse (2 Bar. 177) which seem to give indi-
cation of its date. These texts include:

2.1. Two Parts: Weeks of Seven Weeks. Some scholars cite 2 Bar.
28.2 as the sole (and obscure) internal evidence for a date for 2 Bar-
uch. This text reads: For the measure and calculation of that time are
two parts: weeks of seven weeks.9 Whitters notes that scholars are
agreed that this statement pertains to the chronology of the eschaton,
and thus the terminus ad quem for the book. Its meaning, though, is
more obscure. Both Klijn10 and Charles11 nd the text too unintelli-
gible for the purposes of dating. A more ambitious effort was under-
taken by Bogaert,12 who proposes that a week of seven weeks is 49
years and represents the Jubilee. Then there are two such Jubilees lead-
ing up to the eschaton, which makes ninety-eight years. Whitters 13
is correct, however, in showing that Bogaerts reading of 28.2 as a
terminus ad quem does not hold, for it says nothing about what the

7. See James R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Chris-

tian, or Other? (JSJSup, 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 127 n. 15.
8. George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the
Mishnah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2nd edn, 2005), p. 283.

9.     
 

  
 
. Cf.
Ant. Bib. 19.15.
10. Klijn, 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch, OTP, I, pp. 616-17.
11. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, p. 50.
12. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp. 288-95.
13. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 151.
26 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.1 (2008)

alleged ninety-eight years signies, let alone a nal date.14 Another

proposal was given by N. Roddy, 15 who likewise reads 28.2 as a
Jubilee reference, but understands weeks as a doubling of seven. As
Whitters shows, the formula is: 2 7 (weeks) 7 (of seven) 7
(weeks), or 686 years. Dating this from the destruction of the
temple at 586/7 BCE, yields a date in the late 90s, which Roddy reads
as the terminus ad quem. Even more recently, A. Laato, 16 building
upon Roddys conclusion of 686 years, argues for a dating scheme
based on the Jewish historiographer Demetrius, and thus dates the
end to 139 CE; the Bar Kokhba era. Whitters is surely correct that
such calculations must be considered conjectures. Indeed, the choice
of the reference point upon which the gure of 686 is added seems
rather subjective.17

2.2. The Buildings of Zion. 2 Baruch 32.24 indicates that the

buildings of Zion will be shaken in order that they may be rebuilt,
which he also reads to see two destructions in view. This leads him to
see the events described as post-dating 70 CE, which most accept.

2.3. The Epistle of Barnabas. 2 Baruch 6.17 is quoted in Barn. 11.9,

indicating that the author knew this work. Difculty arises, however,
in the dating of Barnabas, which could either date from 117 CE or 132
CE. This provides afrmation of what we already knowthat 2 Bar-
uch was written after 70 CE and prior to Bar Kochbabut provides
no other specicity.

2.4. The Fall of Zion. In 67.1, Klijn identies the authors speech
concerning the fall of Zion, followed (68.5) by the restoration of the
Temple. Depending on whether this refers to the destruction of 586/7
BCE or that of 70 CE may indicate sources that date prior to 70 CE or
after 130 CE, respectively.18

14. For further summary of Bogaerts speculation, see Whitters, Epistle of

Second Baruch, pp. 151-52.
15. N. Roddy, Two Parts: Weeks of 7 Weeks: The End of the Age as Termi-
nus ad Quem for 2 Baruch, JSP 14 (1996), pp. 3-14.
16. A. Laato, The Apocalypse of the Syriac Baruch and the Date of the End,
JSP 18 (1998), pp. 39-46.
17. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 152.
18. See H. Bientenhard, Die Freibeitsicriege der Juden unter den Kaisem Trajan
und Hadrian und der messianische Tempelbau, Judaica 4 (1948), pp. 164-66.
 GURTNER The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah 27

2.5. The Earthquake. 2 Baruch 70.8 makes mention of an earth-

quake, which B. Violet identies as that which ravaged Antioch in
115 CE. 19 Collins rightly dismisses this association because of the
frequently stereotypical role of earthquakes as eschatological signs
that need not have a historical reference at all.20

3. The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah (2 Baruch 1.1)

Surprisingly little careful attention has been given to the sole, clear
reference to a date in the book found in 2 Bar. 1.1. The few scholars
who do attend to this text overlook an important feature in the
formula employed that helps one date this book with a fair degree of
certainty.

3.1. The Problem of the Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah. Bogaert

and others look to 2 Bar. 1.1, which is the only clear date reference in
2 Baruch, and dates the book to the twenty-fth year of Jeconiah, the
king of Judah. They take this to indicate the twenty-fth year after
the Babylonian captivity, which leads to an understanding of the
twenty-fth year after the destruction of the temple: 95 CE. 21 This
seems a plausible argument, but could use additional evidence, which
we will consider below. Another attempt, also looking at 2 Bar. 1.1
and proposed by C. Sigwalt, suggests twenty-ve years refer to
twenty-ve years after the deportation of Jeconiah (599 BCE, accord-
ing to 2 Kgs 24). 22 Twenty-ve years later would be 574 BCE
thirteen years after the destruction of 587 BCE. This, then, corresponds
to thirteen years after the destruction of 70 CE, making the date of
authorship 83 CE. Much depends on how one reads in the twenty-
fth year of Jeconiah. Sayler 23 followed by Whitters 24 and John J.
Collins25 sees that the phrase in the Xth year of King Y refers not to
the kings reign but his age. But this does not t the evidence of

19. Violet, Die Apokalypsen, p. XCII.

20. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1998), p. 112.
21. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, I, pp. 281-89.
22. C. Sigwalt, Die Chronologie der syrischen Baruchapokalypse, BZ 9 (1911),
pp. 397-98.
23, G. B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch
(SBLDS, 72; Chico, CA: SBL, 1984), p. 107.
24. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 150.
25. Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 212-13.
28 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.1 (2008)

2 Baruch. Jeconiah would have been 25 years old in 592 BCE (he was
18 when deported in 599; 2 Kgs 24.8). Yet 2 Baruch presumes its
author witnesses the events, which does not t the narrative setting
here. 26 At this point Whitters abandons 2 Bar. 1.1 for a historical
chronology of the book, which he regards as a simple effort by the
author to make his work resemble that of other ancient histories. 27 But
there is more evidence to be made of this key text. Why choose this
date? Presumably the number made sense to the ancient author and
readers. We will revisit this in a moment.

3.2. Who is Jeconiah? Who is Jeconiah in the Hebrew Bible?

Whitters is mistaken in equating Jeconiah with Jehoiakin.28 Jeconiah
is really equated with Jehoiachin (1 Chron. 3.17; cf. Mt. 1.1112),
who took the throne of Judah at age 18, and reigned in Jerusalem for
three months (2 Kgs 24.8). He was then taken to Babylon (2 Kgs
24.12). In the twenty-fth year of his reign he was still in captivity
in Babylon. Indeed, 2 Kgs 25.27 indicates he was in captivity in
Babylon thirty-seven years until the ascension of Evil-Merodah to the
throne of Babylon. This, then, translated to the Second Temple period,
indicates that the twenty-fth year of his reign was within the time
of the exile itself. It seems, then, that the author of 2 Baruch, in dating
his work to the reign of Jeconiah in his twenty-fth year gives us an
indication that the author saw himself as in exile, perhaps not an
unfamiliar theme for Jews in the Roman period, particularly in the
environs of Palestine.
If this analysis is correct, why choose the twenty-fth year when
we really know nothing of what occurred during the twenty-fth year
of Jeconiahs reign? Whitters addresses only part of the question
when he suggests that the opening line of 2 (Syriac) Baruch may
simply be the authors effort to imitate and compete with other reli-
gious books of his day.29 He cites examples from Ezek. 40.1 (in the
twenty-fth year of our exile) and 4 Ezra 3.1 (in the thirtieth year
after the destruction of our city [Jerusalem]) as Baruchs attempt at

26. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 150.

27. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 150, following Collins,
Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 212-13.
28. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 150.
29. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 150, citing Saylor, Have the Promises
Failed?, p. 107, and Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 212-13.
 GURTNER The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah 29

imitating and competing with the likes of 4 Ezra in an attempt to

sound authentic and even to claim priority in provenience. 30 This
speculation seems implausible, for the similarities do not hold. They
do not name the king as 2 Bar. 1.1 does and do not adequately account
for the choice of the number twenty-ve.

3.3. The X Year of King Y in the Hebrew Bible. An additional

problem with reading the twenty-fth year as that of Jeconiahs life
and not of his reign is that it is contrary to how such dating is read in
biblical records. Biblical records in the historical books of the
Hebrew Bible record such dates according to the year of the persons
reign, not of his life.31 Therefore, we must take this as a reference to
the twenty-fth year of the reign of Jeconiah. This solution lies in
Baruchs use of a recognizable device present throughout the Hebrew
Bible for the dating of material. That is, he provides the year and the
name of the king. The evidence from the Hebrew Bible indicates that
the X year of king Y refers not to the year of that kings life, but of
his reign as king. For example, 1 Kgs 14.25 reports what occurred in
the fth year of King Rehoboam. It cannot be the fth year of his
life, for we know that he became king when he was forty-one years
old (1 Kgs 14.21). There are numerous references to the X year of
the reign of king Y. This is especially the case when the kings of
Judah and Israel are named with respect to each others reigns (1 Kgs
15.1). We also have in 2 Kgs 18.13 an explicit reference to the four-
teenth year of King Hezekiahs reign (also 2 Kgs 22.3; 24.12; 25.1).
We nd this is also the case in Chronicles, at times more frequently
than in 2 Kings (2 Chron. 13.1; 15.10; 16.1, 12, 13; 17.7; 29.3; 34.3,
8; 35.19). Other texts likewise use the formula (Ezra 4.24; 6.15; Est.
1.3; 2.16; Isa. 36.1; Jer. 1.2; 51.59; 52.4; Dan 1.1; 2.1; 8.1; 9.2; cf.
Luke 3.1).
Other times it is not explicitly said to be the year of the reign, but
in light of prior contexts where the reigns are in view, they are most
naturally read that way also. So, 1 Kgs 15.1 says the year of the
reign of the named king, and later in that chapter it simply says in
the X year (1 Kgs 15.9, 25, 28, 33; 16.8, 10, 15, 23, 29; 22.2, 41, 51;
2 Kgs 1.17; 3.1; 8.16, 25; 9.29; 12.1; 13.1, 10; 14.1, 23; 15.1, 8, 13,
17, 23, 27, 30, 32; 16.1; 17.1, 6; 18.1, 9, 10; 23.23; 25.8, 27). Again

30. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, pp. 151-52.

31. I am grateful to David M. Howard Jr for his input on this subject.
30 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.1 (2008)

the same thing, though less frequently, occurs in Chronicles (2 Chron

12.2; 23.1; 36.22). Ezra typically mentions the year X of king Y
formula (Ezra 1.1; 5.13; 6.3; 7.7, 8; Neh. 2.1; 5.14; 13.6; Est. 3.7; Jer.
25.1; 28.1[?]; 32.1; 36.1, 9; 39.1; 45.1; 46.2; 52.12, 28, 30, 31; Dan.
7.1; 9.10; 10.1; 11.1; Hag. 1.1, 15; 2.10; Zech 1.1, 7; 7.1). When
simply in the X year is mentioned, without mention of a king,
mostly in Ezekiel, it is in reference to years of Exile (Ezek 1.1; 8.1;
20.1; 24.1; 26.1; 29.1, 17; 30.20; 31.1; 32.1, 17; 33.21; 40.1). Or,
sometimes, reference is explicitly made to a certain year of the exile
(2 Kgs 25.27; Jer 52.31).
A most helpful text is 2 Kgs 23.23, which recounts events that
occurred in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, using the X year of
king Y formula. This is a reference to reforms undertaken by Josiah
subsequent to the discovery of the book of the Law (cf. 23.1-3). 32 This
itself refers back to where 2 Kings rst makes this announcement,
22.3, where the date is given as the eighteenth year of his reign, King
Josiah, referring to the events leading up to the discovery of the
book of the Law and subsequent reforms. That is, 2 Kings uses both
formulae, X year of king Y and X year of the reign of king Y,
interchangeably. They are clearly referring to the same king, the same
date, and same events. The same phenomenon occurs between 2 Kgs
25.1 and Jer 39.1: the former recounts the approach of Nebuchad-
nezzar the king of Babylon in the ninth year of Zedekiahs reign
(emphasis mine), whereas the former simply says in the ninth year of
Zedekiah king of Judah. Again, Ezra records work begun on
rebuilding the temple at the second year of the reign of Darius king
of Persia (Ezra 4.24), which the contemporary prophet Haggai
records as the second year of King Darius (Hag. 1.1, 15), in refer-
ence again to the same events (see also Jer 1.2; 25.3; perhaps also
Dan. 8.1//10.1). It is clear, then, that the biblical authors themselves
used the X year of king Y and X year of the reign of king Y inter-
changeably even in reference to the same events.
By this we must conclude that the formula X year of king Y, as
we have in 2 Bar. 1.1, refers not to the year of the kings life, but to
the year of his reign. The formulae X year of king Y and X year of
the reign of king Y seem to be used interchangeably, but always
mean the same thing: the year of the reign of the named king.

32. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB, 11; Garden City: Doubleday,
1988), p. 290.
 GURTNER The Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah 31

3.4. Why Twenty Five? We are still left with the problem of the
choice of the number twenty-ve. The placing of the terminus a quo
within the exilic period has obvious symbolic value, but it need not
preclude us from taking it literally also. For it is obvious that one
need not choose the number twenty-ve in order to arrive in the exilic
period for Jeconiah, which could be anywhere from three months to
thirty-seven years, as we have seen above. Elsewhere the number
twenty-ve in the Hebrew Bible33 (Neh. 6.15 and Jer. 52.31) refers to
the twenty-fth day of a month. The sole reference in the Hebrew
Bible to a twenty-fth year is found in Ezek. 40.1, which refers to the
twenty-fth year of Exile:
In the twenty-fth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the
tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was taken, on that
same day the hand of the LORD was upon me and He brought me there. (NAS)

A contextual comparison may be illuminating, for 2 Baruch likewise

seems to speak of the city being taken and the hand of the Lord being
upon him. Perhaps this underscores the exilic context. The difculty
is that 2 Baruch does not identify the year of exile, but the year of
Jeconiah. It seems, then, that there is no viable explanation for a sym-
bolic reading of the number twenty-ve. The only viable under-
standing, then, is that it is a literal reference to twenty-ve years.

3.5. Early Christian Evidence? Whitters outlines three alleged cita-

tions of 2 Baruch by Christian sources.34 These references (Irenaeus,
Ag. Her 5.33.3; Barn. 11.9; 16.6) are uncertain. Saylor35 insists that
these must remain tenuous in light of the inattention by scholars to
the possibility of a common source for both 2 Baruch and the Chris-
tian texts in question. Whitters challenges this to an extent, but in the
end concludes that there is little evidence upon which to build a case
for a terminus ad quem.

4. Conclusion
Similarly, I cannot help but get the impression that a terminus ad quem
is unnecessary if we accept my argument above for the composition

33. The reference in Jub. 4.33 to the twenty-fth Jubilee when Noah took a
wife seems too remote for our purposes.
34. Whitters, Epistle of Second Baruch, pp. 152-54.
35. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed?, p. 110.
32 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.1 (2008)

of the book from the opening verse. Whitters is correct also that the
terminus a quo would need to be 70 CE.36 Moreover, all scholars con-
cerned narrow the focus of the date between 70 (Roman destruction)
and 132 (Bar Kokhba), and my date of 95 falls within that range.

36. See, The Epistle of Second Baruch, p. 155, for a table of dates that modern
scholars hold for the book.