(Septuagint Commentaries) Sean A. Adams - Baruch and The Epistle of Jeremiah - A Commentary Based On The Texts in Codex Vaticanus-Brill Academic Publishers (2014) PDF

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah
Septuagint Commentary Series
Editors
Stanley E. Porter
Richard S. Hess
John Jarick
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sept

Baruch and
the Epistle of Jeremiah
A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus
By
Sean A. Adams
leiden | boston
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Adams, Sean A.
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah : a commentary based on the texts in Codex Vaticanus / by Sean A.
Adams.
pages cm. – (Septuagint commentary series, ISSN 1572-3755)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-27733-5 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-27849-3 (e-book)
1. Bible. Apocrypha. Baruch–Criticism, Textual. 2. Bible. Apocrypha. Epistle of Jeremiah–Criticism,
Textual. 3. Bible. Apocrypha. Baruch–Versions. 4. Bible. Apocrypha. Epistle of Jeremiah–Versions. 5. Codex
Vaticanus Lat. 3773. 6. Bible. Apocrypha. Baruch–Commentaries. 7. Bible. Apocrypha. Epistle of
Jeremiah–Commentaries. I. Title.
BS1775.52.A33 2014
229'.5077–dc23
2014017836
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more
information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1572-3755
isbn 978-90-04-27733-5 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-27849-3 (e-book)
Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Global Oriental and Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents
Acknowledgements ix
List of Tables x
Abbreviations xi
1 Introduction to Baruch 1
1 Texts of Baruch 1
1.1 Greek Codices 1
1.2 Hebrew Texts 2
1.3 Other Editions 2
2 Dating, Provenance, Purpose, and Unity of Baruch 4
2.1 Dating of Baruch 4
2.2 Provenance of Baruch 6
2.3 Purpose of Baruch 6
2.4 Unity of Baruch 7
3 Baruch and Scripture 8
3.1 Baruch and the Jeremianic Corpus 8
3.2 Baruch and Jeremiah 9
3.3 Baruch’s Use of Scripture 9
3.4 The Person of Baruch and His Other Attributed Writings 9
4 Language and Grammar of Baruch 11
4.1 The Original Language of Baruch 11
4.2 Conjunctions in Baruch 12
4.3 Verbs in Baruch 12
4.4 Prepositions in Baruch 15
5 Baruch’s Literary Influence 16
5.1 Baruch in the New Testament 16
5.2 Baruch in Early Church Writings 17
5.3 Baruch in Jewish Writings 18
5.4 Baruch in Modern Church Traditions 19
6 Baruch’s Sense-Unit Delineations in Greek and Coptic Codices 20
6.1 Codex Vaticanus (B) 21
6.2 Codex Alexandrinus (A) 21
6.3 Codex Marchalianus (Q) 21
6.4 Codex Venetus (V) 22
6.5 Coptic Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22) 22
vi contents
7 The Greek Text and Translation in This Commentary 26

7.1 The Greek Text 26
7.2 The Names of God in Vaticanus Baruch 28
7.2.1 Nomina Sacra 28
7.2.2 The Characteristics and Names for God in Baruch 30
7.3 English Translation 31
2 The Text and Translation of Baruch 33
3 Commentary on Baruch 50
1 Narrative Setting (1.1–13) 50
2 Penitential Prayer (1.14–3.8) 60
2.1 Admission of Guilt (1.14–2.10) 61
2.2 First Petition (2.11–35) 77
2.3 Second Petition (3.1–8) 90
3 Wisdom Poem (3.9–4.4) 94
3.1 Wisdom is Not Among the Nations (3.9–23) 96
3.2 God’s Relationship with Wisdom (3.24–4.4) 106
4 Jerusalem and the Return of Her Children (4.5–5.9) 117
4.1 Personification of Jerusalem and Her Address to Her Neighbours
(4.5–18) 119
4.2 Jerusalem Addresses Her Children (4.19–29) 128
4.3 Address to Jerusalem (4.30–5.9) 136
4 Introduction to the Epistle of Jeremiah 147

1 Texts of the Epistle of Jeremiah 147
1.1 Greek Codices and Texts 147
1.2 Hebrew Texts 147
1.3 Other Editions 147
2 Dating, Provenance, and Purpose of the Epistle of Jeremiah 148
2.1 The Date of the Epistle of Jeremiah 148
2.2 The Provenance of the Epistle of Jeremiah 149
2.3 The Purpose of the Epistle of Jeremiah 150
3 The Language and Grammar of the Epistle of Jeremiah 150
3.1 The Original Language of the Epistle of Jeremiah 150
3.2 Verbs in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah 151
3.3 Conjunctions in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah 153
3.4 Greek Grammatical Constructions in Vaticanus Epistle of
Jeremiah 155
contents vii
4 Epistle of Jeremiah and Scripture 155

5 Epistle of Jeremiah’s Literary Influence 156
5.1 Epistle of Jeremiah in the New Testament and Jewish
Writings 156
5.2 Epistle of Jeremiah in Early Church Writings 156
6 Epistle of Jeremiah’s Sense-Unit Delineations in Greek and Coptic
Codices 157
6.1 Codex Vaticanus (B) 158
6.2 Codex Alexandrinus (A) 158
6.3 Codex Marchalianus (Q) 158
6.4 Codex Venetus (V) 159
6.5 Coptic Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22) 159
7 The Greek Text and Translation in This Commentary 161
7.1 The Greek Text 161
7.2 Nomina Sacra 162
7.3 English Translation 162
5 The Text and Translation of the Epistle of Jeremiah 165
6 Commentary on the Epistle of Jeremiah 174

1 Narrative Setting and Introduction (Preface–14a) 174
2 The Uselessness of False Gods (vv. 14b–27) 181
3 The Corruption of Their Priests (vv. 28–38) 187
4 Bel Worship and Idol Makers (vv. 39–50) 190
5 The Inability of the Gods (vv. 51–63) 194
6 Conclusion (vv. 64–72) 199
Appendix 1: Church Fathers’s Citations of Baruch 205

Appendix 2: Folio Columns of Baruch and Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek
Manuscripts 207
Bibliography 211
Greek Word Index 228
Modern Author Index 231
Scripture Index 234
Acknowledgements
Anyone writing a book becomes indebted to a number of people along the

way. I am grateful for my colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, who make
this institution an enjoyable place to work. Moreover, I would like to thank the
New College Library staff at the University of Edinburgh for their assistance in
gathering manuscripts and for making them available throughout this project.
Sadly, their deeds are often unsung, although they are involved in many writing
projects. Financial support has come from the British Academy, the gift of
which has allowed me the time to write. I am very grateful to them.
I would like to thank Stanley E. Porter, who has been a mentor to me
throughout my studies and career. I am thankful for his invitation to contribute
to this series as well as his helpful suggestions and feedback. Thanks also are
due to the staff at Brill, who have made this volume and series possible.
I have benefited greatly from my conversations with Seth M. Ehorn, who has
been a regular sounding board and a constant encouragement throughout this
project. Julia Snyder has also been invaluable. Her reading of the final draft
saved me from many errors. Thanks are also due to Andrew Kelley who assisted
in the indexing.
Finally, special thanks are due to my family. First, my wife Megan has sup-
ported me throughout this project and it is with great joy that we celebrate
the birth of our first child, William James Adams. My parents also have been of
great support and it is to them that I dedicate this book.
Sean A. Adams
Edinburgh, uk
List of Tables
1 Suggestions for the final compilation date of Baruch 5

2 Finite tense-form verbs in Baruch 13
3 Imperatives in Baruch 14
4 Infinitives in Baruch 14
5 Participles in Baruch 15
6 Prepositions in Baruch 16
7 Baruch’s sense divisions in Greek and Coptic manuscripts 22
8 Finite verb mood-forms in the Epistle of Jeremiah 152
9 Tense-form distribution of indicative verbs in the Epistle of
Jeremiah 152
10 Participles in the Epistle of Jeremiah 153
11 Conjunctions in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah 154
12 Sense divisions in the Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek and Coptic
manuscripts 159
Abbreviations
All abbreviations in this book are taken from Patrick H. Alexander, et al., The sbl
Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies
(Peabody, ma: Hendrickson, 1999).
chapter 1
Introduction to Baruch
The book of Baruch is understudied and has been given little attention over
the past century. Although this practice is beginning to change, research to
date is still insufficient for the interpretive possibilities afforded by this work.
As Septuagint scholarship continues to develop and interest in Second Temple
Judaism burgeons, it is my hope that Baruch will be recognised as an important
example of Jewish exegetical practice in the Hellenistic era.
1 Texts of Baruch
1.1 Greek Codices

The Greek text of Baruch is found in two of the three great codices, Alexan-
drinus (A) and Vaticanus (B), but is missing from Sinaiticus (‫)א‬. There are
few textual differences between the two uncial manuscripts, most of which
are negligible. Similar consistency is found across the Lucianic or “Antiochian”
recension(s), despite a tendency to “upgrade” the Greek. Baruch is also extant
in codex Marchalianus (Q; Cozza-Luzi 1890), a sixth century uncial manuscript
originally copied in Egypt and known for its Hexaplaric material, as well as
Codex Venetus (V; Holmes and Parsons 1827), an eighth-ninth century manu-
script. Baruch is also found in a number of miniscule texts: 26, 36, 46, 48, 49, 51,
62, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96, 106, 130, 198, 231, 233, 239, 311, 393, 407, 410, 449, 490, 534,
538, 544, 567, 613, 710, 763, and 764.
This study will focus primarily on Codex Vaticanus, although there will
be passing references to Alexandrinus as an important point of comparison.
Vaticanus is a single codex copied by Christian scribes, of which there were
likely two (Milne and Skeat 1938) rather than three (Tischendorf 1884, 360).
Each page is approximately twelve inches by twelve inches, contains three
columns of between 40 and 44 lines, with roughly 16–18 letters per line (O’Neill
1989, 220–221). Many believe that Vaticanus was originally written in Egypt
(Bogaert 1999; Pisano 1999), probably in Alexandria (Kenyon 1912, 88; Ropes
1926, xxxiv–xxxvi), due to similarities in form between the Greek characters
and Coptic (Kenyon 1912, 84; Metzger 1991, 74), although others have placed
its origin in different locales, such as Rome (Hort in Westcott and Hort 1882,
264–267), or Caesarea (Skeat 1999, 604). None of these proposals regarding
geographic origins has enough support for any interpretive framing built upon
such assumptions to be more than speculative.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278493_002

2 chapter 1
Regarding the dating of Vaticanus, there is widespread agreement that it

was penned in the fourth century ad (Birdsall 2003). A more specific date
has been elusive, although that has not stopped scholars from making sugges-
tions. Skeat (1999), after having proposed a Caesarean origin, suggests that the
impetus for making Vaticanus was the letter from Emperor Constantine (May
ad330) to Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (Vit. Const. 4.36) in which 50 copies of
the Holy Scriptures were commissioned. Some (e.g., Rahlfs 1899) have claimed
that the parallels between the book order in Vaticanus and Athanasius’s 39th
Festal Letter of ad367 suggest that it had already been written by this date.
Jellicoe (1968, 179) challenges Rahlfs’s view and claims that the textual similar-
ities with the Festal Letter suggest that Vaticanus was written around ad 367,
either before or after the Letter. Despite the difficulty of precise dating, all
agree that Vaticanus originated in the fourth century and is pre-Hexaplaric in
nature.
1.2 Hebrew Texts

There are no extant texts of Baruch in Hebrew: no codices, papyrological
finds, or documents. Nevertheless, a number of scholars claim to see a Hebrew
structure behind the Greek and on this basis posit that Greek Baruch is a
translation of an earlier Hebrew Vorlage. The question of a Hebrew text for
Baruch has been debated for centuries. Although Baruch’s existence in the
Hebrew language and Hebrew canon was denied by Jerome, Comm. Jer. praef.,
Libellum autem Baruch, qui vulgo edition Septuaginta copulator nec habetur
apud Hebraeos, the posited Hebrew original has greatly influenced Baruchan
studies and is a major component of commentaries and monographs.
For example, German commentators, exemplified by Kneucker (1879), have
expended significant energy arguing for an orginal Hebrew text. Many have
provided retroverted texts, which they have used as the base text for their com-
mentaries. Prevalent in the 19th century, the practice of retroversion continued
in the 20th—most notably in the works of Tov (1975) and Burke (1982)—along
with a continued consideration of Baruch’s “Hebrew language background”
(hebräischen Sprachhintergrund) by many commentators (e.g., Whitehouse
1913; Steck 1993) and scholars (e.g., Marttila 2011). Unfortunately, this focus on
a reconstructed Hebrew text has obstructed discussion of the Greek and has
resulted in extended discussions of Hebrew features that are the scholars’s own
creation.
1.3 Other Editions

Although Jerome did not translate Baruch for the Latin Vulgate (as indicated
by Amiatinus, our oldest Vulgate manuscript), both Baruch and the Epistle
introduction to baruch 3
of Jeremiah were eventually incorporated into the Vulgate in the form of an

Old Latin version (Vetus Latina) (Harwell 1915, 29). Unlike their structure and
placement in the Greek Septuagint version, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah
form one book in the Vulgate (with the Epistle of Jeremiah labelled Baruch
6), and are placed after Lamentations and before Ezekiel (on the use of the
moniker “Baruch 6”, see Adams 2011). At the Council of Trent in ad 1546 they
were officially recognised as part of the deutero-canon.
Regarding Latin manuscripts of Baruch, there have been two recent articles
of note. First, Kabasele Mukenge (2000) has identified and commented upon
some of the special Latin witnesses to Baruch. For example, Codex Legionesis
(LaL) (Hoberg 1902) contains a unique ordering of Baruch. After the opening
four verses (1.1–4), LaL gives the poetic section (3.9–5.9), followed by Bar 1.5–3.8.
In a related manner, Codex Vallicellianus (LaS) (Sabatier 1751, 737–749) has a
number of marginal comments at section transitions that justify its ordering
of the text, which suggest that the scribe knew of structuring variations and
wished to respond to them in the manuscript (Kabasele Mukenge 2000, 34–41).
Codex Cavensis (LaC) is of importance not because of its structure, but because
of its unique vocabulary and presentation. Here we see a scribe using specific
archaic orthographic, lexical, morphological, and syntactic forms in order to
give the text a feeling of greater antiquity (Mattei-Cerasoli 1935, 4; Kabasele
Mukenge 2000, 26–28).
The second article on Latin Bibles is by Bogaert (2005), who traces the
representation of Baruch (or lack thereof) in the different Latin manuscript
traditions. These he summarises in a helpful chart (2005, 328–329). Bogaert has
successfully mapped out the various traditions and has noted the importance
of Baruch for identifying and confirming manuscript family relations based
on whether the manuscripts omit Baruch altogether (332–336) or attest other
abnormal placements or treatments (336–339).
The book of Baruch is also included in one Behairic manuscript (Bsciai 1870;
Brugsch 1872, 1873, 1874) and two Sahidic Coptic codices. Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22
+ Mississippi Coptic Codex ii), a third to fifth century codex of unknown origin
(Kasser 1964, 7), contains the entirety of Baruch except for 5.5partim–5.9; and
Codex 826 contains Baruch 1.1–2.5 and 3.6–30 (Schüssler 1995). Michigan ms
111, written on vellum, has portions of Jeremiah 52 and a fragment of Bar 1.1–5
(Shier 1942, 167). There is no text of Baruch in Coptic codices 801–808, 827, nor
is there any mention of Baruch in the eight Coptic lectionaries that reference
the Jeremianic corpus (L 31–33, 36, 40, 50, 80, 99) (Feder 2002). For a list of other
Coptic fragments, see Ziegler (2006, 23–26).
There are two primary Syriac versions of Baruch. The first, a “literal” Syr-
iac version, was translated from the Greek Hexapla text by Paul of Tella in
4 chapter 1
ad616–617. The second text, labelled “ordinary Syriac”, has been dated to the
fourth or fifth century, but it has been argued that it contains a text originally
from the second century (Harwell 1915, 10). This translation, however, deviates
from the Greek text (from which it was translated) through a variety of addi-
tions, omissions, and clarifications. Although there are a number of differences
between the “ordinary Syriac” and the Greek versions, rarely does the Syriac
provide a reading preferable to the lxx.
2 Dating, Provenance, Purpose, and Unity of Baruch
2.1 Dating of Baruch

The dating of the composition of Baruch is difficult and highly debated. Not
only have scholars felt the need to ascertain when the final edition was com-
piled, but they have also attempted to determine when the component parts
were originally written. This has resulted in an abundance of dating theories
(for a chart outlining the various positions, see Burke 1982, 26–28; for a more
recent discussion, see Feuerstein 1997, 462–488).
For example, the range of dates proposed by scholars for Bar 1.1–3.8 span
from the 4th century bc to the late 1st century ad. Arguing for a date around
320bc, Marshall (1898, 252) and Moore (1974, 317) claim that the prayer of
1.15–2.19 is an earlier work that was independently adapted by the authors
of Daniel and Baruch and incorporated into their respective works. Pfeiffer
(1949, 415), Thackeray (1903, 265), and Nickelsburg (1984, 145–146) date 1.1–
3.8 of Baruch to the latter half of the 2nd century bc based on its perceived
dependence on lxx Daniel and similarities in translation with lxx Jeremiah
(Thackeray 1921, 87). The most extreme dates offered, ad 74 and late 1st cen-
tury ad, are given by Whitehouse (1913, 575) and Kneucker (1879, 32–46) respec-
tively.
The dates offered for Bar 3.9–4.4 are less diverse. Pfeiffer (1949, 419) suggests
a range of 180–100bc, after the writing of lxx Sirach. Both Marshall (1898, 253)
and Whitehouse (1913, 575) suggest a date ca. ad 70.
For Bar 4.5–5.9 there is slightly more agreement, with scholars generally
content to suggest either 2nd century bc (Whitehouse 1913, 574) or after ad 70
(Kneucker 1879, 32–46; Marshall 1898, 253). Moore (1974, 317), however, follow-
ing Pesch (1955), claims that Bar 4.4–5.4 is not based on Ps Sol 11 and there-
fore could have been written any time between the 4th and 2nd century bc
(although the first half of 2nd century is most likely) (Moore 1974, 319). Accord-
ing to the Pesch-Moore theory, Bar 5.5–9 was added by a latter editor to make
seven stanzas rather than six; the earliest point at which this final stanza
table 1 Suggestions for the final compilation date of Baruch
Mendels (1992, 620) ca. 200 bc or after ad 70

Torrey (1945, 63) 2nd century bc (in Hebrew)
Burke (1982, 32) 180–100 bc
Steck (1993, 294–303; 1998, 22–23; 2000, 21) 164–162bc
Pfeiffer (1949, 421) ca. 100 bc
Wambacq (1966, 576) ca. 63bc
Eissfeldt (1965, 593) mid 1st century bc
Moore (1974, 319) 1st century bc–1st century ad
Schürer (1973–1983, 192) ca. ad 70
Thackeray (1903, 261) ca. ad 70
Swete (1914, 275–276) after ad 70
Oesterley (1914, 504–506; 1935, 263–264) after ad 70
Whitehouse (1913, 576) ca. ad 78, but maybe after
Kneucker (1879, 32–46) late 1st century ad
Marshall (1898, 253) after ad 118
could have been composed is the late 1st century bc (Moore 1974, 319; 1977,
260).
In light of such discussions, scholars have posited final compilation dates
which range from 2nd century bc to after ad118, as seen in the above table of
selected authors (Table 1).
Recent beneficial attempts to date lxx books through linguistic criteria
(e.g., Lee 1983; Evans 2010) have yet to be applied to Baruch. The prohibitive
issue is the size of the work: it is (perhaps) too small to create meaningful
sample sizes (particularly if one divides Baruch into its composite parts). As
our understanding of lexical development grows it might be possible to work
around the size issue, however.
Regarding the final dating of Baruch, I would agree with the fair, but rather
broad timeframe put forward by Davila (2005b, 225), that Baruch came into
its final form “in the Hellenistic period after the translation of Jeremiah into
Greek and before Athenagoras”. Although I cannot unequivocally refute the
claims of Kneucker (1879, 32–37), Whitehouse (1913, 574–576), and others who
date Baruch to the first or second centuries ad, I am not convinced that this
late dating is required, nor that it is the most fitting for the text. Rather, I
think that Baruch was likely written in the first or second centuries bc. Here
I wish to echo the sentiment of Moore (1977, 260): “If the reader is some-
what frustrated by our tenuousness and hedging regarding the language and
6 chapter 1
date of the final compilation, one can only counter that it is unavoidable, the
evidence being too scanty and ambiguous to permit greater precision or cer-
tainty”.
2.2 Provenance of Baruch

Just as the issue of date is subject to dispute, so, too, has the provenance of
Baruch been the focus of sustained debate. Harrington (1999, 94) claims that
“the composition in Hebrew and the strong interest in the Jerusalem commu-
nity in the first and fourth parts [of Baruch] suggest that Palestine was the place
of origin”. This theory, although derived from the contents of Baruch, is specula-
tive, with little further support. The same could be said regarding other theories
of provenance (e.g., Palestine; Moore 1977, 260), although some are so broad as
to lack much interpretive function (e.g., Palestine or eastern Diaspora, deSilva
2002, 205). A number of scholars do not bring up the issue at all.
Unfortunately, the question of where the text originated remains a mystery,
with little hope for the discovery of new evidence by which we might make a
firm claim. As a result, a particular stand on this issue will not be foundational
for this commentary. Rather, throughout this work (as is consistent with the
goals of this series) we will pay more attention to the provenance of the version
in focus, namely Vaticanus.
2.3 Purpose of Baruch

Tied to issues of dating and provenance is the question of discerning the
original purpose of the composition/compilation of Baruch. This, once again,
is highly problematic and does not permit easy answers. Some scholars have
proposed a very specific purpose for Baruch. For example, Werline (1998, 88; cf.
Goldstein 1979–1980, 195–196) argues that Bar 1.1–3.8 was written by someone
who opposed Hasmonean leadership and its principle of continued aggression,
for the purpose of criticising Hasmonean policies and to inform the people that
God would continue to punish them for their sins if they continued to support
a regime that violated divine ordinances.
Others have proposed that Baruch was written in response to military dis-
aster, in order to provide hope and to express judgement on or anger against
captors portrayed in a thinly veiled manner as Babylonians (Whitehouse 1913,
569; Oesterley 1935). Tessa Rajak (2009, 205), however, makes a good point when
she cautions about making a one-to-one correlation between the text’s narra-
tive and the reason for which the text was written. She notes, “Depictions of
crises do not necessarily arise from situations of crisis: there are reasons for
them to be thought useful and to be found appealing in good times as much as
in bad”.
Another proposal for the composition of Baruch is that it filled a need for
a liturgical text. Marinus A. Wes (1992, 144–145) argues that the compilation
of Baruch was initiated to provide material to be read as part of a service
instituted for “a day of national mourning”, either in the time of the Maccabees
(before their victory) or directly after ad70. Although I am not fully convinced
by Wes’s temporal suggestions, he is no doubt correct when he notes, “It is
hardly imaginable that the book was compiled for purely academic reasons or
for amusement” (1992, 145).
A general liturgical theory has much to recommend it, particularly as the
text itself specifies that the book is to be read in a specific religious setting
(1.1–14), and the overall narrative is framed in terms of corporate worship and
repentance, with the instillation of hope at the conclusion.
2.4 Unity of Baruch

Scholars 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).
Although the first division is debated, the other two are not. The most striking
division occurs at 3.9 where prose language changes to asymmetric poetic
metre. Thematic and vocabulary differences further support this and other
divisions.
As a result, one of the main issues for interpreting Baruch is the pervasive
view that it has no literary unity. This view has been promulgated for many
years and has been the default position for many scholarly approaches to the
work. For example, Dancy (1972, 173) writes, “The problems of Baruch arise
not from words and phrases, but from the structure of the book as a whole”.
Likewise, Strobel (1973, 114) claims that “l’unité du livre est artificielle”, which
echoes the view of Robins (1910, 5) that “it is a veritable piece of literary mosaic”.
This view has led to the theory that Baruch is a mishmash of texts loosely
connected by a later author/redactor: “Le livre de Baruch se présente donc
comme une anthologie de morceaux divers, émanant d’ auteurs différents et
réunis par un auteur-rédaeteur” (Lefevre and Delcor 1973, 688).
The approach taken in this study is one of literary unity. Such an approach
is also apparent in Steck (1998, 22) and Watson (2004, 256–257), who identify
a number of interpretive issues that attend theories of disunity (Steck 1993,
254). Although I recognise and will discuss the composite nature of Baruch,
particularly how the various parts differ from each other, we need to recognise
that there are notable similarities and points of contact among the sections,
which allow for discussion of holistic themes and concepts (Steck 1993, 265).
For example, the dominant theme of exile and restoration provides a cohesive
vision throughout the book and binds the work together. Furthermore, Baruch’s
8 chapter 1
transmission history in the Greek manuscript tradition is remarkably stable

and consistent, despite the fact that the work displays strong internal seams.
The question of Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 9), therefore, is well noted: “Le livre
ne se donne-t-il pas à lire comme un tout?”
3 Baruch and Scripture
3.1 Baruch and the Jeremianic Corpus

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are both deuterocanonical works and have
been labeled “additions” to Jeremiah. This label rightfully identifies the strong
thematic and theological similarities between these works and Jeremiah (see
Fischer 2014), but it would be short-sighted to assume that Baruch and EpJer
do not have their own individual perspectives. Each work, while drawing on
Jeremiah for language and worldview, has a distinctive outlook that demands
investigation on its own terms. Examples will be seen throughout the commen-
tary proper.
The placement of Baruch in the Jeremianic corpus, particularly in non-Greek
codices, is another topic that has received scholarly attention. Whereas Greek
majuscules maintain the order of Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, and Epistle
of Jeremiah, there are notable differences in the non-Greek traditions (and in
some Greek minuscules).
For example, there is some variety in the Coptic tradition. Michigan ms 111
places Baruch directly after Jeremiah, the two books being divided by Jere-
miah’s title as a postscript. Manuscript 826 (Zoega 1810, no. 26) also has Baruch
following Jeremiah, and maintains the Greek ordering. Manuscript 827 (Zoega
1810, no. 27) only contains fragments of Jeremiah and Lamentations, suggest-
ing that Baruch was either omitted or placed elsewhere. Codex 822 (P.Bod.
22) has a unique ordering of the corpus: Jeremiah, Lamentations, Epistle of
Jeremiah, Baruch. The latter ordering has no parallels in any other extant
manuscript.
The Latin text tradition is even more complicated, and the work by Bogaert
(2005, esp. 328–329) is to be commended. The Vetus Latina takes the order
Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah, although it appears that
Baruch is appended to Jeremiah without a break. Jerome’s edition has Jeremiah
and Lamentations, and omits Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. The bibles
from Tours follow the same pattern, but they differentiate Lam 5 (Oratio)
from the rest of Lamentations. The remaining traditions all contain Baruch
and Epistle of Jeremiah in some form, with the notable exception of family g
(France), which includes Baruch, but excludes Epistle of Jeremiah.
3.2 Baruch and Jeremiah

Although there is insufficient space here to provide a full discussion, there is
much speculation about the relationship between Baruch and Jeremiah. The
person Baruch is named twenty times in the book of Jeremiah in three different
sections (Jer 39, 43, 50–51). In these passages Baruch is identified primarily
as Jeremiah’s scribe, but also as his speaker and fellow minister (Lundbom
1986, 107). This relationship helps to justify not only the attribution of the
book of Baruch to that individual, but also the placement of the work among
“additions” of Jeremiah.
3.3 Baruch’s Use of Scripture

Baruch is well-known for its use and appropriation of Scripture. The references
are rarely direct. Rather, words, phrases, and ideas derived from Jewish Scrip-
ture are assimilated by the author, who uses his own phrasing to imbue his text
with both a Jeremianic and Deuteronomic worldview (Adams 2013; Marttila
2011, esp. 343–344). The author of Baruch drew upon these and other books
(e.g., Daniel, so Wambacq 1959a; Tov 1999b; Isaiah, so Adams 2016) in the cre-
ation of his work.
Burke (1982, 21) rightly notes that “one of the few things each of the three
parts does have in common is this pastiche method of stringing together pas-
sages borrowed or adapted from canonical sources”. Although I disagree with
his characterisation of Baruch’s use of Scripture, it is clear that each section
draws heavily on the Scriptures of Israel. Although each section has a differ-
ent emphasis, and so draws from different areas of Scripture (e.g., 3.9–4.4 from
wisdom books), there is a common, unifying perspective that understands the
locus of authority to reside in Scripture, which provides the foundation for
a “correct” theological worldview. This consistency contributes to the literary
unity of the work amidst its diversity (Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 330).
Specific examples will be discussed in the commentary.
3.4 The Person of Baruch and His Other Attributed Writings

The book of Baruch is not the only ancient work attributed to Jeremiah’s scribe,
although it is the only one included in the Old Testament deuterocanonical
corpus. The various works do not derive from a single author or school, but are
attributed to Baruch because his name is associated with the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the original Temple in 586 bc.
Second Baruch is a Syriac work consisting of two sections, an apocalypse
(2Bar 1–77) and an epistle (2Bar 78–87). A Jewish work that reinforces boun-
dary-maintaining ideology and Torah observance (Davila 2005b, 128; Gurtner
2009, 13), 2Baruch was likely written some time soon after the destruction of
10 chapter 1
the Temple in ad70 (Nickelsburg 2005, 283; Gurtner 2009, 14–15). Second Baruch
attempts to make theological sense of the recent catastrophe and shows the
faith struggles that the Jewish people were facing, as exemplified through their
prayers and lamentations. An epistle to the nine and a half tribes concludes the
work. This section includes the main story of 2 Baruch (78.1–80.7), followed by
a consolation for tribulations and an exhortation to uphold Torah.
Third Baruch is a Greek/Slavic apocalypse whose narrative is set in the
destruction of Jerusalem in 586bc, but was written within two centuries of the
destruction of the Temple in ad70 (Kulik 2010, 3–60). Beginning with Baruch’s
lamenting the fallen state of Jerusalem (1.1), 3Baruch recounts Baruch’s ascen-
sion and tour of the five heavens led by the angel Phamael (2.5) and the
archangel Michael (11.1–9). In these visions the angels reveal heavenly secrets
to Baruch, affirm God’s justice in judging evil people (13.1), and verify God’s
sovereign control over history.
Fourth Baruch, also called Paraleipomena Jeremiou or, according to the Ethio-
pic tradition, “The Rest of the Words of Baruch”, is considered to have been writ-
ten in the second century ad, based on a reference to 66 years in 5.1 (66 + ad 70
= ad133) and its literary relationships. Most notably, 4 Baruch displays strong
thematic and structural parallels with 2Baruch, which has resulted in schol-
ars’s positing a variety of literary relationships between the two, with a major-
ity claiming that 4Baruch draws on 2Baruch (Herzer 2005, xvi–xxiii; Gurtner
2009, 12). The narrative of 4Baruch begins the night before the fall of Jerusalem
in 586 bc when God reveals to Jeremiah that the city is going to be delivered
over to the Chaldeans (1.1–11). The Lord, after having attacked the city with his
angels, tells Jeremiah to bury the Temple vessels and accompany the exiles to
Babylon, but instructs Baruch to stay behind (3.11–14). Abimelech, after being
saved by Jeremiah and put to sleep by God for sixty-six years (5.1, 30), wakes up
and shows himself to Baruch (still living! 6.1), who interprets Abimelech’s reap-
pearance and his healthy figs as a sign that God will release the captives from
Babylon. After leading the faithful captives back to Jerusalem (the unfaithful
found Samaria, 8.8), Jeremiah goes into a trance and, after three days, prophe-
sies the coming of Jesus, God’s son, in 477 years’s time (9.7–18).
Despite shared claims to authorship, it is clear from a cursory reading that
there are substantial differences between these works and the book of Baruch.
Although the temporal location of the narratives is similar—namely, the life-
time of Baruch and exile of Judah/Jerusalem by the Babylonians—there are
differences in the genre type, major themes, and structure between these works
and lxx Baruch. First, lxx Baruch is not an apocalypse and does not contain
major apocalyptic themes, motifs, or genre features (Collins 1979, 9). Second,
the first part of Baruch includes an expression of guilt and a prayer of lament
(1.1–3.8), whereas the second half is in poetic verse (3.9–5.9). These sections
have substantially different foci.
Moreover, it appears that Baruch did not exert much literary influence on
the other works. Rather, 2Baruch seems to be the text that influenced 3 and
4Baruch. In light of this Bogaert (1974, 72) has concluded that 2 Baruch, not
apocryphal Baruch, was the first composition attributed to Baruch. Bogaert
further argues that both the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Baruch follow
2Baruch in its literary lead. As mentioned above, this is particularly evident in
4Baruch.
4 Language and Grammar of Baruch
4.1 The Original Language of Baruch

As mentioned above (1.2), there are no extant texts of Baruch in Hebrew.
This, however, has not stopped a majority of scholars from positing a Hebrew
original, at least for the first half (Whitehouse 1913, 571–572; Torrey 1945, 62).
Many scholars are more cautious in asserting an original Hebrew text for the
latter parts of Baruch. However, there have been a few who have argued the
case. For example, Martin (1991) argues that Bar 1.1–3.8 was originally written
in Hebrew, 3.9–4.4 in Aramaic, and 4.5–5.9 also in Hebrew (this is a change
from his original argument that 4.5–5.9 was originally written in Greek, Martin
1960).
This perspective has spurred a number of attempts to reconstruct the “orig-
inal” Hebrew text. The first and most notable retroversion was attempted by
J.J. Kneucker (1879), whose textual work and study of Baruch translations laid
the foundation for later Baruch studies. More recently, Tov (1975) has provided
a retroversion of Bar 1.1–3.8, asserting that the remainder of Baruch lacks suffi-
cient evidence for either a Hebrew original or sufficient information to recreate
a Hebrew text with confidence. Despite this caution by Tov, Burke (1982) has
provided a reconstruction of the “original” Hebrew text of 3.9–5.9.
Although attempts at reconstructing the Hebrew behind Greek Septuagint
texts are interesting scholarly exercises, the enterprise of retroverting a text has
been called into question for several reasons. First, James Barr’s insightful ques-
tioning of what the term “literal” means in respect to translations undermines
the enterprise’s theoretical underpinning. Barr (1979, 280) identifies a number
of different levels on which a translation can be free or literal, claiming that
“there are different ways of being literal and of being free, so that a translation
can be literal and free at the same time but in different modes or on different
levels”. Moreover, Barr argues that ancient translators did not follow a definite
12 chapter 1
translating policy and so seem to have worked in an ad hoc manner and at any
particular point may have opted for either a literal or a free rendering (1979,
281).
More recently, J. Davila (2005a) has, in my opinion, completely problema-
tised the entire endeavour of retroverting (cf. Wright 1989, 233–250). Drawing
on Barr’s study, Davila (2005a, 21) advances the position that “the generally
used sense of ‘literal’ and ‘free’ as opposite poles of a straight-line continuum
is entirely too simplistic”. Such a view is also apparent in the comments made
by A. Aejmelaeus (2001, 547), who claims that “translation technique cannot
be measured. It is too complex an entity to be measured. It must be described,
instead, and described from as many angles as possible, with as many criteria as
possible”. Davila builds on these arguments by identifying a number of areas in
which those who produce retroversions have made fundamental assumptions
that ultimately undermine the validity of their findings.
One additional factor in this debate that has not been discussed previously
is the stability of the text and the near absence of revisional readings (e.g.,
Aquilla, Symmachus, Theodotion). This textual stability and lack of revisional
versions is not witnessed in most lxx texts translated from Hebrew—e.g., the
prophets—and may suggest that Baruch was originally written in Greek or
that the translation was sufficiently “literal” that it was not thought to require
substantial recensional variation. Overall, in light of these studies, and the
methodological perspective of this commentary series, I will solely be working
with the Greek text, specifically that which is found in Vaticanus.
4.2 Conjunctions in Baruch

Conjunction use varies according to the different sections of Baruch. Whereas
καί and ὅτι dominate 1.1–3.8, there is a much more balanced use of conjunctions
in 3.9–4.4, with the number of καί greatly reduced and regular employment
of δέ and οὐδέ. In the final section (4.5–5.9) γάρ becomes the predominant
conjunction. For example, 4.7 marks the first instance of γάρ in Baruch, which
is subsequently used 17 additional times in Bar 4.5–5.9 (18 total times in B; 20 in
Rahlfs-Hanhart). Here γάρ is used in an explanatory sense (Thrall 1962, 42–50;
Porter 1994, 207) and functions on the level of the clause-complex rather than at
the higher discourse level. There are far fewer conjunctions in the final section,
with a nearly complete absence of paratactic καί used to join sentences.
4.3 Verbs in Baruch

Throughout Baruch there is a strong preference for aorist tense-forms of finite
verbs (see Table 2). Of the 273 finite verbs in Baruch, 204 or 75% are in the
aorist tense-form. This percentage rises if one adopts an aspectual approach,
in which future tense-forms are assigned to the sphere of mood (Schwyzer

1950, 2.290–294), as it does not enter into a meaningful set of oppositions with
other indicative tense-forms (Porter 1994, 43; Fanning 1990, 120–121). Such a per-
spective would change the percentage of aorist tense-form verbs to 89 %. This
disproportionate number of aorists forces the reader to note alternate tense-
forms as they provide a break to the established pattern. This does not include
the twenty-two εἱμί verbs which are considered aspectually vague (Porter 1993,
441–478).
The next most common tense-form is the future. Although instances of
the future form are present in each section, they are primarily located in
two clusters: 2.29–35 and 4.19–35. Unsurprisingly, both of these passages are
future-orientated. The author has employed the future tense-form not sim-
ply to encode a specific time, but to grammaticalise the author’s expectation
of uncertain future events (cf. Porter 1993, 403–439; Evans 2001, 39–40). This
expectation of future redemption sharply contrasts the current state of oppres-
sion (grammaticalised by the aorist tense-form, although indicated by tempo-
ral deictic markers) and so solidifies the structure of these two sections. It is
worth considering that both the penitential prayer (1.14–3.8) and the Jerusalem
poem sections (4.5–5.9), asserted to have been written by two different authors,
similarly structure their work through alternation between the aorist and the
future. At the very least, this similarity creates a stronger connection between
these two sections.
The tense-form distribution of imperatives (Table 3) is consistent with the
findings in Table 2. Once again there is a clear preference throughout the work
for the aorist tense-form. It is notable that the present tense-form imperative
only occurs in the final half of Baruch. The first occurrence is at 3.9 (ἄκουε,
Ισραηλ), which opens the wisdom section (3.9–4.4). There are no perfect or
pluperfect imperatives, as is typical in the Greek Bible (Fanning 1990, 326).
table 2 Finite tense-form verbs in Baruch
Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total
Aorist 17 80 45 62 204
Imperfect 4 2 1 0 7
Present 0 2 2 9 13
Perfect 0 2 0 1 3
Pluperfect 0 0 1 0 1
Future 4 20 3 18 45
14 chapter 1
table 3 Imperatives in Baruch
Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total
Aorist 6 18 4 17 45
Present 0 0 2 6 8
table 4 Infinitives in Baruch
Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total
Aorist 2 10 0 1 13
Present 0 6 1 2 9
Non-finite verbs also display interesting patterns of dispersal. For example, a

large majority of infinitives in Baruch occur in 1.14–3.8 (see Table 4). Although
there are some infinitives used elsewhere in Baruch, there is a clear imbalance
in their employment.
Similarly, the frequency of participles and how they are used varies. As
evident in Table 5, there are thirteen instances of the participle in the first half
of Baruch (1.1–3.8), six of which are paired with the article (indicated by “Art” in
the table). In section 3.9–4.4 there are eighteen participles, all but one of which
is paired with the article. Moreover, in the first three sections (1.1–4.4) there is a
clear preference for the present tense-form, a pattern that runs counter to the
pattern expressed in the finite verbs. However, in the final section (4.5–5.9) the
author has employed the aorist tense-form for articular participles, whereas for
non-articular participles other tense-forms have been used.
In addition to differences in the number of articular participles, the method
of their employment also differs. For example, in the first half of Baruch there
is rarely any separation of the article from its corresponding participle. This
strict pairing is not always followed in the second half of Baruch, where there
is sometimes an interposition of text between the article and its participle.
Similarly, in the first half there is only ever one participle per article. However,
in the second half there are a few places in which one article governs two
participles (bdf §276). A great example of both of these features together is 3.17,
οἱ ἐν τοῖς ὀρνέοις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐμπαίζοντες καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον θησαυρίζοντες, in which
the article (οἱ) governs the two present participles (ἐμπαίζοντες, θησαυρίζοντες),
both of which are preceded by their object (cf. 3.18; 4.31).
table 5 Participles in Baruch
Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total
Aorist 1 (1 Art) 0 2 (1 Art) 10 (9 Art) 13

Present 2 (2 Art) 9 (2 Art) 14 (13 Art) 5 (0 Art) 30
Perfect 0 1 (1 Art) 2 (2 Art) 1 (0 Art) 4
Overall, the relative preference for infinitives and participles appears to shift
between sections, with the first half of Baruch preferring the former while the
second half preferences the latter. It is difficult to posit an exact reason for this
change. It is possible that different literary styles associated with the shift from
prose to poetry influenced the author’s grammatical decisions. Alternatively,
these differences could point to different authors, each of whom composed
their sections using their preferred grammatical features. Regardless, the use
of aorist finite verbs is very consistent and is a unifying grammatical feature of
Baruch.
4.4 Prepositions in Baruch

Prepositions are another grammatical feature in Baruch that has garnered
scholarly interest. For example, Martin (1991), drawing on computer generated
tables (cf. Martin 1977), claims that certain patterns of prepositional use are
syntactic indicators of translation Greek (Martin 1974). As an example, Martin
argues that high number of occurrences of the preposition ἐν is an indicator
that the work might have been translated from Hebrew or Aramiac. In Baruch
the preposition ἐν is much more frequent in the first half (43×) than the second
half (13×). Martin also claims that the use of κατά should be less frequent
in translational Greek (1991, 362), although in Baruch all ten occurrences are
found in the penitential prayer section (1.14–3.8). Overall, it is difficult to engage
with Martin’s conclusions for Baruch as he provides little explicit discussion of
his findings.
Moving beyond the debate over translational Greek, there are some interest-
ing patterns regarding the use of prepositions in Baruch. Most notably, there are
groupings of prepositions in specific sections. For example, the only three uses
of περί are located in Baruch’s introduction (1.1–13). As mentioned above, all ten
occurrences of κατά are found in 1.14–3.8. Similarly, all six incidences of ἐναντίον
and two of the related ἔναντι are located in the first half. Likewise, a majority of
the uses of ἀπό and ἐπί are also found in 1.1–3.8. On the other hand, μετά and ὑπό
are witnessed in the last section (4.5–5.9), as are all but one instance of παρά
16 chapter 1
table 6 Prepositions in Baruch
Preposition 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total
ἀπό 3 10 2 4 19
ἀντί 0 0 1 0 1
διά 0 2 1 2 5
εἰς 4 14 7 8 33
ἐκ 1 6 1 4 12
ἐν 13 30 8 5 56
ἕνεκεν 0 1 0 0 1
ἔναντι 0 2 0 0 2
ἐναντίον 2 4 0 0 6
ἐπί 3 19 4 8 34
κατά 0 10 0 0 10
μετά 2 0 3 8 11
παρά 0 0 1 12 13
περί 3 0 0 0 3
πρός 5 6 2 6 19
σύν 0 0 0 1 1
ὑπό 2 0 0 5 7
(3.28). The latter preposition is almost always paired with a term for God in the
genitive (cf. 4.9, 22×2, 24, 25, 35, 36; 5.1, 2, 4, 6), the only exceptions being 3.28
and 5.6 (σου). This pattern of prepositional use is interesting, although it does
not, in itself, provide sufficient evidence to make claims regarding the unity of
the work and how the different sections interrelate.
5 Baruch’s Literary Influence
5.1 Baruch in the New Testament

There is no clear indication of dependence on Baruch in any of the New Tes-
tament writings. Nevertheless, some have argued that there are a few parallel
passages that provide insight into the thought-world of the New Testament.
DeSilva (2002, 214) suggests that the personification of Jerusalem in Bar 5.5
as the mother of all Jews scattered throughout the world provides an interest-
ing interpretive background to Paul’s depiction of the earthly Jerusalem as the
mother of slaves and the heavenly Jerusalem as the mother of both Jew and
Gentile Christians (Gal 4.21–31). It is clear that a direct association between

Baruch and Galatians is untenable, but both texts provide evidence for the
importance of lxx Isaiah for later interpretation, and for how the theme of
Jerusalem as “mother” was developed in the Second Temple period.
The most prominent similarity between Baruch and a New Testament text
is between Bar 4.7 (censure on worshiping idols and sacrificing to demons)
and Paul’s discussion of idols in 1Cor 10.14–21, although it is likely that Paul
is drawing on Deut 32.16–17 rather than Baruch. In addition to this example,
Thackeray (1921, 97) has pointed out other similarities between Baruch and
Paul (Bar 3.16 and 1Cor. 2.6; Bar 3.16, 20, 23, and 1 Cor 1.20, 27; 2.6). Other New
Testament similarities include Baruch’s denunciation of Babylon (4.32) and Rev
18.2–8; John 1.14 and Bar 3.38; and John 3.13 and Bar 3.29 (Moore 1977, 261).
5.2 Baruch in Early Church Writings

Although explicit citations of Baruch are lacking in the New Testament, refer-
ences to Baruch can be found in a number of church fathers (for a fuller list of
references, see Appendix 1), and the influence of Baruch has also been claimed
for other Christian writings (e.g., Bergren [2010] has argued that Baruch was
used by the author of 5 Ezra). The earliest citation is Athenagoras’s Legatio
pro Christianis 9, which cites Bar 3.36 (“This is our God; no other can be com-
pared to him”) as an example from “Jeremiah” regarding the importance of the
prophets for defence of the Christian faith.
Of particular interest is a citation of Bar 4.36–5.9 in Irenaeus’s Adv. haer.
5.35.1. This is by far the most substantial citation of Baruch by a church father,
and it employs a section of Baruch that is not often cited in other texts. Ire-
naeus makes use of the Baruch passage to support his claim that the terrestrial
Jerusalem is important for the eschatological purview of God, arguing that the
references in Baruch to Jerusalem are not solely allegorical, but rather foretell
the restoration of the earthly Jerusalem.
Another notable citation of Baruch is found in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa
Theologiae iii 4.4 and 40.1, both of which cite Bar 3.38. In 4.4 Aquinas quotes
Baruch 3.38 to affirm human nature of the Son of God and that it was necessary
for him to have become human: “The Son of God assumed human nature in
order to show Himself in men’s sight, according to Baruch 3.38: ‘Afterwards He
was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.’” Aquinas quotes the same pas-
sage in 40.1, although stressing “associated with humans” in the latter section to
help answer the question of “whether Christ should have associated with men,
or have led a solitary life”.
Although this has been a brief overview, there are two points of interest for
evaluating Baruch citations by church fathers. First, a number of church fathers
18 chapter 1
(e.g., Ambrose, Basil, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hilary of

Poitiers), when citing a quotation from Baruch, identify the author as Jeremiah
(Bogaert 2005, 287). This is interesting and understandable, since the book
of Baruch is considered part of the Jeremianic corpus and, as Baruch was
Jeremiah’s scribe, it is explicable how the church fathers might attribute the
content of Baruch to Jeremiah despite the title. Furthermore, Pierre-Maurice
Bogaert has argued (1972; 1974) that in its early history of transmission, Baruch
1–5 was (occasionally) appended to the book of Jeremiah without a proper title
and hence would not have been recognized as an independent book.
The second observation is that a large majority of citations come from Bar
3.36–38, especially v. 36, “This is our God, no other will be compared to him”, and
v. 38, “After this she appeared on earth and lived among humans”. The former,
Bar 3.36, is cited to support the Christian/Jewish monotheistic claim that there
is only one God, whereas the latter, 3.38, exploiting the verb’s gender ambiguity,
is claimed to be a christological prophecy that God would live with humans
(i.e., Jesus’ incarnation).
In addition to these citations from early church fathers, there is a notable
citation of Baruch by Besa, an early proponent of monasticism in Egypt. In his
Epistle 72.23–27, Besa cites Bar 4.7–8 in his critique against the worship of idols.
This citation, like the Coptic manuscripts discussed above, supports the view
that Baruch was being read and used within the Coptic tradition.
Lastly, of interest is the commentary of Jeremiah by Theodoret of Cyrus in
which he comments on Baruch and Lamentations, but not on the Epistle of
Jeremiah (pg 81; Hill 2006). There are questions of authenticity regarding the pg
text of the Jeremiah Commentary (cf. Clavis Patrum Graecorum 6205) due to the
possibility of another commentary on Jeremiah attributed to Theodoret (Hill
2006, 4–5). Nevertheless, Theodoret will be an important conversation partner
in this commentary.
5.3 Baruch in Jewish Writings

In evaluating Jewish literature, there is little evidence of Baruch’s being used
by Jewish writers. It appears from the discussion by R. Johanan and the other
rabbis that the book of Baruch was never accepted as authoritative by the
Palestinian Jews (b. B. Bat. 14b). All references to Baruch are to the scribe of
Jeremiah, rather than the literary document. For example, in the Talmudim
a majority of the Baruch references are drawn from Jeremiah, primarily from
chapter 36 (mt), either verse 18 (b. Meg. 19a; b. B. Bat. 15a; b. Menaḥ. 30a) or
verse 27 (b. Moʾed Qaṭ. 26a), which explicitly connect Baruch to Jeremiah ( y.
Soṭah. 9.13).
There are also several other references to the scribe Baruch in Jewish writ-
ings. For instance, b. Meg. 16b discusses the relationship between Baruch and
Ezra, claiming that Ezra would not leave Baruch to go to the land of Israel
while Baruch was still alive. Prior to this, b. Meg. 15a calls Baruch a prophet:
“Baruch the son of Neriah and Serayah the son of Mahseyah and Daniel and
Mordecai, Bilshan, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi all prophesied in the sec-
ond year of Darius”. Similarly, R. Nahman claims that “eight prophets who were
also priests were descended from Rahab the harlot, namely, Neriah, Baruch,
Serayah, Mahseyah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanamel and Shallum” (b. Meg. 14b).
There is no discussion of writings attributed to Baruch in any of these refer-
ences.
Similarly, there is no manuscript evidence for the book of Baruch at Qum-
ran, although 7Q2 appears to be a small fragment of the Epistle of Jeremiah in
Greek (see EpJer Introduction). Again, the only reference to Baruch is regarding
his scribal relationship with Jeremiah: “This is the word which Jeremiah spoke
to Baruch, son of Neriah, Blank and Elishah to Gehazi his servant. Blank All the
men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus” (cd-a col. viii 20–
21). Although there are more fragments left to be edited, it is safe to say at this
time that it appears that the book and figure of Baruch did not play a major role
in the Qumran community (Stone 1999, 142).
5.4 Baruch in Modern Church Traditions

The book of Baruch is still included in Roman Catholic Bibles and selections
from it are read throughout the year’s liturgy. For example, Bar 3.9–38 is used
in the liturgy of Holy Saturday during Passiontide and during the revised liturgy
for the Easter Vigil. Baruch 1.14–2.5; 3.1–8 is a liturgical reading within the
revised Roman Catholic Breviary for the twenty-ninth week. Drawing on Ba-
ruch’s motif of repentance, the subject of the reading is “the prayer and confes-
sion of sin of a penitent people”. Baruch 3.9–15, 3.24–4.4 is a liturgical reading
for the Saturday of week twenty-nine, drawing on the theme that “the salvation
of Israel is founded on wisdom”.
In the Church of England, Baruch is listed in Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine
Articles as a book “the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of
manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine”. In addition,
Bar 4.21–29 is read in the Daily Office Lectionary for Christmas Eve, and Bar
4.30–5.9 on Christmas day, as both passages are considered to be messianic
prophecies in the Anglican tradition.
20 chapter 1
6 Baruch’s Sense-Unit Delineations in Greek and Coptic Codices
Although scholarship has traditionally focused solely on manuscript differ-

ences in words and word order, there is a growing recognition that sense
units above the clause, i.e., “sentences” (clause-complex) and “paragraphs”, are
important for interpretation (Olley 1998; 2009, 39; Porter 2009a). For this pur-
pose, sense-unit markers in the different manuscript traditions are of partic-
ular importance (Korpel 2000). Unfortunately, most standard lxx resources
(e.g., Swete 1901–1905; Ziegler 2007) do not discuss the paragraphing differences
between manuscripts except to note the ways in which they are marked.
Modern linguistic theory argues that ignoring larger unit divisions produces
large lacunae in interpretations. For example, T. Givón (1979, xiii) presents a
chastising critique when he exclaims, “It has become obvious to a growing
number of linguists that the study of the syntax of isolated sentences, extracted,
without natural context from the purposeful constructions of the speakers is a
methodology that has outlived its usefulness”. Likewise, K.L. Pike (1967, 147)
emphasises that the sentence “is a totally inadequate starting or ending point.
Sentences themselves cannot be analyzed without reference to higher-level
relationships”.
Each level of discourse contributes to the understanding of the text as a
whole. Furthermore, each level of division directly affects the interpretation of
the material which it frames. For example, paragraph markers provide interpre-
tive clues to the reader and frame the way that the preceding and following text
is understood (for an excellent example/model, see de Moor 2000). In ancient
manuscripts, these marked divisions provide a window into the interpretive
process of early readers and copiers, and into differences between translations
(Korpel 2000; Tov 2000). They model the different ways that a text may have
been used and so provide another datum for history of interpretation. Varia-
tions in sense-unit technique and placement reflect both liturgical and exeget-
ical diversity. An important issue, however, is determining whether internal
idiosyncrasies in any given manuscript are due to the exemplar, scribe, or local
community practice (Olley 1998; Porter 2009a).
This commentary, based on the text of Codex Vaticanus, will adopt Vati-
canus’s sense-unit divisions in the text edition and commentary. Other para-
graphing practices, particularly those that divide the text in alternate places,
will be discussed. Paragraph divisions, both major and minor, are evident in
the four major Greek codices that include Baruch (B, A, Q, and V). These
manuscripts are the oldest available for Baruch and their different paragraph-
ing techniques and placements provide insight into how earlier readers inter-
preted this work.
6.1 Codex Vaticanus (B)

Major sense-unit divisions in Baruch Vaticanus are indicated not by ekthesis,
but by a paragraphos (a horizontal line in the left margin) and a Greek letter
in the margin (Auld 2005, x). There is, if the previous line allowed, a small 1–3
character space either in the middle of the line or at the end of the line, which
indicates the location of the break. This is the pattern for all of Baruch’s nine
major divisions: 1.1, 14; 2.11; 3.1, 9, 24; 4.5, 19, 30. The initial K at 1.1 is placed in the
margin; it is four lines high and coloured in blue, except for the top right tip,
which is red.
There are two types of minor breaks in Vaticanus Baruch, with six examples:
1.15; 2.6; 3.4; 4.1, 25, 36. Like the major breaks, there is sometimes a concomi-
tant space of 1–3 characters. There are breaks with only a paragraphos (1.15;
2.6; 4.25, 36) and breaks that have a paragraphos plus extra marginal signal “Γ”
(cf. 3.4; 4.1), which are clearly different from the aforementioned Greek section
numbering and appear to be later scribal indications of chapter breaks. Inter-
estingly, the scribe mistakenly(?) placed one of these marks at 3.4 and not at
3.1, likely confusing the verses because both open identically. Also noteworthy
is the fact that only chapters three and four are marked; there is no indica-
tion that the later scribe attempted to indicate the opening of chapters two
or five.
6.2 Codex Alexandrinus (A)

Codex Alexandrinus has substantially more breaks in Baruch than Vaticanus
and thus divides the text into smaller segments. Breaks are consistently marked
with ekthesis and a space at the end of the previous line (cf. Smith 2014). Such
breaks occur at 1.1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14; 2.6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 29; 3.1, 4, 8, 9, 24, 29, 33, 36, 37;
4.1, 2, 5, 9b, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 5, 8. There are also three
minor breaks that are marked by a 2 or 3 character space in the middle of the
line, but lack ekthesis (1.10; 4.29; and 5.7).
6.3 Codex Marchalianus (Q)

Major divisions in Q are indicated by ekthesis, paragraphos, and a gap in the
previous line if space allowed (eleven in total: 1.1, 6, 10; 2.6, 11, 20; 3.1, 29; 4.5;
5.5, 6). Additionally, Q has numerous minor divisions marked by paragraphos.
These are not often paired with a space in the text, but are always accompanied
by a raised dot (·) in the previous line. These are found at 1.3, 13, 14, 19, 21; 2.7, 9,
13, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24, 24*, 25, 25*, 26, 27, 30*, 31*, 34, 34*; 3.4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16,
18, 20, 23, 24, 26*, 30, 31, 32*, 34, 36; 4.1, 1*, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 3, 8 (65 in total). The margins of Q are extensively
marked with comments and corrections, including hexaplaric markings.
22 chapter 1
6.4 Codex Venetus (V)

There are two types of paragraphs found in V: major and minor. Major breaks,
of which there are 20, are indicated by ekthesis and a gap of 1–3 letters in the
previous line. These divisions can be found in verses 1.1; 2.6, 14, 20, 30; 3.1, 9,
16, 29, 36; 4.1, 5, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26; 5.5, 7. The 8 minor breaks consist of a 1–3
character gap, but lack ekthesis. These are located at 1.6, 15; 2.11, 19, 24; 3.24;
4.33, 36.
6.5 Coptic Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22)

Due to its age (third to fifth century, Kasser 1964, 7), Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22) is
an important witness to early paragraphing habits. Unfortunately, substantial
damage has been sustained by some pages and by the outside edge of each
leaf. Likely following his exemplar, the scribe used a stylised colon (:) for minor
subdivisions and a stylised couble colon (::) for major subdivisions. This is often
paired with a blank space and sometimes paragraph features like ekthesis or
paragraphoi.
Examining the text, it is apparent that there are few major breaks. Rather,
the text is regularly divided into smaller sections by the use of a raised dot
(·). Of the major divisions, of which there are two for certain and two oth-
ers possible, the first, 2.11, is marked with a double colon (::) and the sec-
ond, 4.25, is indicated with a (faint) paragraphos. The other possible divi-
sions are at 2.12, which is marked by a double raised dot (··), and at 3.14,
which has a one-character space before ϣⲓⲛⲉ. The paucity of major divisions
is notable, especially as they do not occur at expected parts of the text (e.g., 3.9,
4.5).
On a side note, in the edition of Mich. ms 111 by Shier (1942), Bar 1.1 opens
with ekthesis. Sadly the rest of the text is lost.
table 7 Baruch’s sense division, in Greek and Coptic manuscripts
B A Q V 822 Notes/opening words
1.3 m m καὶ ἀνέγνω

1.5 m καὶ ἔκλαιον
1.6 m m καὶ συνήγαγον
1.7 m καὶ ἀπέστειλαν
1.10 m m καὶ εἶπαν
1.10* m ἰδοὺ
1.13 m καὶ προσεύξασθε
1.14 m m m καὶ ἀναγνώσεσθε (b)1

1.15 m καὶ ἐρεῖτε
1.15* p m τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ
1.19 m ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας
1.21 m καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
2.6 p m m m τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ
2.7 m ἃ ἐλάλησεν
2.9 m καὶ ἐγρηγόρησεν
2.10 m καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
2.11 m m m καὶ νῦν, κύριε
2.11 m κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ2
2.11 (::) ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ
2.12(?) (··) ⲁⲛⲣ̅
2.13 m m ἀποστραφήτω
2.14 m m εἰσάκουσον, κύριε
2.16 m m κύριε, κάτιδε
2.19 m m ὅτι οὐκ ἐπὶ
2.20 m m ὅτι ἐνῆκας
2.21 m oὕτως εἶπεν κύριος
2.22 m καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε
2.24 m m καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
2.24* m καὶ ἔστησας τοὺς λόγους
2.25 m καὶ ἰδού εἰσιν3
2.25* m καὶ ἀπεθάνοσαν
2.26 m καὶ ἔθηκας
2.27 m καὶ ἐποίησας
2.29 m ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε
2.30 m ὅτι ἔγνων
2.30* m καὶ ἐπιστρέψουσιν
2.31* m καὶ δώσω
2.34 m καὶ ἀποστρέψω
2.34* m καὶ οὐ μὴ σμικρυνθῶσιν
1 A has a textual variant to καὶ ἀναγνώσεσθαι.

2 A omits Καὶ νῦν at the opening of the verse.
3 Q has a textual variant from καὶ ἰδού ἐστιν.
24 chapter 1
table 7 Baruch’s sense division, in Greek and Coptic manuscripts (cont.)
3.1 m m m m κύριε παντοκράτωρ

3.4 p+ m m κύριε παντοκράτωρ
3.5 m μὴ μνησθῇς
3.7 m ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο
3.8 m ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς σήμερον
3.9 m m m m ἄκουε, Ισραηλ
3.13 m τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ
3.14 m space μάθε ποῦ ἐστιν / ϣⲓⲛⲉ
3.15 m τίς εὗρεν
3.16 m m ποῦ εἰσιν οἱ ἄρχοντες
3.18 m ὅτι οἱ τὸ ἀργύριον
3.20 m νεώτεροι εἶδον
3.23 m οὐτε οἱ υἱοὶ Αγαρ4
3.24 m m m m ὂ Ισραηλ
3.26 m ἐπιστάμενοι πόλεμον
3.29 m m m τίς ἀνέβη
3.30 m τίς διέβη
3.31 m οὐκ ἔστιν
3.32* m ὁ κατασκευάσας
3.33 m ὁ ἀποστέλλων
3.34 m οἱ δὲ ἀστέρες
3.36 m m m οὗτος ὁ θεὸς
3.37 m ἐξεῦρεν πᾶσαν
4.1 p+ m m m αὕτη ἡ βίβλος
4.1* m πάντες οἱ κρατοῦντες
4.2 m m ἐπιστρέφου, Ιακωβ
4.4 m+ μακάριοί ἐσμεν
4.5 m m m m θαρσεῖτε, λαός μου
4.9 m εἶδεν γὰρ
4.9* m καὶ εἶπεν Ἀκούσατε
4.12 m+ μηδεὶς ἐπιχαιρέτω
4.14 m m+ m ἐλθάτωσαν
4 Q has a textual variant from οἱ τε υἱοὶ Αγαρ.

4.16 m καὶ ἤγαγον5

4.17 m ἐγὼ δὲ τί
4.19 m m m m βαδίζετε τέκνα
4.21 Μ m m θαρρεῖτε τέκνα
4.23 m ἐξέπεμψα γὰρ
4.24 Μ m m ὥσπερ γὰρ νῦν
4.25 p Μ m p τέκνα, μακροθυμήσατε / ⲛⲁϣⲏⲣⲉ
4.26 Μ m m οἱ τρυφεροί μου
4.27 m m θαρρήσατε, τέκνα
4.28 m ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐγένετο
4.29 m ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν
4.30 m m m θάρσει, Ιερουσαλημ
4.32 m δείλαιαι αἱ πόλεις
4.33 m ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐχάρη
4.35 m πῦρ γὰρ
4.36 p m m m περίβλεψε
4.37 m m ἰδοὺ ἔρχονται
5.1 m m+ ἔκδυσει, Ιερουσαλημ
5.2 m m περιβαλοῦ
5.3 m ὁ γὰρ θεὸς
5.5 m m m ἀνάστηθι Ιερουσαλημ
5.6 m ἐξῆλθον γὰρ
5.7 m m συνέταξεν γὰρ
5.8 m m ἐσκίασαν δὲ
Table symbols:
p Paragraphos
p+ (only in B) Paragraphos + a marginal marking that looks like
a capital Gamma (Γ)
m Major break
m Minor break
m+ (only in Q) Paragraphos + break and large mid-line letter
* Break occurs in the middle (not at the beginning) of the verse
5 This is a textual variant from καὶ ἀπήγαγον.

26 chapter 1
In the chart of sense divisions above, we can see a number of patterns. First,
the Coptic text (822) has very few paragraph divisions and the divisions it does
have are not in places where one might expect them to occur. For example,
there is no division at 1.14, 3.9 or 4.5, where the three major divisions of Baruch
arguably take place. Instead, 822 breaks the text at seemingly insignificant
places.
Second, among the Greek texts, Vaticanus has the fewest divisions and
almost equal use of major and minor breaks. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus’s near
contemporary, has significantly more divisions, almost all of which are major
breaks. Venetus, an eighth century text, has fewer breaks than Alexandrinus,
but more than Vaticanus. The notable outlier among Greek manuscripts is
Marchalianus, which has a substantially greater number of divisions, most of
which are minor paragraphoi.
Finally, there is general agreement among the manuscripts regarding the
location of divisions included in Vaticanus. Although B does not divide the
text often, the breaks are regularly paralleled in the other texts. This provides
extra support for our approach of making use of Vaticanus’s sense divisions to
structure this commentary.
7 The Greek Text and Translation in This Commentary
7.1 Greek Text

The text used for this edition comes from the 1999 facsimile edition of Codex
Vaticanus B (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1999). Baruch commences on the
second column of page 1127 and concludes on the third line of page 1133. There
are 42 lines per column, three columns per page (17× 42 + 3) for a total of 717
lines. Consistent with Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter, Baruch is located in the
Jeremianic corpus after Jeremiah, but before Lamentations.
The transcription follows the work of the instaurator (B1), who has provided
an accurate proof of the text. Unfortunately, it is not always certain whether
some corrections (of which there are few) originate from the original scribe or
from a later corrector (Bc). What is readily apparent is that the corrections of
spelling variants are from a later corrector and not from the original scribe (B*).
Changes in the text are identified in the edition’s footnotes and in the text itself.
The spelling habits of B* have been adopted for the text, and are as follows:
1. There is a tendency for the first scribe to write ει in stead of ι. Examples

include ἐπιείκειαν for ἐπιείκιαν (2.27), μεικρὰν for μικρὰν (2.29), and κεινήσω
for κινήσω (2.35). Such itacisms and corrections are well documented in
manuscripts (Ropes 1926, xxxviii–xxxix; Milne and Skeat 1938, 89; Gignac
1976, 189–191). For this edition, I have retained the original spelling. It ap-
pears, however, that a later scribe did not like this spelling practice and either
erased the offending “ε” or did not “reinforce” it when recopying the text. This
is confirmed by the indication that a scribe between the ninth and eleventh
centuries (Skeat 1984, 461) traced over the original ink of every letter/word,
except those that were suspected of being in error (Payne and Canart 2000,
106; Metzger and Ehrman 2005, 68). It is generally assumed that the scribe
was attempting to preserve the fading original (Canart and Martini 1965, 8).
In such cases the original spelling has been retained in this edition, but is
indicated by (ε)ι.
2. Similarly, there are a few occasions on which the scribe (or his exemplar)
employs epsilon (ε) where other manuscripts, both modern and ancient,
would have alpha-iota (αι) (cf. Moulton 1908, 34; Gignac 1976, 192–193).
For example, in 4.36 and 5.5 Vaticanus has περίβλεψε, whereas most other
manuscripts read περίβλεψαι. A similar change is evident in 5.6 where αἰρο-
μένους is spelled ἐρομένους.
3. There is a tendency for the original scribe to include a so-called “movable nu”
at the end of certain verbs, a practice that was not consistently employed in
the Roman and Byzantine periods (Gignac 1976, 114–115). Again, it appears
that a later scribe did not like this practice if the verb was followed by
a word beginning with a consonant, and either erased them or did not
“reinforce” them when recopying the text (Payne and Canart 2000, 106). I
have retained the N’s within the text where they originally occurred, and
they are represented by (ν).
4. The original scribe of B retained the unaltered verbal prefixes ἐν- and συν-
before γ, κ, and π, and Bc has written γ or μ above the “incorrect” connector.
These changes are identified in the footnotes.
5. A related scribal preference is the placement of a sigma as the last letter of
a line. The original scribe did not see this as a problem, but the corrector
erased all last-position sigmas and reinserted them at the beginning of
the next line (e.g., p. 1127, col. 3, lines 10–11). There is one instance of this
happening to a final tau (p. 1131; col. 1, line 29). This is not to say that the
corrector scribe disliked lines ending with a consonant, of which there are
many instances. There does not appear to be any good reason for this change,
since, especially for the moving of the tau, the resulting change creates a
more difficult reading.
The transcription of Baruch and EpJer in this edition follow B apart from
a few conventions. First, as is common practice, spaces have been inserted
28 chapter 1
between words. Second, lower case letters have been used throughout with
the exception of the first letter of proper names. Third, accentuation and
breathing marks have been added (the original scribe did not use accents, but
in B they have been added by a later scribe). Fourth, in the edition below I
adopt the punctuation given by Zeigler (2009) with a few exceptions. Ziegler’s
punctuation marks, such as commas and full stops for reading ease, are not
found in the Vaticanus text, where the only punctuation is the raised dot (·).
Few in number, this punctuation mark occurs in places where this and other
modern editions have question punctuation (;) or other breaks in the text.
Next, as discussed further below (7.2.1), the original scribe made use of
nomina sacra for most instances of κύριος, θεός, and πνεῦμα, and one instance of
Ισραηλ. Relatedly, the scribe also abbreviated certain words/syllables occurring
at the end of a line of text. For example, if καί occurs at the end of the line,
it is represented by a Κ` (e.g., p. 1127, col. 2, line 37; p. 1127, col. 3, line 13, 20;
p. 1128, col. 1, line 4, 18; p. 1129, col. 1, line 18; col. 2, line 27, 36; p. 1130; col. 3,
line 40; p. 1131; col. 2, line 12; p. 1132, col. 3, line 14), but one of these was corrected
and spelled out in full (see p. 1130; col. 3, line 32). Also, the original scribe of
Vaticanus raised the “N” at the end of lines consistently if the N was the last
letter of the word, and sporadically if it was in the middle of a word. The rare
exception is when the scribe had to squeeze in extra letters, and then he used
the raised line for N. All of these abbreviations have been written out in full in
the text below. Similarly, diaereses used in the text to assist in word divisions
have been omitted, although they typically occur over iotas that begin a proper
name, ἵνα (e.g., 1.11), and the different forms of ἱερέυς (e.g., ἱερέα and ἱερεῖς 1.7,
16). The use of diaereses appears to trace to the original scribe, although they
could also have been added by the later scribe who added accents.
Finally, all paragraph divisions in this edition follow those in B (see above
for a discussion on the location of text breaks). Major paragraph breaks in Vat-
icanus are marked with a new paragraph and their corresponding Greek para-
graph number. Minor breaks have been treated in two ways. The breaks with
only a paragraphos in B (1.15; 2.6; 4.25, 36) have been marked with an extra space
within a paragraph and do not start a new paragraph. The breaks in Vaticanus
that have a paragraphos plus extra marginal notes (i.e., 3.4; 4.1) have been for-
matted as a new paragraph, but lack a paragraph number. Later Western chap-
ter and verse numbers are included along with the Greek chapter numbers.
7.2 The Names of God in Vaticanus Baruch

7.2.1 Nomina Sacra
The use of nomina sacra is prevalent in Vaticanus. Indicated by a supralinear
stroke above two (κύριος, θεός) or three (πνεῦμα, Ισραηλ) letters, the nomina sa-
cra of Baruch are contracted, with the final letter indicating the case of the word
(nominative, vocative, genitive, dative, or accusative). The nomen sacrum form
is used consistently for every occurrence of the terms κύριος, θεός, and πνεῦμα:
Κύριος: 1.5, 8, 10, 12, 13×3, 14, 15, 17, 18×2, 19×2, 20, 21, 22; 2.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 × 3,
10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16×2, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 31, 33; 3.1, 2, 4, 6 × 2, 8 = 46
Θεός: 1.10, 13×2, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22; 2.5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 19, 31, 35; 3.1, 4 × 2, 6, 8, 13, 24,
27, 36; 4.1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9×2, 12, 13, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7×2, 8, 9 = 52
Πνεῦμα: 2.17; 3.1 = 2
The one deviation from this is θεοῖς ἑτέροις (1.22), where the referent is not
the God of Israel, but rather foreign gods. The importance of this deviation is
amplified when it is recognised that a nomen sacrum of θεός occurs in the same
verse, eight words later, when referring to “our Lord God” (κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν).
Similar discretion is witnessed with κυριεύοντες in 3.16, which despite being a
cognate of κύριος is not a nomen sacrum, because its referent is not God.
The notable exception to this consistency is the nomen sacrum of Ισραηλ,
which occurs only once in the text (3.24). The inconsistency arises in that none
of the other instances of Ισραηλ are placed in a nomen sacrum form (cf. 2.1 × 2,
11, 15, 26, 28, 35; 3.1, 4×2, 9, 10; 4.4, 5; 5.7, 8, 9). There is no apparent reason
for the singular nomen sacrum, although the same pattern is evident in other
books, such as Exodus (Gurtner, 2012). It is possible that Ισραηλ was beginning
to be included in the nomina sacra classification, but was not yet subject to
consistent application.
In contrast to Vaticanus, Alexandrinus has a much more expansive use
of nomina sacra, applying the form to κύριος, θεός, πνεῦμα, and Ισραηλ, like
Vaticanus, but also to Ιερουσαλημ, ἄνθρωπος, οὐρανός, and any word with πατήρ
forming part of the root, for a total of 150 nomina sacra in Baruch and 16 in EpJer
(cf. Croy 2006, xxi). The nomina sacra for κύριος and θεός are contracted and
consist of the first and last letters. The others consist of three or four characters.
For example, Ιερουσαλημ is abbreviated ΙΛΗΜ with a diaeresis over I and a bar
over Η, and at 1.15 there is a nomen sacrum for ἀνθρώπῳ, ΑΝW with a line over
the W. Any occurrence of πατήρ is abbreviated ΠAΡ with a supra-linear stroke
over the Ρ and a complete morphological ending (see 1.16, 19; 2.6, 21).
Baruch Alexandrinus: 150 total

Θεός: 1.10, 13×2, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22; 2.5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 19, 27, 31, 35;
3.1, 2, 4×2, 6, 8, 13, 24, 36; 4.1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 × 2, 12, 13, 15, 21,
23, 25, 27, 28, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 × 2, 8, 9 = 53
30 chapter 1
Κύριος: 1.5, 8, 10, 12, 13×3, 14, 15, 18 × 2, 19× 2, 20, 21, 22; 2.1, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9×3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 × 2, 17× 2, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27,
31, 33; 3.1, 2, 4, 6×2, 8 = 47
Ισραηλ: 2.1×2, 11, 26, 28, 35; 3.4 × 2, 9, 10, 24, 37; 4.4, 5; 5.7, 8, 9 =
17
Πατήρ: 1.16, 19, 20; 2.6, 19, 21, 24, 33, 34; 3.5, 7, 8 = 12
Ιερουσαλημ: 1.2, 6, 7, 15; 2.2; 3.1; 4.8, 30, 36; 5.1, 5 = 11
Ἄνθρωπος: 1.15; 2.1, 3×2; 3.17, 38 = 6
Οὐρανός: 3.17, 29 = 2
Πνεῦμα: 2.17; 3.1 = 2
One other comment regarding nomina sacra in Baruch Alexandrinus, related to

scribal practices, is that there is sometimes a small gap after a nomen sacrum in
which there appears to be a raised dot (·). For example, there is a raised dot after
Ισραηλ in Bar 5.7. The most pronounced example is 3.1, where three nomina
sacra have a clear raised dot after each occurrence. It is possible that this is a
scribal tendency that is not part of the nomen sacrum marking, and it might
therefore indicate the habits of a particular scribe. The space after a nomen
sacrum, however, is seen in other early Christian mss (e.g., 963, 968, and P46).
7.2.2 The Characteristics and Names for God in Baruch

In Baruch the God of Israel is referred to primarily by the terms κύριος and θεός.
One notable change in vocabulary occurs at the major break between 3.8 and
3.9. In the first half of Baruch, κύριος and θεός are used interchangeably to refer
to the God of Israel with κύριος often being the preferred option. However, after
3.9 only θεός is used and there is no occurrence of κύριος. Similarly, 4.5–5.9,
although making use of θεός, also refers to God by other titles, most commonly
ὁ αἰώνιος. Most scholars have used these differences to claim that 3.9–5.9 was
written by a different author than 1.1–3.8.
Baruch ascribes a number of attributes to God. The most common attribute
is his eternal nature, corresponding to his title ὁ αἰώνιος, “the Everlasting” (4.8,
10, 14, 20, 22, 24, 35; 5.2). This is the only adjective used as a title. God is also the
source of light (1.12; 3.14, 33; 4.2; 5.9). Although the latter is an attribute in its
own right, it is often associated with other characteristics: in the wisdom poem
it is paired with God’s wisdom (3.12–13, 35–37; 4.2) and omniscience (3.32),
whereas in the last section (4.5–5.9) it is collocated with God’s glory (4.37; 5.1,
2, 3, 9). God, furthermore, is seen as the source of joy for his people (4.29, 36,
37; 5.9).
Another important theme in Baruch is God’s anger and response to “sin”.
God’s anger at sin is frequently referenced in the opening and closing sections
(1.13; 2.13, 20; 4.6–7, 9–10, 25) and is strongly tied to divine retribution (1.13;
2.1, 4, 7; 4.14–15, 19, 29, 34–35). This understanding of the consequences of
and punishment for sin forms a theological foundation for the worldview
developed in Baruch, and informs the structure of the narrative as a whole, in
which the people of Israel begin in exile as punishment for sinning against God,
and will only be returned to the land and Jerusalem after they have repented.
Unsurprisingly, the theme of God’s anger is minimally discussed in the wisdom
section (3.10–12).
The theme of God’s anger is strongly tied to God’s supreme role in the
salvation and deliverance of his people. The people of “Israel”, a name given
to them by God (4.30; 5.4), are regularly depicted as needing deliverance and
salvation. Briefly discussed in 2.34, the latter theme reaches a climax in the final
section (4.18, 21–24, 29, 37; 5.6, 9). Burke (1982, 35) rightly notes that “salvation”
in Baruch is equated with physical deliverance from affliction and a return to
a new, but still terrestrial, life. It is noteworthy that metaphysical aspects of
salvation are not prominent.
7.3 English Translation

Recent decades have seen a flurry of activity in translating the lxx (De Troyer
2012, 11). The recent nets translation (2007) provides a welcome English trans-
lation that is readily accessable to students and scholars. Similarly, translations
in other languages, such as Septuaginta Deutsch (lxx.d), La Bible d’ Alexandrie,
La Biblia griega, and a forthcoming Russian one (Desnitsky 2005), all support
the growing consensus that the Septuagint is an important area of study that
has been neglected for too long.
Each of these projects discusses the challenges of translating a translation,
as do a number of works by individual scholars (e.g., Hiebert 2001). However,
the perspective of this series (and I hope lxx scholarship as a whole) is not just
to see the Greek Bible as a text-critical window into recovering an “original”
Hebrew text, but to appreciate the unique characteristics of these texts and to
interpret them as independent works. Writing in this series, Brayford in her
Genesis commentary (2007, 25–26) expresses the latter philosophy and seeks
to determine how the text may have been understood and read as a Greek text
by readers who did not have access to the Hebrew. Likewise Aejmelaeus (1991)
makes an excellent plea for understanding the Greek text on its own terms.
For Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah such a focus is even more compelling,
as there is no Hebrew text to consult. Although the number of retroversions
indicates that many scholars have treated Baruch as a translation, and have
sought to tease out the Hebrew grammar and syntax behind the Greek text,
this commentary will not take that approach.
32 chapter 1
The translation presented in this volume, as mentioned above, is of the text

of a specific codex (Vaticanus), with all its potential interpretive difficulties, its
readings that differ from those of other witnesses, and its unique sense-unit
delineations. The examination of a single manuscript adheres to the goals of
Brill’s Septuagint commentary series, and the selection of Vaticanus specifically
was a natural one for two reasons. First, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah are
missing in Sinaiticus. Second, although the text of Alexandrinus differs little
from Vaticanus, the relative ages support the selection of Vaticanus.
Ultimately, any translation subtly interprets the meaning of a text, as there
is rarely (if ever) complete semantic overlap between words from different
languages. This is especially true when these languages are temporally and geo-
graphically separated. Rabin (1968, 2) expresses this well: “Since the language
into which the text is translated has a different ‘Language World’ of its own,
which will necessarily in some ways be different from that of the language and
period in which the original is written (or spoken), there cannot be a perfect fit
of ‘register’”.
Despite this correct assessment of the limitations of translations, transla-
tions are needed and should be endeavoured upon, although with care and
with proper recognition of their limitations. Even the ancients had a concept of
different translation techniques. This can be seen in the different translations
of the lxx (Aquila and Symmachus), as well as the translational approaches
discussed by Cicero in his dichotomy of word versus sense translations (verbum
e verbo and sensus de sensu, Opt. gen. 14). The current translation is fairly “lit-
eral” (if we can talk in those terms) and has not attempted to provide polished
English. Rather, taking its structure and pattern from the Greek text, it is more
like “crib notes” for reading the Greek. Lexical consistency will be adhered to
where possible, but the role of the lexical unit in context will be given primary
consideration. Understanding a word in relationship to other related terms,
based on the concept of semantic domains, will also influence the translation
and will be noted in the commentary.
Finally, proper nouns in the Greek text will not be transliterated in the
translation or commentary and more common English names will be used.
Also, following Auld (2005), the Greek name for Israel’s God (κύριος) is rendered
in the translation as “Lord” rather than “the Lord”, except when required by
English grammar. Nomina sacra have been written out in full.
chapter 2
The Text and Translation of Baruch

Inscriptio: ΒΑΡΟΥΧ
1 Narrative Setting of Baruch (1.1–13)
(Α) 1 1 καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου, οὓς ἔγραψε(ν) Βαρουχ υἱὸς Νηρίου υἱοῦ
Μαασαίου υἱοῦ Σεδεκίου υἱοῦ Ασαδίου υἱοῦ Χελκίου ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 2 ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ
πέμπτῳ ἐν ἑβδόμῃ τοῦ μηνὸς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ᾧ ἔλαβον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὴν Ιερουσαλημ
καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί. 3 καὶ ἀνέγνω Βαρουχ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου 5
τούτου ἐν ὠσὶν Ιεχονίου υἱοῦ Ιωακειμ βασιλέως Ιουδα καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ παντὸς τοῦ
λαοῦ τῶν ἐρχομένων πρὸς τὴν βίβλον 4 καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ(ν) τῶν δυνατῶν καὶ υἱῶν τῶν
βασιλέων καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἐν ὠσὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ μικροῦ
ἕως μεγάλου, πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ Σουδ. 5 καὶ
ἔκλαιον καὶ ἐνήστευον καὶ ηὔχοντο ἐναντίον κυρίου 6 καὶ συνήγαγον ἀργύριον, 10
καθὰ ἑκάστου ἠδύνατο ἡ χείρ, 7 καὶ ἀπέστειλαν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ πρὸς Ιωακειμ υἱὸν
Χελκίου υἱοῦ Σαλωμ τὸν ἱερέα καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ πρὸς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοὺς
εὑρεθέντας μετʼ αὐτοῦ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ 8 ἐν τῷ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τὰ σκεύη οἴκου κυρίου
τὰ ἐξενεχθέντα ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ ἀποστρέψαι εἰς γῆν Ιουδα τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Σειουαν,
σκεύη ἀργυρᾶ, ἃ ἐποίησε(ν) Σεδεκίας υἱὸς Ιωσ(σ)ία βασιλεὺς Ιουδα 9 μετὰ τὸ 15
ἀποικίσαι Ναβουχοδονοσορ Βασιλέα Βαβυλῶνος τὸν Ιεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας
καὶ τοὺς δεσμώτας καὶ τοὺς δυνατοὺς καὶ τὸν λαὸν τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλημ
καὶ ἤγαγε(ν) αὐτὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα. 10 καὶ εἶπαν Ἰδοὺ ἀπεστείλαμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς
ἀργύριον, καὶ ἀγοράσατε τοῦ ἀργυρίου ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας καὶ
λίβανον καὶ ποιήσατε μανvα καὶ ἀνοίσατε ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν 20
11 καὶ προσεύξασθε περὶ τῆς ζωῆς Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος καὶ εἰς
ζωὴν Βαλτασαρ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὦσιν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ὡς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 12 καὶ δώσει κύριος ἰσχὺν ἡμῖν καὶ φωτίσει τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἡμῶν,
καὶ ζησόμεθα ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν
σκὰν Βαλτασαρ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ δουλεύσομεν αὐτοῖς ἡμέρας πολλὰς καὶ εὑρήσομεν 25
χάριν ἐναντίον αὐτῶν. 13 καὶ προσεύξασθε περὶ ἡμῶν πρὸς κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἡμῶν,
ὅτι ἡμάρτομεν τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἀπέστρεψεν ὁ θυμὸς κυρίου καὶ ἡ ὀργὴ
αὐτοῦ ἀφʼ ἡμῶν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης.
8 μικροῦ] There is a space between the first two letters of μικροῦ in which appears the remnant
of a lunate sigma. 10 ἔκλαιον] Corrected from ἔκλεον. The αι is added above the line.
14 Σειουαν] Σειουαν is a spelling variation from Σιουαν in Rahlfs-Hanhart. 25 σκὰν] There is
a faint smudge that might suggest a correction to σκιάν.
Inscriptio: Baruch
1 Narrative Setting of Baruch (1.1–13)
(A) 1 1 And these are the words of the book, which Baruch the son of Neriah,
the son of Mahseiah, the son of Zedekiah, the son of Hasadiah, the son of
Hilkiah, wrote in Babylon, 2 in the fifth year, on the seventh of the month,
at the time when the Chaldeans took Jerusalem and burnt it with fire. 3 And
Baruch read the words of this book in the ears of Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim,
king of Judah, and in the ears of all the people, those who came to the book,
4 and in the ears of the mighty and the sons of kings and in the ears of the
elders and in the ears of all the people, from small to great, all those living in
Babylon by the river Soud. 5 And they were crying out and fasting and praying
before the Lord 6 and they gathered silver as the hand of each was able 7
and they sent [it] to Jerusalem to Joakim, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum,
the priest, and to the priests and all the people who were found with him in
Jerusalem; 8 at the same time he took the vessels of the house of the Lord,
those carried away from the Temple, to send to the land of Judah, on the
tenth of Sivan, the silver vessels which Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of
Judah, had made 9 after Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, exiled Jeconiah
and the rulers and the prisoners and the mighty and the people of the land
from Jerusalem and led him into Babylon. 10 And they said, “Behold, we have
sent to you silver, and buy with the silver whole burnt offerings and for sin
and incense and make manna and offer them as a sacrifice on the altar of the
Lord our God; 11 and pray for the life of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and
for the life of Belshazzar his son, in order that their days on the earth may
be like the days of heaven. 12 And the Lord will give strength to us and will
give light to our eyes, and we will live under the shadow of Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, and under the shadow of Belshazzar his son, and we will
serve them many days, and we will find joy before them. 13 And pray for us
to the Lord our God, because we have sinned against the Lord our God, and
the anger of the Lord and his wrath have not turned away from us until this
day”.
36 chapter 2
2 Penitential Prayer (1.14–3.8)
(Β) 14 καὶ ἀναγνώσεσθε τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο, ὃ ἀπεστείλαμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐξαγορεῦσαι

ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις καιροῦ, 15 καὶ ἐρεῖτε τῷ
κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη,
ἀνθρώπῳ Ιουδα καὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ιερουσαλημ 16 καὶ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἡμῶν
καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς προφήταις ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς 5
πατράσιν ἡμῶν, 17 ὧν ἡμάρτομεν ἔναντι κυρίου 18 καὶ ἠπειθήσαμεν αὐτῷ καὶ οὐκ
ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν πορεύεσθαι τοῖς προστάγμασι(ν) κυρίου,
οἷς ἔδωκε(ν) κατὰ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν. 19 ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας, ἧς ἐξήγαγε(ν) κύριος τοὺς
πατέρας ἡμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης ἤμεθα ἀπειθοῦντες
πρὸς κύριον θεὸν ἡμῶν καὶ ἐσχεδιάζομεν πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκούειν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ. 20 10
καὶ ἐκολλήθη εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ κακὰ καὶ ἡ ἀρά, ἣν συνέταξε(ν) κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ παιδὶ
αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, ἧ ἐξήγαγε(ν) τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου δοῦναι ἡμῖν γῆν
ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη. 21 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν κατὰ πάντας τοὺς λόγους τῶν προφητῶν, ὧν ἀπέστειλε(ν) πρὸς
ἡμᾶς, 22 καὶ ᾠχόμεθα ἕκαστος ἐν διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς ἐργάζεσθαι 15
θεοῖς ἑτέροις ποιῆσαι τὰ κακὰ κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν. 2 1 καὶ ἔστησε(ν)
κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς δικαστὰς ἡμῶν τοὺς
δικάσαντας τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς ἡμῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἡμῶν καὶ
ἐπὶ ἄνθρωπον Ισραηλ καὶ Ιουδα. 2 οὐκ ἐποιήθη ὑποκάτω παντὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθὰ
ἐποίησεν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ 3 τοῦ φαγεῖν 20
ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον σάρκας υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον σάρκας θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ. 4 καὶ
ἔδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὑποχειρίους πάσαις ταῖς βασιλείαις ταῖς κύκλῳ ἡμῶν εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν
καὶ ἄβατον ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς λαοῖς τοῖς κύκλῳ, οὗ διέσπειρεν αὐτοὺς κύριος ἐκεῖ. 5 καὶ
ἐγενήθησαν ὑποκάτω καὶ οὐκ ἐπάνω, ὅτι ἡμάρτομεν κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ
ἀκούειν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ. 6 τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ 25
τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἡ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη. 7 ἃ ἐλάλησε(ν)
κύριος ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς, πάντα τὰ κακὰ ταῦτα ἃ ἦλθεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς. 8 καὶ οὐκ ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ
προσώπου κυρίου τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν νοημάτων τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν
τῆς πονηρᾶς. 9 καὶ ἐγρηγόρησε(ν) κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς, καὶ ἐπήγαγε κύριος ἐφʼ
ἡμᾶς, ὅτι δίκαιος ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, ἃ ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν. 10 καὶ οὐκ 30
ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ πορεύεσθαι τοῖς προστάγμασι(ν) κυρίου, οἷς ἔδωκεν
κατὰ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν.
12 Αἰγύπτου] ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου is a marginal addition marked by a ÷. 22 ὀνειδισμὸν] Corrected

from ὀνιδισμὸν. The ε is added above the line.
the text and translation of baruch 37
(B) 14 And you will read this book, which we sent to you, to confess in the
house of the Lord on the day of the feast and on the days of a season, 15 and
you will say, “To the Lord our God be righteousness, but to us be shame
of faces as this day, to a person of Judah and to those living in Jerusalem 16
and to our kings and to our rulers and to our priests and to our prophets and
to our fathers, 17 for which things we have sinned before the Lord 18 and we
disobeyed him and did not listen to the voice of the Lord our God to follow
the commands of the Lord, which he set before us. 19 From the day that the
Lord led our fathers out of the land of Egypt, even until this day, we were
being disobedient to the Lord our God and we were acting carelessly as not
to listen to his voice. 20 And the bad things and the curse have clung to us,
which the Lord gave as an order to his servant Moses on the day on which
he brought our fathers out of Egypt to give to them a land flowing with milk
and honey, as this day. 21 And we did not listen to the voice of the Lord our
God according to all the words of the prophets, whom he sent to us, 22 and
each one went off at the discretion of his evil heart to work for other gods, to
do evil things in the eyes of the Lord our God. 2 1 And the Lord established
his word which he spoke to us and to our judges and those judging Israel and
to our kings and to our rulers and to each person of Israel and Judah. 2 It was
not done under all of heaven as he did in Jerusalem, according to the things
that have been written in the law of Moses, 3 that we should eat, a person
the flesh of his son and a person the flesh of his daughter. 4 And he gave
them as subjects to all the kingdoms around us as a disgrace and untrodden,
among all the surrounding peoples, there where the Lord scattered them.
5 And they became below and not above, because we sinned against the
Lord our God and did not listen to his voice. 6 To the Lord our God be
righteousness, but to us and to our fathers shame of faces, as this day. 7 All
these bad things which the Lord spoke to us have come upon us. 8 And we
did not beg the face of the Lord to the extent that each one turned away from
the thoughts of their evil heart. 9 And the Lord kept watch over bad things,
and the Lord brought them on us, because the Lord is just in all his works,
which he commanded us. 10 And we did not listen to his voice to follow the
commands of the Lord, which he gave before us.”
38 chapter 2
(Γ) 11 καὶ νῦν, κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ὃς ἐξήγαγες τὸν λαόν σου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐν
χειρὶ κραταιᾷ ἐν σημείοις καὶ ἐν τέρασι(ν) καὶ ἐν δυνάμει μεγάλῃ καὶ ἐν βραχ(ε)ίονι
ὑψηλῷ καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ ὄνομα ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, 12 ἡμάρτομεν ἠσεβήσαμεν
ἠδικήσαμεν, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐπὶ πᾶσι(ν) τοῖς δικαιώμασί σου. 13 ἀποστραφήτω
ὁ θυμός σου ἀφʼ ἡμῶν, ὅτι κατελείφθημεν ὀλίγοι ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οὗ διέσπειρας ἡμᾶς 5
ἐχεῖ. 14 εἰσάκουσον, κύριε, τῆς προσευχῆς ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς δεήσεως ἡμῶν καὶ ἐξελοῦ
ἡμᾶς ἕνεκεν σοῦ καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν χάριν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν ἀποικισάντων ἡμᾶς, 15
ἵνα γνῷ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὅτι σὺ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐπεκλήθη ἐπὶ
Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ. 16 κύριε, κάτιδε ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἁγίου σου καὶ
ἐννόησον εἰς ἡμᾶς· κλ(ε)ῖνον, κύριε, τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἄκουσον· 17 ἄνοιξον ὀφθαλμούς 10
σου καὶ ἰδέ· ὅτι οὐχ οἱ τεθνηκότες ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ, ὧν ἐλήμφθη τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν ἀπὸ
τῶν σπλάγχνων αὐτῶν, δώσουσι(ν) δόξαν καὶ δικαίωμα τῷ κυρίῳ, 18 ἀλλὰ ἡ ψυχὴ
ἡ λυπουμένη ἐπὶ τὸ μέγεθος, ὃ βαδίζει κύπτον καὶ ἀσθενοῦν καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ οἱ
ἐκλείποντες καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ πινῶσα δώσουσί(ν) σοι δόξαν καὶ δικαιοσύνην, κύριε.
19 ὅτι οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἡμῶν ἡμεῖς 15
καταβάλλομεν τὸν ἔλεον κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, 20 ὅτι ἐνῆκας τὸν
θυμόν σου καὶ τὴν ὀργήν σου εἰς ἡμᾶς, καθάπερ ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ τῶν παίδων σου
τῶν προφητῶν 21 οὕτως εἶπε(ν) κύριος, κλείνατε τὸν ὦμον ὑμῶν καὶ ἐργάσασθε
τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος καὶ καθίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, ἣν δέδωκα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν·
22 καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου ἐργάσασθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος, 23 20
ἐκλείψειν ποιήσω ἐκ πόλεων Ιουδα καὶ ἔξωθεν Ιερουσαλημ φωνὴν εὐφροσύνης καὶ
φωνὴν χαρμοσύνης, φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν νύμφης, καὶ ἔσται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ εἰς
ἄβατον ἀπὸ ἐνοικούντων. 24 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς σου ἐργάσασθαι τῷ
βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος, καὶ ἔστησας τοὺς λόγους σου, οὓς ἐλάλησας ἐν χερσὶ(ν) τῶν
παίδων σου τῶν προφητῶν τοῦ ἐξενεχθῆναι τὰ ὀστᾶ βασιλέων ἡμῶν καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ 25
τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῶν, 25 καὶ ἰδού ἐστιν ἐξερριμμένα τῷ καύματι
τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῷ παγετῷ τῆς νυκτός, καὶ ἀπεθάνοσαν ἐν πόνοις πονηροῖς, ἐν
λ(ε)ιμῷ καὶ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀποστολῇ. 26 καὶ ἔθηκας τὸν οἶκον, οὗ ἐπεκλήθη
τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη διὰ πονηρίαν οἴκου Ισραηλ καὶ οἴκου
Ιουδα. 27 καὶ ἐποίησας εἰς ἡμᾶς, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐπιείκειάν σου 30
καὶ κατὰ πάντα οἰκτ(ε)ιρμόν σου τὸν μέγαν, 28 καθὰ ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ παιδός
σου Μωυσῆ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐντειλαμένου σου αὐτῷ γράψαι τὸν νόμον σου ἐναντίον υἱῶν
Ισραηλ λέγων 29 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου, εἶ μὴν ἡ βόμβησις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ
πολλὴ αὕτη ἀποστρέψει εἰς μ(ε)ικρὰν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, οὗ διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ·
2 κραταιᾷ] B omits καί. ‖ σημείοις] Corrected from σημίοις. The ε is added above the line.
10 ἄνοιξον] B omits κύριε, τούς found in other mss. 12 ψυχὴ] ΑΥΤΟΥ has been erased
by a later editor. 16 ἔλεον] B omits ἡμῶν. 18 προφητῶν] B omits λέγων. 21 ἐκλείψειν]
Corrected from ἐκλείψιν. The ε is added above the line. 30 ἐπιείκειάν] Corrected from
ἐπιείκιάν. The ε is added above the line.
(Γ) 11 “And now, O Lord God of Israel, you who brought your people out
of Egypt by a mighty hand with signs and wonders and with great power
and with a high arm and you made for yourself a name, as this day. 12 We
have sinned; we have acted impiously; we have done wrong, O Lord God of
Israel, against all your commands. 13 Let your anger be turned away from
us, because we are few who are left among the nations, there where you
scattered us. 14 Listen, O Lord, to our prayer and our petition and deliver
us for your sake, and give to us favour before the face of those who sent us
into exile, 15 in order that the whole earth may know that you are the Lord
our God, for your name has been called upon by Israel and by his family.
16 Lord, look down from your holy house and consider us. Incline, O Lord,
your ear and listen. 17 Open your eyes and see, because the dead who are
in Hades, those whose spirit has been taken from their innards, they will
not give glory and justice to the Lord. 18 But the soul who is pained over the
multitude, who walks bowed over and is weak, and the eyes that are failing
and the soul that is hungry, they will give to you glory and righteousness, O
Lord. 19 For it is not because of righteous acts by our fathers and our kings
that we call out for mercy before your face, O Lord our God. 20 For you have
brought your anger and your wrath against us, just as you said by the hand
of your servants the prophets. 21 So the Lord said, ‘Incline your shoulder and
work for the king of Babylon and settle in the land which I have given to
your fathers. 22 And if you do not listen to the voice of the Lord to work
for the king of Babylon, 23 I will make to die from the cities of Judah and
from outside of Jerusalem the voice of happiness and the voice of rejoicing,
the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, and all the land will
become untrodden by inhabitants’. 24 And we did not listen to your voice to
work for the king of Babylon, and you have established your words, which
you spoke by the hand of your servants the prophets, that the bones of our
kings and the bones of our father would be carried out from their places.
25 And behold, they are cast out in the heat of the day and the frost of the
night, and they died in evil pains, by famine and by sword and by expulsion.
26 And you made the house, which your name was called over it, as this day,
because of the evil of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 27 And
you did to us, O Lord our God, according to all your kindness and according
to all your great compassion. 28 Just as you said by the hand of your servant
Moses, in the day you commanded him to write your law before the sons of
Israel, saying 29 ‘If you do not listen to my voice, surely this very great buzzing
will return to a small one among the nations, there where I will scatter
40 chapter 2
30 ὅτι ἔγνων ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἀκούσωσί(ν) μου, ὅτι λαὸς σκληροτράχηλός ἐστι(ν). καὶ
ἐπιστρέψουσιν ἐπὶ καρδίαν αὐτῶν ἐν γῇ ἀποικισμοῦ αὐτῶν 31 καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι
ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν. καὶ δώσω αὐτοῖς καρδίαν καὶ ὦτα ἀκούοντα, 32 καὶ
αἰνέσουσί(ν) με ἐν γῇ ἀποικισμοῦ αὐτῶν καὶ μνησθήσονται τοῦ ὀνόματός μου 33 καὶ
ἀποστρέψουσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ νώτου αὐτῶν τοῦ σκληροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ πονηρῶν πραγμάτων 5
αὐτῶν, ὅτι μνησθήσονται τῆς ὁδοῦ πατέρων αὐτῶν τῶν ἁμαρτόντων ἔναντι κυρίου.
34 καὶ ἀποστρέψω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἥν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν τῷ Αβρααμ
καὶ τῷ Ισαακ καὶ τῷ Ιακωβ, καὶ κυριεύσουσιν αὐτῆς· καὶ πληθυνῶ αὐτούς, καὶ οὐ
μὴ σμικρυνθῶσι(ν)· 35 καὶ στήσω αὐτοῖς διαθήκην αἰώνιον τοῦ εἶναί με αὐτοῖς εἰς
θεὸν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν· καὶ οὐ κ(ε)ινήσω ἔτι τὸν λαόν μου Ισραηλ ἀπὸ 10
τῆς γῆς, ἧς ἔδωκα αὐτοῖς.
(Δ) 3 1 κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ψυχὴ ἐν στενοῖς καὶ πνεῦμα ἀκηδιῶν
κέκραγε(ν) πρὸς σέ. 2 ἄκουσον, κύριε, καὶ ἐλέησον, ὅτι ἡμάρτομεν ἐναντίον σου· 3
ὅτι σὺ καθήμενος τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπολλύμενοι τὸν αἰῶνα.
4 κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ἄκουσον δὴ τῆς προσευχῆς τῶν τεθνηκότων 15
Ισραηλ καὶ υἱῶν τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων ἐναντίον σου, οἳ οὐκ ἤκουσαν τῆς φωνῆς σοῦ
θεοῦ αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐκολλῆθη ἡμῖν τὰ κακά. 5 μὴ μνησθῇς ἀδικιῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ
μνήσθητι χειρός σου καὶ ὀνόματός σου ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ· 6 ὅτι σὺ κύριος ὁ θεὸς
ἡμῶν, καὶ αἰνέσομέν σε, κύριε, 7 ὅτι διὰ τοῦτο ἔδωκας τὸν φόβον σου ἐπὶ καρδίαν
ἡμῶν καὶ ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομά σου, καὶ αἰνέσομέν σε ἐν τῇ ἀποικία̣ ἡμῶν, ὅτι 20
ἀπεστρέψαμεν ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἡμῶν πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν πατέρων ἡμῶν τῶν ἡμαρτηκότων
ἐναντίον σου. 8 ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς σήμερον ἐν τῇ ἀποικίᾳ ἡμῶν, οὗ διέσπειρας ἡμᾶς ἐκεῖ εἰς
ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς ἀρὰν καὶ εἰς ὄφλησιν κατὰ πάσας τὰς ἀδικίας πατέρων ἡμῶν, οἳ
ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
3 Wisdom Poem (3.9–4.4)
(Ε) 9 ἄκουε, Ισραηλ, ἐντολὰς ζωῆς, ἐνωτίσαθε γνῶναι φρόνησιν.10 τί ἐστιν, Ισραηλ, 25
τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ τῶν ἐχθρῶν εἶ, ἐπαλαιώθης ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ, 11 συνεμιάνθης τοῖς νεκροῖς,
προσελογίσθης μετὰ τῶν εἰς ᾅδου; 12 ἐγκατέλιπες τὴν πηγὴν τῆς σοφίας. 13 τῇ ὁδῷ
16 σοῦ] B omits κυρίου. 21 καρδίαν] Corrected from ἀπὸ καρδίας. 25 (Ε)] This break is
noticeably stronger than the other major breaks in Baruch. First, there are only three letters
on the previoius line with the remaining line blank and no 1–3 character space like the others.
Second, the first letter of the new line protrudes almost entirely into the margin, unlike the
other major breaks. 27 ἐγκατέλιπες] Corrected from ἐνκατέλιπες. The γ has been written
over the erased ν.
them. 30 For I knew that they would surely not listen to me, that they are a
stiff-necked people. And they will return to their heart in the land of their
exile, 31 and they will know that I am the Lord their God. And I will give to
them a heart and hearing ears, 32 and they will praise me in the land of their
exile, and they will remember my name, 33 and they will turn away from
their hard back and from their evil deeds, and they will remember the way
of their fathers who sinned before the Lord. 34 And I will return them to the
land, which I swore to their fathers, to Abraham and to Isaac and to Jacob,
and they will rule over it, and I will multiply them and they will surely not
diminish. 35 And I will establish with them an everlasting covenant, that I
will be God to them and they will be a people to me. And I will not remove
my people Israel from the land that I have given them’.”
(Δ) 3 1 “O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, a soul in straights and a spirit in

weariness calls out to you. 2 Hear, O Lord, and have mercy, for we have sinned
before you; 3 for you are seated forever and we are perishing forever.”
4 “O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of those who have
died of Israel and of the sons of those who have sinned before you, those
who did not listen to the voice of you their God, and bad things have clung
to us. 5 Do not remember the injustice of our fathers, but remember your
hand and your name in this time, 6 for you are the Lord our God. And we
will praise you, O Lord, 7 for because of this you have put fear of you in our
hearts, so that we call upon your name and we will praise you in our exile,
for we have turned away from our hearts all the injustice of our fathers who
sinned before you. 8 Behold, we today are in our exile, where you scattered
us there, for a reproach and for a curse and for a debt, for all the injustices of
our fathers who turned away from the Lord our God.”
(E) 9 “Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life; give ear to know understand-
ing. 10 Why is it, O Israel, why is it that you are in the enemies’s land, that you
are growing old in a foreign land, 11 that you were defiled by dead bodies,
that you were counted among those in Hades? 12 You have abandoned the
fountain of wisdom. 13 If you had walked in the way of God, you would be
42 chapter 2
τοῦ θεοῦ εἰ ἐπορεύθης, κατῷκεις ἂν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸν αἰῶνα. 14 μάθε ποῦ ἐστι(ν) φρόνη-
σις, ποῦ ἐστιν ἰσχύς, ποῦ ἐστι(ν) σύνεσις τοῦ γνῶναι ἅμα, ποῦ ἐστι(ν) μακροβίωσις
καὶ ζωή, ποῦ ἐστι(ν) φῶς ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ εἰρήνη. 15 τίς εὗρε(ν) τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, καὶ
τίς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῆς; 16 ποῦ εἰσιν οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ οἱ
κυριεύοντες τῶν θηρίων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 17 οἱ ἐν τοῖς ὀρνέοις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐμπαίζον- 5
τες καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον θησαυρίζοντες καὶ τὸ χρυσίον, ᾧ ἐπεποίθεισαν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ
οὐκ ἔστι(ν) τέλος τῆς κτήσεως αὐτῶν, 18 ὅτι οἱ τὸ ἀργύριον τεκταίνοντες καὶ μερι-
μνῶντες, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξεύρεσις τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν; 19 ἠφανίσθησαν καὶ εἰς ᾅδου
κατέβησαν, καὶ ἄλλοι ἀντανέστησαν ἀντʼ αὐτῶν. 20 νεώτεροι εἶδον φῶς καὶ κατῴ-
κησαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὁδὸν δὲ ἐπιστήμης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν 21 οὐδὲ συνῆκαν τρίβους αὐτῆς 10
οὐδὲ ἀντελάβοντο αὐτῆς· οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν πόρρω ἐγενήθησαν.
22 οὐδὲ ἠκούσθη ἐν Χανααν οὐδὲ ὤφθη ἐν Θαιμαν, 23 οἱ τε υἱοὶ Αγαρ οἱ ἐκζητοῦν-
τες τὴν σύνεσιν οἱ ἐπὶ γῆς, οἱ ἔμποροι τῆς Μερραν καὶ Θαιμαν καὶ οἱ μυθολόγοι
καὶ οἱ ἐκζητηταὶ τῆς συνέσεως, ὁδὸν δὲ σοφίας οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οὐδὲ ἐμνήσθησαν τὰς
τρ(ε)ίβους αὐτῆς. 15
(ς) 24 ὢ Ισραηλ, ὡς μέγας ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπιμήκης ὁ τόπος τῆς κτήσεως
αὐτοῦ· 25 μέγας καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τελευτήν, ὑψηλὸς καὶ ἀμέτρητος. 26 ἐκεῖ ἐγεννή-
θησαν οἱ γ(ε)ίγαντες οἱ ὀνομαστοὶ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, γενόμενοι εὐμεγέθεις, ἐπιστάμενοι
πόλεμον. 27 οὐ τούτους ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς οὐδὲ ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς· 28
καὶ ἀπώλοντο παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν φρόνησιν, ἀπώλοντο διὰ τὴν ἀβουλίαν αὐτῶν. 29 20
τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ κατεβίβασεν αὐτὴν ἐκ τῶν νεφε-
λῶν; 30 τίς διέβη πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὴν καὶ οἴσει αὐτὴν χρυσίου
ἐκλεκτοῦ; 31 οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ γινώσκων τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς οὐδὲ ὁ ἐνθυμούμενος τὴν τρίβον
αὐτῆς· 32 ἀλλὰ ὁ εἰδὼς τὰ πάντα γινώσκει αὐτήν, ἐξεῦρεν αὐτὴν τῇ συνέσει αὐτοῦ·
ὁ κατασκευάσας τὴν γῆν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον, ἐνέπλησεν αὐτὴν κτηνῶν τετρα- 25
πόδων· 33 ὁ ἀποστέλλων τὸ φῶς, καὶ πορεύεται, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτό, καὶ ὑπήκουσεν
αὐτῷ τρόμῳ· 34 οἱ δὲ ἀστέρες ἔλαμψαν ἐν ταῖς φυλακαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ εὐφράνθησαν,
35 ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς, καὶ εἶπον πάρεσμεν, ἔλαμψαν μετʼ εὐφροσύνης τῷ ποιήσαντι
αὐτούς. 36 οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, οὐ λογισθήσεται ἕτερος πρὸς αὐτόν. 37 ἐξεῦρε(ν)
πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν Ιακωβ τῷ παιδὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ Ισραηλ τῷ 30
ἠγαπημένῳ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ· 38 μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὤφθη καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συν-
ανεστράφη.
4 1 αὕτη ἡ βίβλος τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁ νόμος ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα· πάντες οἱ κρατοῦντες αὐτὴν εἰς ζωήν, οἱ δὲ καταλείποντες αὐτὴν ἀποθα-
νοῦνται. 2 ἐπιστρέφου, Ιακωβ, καὶ ἐπιλαβοῦ αὐτῆς, διόδευσον πρὸς τὴν λάμψιν 35
9 εἶδον] Corrected from ἶδον. The ε is added above the line. 13 ἐπὶ] B omits τῆς.
living in peace forever. 14 Learn where there is understanding, where there is

strength, where there is intelligence, to know at the same time where there
is longevity and life, where there is light for the eyes and peace. 15 Who has
found her place, and who has entered into her treasuries? 16 Where are the
rulers of the nations and those who are lords over the animals that are on the
earth, 17 those who sport with the birds of heaven and who store up silver and
gold, in which humans have trusted, and there is no end to their acquisition,
18 for those who work for silver and are anxious and there is no finding
their works? 19 They have disappeared and have gone down into Hades, and
others have risen up in their place. 20 Young people have seen the light, and
they dwelt on the earth, but they did not know the way of understanding, 21
neither did they understand her paths, nor did they take hold of her. Their
sons are far off from their way. 22 She has neither been heard of in Canaan
nor been seen in Teman. 23 The sons of Hagar who seek understanding on
the earth, the merchants of Merran and Teman and the authors of fables
and those who seek understanding, they neither know the way of wisdom
nor can they remember her paths.”
(ς) 24 “O Israel, how great is the house of God and how vast is the place of
its property! 25 It is great and has no end; it is high and immeasurable. 26
The giants were born there, those renowned from the beginning, becoming
very large, knowing war. 27 Not these did God choose, nor did he give the
way of understanding to them, 28 and they perished because they had no
insight; they perished through their thoughtlessness. 29 Who has gone up
into heaven and taken her and brought her down from the clouds? 30 Who
has gone across the sea and found her and will bring her for choice gold? 31
There is no one who knows her way, no one who considers her path. 32 But
the one who knows all things knows her, he found her by his understanding;
he who prepared the earth for all time, he filled it with four-footed animals.
33 He who sends the light and it goes, he called it, and it obeyed him with
trembling. 34 And the stars shone in their watches and they were glad; 35 he
called them, and they said, ‘We are here!’ They shone with gladness for the
one who made them. 36 This is our God, no other will be considered with
him. 37 He found out every way of knowledge and has given her to his servant
Jacob, and to Israel who was loved by him. 38 After this she appeared on the
earth and associated with humans.”
4 1 “She is the book of the commandments of God and the law that endures
forever. All who grasp her gain life, but those who forsake her will die. 2
Turn, O Jacob, and take hold of her, go to the shinning in the presence of
44 chapter 2
κατέναντι τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς. 3 μὴ δῷς ἑτέρῳ τὴν δόξαν σου καὶ τὰ συμφέροντά
σοι ἔθνει ἀλλοτρίῳ. 4 μακάριοί ἐσμεν, Ισραηλ, ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστά
ἐστιν.
4 Jerusalem’s Prophecy (4.5–5.9)
(Ζ) 5 θαρσεῖτε, λαός μου, μνημόσυνον Ισραηλ. 6 ἐπράθητε τοῖς ἔθνεσιν οὐκ εἰς
ἀπώλειαν, διὰ δὲ τὸ παροργίσαι ὑμᾶς τὸν θεὸν παρεδόθητε τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις· 7 5
παρoξύνατε γὰρ τὸν ποιήσαντα ὑμᾶς θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ. 8 ἐπελάθε-
σθε τὸν τροφεύσαντα ὑμᾶς θεὸν αἰώνιον, ἐλυπήσατε δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐκθρέψασαν ὑμᾶς
Ιερουσαλημ· 9 εἶδε(ν) γὰρ τὴν ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν
ἀκούσατε, αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων, ἐπήγαγέ(ν) μοι ὁ θεὸς πένθος μέγα· 10 εἶδον γὰρ
τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν τῶν υἱῶν μου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων, ἣν ἐπήγαγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ αἰώνιος· 11 10
ἔθρεψα γὰρ αὐτοὺς μετʼ εὐφροσύνης, ἐξαπέστειλα δὲ μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους.
12 μηδεὶς ἐπιχαιρέτω μοι τῇ χήρᾳ καὶ καταλειφθείσῃ ὑπὸ πολλῶν· ἠρημώθην διὰ
τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῶν τέκνων μου, διότι ἐξέκλ(ε)ιναν ἐκ νόμου θεοῦ 13 καὶ δικαιώματα
αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οὐδὲ ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδοῖς ἐντολῶν θεοῦ οὐδὲ τρίβους παιδείας
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ ἐπέβησαν. 14 ἐλθάτωσαν αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων, καὶ μνήσθητε 15
τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν τῶν υἱῶν μου καὶ θυγατέρων, ἣν ἐπήγαγεν αὐτοῖς ὁ αἰώνιος· 15
ἐπήγαγε(ν) γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἔθνος μακρόθεν, ἔθνος ἀναιδὲς καὶ ἀλλόγλωσσον, ὅτι
οὐκ ᾐσχύνθησαν πρεσβύτην οὐδὲ παιδίον ἠλέησαν 16 καὶ ἀπήγαγον τοὺς ἀγαπη-
τοὺς τῆς χήρας καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θυγατέρων τὴν μόνην ἠρήμωσαν. 17 ἐγὼ δὲ τί δυνατὴ
βοηθῆσαι ὑμῖν; 18 ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν τὰ κακὰ ἐξελεῖται ὑμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν. 20
(Η) 19 βαδίζετε, τέκνα, βαδίζετε, ἐγὼ γὰρ κατελείφθην ἔρημος· 20 ἐξεδυσάμην τὴν
στολὴν τῆς εἰρήνης, ἐνεδυσάμην δὲ σάκκον τῆς δεήσεώς μου, κεκράξομαι πρὸς
τὸν αἰώνιον ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις μου. 21 θαρρεῖτε, τέκνα, βοήσατε πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ
ἐξελεῖται ὑμᾶς ἐκ δυναστείας, ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν. 22 ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤλπισα ἐπὶ τῷ αἰωνίῳ
τὴν σωτηρίαν ὑμῶν, καὶ ἦλθέ(ν) μοι χαρὰ παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ἐπὶ τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ, 25
ἣ ἥξει ὑμῖν ἐν τάχει παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου σωτῆρος ὑμῶν. 23 ἐξέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς
μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ, ἀποδώσει δέ μοι ὁ θεὸς ὑμᾶς μετὰ χαρμοσύνης καὶ
εὐφροσύνης εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 24 ὥσπερ γὰρ νῦν ἑωράκασιν αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων
2 θεοῦ] Most texts read τῷ θεῷ. 7 ἐπελάθεσθε] B omits δέ, although some mss have γάρ. ‖ δὲ]
B* δη. 8 εἶδε(ν)] Corrected from ἶδε(ν). The ε is added above the line. 9 εἶδον] Corrected
from ἶδον. The ε is added above the line. 14 παιδείας] Corrected from παιδίας. The ε is
added above the line. 17 ἀναιδὲς] Corrected from ἀνεδές. The αι is added above the line.
23 θαρρεῖτε] Most other mss (including Rahlfs-Hanhart) has θαρσεῖτε.
her light. 3 Do not give your glory to another and what is profitable to you
to a foreign nation. 4 Happy are we, O Israel, because the pleasing things of
God are known to us.”
4 Jerusalem’s Prophecy (4.5–5.9)
(Ζ) 5 “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. 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. 9
For she saw the anger that came upon you from God and she said ‘Listen,
neighbours of Sion, God has brought a great sadness on me. 10 For I have
seen the captivity of my sons and daughters, which the Everlasting brought
upon them. 11 For I nourished them with gladness, but I sent [them] out
with weeping and sadness. 12 Let no one rejoice before 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; 13 and they did not know his
righteous deeds, neither did they go in the ways of the commands of God, nor
embark on the paths of training in his righteousness. 14 Let the neighbours
of Zion come and remember the captivity of my sons and daughters, which
the Everlasting brought upon them. 15 For he brought against them a far-off
nation, a shameless nation and one speaking a different language, because
they did not respect the old man or have mercy on the child. 16 And they led
away the beloved sons of the widow and they isolated the solitary woman
from her daughters. 17 But I, how am I able to help you? 18 For the one who
brought these bad things will deliver you from the hand of your enemies’.”
(Η) 19 “‘Walk away, O children, walk away, for I have been left desolate; 20 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. 21 Take courage, O children, and
call out to God and he will deliver you from domination, from the hand
of enemies. 22 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 saviour. 23 For I sent you out with mourning
and weeping, but God will give you back to me with joy and gladness forever.
24 For just as the neighbours of Zion have seen your captivity now, so they
46 chapter 2
τὴν ὑμετέραν αἰχμαλωσίαν, οὕτως ὄψονται ἐν τάχει τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν
σωτηρίαν, ἣ ἐπελεύσεται ὑμῖν μετὰ δόξης μεγάλης καὶ λαμπρότητος τοῦ αἰωνίου.
25 τέκνα, μακροθυμήσατε τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν ὀργήν· κατε-
δίωξέ(ν) σε ὁ ἐ(κ)χθρός, καὶ ὄψει αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀπώλειαν ἐν τάχει καὶ ἐπὶ τραχήλους
αὐτῶν ἐπιβήσῃ. 26 οἱ τρυφεροί μου ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδοὺς τραχείας, ἤρθησαν ὡς ποί- 5
μνιον ἡρπασμένον ὑπὸ ἐχθρῶν. 27 θαρρήσατε, τέκνα, καὶ βοήσατε πρὸς τὸν θεόν,
ἔσται γὰρ ὑμῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπάγοντος μνεία. 28 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐγένετο ἡ διάνοια ὑμῶν
εἰς τὸ πλανηθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, δεκαπλασιάσατε ἐπιστραφέντες ζητῆσαι αὐτόν.
29 ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν ὑμῖν τὰ κακὰ ἐπάξει ὑμῖν τὴν αἰώνιον εὐφροσύνην μετὰ τῆς
σωτηρίας ὑμῶν. 10
(Θ) 30 θάρσει, Ιερουσαλημ, παρακαλέσει σε ὁ ὀνομάσας σε. 31 δείλαιοι οἱ σὲ κακώ-

σαντες καὶ ἐπιχάρεντες τῇ σῇ πτώσει, 32 δείλαιαι αἱ πόλεις αἷς ἐδούλευσαν τὰ
τὲκνα σου, δειλαία ἡ δεξαμένη τοὺς υἱούς σου. 33 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐχάρη ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ πτώ-
σει καὶ εὐφράνθη ἐπὶ τῷ πτώματί σου, οὕτως λυπηθήσεται ἐπὶ τῇ ἑαυτῆς ἐρημίᾳ.
34 καὶ περιελῶ αὐτῆς τὸ ἀγαλλίαμα τῆς πολυοχλ(ε)ίας, καὶ τὸ ἀγαυρίαμα αὐτῆς 15
εἰς πένθος. 35 πῦρ γὰρ ἐπελεύσεται αὐτῇ παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου εἰς ἡμέρας μακράς, καὶ
κατοικηθήσεται ὑπὸ δαιμονίων τὸν πλείονα χρόνον. 36 περίβλεψε πρὸς ἀνα-
τολάς, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ἴδε τὴν εὐφροσύνην τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι ἐρχομένην. 37
ἰδοὺ ἔρχονται οἱ υἱοί σου, οὕς ἐξαπέστειλας, ἔρχονται συνηγμένοι ἀπ’ ἀνατολῶν ἕως
δυσμῶν τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ ἁγίου χαίροντες τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ. 5 1 ἔκδυσει, Ιερουσαλημ, 20
τὴν στολὴν τοῦ πένθους καὶ τῆς κακώσεώς σου καὶ ἔνδυσαι τὴν εὐπρέπειαν τῆς
παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 2 περιβαλοῦ τὴν διπλοΐδα τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
δικοσύνης, ἐπίθου τὴν μίτραν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου τῆς δόξης τοῦ αἰωνίου. 3 ὁ γὰρ
θεὸς δείξει τῇ ὑπʼ οὐρανὸν πάσῃ τὴν σὴν λαμπρότητα. 4 κληθήσεται γάρ σου τὸ
ὄνομα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰρήνη δικαιοσύνης καὶ δόξα θεοσεβείας. 5 ἀνά- 25
στηθι, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ στῆθι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ καὶ περίβλεψε πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ
ἴδε σου συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα ἀπὸ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἕως ἀνατολῶν τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ ἁγίου
5 ἐπορεύθησαν] Corrected from ἐπορεύθησας. The ν is added above the line. 8 ἐπιστραφέντες]
Corrected from ἐπιστραφές. The εντ is added above the line. 11 δείλαιοι] Corrected from
δήλαιοι. The ει is added above the line. 12 ἐπιχάρεντες] Corrected from ἐπιχάραντες. The
ε is added above the line. ‖ δείλαιαι] Corrected from δήλαιαι. The ει is added above the line.
13 δειλαία] Corrected from δήλαια. The ει is added above the line. 15 αὐτῆς] B omits ἔσται.
17 περίβλεψε] Most other mss have περιβλεψαι. 20 ἔκδυσει] Most other mss have ἔκδυσαι.
21 ἔνδυσαι] Corrected from ἔνδυσε. The αι is added above the line. 23 δικοσύνης] This
should read δικαιοσύνης. The αι is omitted. 24 δείξει] Corrected from δίξει. The ε is added
above the line. 25 θεοσεβείας] Corrected from θεοσεβίας. The ε is added above the line.
26 περίβλεψε] Most other mss have περιβλεψαι.
will see quickly your salvation from God, which will come to you with great
glory and the splendour of the Everlasting. 25 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.
26 My delicate ones have traveled rough ways; they have been taken away as
a flock seized by enemies. 27 Take courage, O children, and call out to God,
for your memory will be [preserved] by the one who brought [these things].
28 For just as your mind was led astray from God, multiply by ten, turning
to seek him. 29 For the one who brought these bad things on you will bring
upon you everlasting joy with your salvation’.”
(Θ) 30 “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’. 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
48 chapter 2
χαίροντας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μνείᾳ. 6 ἐξῆλθον γὰρ παρὰ σοῦ πεζοὶ ἀγόμενοι ὑπὸ ἐχθρῶν,
εἰσάγει δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς πρὸς σὲ ἐρομένους μετὰ δόξης ὡς θρόνον βασιλείας. 7
συνέταξε(ν) γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ταπεινοῦσθαι πᾶν ὄρος ὑψηλὸν καὶ θ(ε)ῖνας ἀενάους καὶ
φάραγγας πληροῦσθαι εἰς ὁμαλισμὸν τῆς γῆς, ἵνα βαδίσῃ Ισραηλ ἀσφαλῶς τῇ
τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ· 8 ἐσκίασαν δὲ καὶ οἱ δρυμοὶ καὶ πᾶν ξύλον εὐωδίας τῷ Ισραηλ 5
προστάγματι τοῦ θεοῦ· 9 ἡγήσεται γὰρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ μετʼ εὐφροσύνης τῷ φωτὶ
τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σὺν ἐλεημοσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τῇ παρʼ αὐτοῦ.
Subscriptio: ΒΑΡΟΥΧ
2 ἐρομένους] Instead of αἰρομένους.

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.”
Subscriptio: ΒΑΡΟΥΧ
chapter 3
Commentary on Baruch
Inscriptio
Βαρουχ is the inscription found in a majority of witnesses, although there are

some manuscripts that differ. For example, 106 has Βαρουχ, but adds του προ-
φητου, and 613 opens with λογοι βαρουχ υιου νηριου. Among the Latin witnesses
LaC has the standard opening, but LaL has incipit liber baruch and LaVprophetia
baruch. Other manuscript titles include βαρουχ ο προφητης Bo; baruch epistola
secunda SyL; and epistola baruch Arm. For other variations, see Ziegler (2006,
450).
The inscriptio in Vaticanus acts as a visual and physical divider between the
works of Baruch and Jeremiah. Bogaert (2005) has noted that in a number of
Latin manuscript traditions there is no break between the text of Baruch and
Jeremiah, which he suggests might account for the fact that a number of church
fathers attribute sayings from Baruch to the prophet Jeremiah. Although this
suggestion might explain the practice of some later Latin Fathers, this confu-
sion is also found in Greek fathers (e.g., Basil, Clement of Alexandria) in which
the manuscript tradition, as it has been passed down, consistently divides
the texts. On the whole, it is likely that early readers viewed the person of
Baruch (i.e., Jeremiah’s scribe) and the book of Baruch (as an “addition” to
Jeremiah) as formally associated with the content and ministry of the prophet
Jeremiah.
1 Narrative Setting (1.1–13)
Baruch 1.1–13 functions as an introductory cover letter to the book of Baruch

as a whole. The opening letter identifies the narrative setting of the work and
frames the reader’s perspective regarding the upcoming content. Specifically,
Bar 1.1–13 recalls the first reading of the book, the reaction of the exile com-
munity, and their sending of the book with instructions to those remaining in
Jerusalem.
One recurring feature of Bar 1.1–13 is the consistent use of καί. Typically
recognised as the default conjunction in Greek literature (Westfall 2005, 66),
καί is used nearly to the exclusion of other conjuctions in Bar 1.1–13, and
often functions in a basic connective manner. The author also uses καί to

commentary on baruch 51
open sentences (e.g., 1.1, 5, 14). This paratactic καί has been considered by
many to be a dominant feature of “translational Greek”, a feature derived from
imitating the sentence structure of Hebrew or Aramaic (e.g., Aejmelaeus 1982,
157). However, a number of scholars have recently challenged this position,
arguing that parataxis was a regular feature of common Greek at the time, as is
demonstrated by documentary papyri (cf. Porter 2010, 224)
In Vaticanus, this first section (1.1–13) consists of only one Greek chapter with
no subsections. The next Greek chapter begins at 1.14 and opens the second
section of Baruch (1.14–3.8), the penitential prayer.
1.1 Baruch opens with the words καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου, which are nearly
identical to the words of Jer 36.1, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τῆς βίβλου, οὓς ἀπέστει-
λεν Ιερεμίας. This parallel, identified by all commentaries, forms a strong tie
between the books of Baruch and Jeremiah (Steck 1996, 20; Kabasele Mukenge
1998, 69–75). Bogaert (1982, 76–77) argues that this Jeremianic parallel fits with
the lack of separation between Baruch and Jeremiah in a number of ancient
manuscripts. Although this may be the case, the original author of Baruch did
not have the blurred manuscript tradition in mind when he used the phrase
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου, nor did he foresee the later labelling of Baruch
as an “addition” to the book of Jeremiah. Rather, this opening phrase was
used to inform the reader that this work was to be read in light of Jeremiah,
although it contained the words of the scribe Baruch rather than those of
the prophet Jeremiah. Although Jeremiah the prophet is not mentioned by
name anywhere in the book of Baruch (cf. 2.20, 24), a number of church
fathers saw the book of Baruch as strongly tied to that of Jeremiah. Thus
Theodoret (Com.Bar. 1.1) speaks of the whole Jeremianic corpus as one προφη-
τεία.
In Bar 1.1, Baruch is identified by a genealogy that includes five further gener-
ations: Βαρουχ υἱὸς Νηρίου υἱοῦ Μαασαίου υἱοῦ Σεδεκίου υἱοῦ Ασαδίου υἱοῦ Χελκίου.
This is clearly the same Baruch who is mentioned in Jer 39.12 (Βαρουχ υἱῷ Νηρίου
υἱοῦ Μαασαίου), who functions in the latter context as Jeremiah’s scribe (Jer
43.32), and whose introduction in the book of Baruch further reinforces its con-
nection with the book of Jeremiah. In Baruch, the scribe is given a substantially
longer genealogy. The occurrence of a six-generation genealogy is distinctive,
but does have parallels elsewhere in the Septuagint (e.g., 1 Regn 9.1; 1 Par 4.37;
5.14; 6.18–32; 9.11–12; contra Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 78). Although it
is possible that the book of Baruch contains accurate biographical details that
are not found in Jeremiah, the historical veracity of the ancestry list is unverifi-
able. The author clearly felt the need to fill in Baruch’s ancestral history. Unlike
references to Baruch in other works attributed to him (e.g., 4 Bar 5.18 “Baruch,
52 chapter 3
the reader”; 6.11 “Baruch, counsellor of the Light”; 6.17 “Baruch the servant of
God”; 7.2 “Baruch, steward of the faith”), Baruch is not given any additional title
here.
Baruch is one of the few biblical personages who are attested archaeologi-
cally. In 1975 a bulla (17×16mm, stamped with an oval seal of 13× 11 mm) with
Baruch’s name on it appeared on the antiquities market (provenence unknown;
now housed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem). The three lines on the Baruch
bulla read: “(Belonging) to Berekhyahu, the son of Neriyahu, the scribe” (Shanks
1987). In 1996 another clay bulla emerged with an identical inscription, but with
an additional indented fingerprint. Shanks (1996) speculates that this may be
the fingerprint of Baruch, although this cannot be supported.
The narrative of Baruch opens ἐν Βαβυλῶνι, the place where Baruch was
purportedly residing. At first glance, this appear to be contrary to the text of
Jer 50.1–7, which claims that Baruch (who was accused of inciting [συμβάλλει]
Jeremiah against the people) went with Jeremiah to Egypt and was not taken
into exile. In a similar story recounted by Josephus (Ant. 10.179), however,
Nebuchadnezzar also attacked Egypt and “took the Jews there captives and led
them away to Babylon” (Ant. 10.180–185). If Baruch is considered to be part of
the latter captured group, then Baruch’s writing from Babylon rather than Egypt
can be reconciled with the text of Jeremiah. (For the tradition that Baruch was
exiled to Babylon, see S. Olam Rab. 26; b. Meg. 16b.) The remainder of Jeremiah
is silent regarding the location of Baruch, but the oracle to Baruch in Jer 51.31–35
informs him that the Lord will protect him and show him great things. This
promise, although not informative for discerning Baruch’s location, became
important for later writers, who understood that the Lord had planned to use
Baruch in the future, and that he was to be a prophet and seer (Wright 2003; cf.
3Bar 1.3–5).
The Syriac version of the book of Baruch has Baruch writing to Babylon,
which has been explained either as a misreading of the Hebrew (Whitehouse
1913, 578) or by suggesting that 2Bar 77.19 refers to two letters written by Baruch
to the Jews in Babylon: the Apocalypse and the one found in the book of
Baruch (Harwell 1915, 12). The Greek tradition, however, is consistent regarding
Baruch’s location, and its placing of Baruch in Babylon will be followed in this
commentary.
The location of Baruch in Babylon is important for the narrative’s develop-
ment both geographically and conceptually. It is because Baruch and the Jewish
people are in Babylon rather than Jerusalem that there is impetus for send-
ing a written message to Jerusalem, which is the explicit premise of the book
of Baruch. Furthermore, by beginning the work in Babylon, the author is able
to frame the narrative around the concept of exile, thus shaping the readers’s
understanding of the situation, and providing the perspective they will need to
understand the content and actions of the participants in the remainder of the
work.
Also significant is the implied relationship between the Babylonian com-
munity and those located in Jerusalem. The text reflects a two-way working
relationship between the diaspora assembly and the centralised sacrificial
cult. Although it is clear that those in Babylon require assistance from those
in Jerusalem to enact the cultic rituals, the diasporic community also makes
imperative demands of the priests in Jerusalem. What we witness here is the
encoding of a dynamic and complementary relationship in which those out-
with Jerusalem patronise the temple through the sending of gifts and money,
while the priests at Jerusalem enact the necessary cultic practices.
After Bar 1.1 locates the writer in Babylon, Bar 1.2 provides a temporal refer-
ence that chronologically structures the work: ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ πέμπτῳ ἐν ἑβδόμῃ
τοῦ μηνὸς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ᾧ ἔλαβον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὴν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτὴν
ἐν πυρί. Unlike some books that date themselves by reference to a king’s reign
(native king: Jer 1.2; 25.1, 3; 26.2; 28.59; 35.1; 39.1; 43.1, 9; 46.1; 51.31; 52.1–5; 52.31;
foreign king: Agg 1.1; 2.1; Zach 1.1) or to captivity (e.g., Ezekiel; Olley 2009, 232–
233), Baruch is dated by a reference to the Chaldeans’s sacking of Jerusalem and
destroying it by fire (cf. Am 1.1, with an earthquake). This reference is not just
a gloss (so Moore 1977, 270), but rather provides a needed temporal reference.
The next issue is to determine whether Baruch is referring to the deportation
of 597 or of 586bc. In support of the former date is the reference to making
sacrifice in Jerusalem in 1.10 (though see discussion below), but this does not
overturn the latter option, which is the more logical reading if Baruch is located
in Babylon (cf. 2.26). The sacking of Jerusalem and the deportation of much of
its population to Babylon occurred in 586bc (cf. 4 Regn 25.1–21) and Baruch’s
narrative is therefore most likely situated in 581bc.
In none of the manuscript traditions does the author announce the month
in which the events occurred, although a number of scholars have emended
the Greek to read “in the fifth year of the fifth month of the seventh day
of the month” based on 4 Regn 25.8 (Kneucker 1879, 10–16; Moore 1977, 269;
Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 85). The identification of a specific month is ultimately
immaterial, however, and does not impact a reading of the remainder of the
text. Torrey (1945, 60) has argued that ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ᾧ refers to “a series of events”
rather than to a specific date. This, however, does not fit with the specificity of
the narrative.
Many scholars consider the temporal reference in Bar 1.2 a way to access
the date that Baruch was written/compiled. These commentators do not take
the date as representing an historical actuality, but rather see it as a code by
54 chapter 3
which to place the work in a temporal location. As examples, Whitehouse (1913,

575) suggests that the reference to the fifth year after the destruction of the
temple indicates that this section of Baruch (1.1–13) dates to ad 74, i.e., five years
after the temple was destroyed by the Flavians. For Wambacq (1959b, 576) the
“fifth year” of Bar 1.2 corresponds to the conquest of the city by Pompey in
63bc; whereas Goldstein (1979–1980, 183, 185) claims that the fifth year of Bar
1.2 should be counted from the sacking of Jerusalem by Apollonius in 167 bc
(cf. 1Macc 1.29).
Although one of these views might be chronologically accurate, they all fail
to take into account Baruch’s developing narrative situation. In Baruch, the
author intentionally situates the catastrophe after the Babylonian conquest
and during the Jewish exile. Although this is probably a narrative fiction fabri-
cated by the author, and should not be taken as indicating the time at which
Baruch was actually written, reading Baruch in light of later historical events
nevertheless fails to take seriously the narrative construct. Such readings also
tend to be internally inconsistent, taking the “five years” as an historical reality
despite denying the historical accuracy of the work as a whole. In this commen-
tary we will seek to understand the remainder of the narrative in light of the
text’s own temporal framework. This is the only specific date provided in the
entire work and so acts as the temporal anchor and background for the whole
of Baruch.
O. Eissfeldt (1965, 804–805; Wambacq 1959b) has argued that vv. 3–14 are an
interpolation depicting the period between the two deportations, and that v. 15
should be read immediately after v. 2. A similar view is offered by Whitehouse
(1913, 583), who posits that 1.2, 3b–14 are “redactional insertions”. One of the
problems with these theories is that there is no textual evidence for the omis-
sion of vv. 3–14 or the like in any Greek manuscript. This is especially true of
v. 14, which is foundational for Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, as it begins the
penitential prayer section (see below).
After setting the geographic and temporal backcloth, Bar 1.3 continues the
narrative by telling how Baruch read this book (βιβλίου τούτου) in the hearing of
Jeconiah, son of king Joakim, and in the ears of all the people, those who came
to the book, and in the ears of the mighty and the sons of kings and in the ears
of the elders and in the ears of all the people, from small to great, all those
living in Babylon by the river Soud. The “book” referenced here is the same
book mentioned in 1.1, as is evidenced by the demonstrative pronoun τούτου.
As well as referring back to 1.1, this reference to the “book” also looks forward to
1.14 and the presentation of the book’s contents. Although there is a change in
lexical form at the end of 1.3 from βιβλίος to βίβλον, this is not problematic for
understanding both to refer to the same book.
The reading of a book to a gathering of people has a number of parallels in

the Scriptures of Israel (e.g., Ex 24.3–8; Deut 31.9–13; Jos 9.2a–f; 4 Regn 23.1–3;
Jer 36; 2Esdr 18.1–18). Common features of these readings are their corporate
nature, explicit religious perspective, and attempt at behavioural reform. All
of these examples of book readings (excluding Jer 36) explicitly reference and
recount the giving of “the book of the Law of Moses” (τὸ βιβλίον νόμου Μωυσῆ,
2Esdr 18.1). The book reading in Jeremiah 36 is notably different, as there is
no reference to Moses; rather it is a letter written to those exiled in Babylon
with a fresh word from the Lord (Jer 36.4). As mentioned above, Bar 1.1 strongly
parallels the language of Jer 36.1, and the readings in 1.3 and 1.14 should therefore
probably be understood in light of Jeremiah. Nevertheless, the Law of Moses
also plays an important role in Baruch, especially in Bar 1.14–3.8 (Adams 2013).
In 1.3, the reading of the book is not given extended narrative space, probably
due to the fact that a full recounting of the book will begin at 1.14.
Baruch 1.4 contains two textual issues that have concerned scholars. The first
is the relatively minor changing of υἱῶν τῶν βασιλέων to υἱῶν τοῦ βασιλέως in
Alexandrinus. The first implies that all the sons of the house of David are in
view, whereas the second suggests only the sons of Jehoiakim. Although not
pivotal for the remainder of the text, the reading in Vaticanus recalls the larger
princely cohort. It is worth remarking that neither David nor the promise of
his perpetual dynasty (cf. 2 Regn 7) are mentioned in Baruch, nor is there any
allusion to a Davidic messiah.
The other textual issue is the name Σουδ. We do not know the location of
the river Σουδ, nor are there any other references to this location (though see
the near parallel in 4Q389 1.7). As a result, a number of textual emendations
have been offered, in addition to the various spellings found in the different
manuscripts (Whitehouse 1913, 583; Bewer 1924). Although some of the argu-
ments are intriguing, there is no need to determine an exact geographical loca-
tion. For Vaticanus, the description ἐν Βαβυλῶνι ἐπὶ ποταμοῦ Σουδ sufficiently
sets the location without undermining the narrative thrust. It is possible (and
likely) that later readers (such as those of Vaticanus and us today), despite
not being able to identify the location of the river Σουδ (or variants) specifi-
cally, would nevertheless be able to understand the narrative and its implica-
tions.
If Bar 1.3–4 provides the narrative description of the occasion on which the
book was first used, Bar 1.5–7 reports the response of those who first heard its
words. Crying, fasting, and praying are all common penitential responses in
Scripture (e.g., 2 Par 20.3; Jon 3.5; 2Esdr 11.4; Dan [og] 6.18), and are portrayed
as the correct responses to the reading of Baruch’s book, and a model for the
Jerusalem recipients to emulate. Similar narrative descriptions of the occasion
56 chapter 3
when a prayer/book was read are found in 2Esdr 18.1–18; 19.1–3; 23.1 and Dan
9.2 (Floyd 2007, 52).
The terms used for God throughout Baruch are noteworthy. In Bar 1.5 it is
reported that the people wept, fasted, and prayed to the Lord. This is the first
reference to the Lord (κύριος) in Baruch, a term used forty-six times (twenty-
four times without a modifier) in Baruch Vaticanus, all of which occur in Bar
1.1–3.8 (most Greek mss have forty-seven occurrences of κύριος, but B omits the
first occurrence in 2.17). This is by far the most frequent term for God in Bar 1.1–
3.8, although in a number of instances “Lord” is paired with “God” or another
descriptor, e.g., κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν (1.10) or κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ (3.1,
4). From 3.9 onwards, the dominant title for God is θεός, with occasional other
epithets (i.e., ὁ αἰώνιος). These will be discussed in greater detail below (cf. Bar
3.13; 4.10).
In addition to following the repentant model of the Babylonian exiles, the
residents of Jerusalem are also called to participate in the purchasing and
sacrificing of animals. The exiles have “gathered silver as the hand of each was
able and they sent [it] to Jerusalem” (1.7). The verbal object “it” is absent in most
manuscripts, although the context demands that an object should be supplied.
In this case “it” is the money sent πρὸς Ιωακειμ υἱὸν Χελκίου υἱοῦ Σαλωμ τὸν
ἱερέα καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς. Sending of money to Jerusalem (as opposed to going
physically) is described by Josephus as an ancient custom (Ant. 14.185–267;
16.160–178).
Kneucker (1879, 206–210) and others have argued that Joakim is not the
high priest, but the second-in-command (cf. Jer 20.1; 36.25). Moore (1977, 267),
however, translates the first part of 1.7 as “to the high priest Joakim” (emphasis
mine) in order to better differentiate it from the subsequent reference to “the
priests”. The phrase “the priest” (τὸν ἱερέα) is used other places in the lxx to
signify a high priest (e.g., Num 3.6; 4 Regn 12.8), although it is not consistently
brought over into the lxx from the mt (e.g., it was omitted or changed in 3 Regn
4.2 and 4 Regn 11.9). Joakim’s omission from the list of high priests in 1 Par 6 does
not disqualify him from the high priesthood, since this is likely not a complete
list (Myers 1965, 197). From the passage in Baruch, it is evident that Joakim leads
the priests who are in Jerusalem, although it is not clear whether he is the high
priest.
The sending of the prayer book is associated with the return of sacred vessels
to the temple in Jerusalem. There is, however, some disagreement over how
to interpret the articlular infinitive ἐν τῷ λαβεῖν αὐτὸν τὰ σκεύη οἴκου κυρίου, as
the agent is not clearly identified, nor is it clear whether the actor is taking
the vessels to Jerusalem or receiving them there. (The timing of the events
is also unclear: is the expedition to return the vessels concurrent with the
sending of the book?) Some scholars (e.g., Moore 1977, 271) have argued based
on 1.3 that the agent is Baruch and that he took the vessels, thus resolving the
ambiguity. However, the nearest antecedent for the third person masculine
singular pronoun αὐτὸν is Jehoiakim in 1.6, who in this case would be receiving
the vessels. Grammatically the latter reading is to be preferred, although the
former reading makes the best sense of the passage, especially if the same
subject carries over to ἀποστρέψαι εἰς γῆν Ιουδα.
Regardless of whether Baruch took or Jehoiakim received, the vessels came
to Jerusalem. These are the silver vessels commissioned by Jeconiah’s successor,
Zedekiah, to replace those taken by the Babylonians in 597 bc. The replace-
ments were presumably taken to Babylon in the same fashion after the destruc-
tion of the temple in 586 bc (4 Regn 25.13–16), and it is reported that they were
not returned until 537bc (cf. 2Esdr 1.7–11). Some have asserted that Bar 1.8 is
a gloss, “a marginal note that some later copyist incorporated into his text”
(Moore 1977, 272; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 81). Although 1.8 does
admittedly disrupt the narrative flow, the “gloss” hypothesis lacks any textual
warrant.
The return of temple vessels is a motif that connotes the restoration of a cult
or cultic practice (Ackroyd 1972), but Bar 1.10 describes a functioning cult in
which offerings were still being presented to the Lord on a functioning altar.
“Here the reader is confronted, not just with an incidental discrepancy, but
with the fundamental tension on which the narrative is centered. Although
the action takes place entirely under Babylonian rule, during which the temple
was destroyed, the restoration of Jerusalem’s sacrificial cult, either coincident
with or prior to the sending of the prayer book is also presupposed” (Floyd
2007, 54). Moore (1977, 272), following Stoderl (1922, 20), rightly notes that
the sacrifice on the altar does not preclude this incident’s being historical,
as the book of Jeremiah says that some offerings were made on the altar
after the destruction of the first temple (Jer 48.5). Thus the sacrifice in Bar
1.10 need not represent a thin veneer that a reader would see through, but
could describe an actual event. Narratively, Nickelsburg (2005, 110–111) is right
to highlight that Baruch, unlike his Danielic counterpart, never mentions the
destruction of the temple. On the other hand, the Babylonian exile is a narrative
reality and the framework within which the text should be understood. The
Babylonian exile, despite the (semi-)functioning cult in Jerusalem, is still in
effect. This perspective is essential for understanding the remainder of Baruch’s
narrative.
Following an articular aorist infinitive (μετὰ τὸ ἀποικίσαι Ναβουχοδονοσορ), in
Bar 1.9 the author lists people taken from Jerusalem to Babylon: “Jeconiah and
the rulers and the prisoners and the mighty and the people of the land”. The
58 chapter 3
notable peculiarity in this list is the taking of prisoners (δεσμώτας), as the latter
are not normally wanted by conquering armies. This aberration is not omitted
by any of the major manuscripts, although L’ (SyrHex) adds και τους τεχνιτας,
making a link with Jer 24.1. The occurrence of δεσμώτας further connects the
text of Baruch with Jeremiah, as this term is almost exclusively found here and
in Jer 24.1 and 36.2 in the lxx, all of which are exile lists (the only exception is
Gen 39.20; cf. Steck 1993, 8–15).
Baruch 1.10–15 provides directions for the prayer’s ongoing use. It is clear
from this passage that reading from the book was to be only one part of the
service; animal sacrifice was also envisioned as an integral component. In later
times penitential prayer might have acted as a replacement for sacrifice (Falk
1998, 254–255), but that replacement is not advocated here, nor is it allowed
by the narrative setting. Rather, specific sacrifices are mentioned: whole burnt
offerings, sin, incense, and manna (cf. 1Macc 4.36–39). The list is similar to
Jer 17.26 not only in terms of the sacrifices named, but also in the use of the
Greek term μαναα. (Moore [1977, 272] misspeaks when he claims that Jer 17.26
makes the same translation “mistake”, as only a few Jeremiah manuscripts have
μαννα. See Ziegler 2006, 238). Claiming that μαννα comes from a mistranslation
of ‫מנחה‬, which should be rendered μαναα, scholars (e.g., Tov 1975, 14; White-
house 1913, 584) have not discussed the role of μανvα in Baruch. Indeed, the
occurrence of μανvα is difficult to explain. It is possible (though not the most
likely explanation) that the readers of Vaticanus would not have registered the
difference or the interpretive problem, as both μαννα and μαναα are loan words,
which can be an obstacle for native Greek readers (Rabin 1968, 10). Theodoret of
Cyrus did not question the reading, but suggested that manna refers to Hebrew
sacrifice (Com.Bar. 1.10). The people in Jerusalem were to offer all of these items
as a sacrifice (ἀνοίσατε) on the altar of the Lord. The verb ἀνοίσατε is a unique
aorist form of ἀναφέρω; the aorist form of φέρω is typically ἤνεγκα (Thackarey
1909, 235).
More importantly, 1.10 provides the first reported speech in Baruch. Until this
point in the narrative, only the third person has been used. Now “we” and “you”
are introduced: “we” are the people in exile, and “you” (pl.) are the recipients in
Jerusalem. These distinct groups are merged into ἡμῶν at the end of the verse,
and a recognition of sharing the same Lord and God (κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν). Despite
this unity of religious affiliation, the group in Babylon asserts its dominance
by using imperatives towards the recipients in Jerusalem (ἀγοράσατε, ποιήσατε,
ἀνοίσατε, προσεύξασθε). In these verses, it is clear that the group in Babylon
believe that they are in a position of relational authority and can dictate the
actions of the Jerusalem group not only in terms of the offerings to be given,
but also regarding how they are to pray, namely for the “life of Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, and for the life of Belshazzar his son, in order that their days
on the earth may be like the days of heaven” (1.11).
The identification of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son (1.11) is highly con-
fusing for the modern reader, for according to our reconstruction of Babylonian
history, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus (r. 556–539bc), with whom he was
co-regent until he seized the throne several years after Nebuchadnezzar died
(Goldstein 1979–1980, 179). Marttila (2011, 324) argues that the author of Baruch
must have known Daniel because both Baruch and Daniel (Dan [θ] 5.2, 11, 18,
22) make the same mistake concerning Belshazzar. This reasoning is faulty, but
the similarities between Baruch and Daniel [θ] nevertheless suggest some form
of relationship (see the discussion at 1.15).
Many scholars, in order to resolve this issue, have suggested that the char-
acters Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are not meant to be taken literally in
Baruch, but are representative of other rulers in different eras. Suggested pair-
ings have then been used to determine Baruch’s date of composition. For exam-
ple, Nickelsburg posits that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are pseudonyms
for the Seleucid kings Antiochus iv Epiphanes (175–164bce) and his son Anti-
ochus v Eupator (164–162bce), and that Baruch as a composition should be
ascribed in its entirety to the author of 1.1–3.8 (Nickelsburg 1984, 145–146). Alter-
natively, Kneucker (1879, 55–57) sees Belshazzar as representing Titus, Neb-
uchadnezzar as Vespasian, and Babylon as Rome.
All of these theories, however, are built on the view that Baruch made an
intentional change and that this was not an accidental mistake (which it may
have been). Stoderl (1922, 22), arguing from silence, claims that Nebuchadnez-
zar had a son named Belshazzar, but that we have lost the records of this. A
more plausible explanation, although one built on a narrative anachronism,
would be that Baruch referenced the first and last Babylonian kings of the
Jewish exile. Thus Baruch may be suggesting that the Jews pray not only for
Nebuchadnezzar, but also for his “son” (descendant) Belshazzar, i.e., for all
Babylonian kings who reigned during the exile. There would then be no need
to posit that the Babylonian kings are a thin persona for later rulers. Neverthe-
less, it is possible that later readers (such as those who read Vaticanus) did read
alternate leaders here. We lack evidence to substantiate that claim, however.
The final phrase of 1.11, introduced with the subordinating conjunction ἵνα
followed by a subjunctive form of εἰμί (ἵνα ὦσιν αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ὡς αἱ ἡμέραι
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), is slightly cumbersome and might be taken two ways
depending on where one associates ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. The first option, “their days
may be as long as the days of heaven are above the earth” (Moore 1977, 268;
Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 83), keeps ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς with the comparative
particle ὡς. The other option is to view ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς as a descriptor of αἱ ἡμέραι
60 chapter 3
αὐτῶν and to translate the phrase, “in order that their days on the earth may
be like the days of heaven” (Michael 2007, 927). Although I adopt the latter (cf.
Ps 88.30), both adequately capture the meaning.
Although ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν Ναβουχοδονοσορ in v. 12 is translated “under the
shadow of Nebuchadnezzar”, this is not to imply the full pejorative English
sense of “under the shadow”. Rather, σκιά has the semantic range of “protection”
in v. 12, with the possible additional understanding of a higher or superior role.
Such a range is in view in Ez 31.6 and Is 51.16: “the shadow of my [God’s] hands”.
The Baruch passage, although phrased in different terms, is similar to Jer 36.6–7
(cf. Bar 1.21), in which the safety and comfort of the exiles are strongly tied to
the welfare of the Babylonian king and kingdom.
In 1.13 the book’s recipients are implored to “pray for us (περὶ ἡμῶν) to the
Lord our God”. Here the senders issue another imperative (προσεύξασθε) to the
receivers, while at the same time acknowledging a shared God and theological
perspective. The use of περί paired with a verb of asking encroaches upon
the function of ὑπέρ in Attic Greek (Johannessohn 1925, 221–222). The reason
for this prayer (ὅτι) is that the people have sinned, which has caused God to
become angry. It is not clear in this passage who the “we” are who have sinned.
Is it just those in exile, as would be suggested by the differentiation between
the use of “we/us” and “you”? Or would the “we” include the entire Jewish
population? Nor is a specific sin mentioned that has provided the impetus
for the prayer. It is simply the condition of being in exile that highlights their
transgression and demands a call for penitence.
Finally, Bar 1.13 marks the first occurrence of the phrase ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας
ταύτης “as to this day”. This is a recurring refrain in the penitential prayer
section (cf. 1.20; 2.6, 11, 26) and its occurrence here forms a cohesive tie between
the introduction and the prayer section. Some have argued that the use of
this phrase suggests that the author believed that the guilt and shame of the
fictional world of Baruch continued until the time of his writing. According to
the prayer which follows, as long as the Jews refuse to submit to the reigning
foreign powers, God’s punishment will continue. In the narrative world of
Baruch the Babylonians are the dominating culture, but it is clear that the
author of Baruch sees this behaviour as prescriptive for Jews who might be
subject to other ruling powers.
Modern scholars and ancient scribes begin the second section of Baruch in sig-
nificantly different places. Almost all commentaries or translations of Baruch
begin the penitential prayer section with a strong break at 1.15 (καὶ ἐρεῖτε τῷ
κυρίῳ θεῷ) or 1.15aβ (τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη). For example, Kneucker
(1879, 221), Nickelsburg (1984), Steck (1.15aβ, 1993, 67), Kabasele Mukenge (1995),
Craig (1995), deSilva (2002), Himbaza (2004), Floyd (2007), Assan-Dhôte and
Moatti-Fine (2008) all claim that 1.15–3.8 forms a discrete segment of Baruch.
Whitehouse (1913, 584) and Moore (1977, 276) claim that the second section
ranges from 1.15–2.5. Tov (1976, 128), although he puts a paragraph break at 1.15,
sees a strong unity in 1.1–3.8, in contrast to 3.9–5.9. In his introduction, Fraade
(2013a, 1545) partitions 1.15–3.8 into two discrete sections: “Confession of sins”
(1.15–2.5) and “Petitionary prayer” (2.6–3.8). This division is not employed in his
commentary, which breaks the text at 2.11.
This consistency among scholars should not be thrust aside quickly. How-
ever, when it comes to ancient paragraph divisions none of the major manu-
scripts support making a strong break at the beginning of 1.15. The only majus-
cule text that has a break here is Codex Venetus, and then only a minor break.
Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus have a major paragraph break at 1.14 (καὶ
ἀναγνώσεσθε τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο; Q has a minor one) and do not break the text at the
beginning of 1.15. Both have a minor break after the beginning of 1.15 (τῷ κυρίῳ
θεῷ ἡμῶν), but this is at the beginning of a reported speech passage, not at the
opening of the verse (Q, despite its large number of paragraph breaks, does not
have one at any point in 1.15). This agreement between the two major Greek
codices undermines modern scholarly divisions that impose a strong break at
1.15. The ancient manuscript tradition supports a break at 1.14.
In Vaticanus there are three Greek chapter breaks in this section (1.14; 2.11; 3.1)
with an additional break at 3.4 marked by both a paragraphos and a marginal
sign, although without a Greek chapter number. The first section (1.14–2.10)
opens the penitential prayer and consists of a lament given in the third person.
Section two (2.11–35) continues the prayer, but there is a notable shift in person
when the lamenter repeatedly addresses God in the second person. The final
section (3.1–8) continues the use of the second person, but the speaker implores
the Lord to remember his people and to act on his promise of redemption.
There are two minor breaks (1.15; 2.6), both of which mark parallel opening
phrases in the first section, and may suggest foci for reading.
2.1 Admission of Guilt (1.14–2.10)

The second Greek paragraph opens with the phrase καὶ ἀναγνώσεσθε τὸ βιβλίον
τοῦτο. The use of the future tense-form (ἀναγνώσεσθε) conveys an expectation
that the book will be used within the receiving community. The senders expect
the book to be used within a religious ceremony along with corresponding
words (1.15). The use of τὸ βιβλίον along with the demonstrative pronoun τοῦτο
62 chapter 3
suggests that this is the same book as in 1.1, 3. This would be a very interesting
self-reference, as the command of 1.14 would then tell the reader to read the
book (s)he was already reading (cf. 1.1). The new information provided in 1.14 is
that the reading is to take place in a specific service.
Thackeray (1921, 92) understands ἐξαγορεῦσαι, and its “clear” inclusion of
only 1.1–3.8, as a possible witness to “a first edition ending at iii.8, a relic that
escaped revision when the text was enlarged”. Although the act of confession
concludes at 3.8, it is doubtful that the reader of Vaticanus would have iden-
tified this as a redactional layer. Rather, it is the reading of the entire book,
with all of its parts, that is the act of repentance called for by the senders.
Thus Theodoret (Com.Bar. 3.9) understands the second half of Baruch to be
the divine response, creating a united whole.
This ceremony of communal confession (ἐξαγορεῦσαι, often semantically
linked with “sin”, Muraoka 2009) is not to take place at just any time or in just
any location. Rather, the senders delineate a specific place (οἴκῳ κυρίου) and
time (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις καιροῦ). These locative and temporal deictic
markers specifically demarcate where and when the book is to be read. Just as
in 1.10 and the discussion of the altar sacrifice, the reference to οἴκῳ κυρίου has
troubled readers, although the text acknowledges that the temple is in poor
condition (2.26; cf. Jer 43.8–10). Theodoret (Com.Bar. 1.14), in order to bypass
this tension, does not have οἴκῳ κυρίου, but rather that the book is to be read τῷ
θεῷ.
Two occasions are given for the book’s reading: “on the day of the feast”
(ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς) and “on the days of a season” (ἡμέραις καιροῦ). The reading of
a book on festival days is common both in the Jewish Scriptures (cf. 2 Esdr
19.3, e.g., Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab; Esther on Purim), and in Christian
communities. Festival prayers also seem to have been common at Qumran
(1Q34; 4Q505–509), and some extant letters encourage other Jews to adopt
a new festival (cf. 2Macc 2.16). The challenge for scholars is to determine
on which festival day and in which season Baruch was to have been read. A
number of other texts (e.g., A Q V Bo) do not have the singular ἡμέρᾳ, but
the plural ἡμέραις, which suggests either multiple readings or readings that
are spread out over multiple days. Yet even if ἡμέραις καιροῦ is considered a
festal season, we are still faced with the question of which festival(s). Thackeray
(1921, 92–93; Schürer 1973–1987, 2.3.193; cf. Steck 1993, 54–55) has argued that the
answer is found in the season reference in 1.2 (τῷ καιρῷ ᾧ ἔλαβον οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὴν
Ιερουσαλημ καὶ ἐνέπρησαν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί). According to Thackeray, this “season”
is the festival commemorating the three-week interval between the fall of
Jerusalem on the seventeenth of Tammuz and the burning of the temple on the
ninth of Ab. If that is the case, it is interesting that Baruch uses “feast” rather
than the expected “fast” traditionally associated with the sabbaths surrounding
the destruction of the temple. Theodoret claims that Baruch is to be read on all
the major festivals (Com.Bar. 1.14).
Additionally, there are two variants of the phrase ἡμέραις καιροῦ. The first is
found in the Syriac Peshitta, where a translator misread καιροῦ as κυρίου and
rendered it “on the days of the Lord” (Thackeray 1921, 91–92). The other, more
interesting variant comes from LaB, where 1.14 is presented as et legetis librum
quem misimus ad vos in domo domini in die sollemni. Here the translator omits
any mention of confession (ἐξαγορεῦσαι) and ἡμέραις καιροῦ. Rather the book is
to be read “on a solemn day”.
The author moves from the narrative introduction to the prayer by a simple
transition (καὶ ἐρεῖτε, future active indicative), in which “Baruch” instructs the
people to pray the prayer he has written for them. The recipients not only
receive instructions to pray, but are also told what to pray. “The prayer becomes
more than a simple confession because it also identifies the Jews’s sins, tells
them what to say in regard to these sins, and how they should think and act”
(Werline 1998, 90). In this way the prayer reveals the ideology that the author
wants his readers to adopt.
It is at this point (τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν, 1.15b) that nearly every commentator
starts a new section in Baruch (so also Rahlfs-Hanhart 2006; Ziegler 2006). This
has some support in the Greek manuscript tradition, as Alexandrinus has a
major break and Vaticanus a paragraphos. For readers of Vaticanus, however,
this break is clearly subordinate to the major division at 1.14.
Many scholars have offered a structural breakdown for the penitential prayer
section. The most recent outline is by Floyd (2007, 56), who divides this passage
into two main parts, each having two further subdivisions:
i. Admission of guilt 1.15aβ–2.10

A. Admission of sinfulness 1.15aβ–2.5
B. Admission of failure to repent 2.6–10
ii. Prayer for mercy: twofold request 2.11–3.8
A. First request 2.11–35
B. Second request 3.1–8
Most of these divisions (which will be discussed further below) fit well with the
textual divisions found in the manuscripts. In addition to the paragraphos in
1.15aβ, Vaticanus has another one at 2.6 and two major breaks at 2.11 and 3.1.
As is apparent, all the divisions outlined by Floyd are supported by breaks in
Vaticanus (see Introduction section 6 for paragraph divisions in other manu-
scripts). The only other break in Vaticanus is located at 3.4 (paragraphos plus
64 chapter 3
a marginal mark) which, although not part of Floyd’s macro-divisions, corre-

sponds with his “Second request” subdivision. Despite these similarities, Floyd
and Vaticanus differ on one important issue: Floyd divides 1.14–3.8 into two
parts, whereas Vaticanus has three equal divisions. (Floyd [2007, 57–60] fur-
ther divides each of his subdivisions into very small parts, which results in an
over-segmentation of the text.)
The opening of Baruch’s penitential prayer closely parallels other biblical
prayers, especially those of Dan [θ] 9.7 and 2Esdr 9.7. Moore (1977, 277) suggests
that 2Esdr 9.7 may be the origin of the phrases in Daniel and Baruch, but the
absence of additional parallels in the surrounding text challenges the theory of
a dependent relationship. The text cited by Theodoret, which has an additional
article and the singular of “face” (ἡ αἰσχύνη τοῦ προσώπου, Com.Bar. 1.15, cf. also
Bo LaV), is exactly that of Daniel and likely was influenced by the latter text.
Bar 1.15 τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ
ἡμέρα αὕτη, ἀνθρώπῳ Ιουδα καὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ιερουσαλημ …
Dan [θ] 9.7 σοί κύριε ἡ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἡμῖν ἡ αἰσχύνη τοῦ προσώπου ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα
αὕτη ἀνδρὶ Ιουδα καὶ τοῖς ἐνοικοῦσιν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ παντὶ Ισραηλ …
2Esdr 9.7 καὶ ἐν αἰσχύνῃ προσώπου ἡμῶν ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη.
The textual similarities with Theodotion Daniel in the penitential prayer sec-
tion will be discussed below. (On the issue of associating the Danielic text with
the historical Theodotion, see Schmitt 1966 and Fernández Marcos 2000, 142–
154.) These similarities have led a number of scholars to posit a textual relation-
ship in which Baruch is dependent on or draws from Daniel (Kneucker, 1879,
31–32; Battistone 1968, 48–73; Knibb 1976, 268; Steck 1993, 80–89). This theo-
rised relationship has then been used to determine the dating of this section of
Baruch (Burke 1982, 29). Other scholars have been less ready to posit a direct
relationship between Baruch and Daniel and have opted to talk either of both
texts’s drawing on a shared tradition (Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 113–204) or of
similarities resulting from both passages’s sharing a penitential prayer form in
which standard features and phrases are included (Werline 1998, 106–108). The
latter two positions will frame the discussion of Danielic parallels in Baruch
offered below. (I do not find Feuerstein’s claim [1997, 415–454] that Daniel made
use of Baruch convincing, although I appreciate his detailed analysis. Wes’s
[1992, 145] suggestion that the “first version of 1Baruch” and Dan [mt] 8–12 were
possibly written by the same author is pure speculation.)
Although verbal similarities will be noted below, they will not be discussed
in terms of dependency, nor is there adequate space in this volume to comment
thoroughly on the issue of textual relationships. Rather, the following com-
mentary will focus primarily on textual overlap and possible different readings,
especially those that are important for Vaticanus Baruch. The number of paral-
lels has led some ancient readers and scribes to read Baruch in light of Daniel
9, as can be witnessed by insertions and conflations found in the manuscript
tradition (rarely are insertions from Baruch found in Daniel). Ancient readers
and scholars appear to have spent very little time determining textual priority
(unlike their modern counterparts). They were much more interested in pro-
viding an interpretation that meshed with their theological hermeneutic, in
reading the text as a unified entity, and in identifying related passages. Like the
readers of Vaticanus, we will note the similarities and differences in the Greek
texts of Baruch and Daniel in this commentary and highlight the particular fea-
tures unique to Baruch and their importance for interpretation. (For a detailed
chart/discussion of connections between Bar 1.15–3.8 and Dan 9, see Steck 1993,
80; Tov 1999b.)
The prayer opens with the speaker ascribing righteousness to God, while
at the same time acknowledging the people’s shameful position. These two
verbless clauses stand in stark contrast to each other, as the speaker attempts
to depict the vast distance between his community and God. This contrast
is emphasised by the use of δέ, a conjunction that normally would not merit
discussion, but is noteworthy here because there are only two uses in the first
half of Baruch (the other occurs at 2.6). The ratio between δέ and καί changes
dramatically in the wisdom section (3.9–4.4), which consistently makes use of
δέ and οὐδέ.
ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη is an important temporal phrase in the prayer, also occur-
ring in 1.20; 2.6, 11, 26. This phrase reinforces for the reader the current state in
which the Baruchan characters dwell. In v. 15 they are shamed and in a state of
humiliation (literally “shame of faces”) and this self-effacing posture is contin-
ued throughout the penitential section. The speaker of the prayer is not only
repenting for himself, but constantly uses the first person plural to include
himself within the larger community (ἡμῶν, ἡμῖν). Shame is shared by every
member of the community, not only those who are currently living, but also
those who have gone before (ἀνθρώπῳ Ιουδα καὶ τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν Ιερουσαλημ καὶ
τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς ἄρχουσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς προφή-
ταις ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν). Interestingly, “kings”, “prophets”, and “fathers”
are omitted by Theodoret when quoting this verse, although he does mention
kings later in his commentary (Com.Bar. 1.16). The list offered by Baruch is sim-
ilar in phrasing to a number of passages in Jeremiah (4.4; 11.2; 17.25; 18.11; 42.13).
The latter of these examples was used by Tov (1976, 115) to support a relationship
between Baruch and the redactor of the second half of Jeremiah. For a fuller list
of people included in sinning against the Lord, see Jer 39.32 and 2 Esdr 19.32.
66 chapter 3
Also of note in this list of datives is the repeated use of the possessive pro-
noun ἡμῶν. Occurring six times in v. 16, once after every group, this repetition is
superfluous for Greek readers and borders on excess. Such phenomena are seen
throughout the Greek Bible and are likely a result of translating the Hebrew
pronominal suffix into Greek (a so-called “Semitism”, Swete 1914, 307). Although
this feature is not limited to the Septuagint (Moulton 1908, 84–85), it occurs
more frequently there than in literary or vernacular Greek (bdf § 278; Sollamo
1995, 1–3). This feature in Baruch suggests Semitic influence, but it does not nec-
essarily support the theory of a Hebrew Vorlage. It is possible that the author of
Baruch based his text on the Greek found in his models, namely the translation
Greek of Jeremiah and the Pentateuch.
Verse 17 contains the first finite verb of the opening prayer and begins a string
of three verbs in the aorist tense-form: “we have sinned … we disobeyed … we
did not listen …”. These three verbs are standard in penitential prayers and sum
up the entirety of Israel’s misdemeanours. The first, ὧν ἡμάρτομεν ἔναντι κυρίου
as it stands in B, is awkward given the use of ὧν. Q changes ὧν to ως, L’ Arm, and
Theodoret omit it, and SyrHex has an obelus (÷) and an interesting marginal
note that reads, “This is not in the Hebrew” (ου κειται τουτο παρα τω εβραιω),
likely referring to a parallel passage in the Hebrew corpus as opposed to the
Hebrew text of Baruch, which is not extant if it ever existed (Harwell 1915, 8–9).
Some translators have read ὅτι instead (Moore 1977, 278).
ἡμάρτομεν ἔναντι κυρίου has a number of parallels in the lxx (e.g., Deut 1.41;
Jer 16.10; cf. Dan 9.8). ἔναντι with the corresponding genitive (in A, Q, and V
ἐναντίον; these are nearly synonymous in the lxx [Sollamo 1975, 780–781; 1979,
25–28]), is typically translated “before” or “in front of”. Although it is sometimes
labelled an abbreviated form of ἐναντίον (Schmid 1887, 176) and thus a Hebrew
“innovation” (Thackeray 1909, 25), it has also been identified as a fourth/third
century Greek dialectical variant from Crete (Wackernagel 1907, 3–6) and so
can be considered part of wider Koine vocabulary.
Following the general admission of sin, the speaker identifies two specific
grievances in coordinate clauses: ἠπειθήσαμεν αὐτῷ and οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς
φωνῆς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν. With resemblance to Deut 9.23 and Jer 9.12, Baruch
picks up on common indictments against the people of Israel, namely disobedi-
ence and failure to listen to the voice of the Lord. The term φωνή is important for
Baruch’s penitential prayer and recurs a number of times (cf. 3.4). Here (and in
2.10) the people acknowledge their shortcomings and confess them to the Lord.
Repeated use of the first person plural and shared semantic domains (Louw
and Nida 1989) knit this passage together, providing strong cohesion. A similar
example is the related passage in Dan [θ] 9.5–6, in which there are six consec-
utive verbs in the first person plural form.
κατὰ πρόσωπον ἡμῶν (with a similar use of κατά in 1.22) is a common idiom
in the Greek Scriptures (e.g., Jer 33.4), which has resulted in its being labeled a
“Semitic idiom” (bdf §140). Also found in 2.14, this phrase is glossed in Baruch
as “before” or “in front of” (Muraoka 2009, s.v. πρόσωπον). Venetus emphasises
the magnitude of the sin by adding και τοις πατρισιν ημων, and thus reinforces
the fact that their fathers were also given the commandments and did not walk
in them (a view that is further emphasised in 3.1–8).
Verse 19 opens with a temporal prepositional phrase in the theme position
(ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας), the complement of which comes later in the verse (ἕως
τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης). Commonly referred to in the lxx (cf. Jud 19.30; 4 Regn
21.15; Jer 7.25), this time span encompasses the entirety of the Jewish people’s
relationship with God under the Mosaic covenant. According to the author of
Baruch, this time period has been characterised by disobedience.
ἤμεθα ἀπειθοῦντες is a periphrastic construction with an augmented first per-
son plural form of εἰμί (a rare form that only occurs one other time in the
lxx, at 1 Regn 25.16, although the latter is not a periphrastic, Conybeare 1905,
32) that takes its aspectual force from the present participle (Porter 1994, 45–
49). This construction is understood by Moore (1977, 279) as a “grammatical
construction that stresses the persistent, continuous character of the people’s
disobedience”. The periphrastic construction does not necessarily embed tem-
poral continuity, which is supplied by the aforementioned temporal markers.
These indicators govern the duration of the construction and inform the reader
of the time interval in which disobedience reigns. The term ἀπειθέω only occurs
twice in Baruch (vv. 18–19), although it is well attested in the lxx and Greek
documentary literature. Van der Meer (2011, 85) has recently argued that in the
Hexateuch and Greek-Isaiah, “this verb expresses disobedience in the strongest
sense”. He argues that this term is strongly associated with disobedience against
the Lord in the corpus of the lxx and so has a particular “theological” mean-
ing. Although I very much agree with the collocation between ἀπειθέω and “the
Lord” (seen also here in Baruch) and his observation that the lxx uses the term
differently than comparable corpora (nt, papyrology, Patristics), his definition
of “theological” could be further defined.
ἐσχεδιάζομεν (ἐσχεδιάσαμεν in A), glossed “act carelessly” (leh, Muraoka) or
“to do [something] off-hand” (lsj), only appears here in the lxx, and its occur-
rence has inspired substantial discussion. Theodoret of Cyrus (Com.Bar. 1.19)
claims “τὸ δὲ ‘ἐσχεδιάζομεν’, ἀντὶ τοῦ ‘καὶ ἐπενοοῦμεν ἁμαρτημάτων’” based on his
reading of Rom 1.30. Whitehouse (1913, 584) claims that this term arose from a
corruption of ‫ מרדנו‬to ‫ מהרנו‬and so should be read as “rebelled”. Moore (1997,
279) states that “the verb, meaning ‘to be hasty’, is understood to be used here
in an ironical or sarcastic sense”. Despite the alternative conjectures, I do not
68 chapter 3
see σχεδιάζω as out of place, nor does the context allow for an “ironical or
sarcastic” reading. Rather, the speakers are claiming that they did not heed-
fully listen to the voice of the Lord, but ignored it out of hand. According to
Gifford (1888, 259), the unique use of σχεδιάζω as opposed to ἀπέστημεν or ἐξε-
κλίναμεν[θ]/παρέβημεν[og] found in Dan 9.5, 11 indicates that Baruch was not
dependent on Daniel for his text. Although I agree with his conclusion, this
example is not by itself conclusive.
Having admitted guilt, the speaker in v. 20 outlines the repercussions of
Israel’s actions, namely that “the bad things and the curse have clung to us”
(ἐκολλήθη εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ κακὰ καὶ ἡ ἀρά, cf. 3.4; 1qs 2.15–16). These are not just
any catastrophes, but those that the Lord outlined to Moses on the day that
he brought their fathers out of Egypt. This is the first of three references to
Moses in Baruch (all in this section, cf. 2.2, 27) and it provides an interpretive
framework for the reader indicating that the events that have happened were a
result of disobedience, and that the people of Israel were warned by God ahead
of time. The Law given by God and written by Moses contains both blessings
and curses (cf. Lev 26.3–39; Deut 28). The latter were mentioned previously, but
the blessings are recalled in the description of the land inherited by Israel: γῆν
ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι.
The subject of ἐξήγαγε(ν) is ambiguous. Although the closest possible refer-
ent would be Moses, v. 19 clearly states that it is the Lord who brought them
out of Egypt. Although it would be technically accurate to say that both the
Lord and Moses led the people out of Egypt, this ambiguity was problematic
for some ancient readers (V Q), who added κύριος after ἐξήγαγεν to clarify and
reinforce the fact that it was the Lord who brought their fathers out of Egypt. As
in 1.8 and 19 there are two occurrences of ἐκ—one prefixed to the verb and one
independent—forging a strong link between the verb and its object (cf. 4.21).
Moses here is characterised by the term παιδί, which is the only term used in
Baruch to describe God’s workers (Moses: 2.28; Prophets: 2.20, 24; Jacob: 3.36).
Τοv (1976, 69; Thackeray 1909, 7–8) argues that the use of παῖς to the exclu-
sion of δοῦλος indicates that Baruch and the second part of Jeremiah shared
a redactor. The use of παῖς in Baruch could be attributed to authorial pref-
erence or Jeremianic influence, however, and does not necessitate a shared
redactor.
The phrase ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη (cf. 1.13) provides a temporal marker for this
verse, but there is some discussion as to what it modifies. Moore (1977, 276)
places it at the head of v. 20 and thus has it modify ἐκολλήθη εἰς ἡμᾶς τὰ
κακὰ καὶ ἡ ἀρά. Conversely, nets and Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine (2008, 88)
have the temporal phrase modify γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι. Assan-Dhôte and
Moatti-Fine further specify that this reading “souligne le caractère inaltérable
de cette terre”. The best way to take ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη in v. 20 is as a modifier of

the description of the land, because both are located in the same subordinate
clause and because “land” is the nearest possible antecedent referent.
Verse 21 revisits the content of 1.18 and re-emphasises the fact that the people
did not listen to the voice of the Lord. The people’s sinfulness, defined first
in terms of the Law (1.18), is now spoken of in terms of the “prophets”. The
“voice of the Lord” is a common phrase in the Jewish Scriptures, particularly
in Num 3–4, Deut 28, and Jer 49–51. Moreover, the pairing of “the voice of the
Lord” with “the words of the prophets” (τοὺς λόγους τῶν προφητῶν) is also well
attested, particularly in Jeremiah (Willis 2000). (The role and importance of
the prophets in Baruch’s prayer is discussed further in the so-called “citation”
passages, e.g., 2.20, 24.) In particular there are strong parallels with Dan [θ] 9.10
and similarities with Jer 33.4b–5a, although the Jeremiah passage employs a
first person conditional clause.
Bar 1.21 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
Dan [θ] 9.10 καὶ οὐκ εἰσηκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
Jer 33.4b–5a ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητέ μου … εἰσακούειν τῶν λόγων τῶν παίδων μου τῶν
προφητῶν
The phrase construction τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, with an additional article
between κυρίου and θεοῦ, is distinct for this section of Baruch (1.14–3.8). Here
and 1.13 are the only locations in the first half of Baruch in which the article
is used with an oblique case of θεός, a term that is typically anarthrous (the
pairing of the article with θεός in all cases is dominant in the latter half).
Conversely, there is consistent use of the article with θεός in the nominative
case throughout Baruch’s prayer section (see 2.11).
The confession continues in v. 22 with an acknowledgement that each per-
son followed the desires of their evil heart in working for other gods and doing
evil in the eyes of the Lord. The main clause is constructed with a finite imper-
fect verb-form ᾠχόμεθα followed by two subordinate infinitives, ἐργάζεσθαι and
ποιῆσαι. This construction indicates that working for other gods and doing of
evil in the eyes of the Lord are a result of the people’s following their hearts.
The first part of this verse is reminiscent of David’s prayer in 1 Par 29.18 and its
request that God guard the thoughts of the heart (ἐν διανοίᾳ καρδίας) so that the
hearts of the people might follow God forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ κατεύθυνον τὰς
καρδίας αὐτῶν πρὸς σέ). The direct association of διάνοια and καρδία is uncom-
mon in the lxx (1 Par 29.18; Od 9.51), although both terms are occasionally used
in the same verse, either as collocated items or in a parallel construction (cf. Jer
38.33; Sir 22.17; Jdt 8.14). This pairing indicates a strong semantic relationship
70 chapter 3
between these two terms, which has led Louw and Nida (1989) to assign them
to the same semantic domain.
Following the identification of grievances, the author of Baruch states the
consequences of the people’s actions. Μοore (1977, 276) translates τὸν λόγον
αὐτοῦ, ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς as “his threat which he made against us” (so also
Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 88). This negative phrasing reads too much
into the verse, however, as ἵστημι is not fundamentally “unpleasant” (Muraoka
2009). Rather, it should be translated “word which he spoke to us” (so also nets)
in order not to overload the translation with too much interpretive framing.
The phrase “the Lord established his word” is attested in a number of other
places in the lxx:
Bar 2.1 καὶ ἔστησε(ν) κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς
3 Regn 2.4 ἴνα στήσῃ κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ὃν ἐλάλησεν λέγων
2 Par 6.10 καὶ ἀνέστησεν κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ὃν ἐλάλησεν
2 Par 10.15 λέγων ἀνέστησεν κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐν χειρὶ Αχια
More substantial is the parallel between Bar 2.1 and Dan [θ] 9.12, which not only
has the same opening phrase (with slight differences of case and number), but
also identifies the recipients of the words in a similar manner.
Bar 2.1 καὶ ἔστησε(ν) κύριος τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, ὃν ἐλάλησεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ
τοὺς δικαστὰς ἡμῶν τοὺς δικάσαντας τὸν Ισραηλ
Dan [θ] 9.12 καὶ ἔστησεν τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ οὒς ἐλάλησεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς
κριτὰς ἡμῶν οἳ ἔκρινον ἡμᾶς
In addition to differences in terminology (the less common δικαστής/δικάζω

versus the more common κριτής/κρίνω), Baruch has a substantially longer list
of recipients, including kings, rulers, and each person of Israel and Judah. In
Baruch, it is not only judges who have received the word of the Lord, but the
entire nation, from the kings and rulers down to each and every person. As a
result, everyone is held responsible, as all the people knew what the Lord had
said.
This is the first time in the prayer section that κύριος has occurred in a dom-
inant clause in the nominative. There have been two other occurrences in the
nominative (vv. 19–20), but in both instances κύριος has been in a subordinate
clause.
After the extended list of recipients, Baruch returns to the Danielic parallel
and highlights the singular event that took place in Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, War
5.442). The phrase “under all of heaven” is seen in other places in the lxx (Bar
5.3; Deut 4.19; Dan [θ] 7.27), but the strongest parallel is again that of Dan [θ]
9.12.
Bar 2.2 οὐκ ἐποιήθη ὑποκάτω παντὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθὰ ἐποίησεν ἐν Ιερου-
σαλημ
Dan [θ] 9.12 οἷα οὐ γέγονεν ὑποκάτω παντὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατὰ τὰ γενόμενα ἐν
Ιερουσαλημ
There are two important variants in 2.2. First, Alexandrinus adds τοῦ ἀγαγείν ἐφ’
ἡμᾶς κακά μεγάλα ἅ to the opening of the verse (so also Qmg; SyrHex has a ※ for
this addition). This addition is very similar to a phrase in Dan 9.12 (ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφ’
ἡμᾶς κακὰ μεγάλα οἷα), and suggests that a scribe sought to harmonise the text
with its Danielic parallel. This provides further support for the idea that early
readers read Baruch in light of Daniel and attempted to conform Baruch’s text
to that of the other prophet. The similarities with Daniel make it very unlikely
that the addition in Alexandrinus represents the “full original text” of Baruch,
as claimed by Whitehouse (1913, 585).
The other variant in 2.2, ἐποίησεν/ἐποίηθη, occurs in the latter half of the
verse. The reading in Alexandrinus, καθὰ ἐποίηθη ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, makes a state-
ment using the third person passive that the events happened in Jerusalem.
Conversely, Vaticanus has καθὰ ἐποίησεν ἐν Ιερουσαλημ, with the active form of
the third person verb. The use of the active form highlights the need to attribute
the action to an actor rather than foregrounding the object/recipient, as is the
function of the passive. In this manuscript the actor would be the Lord from
2.1. Although the passive in Alexandrinus is likely to be attributed to God, the
use of the active in Vaticanus explicitly associates God with the punishment of
Jerusalem.
In the penitential text there are four passages that appear to introduce a
citation: Bar 2.2, 20, 24, and 28 (Adams 2013; Kabasele Mukenge 1995). In 2.2,
the phrase κατὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ appears to introduce a specific
quotation: “that we should eat, a person the flesh of his son and a person the
flesh of his daughter” (τοῦ φαγεῖν ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον σάρκας υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον
σάρκας θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ, Bar 2.3). Interestingly, a few Daniel manuscripts (A’ Qtxt)
change γενόμενα to γεγραμμένα, as found in Baruch. Since this does not fit with
the Danielic context, it may be a rare instance of a scribe’s conforming the text
of Daniel to that of Baruch.
This promise of cannibalizing of children is present not only in Deuteron-
omy and its lists of curses (Deut 28.53: “Then you shall eat the offspring of
your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD
your God has given you” [καὶ φάγῃ τὰ ἔκγονα τὴς κοιλίας σου κρέα υἱῶν σου καὶ
72 chapter 3
θυγατέρων σου ὅσα ἔδωκέν σοι κύριος ὁ θεός σου]), but also in Lev 26.29 (“You will
eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters” [καὶ φάγεσθε τὰς σάρ-
κας τῶν υἱῶν ὑμῶν καὶ τὰς σάρκας τῶν θυγατέρων ὑμῶν φάγεσθε]). Outside of the
books of Moses the best parallel for Bar 2.3 would be Jer 19.9. In the passage
leading up to the latter verse, Israel has once again failed to heed the word of
the Lord and the Lord promises that he will punish Jerusalem by the sword.
The climax of this curse is Jer 19.9: “And they will eat the flesh of their sons, and
the flesh of their daughters; and they will eat every one the flesh of his neigh-
bour in the blockade, and in the siege which their enemies will besiege them”
(καὶ ἔδονται τὰς σάρκας τῶν υἱῶν αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς σάρκας τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτῶν καὶ
ἕκαστος τὰς σάρκας τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ ἔδονται ἐν τῇ περισχῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ πολιορκίᾳ ᾗ
πολιορκήσουσιν αὐτοὺς οἱ ἐχθροὶ αὐτῶν) (cf. Thr 2.20; 4.10; Ez 5.10; 4 Regn 6.28–29).
Although Lev 26.29 differs in person from Baruch, it is the closest parallel for
Bar 2.3, especially in light of Baruch’s explicit reference to Moses. Nevertheless,
a well-attuned reader would recall not only this key Mosaic passage, but also
pick up an allusive reference to Jeremiah. Like Leviticus, Jer 9.19 has a different
use of person (third to first person) and plural sons and daughters, but, unlike
Leviticus, it shares the same geographic location as Baruch (Jerusalem, Bar
2.2; Jer 19.3), and explicitly situates the punishing event in the Jewish capital.
This explicit geographical referent provides a basis for understanding Baruch’s
“citation” of the Law of Moses through the lens of Jeremiah (Adams 2013).
Cannibalism and eating one’s own children were terrible aspects of siege
warfare in the ancient world (Thucydides, Hist. 2.70.1–4; Caesar, Bell. gall. 7.63–
90). Wes (1992, 147) argues that the mention of cannibalism represents a later
revision or addition to the original Baruch (first written in 166 bce), possibly
by Jochanan ben Zakkai. There is no manuscript evidence for this claim, how-
ever. Other commentators have interpreted this reference in light of the fall of
Jerusalem in ad70 (cf. Josephus, War 6.201–213), and it is indeed very possible
that readers of Vaticanus Baruch would have read this passage in light of the
most recent siege of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, it is short-sighted of commen-
tators to limit their interpretation to one event of speculative relevance, and
to neglect the immediate narrative context (i.e., the siege of Jerusalem by the
Babylonians). Theodoret (Com.Bar. 2.2) only speaks about “the siege”, but it is
clear that he speaks not about the siege of ad70, but about the Babylonian one.
A notable textual issue occurs in 2.2–3. The Syro-Hexaplar has two obeli
(÷) indicating that certain phrases are not found in the Hebrew text, which is
surprising as the Syro-Hexaplar has already placed the entire text of Baruch
under the obelus for not being part of the Hebrew canon. At the opening of 2.2,
Q also has two marginal asterisks (※) surrounding the addition of του αγαγειν
εφ ημας κακα μεγαλα, closing with a metobelos hammer.
Remarking on 2.3, most commentators (e.g., Moore 1977; Assan-Dhôte and

Moatti-Fine 2008) discuss the (supposed) underlying Hebrew and how difficult
it is to reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage. This would not have been a concern for
the Vaticanus readers, however. Despite the somewhat awkward construction,
this verse is readily intelligible in the Greek and a Greek reader would not have
needed to posit an alternate reading.
In Bar 2.4 there is an interesting change from the first person to third person
plural. Until this point the author has exclusively used the first person plural
when referencing the people of Israel, but here there is a change to the third
person plural, as the author talks about the subjugation of Israel from a distance
rather than as a participant. This change is particularly disjunctive, as the
author in the immediately preceding verse had spoken of cannibalistic events
in the first person plural. Although the first person voice is not entirely absent
in 2.4 (the author mentions the nations around “us”), the focus is on God’s
giving “them” (αὐτοὺς) to the surrounding nations. To whom does αὐτοὺς refer?
The content of Baruch provides no other answer except the Jewish people,
whose plight is further emphasised by a description of their being “scattered”
(διέσπειρεν) by the Lord. In other texts, the latter phraseology is sometimes
used with respect to other nations (Babylon: Ez 12.15; Elam: Jer 25.16), but
frequently it is used to describe the exiled Jewish community and the manner
in which the Lord had punished his people (Joel 4.2; Tob 3.13; Est 3.8; Ez
11.17). Despite the change in person, therefore, the author of Baruch seems
to be describing what befell the Jewish people, and how the Lord used the
surrounding nations to punish the people of Israel and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem. Marttila (2011, 327) asserts that in employing the theme of scattering
and the verb διασπείρω, the author of Baruch draws directly on Deuteronomy,
and especially Deut 4.27; 28.64; and 30.3. Although the third of these passages
uses the semantically-related term διασκορπίζω, all three share a perspective
on the Jewish people that is similar to that of Baruch, and they could therefore
provide background for Bar 2.4, since there are strong ties to Deuteronomy in
the surrounding co-text.
The author of Baruch carries the third person into 2.5. It is interesting to
note that manuscripts identified as part of the “Lucianic recension,” as well
as a number of others, have changed the third person ἐγενήθησαν to the first
person plural ἐγενήθημεν (so also LaLSV, Syr, Theodoret). Not only is this more
continuous with the previous context, but it also emphasises the immediacy
of the desolation for the writer and his exile community. Vaticanus does not
have this change, but retains καὶ ἐγενήθησαν ὑποκάτω καὶ οὐκ ἐπάνω, literally
translated, “and they became below and not above”, which is a figurative way
of expressing a state of being (Muraoka 2009, s.v. ὑποκάτω; cf. Deut 28.13). In
74 chapter 3
this case an idiomatic translation would read, “they were humbled and not
exalted”.
In Vaticanus, the first person plural returns at the conclusion of this verse:
“We sinned against the Lord our God and did not listen to his voice”. This
phrase, reminiscent of 1.17–18, 21 and 2.10, once again acts as a confession and
an acknowledgement of sin. Moreover, it functions as a summary closing this
subsection of the prayer (1.15–2.5): the Lord’s divine verdict against the people
of Israel was just (Theodoret, Com.Bar. 2.5).
In Vaticanus, Bar 2.6 is marked with a paragraphos, although Alexandrinus,
Marchalianus, and Venetus have major breaks at that point. Vaticanusʼs minor
break indicates sense-unit delineation while not completely separating 1.15–2.5
from the previous paragraph. The next full Greek paragraph for Vaticanus
begins at 2.11 where there is a disjunctive shift in person.
The paragraph at Bar 2.6 opens with a repetition of the opening line of the
previous paragraph, with one addition.
1.15 τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα
αὕτη
2.6 τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἡμῖν δὲ καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν ἡ αἰσχύνη
τῶν προσώπων ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη
As in 1.15, Bar 2.6 opens with an ascription of righteousness to the Lord their
God and a parallel attribution of shame to the speakers in corresponding verb-
less clauses, but 2.6 adds καὶ τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν. Thus there is not only shame for
the speakers, but shame is also cast back upon their forefathers (contra Assan-
Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 91, who envision only two generations). Unlike
1.16–17 there is no long list that further delineates the shamed parties, and the
prayer continues without substantial hiatus.
Baruch 2.7 opens with a relative pronoun: ἃ ἐλάλησε(ν) κύριος ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς,
πάντα τὰ κακὰ ταῦτα ἃ ἦλθεν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς. In classical Greek the use of a pleonas-
tic antecedent is a rare construction, with few examples in classical authors
(Robertson 1919, 722), but it is much more common in the lxx (for examples,
see Winer 1882, 185). Thackeray is no doubt right when he states that this con-
struction “is found in all parts of the lxx and undoubtedly owes its frequency
to the Hebrew original. But the fact that it is found in an original Greek work
such as 2Macc (12.27) and a paraphrase such as 1 Esdras (3.5, 9; 4.54, 63; 6.32), is
sufficient to warrant its presence in the κοινή” (1909, 46, emphasis original). It is
apparent that certain later scribes of Baruch did not appreciate this construc-
tion, as it is omitted by Lucianic manuscripts (so also, LaLV Syr) and replaced
with διοτι.
Here again we have a reference to all the bad things (τὰ κακὰ) that the Lord
had said would happen to the Jewish people. Already mentioned in 1.20, 22 and
further occurring in 2.9 and 3.4, the repetitive use of κακός forges another link
in the semantic chain that binds this 1.15–3.8 together. Although κακός is absent
in the wisdom section, it reoccurs again in the final section of Jerusalem’s
prophecy (4.18, 29, 31; 5.1), creating an important element of continuity within
the work as a whole.
Verse 8 contains two interesting grammatical structures. The first, τοῦ προσ-
ώπου κυρίου τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι, is an attributive adjective with a genitive articular
infinitive. Although both constructions use τοῦ, they are not to be conflated
into one grammatical construction (as is the case for a similar phrase in the
second half of the verse). The use of δέομαι dictates that the following noun
takes the genitive form (τοῦ προσώπου κυρίου), while the second genitive article
(τοῦ) is linked with the infinitive and thus loses its genitive force. It is therefore
not grammatically connected with the preceding phrase (Moulton 1908, 216).
This articular infinitive, as is indicated both by context and by construction, is
telic. The first half of v. 8 reads (idiomatically), “and we did not beg the face of
the Lord to the extent that each one turned away …” In the second half there
is a structure that visually parallels the one just discussed: τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν
τῆς πονηρᾶς. In this phrase the personal possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (αυτου in A)
has been inserted into an attributive adjectival structure. The possessive pro-
noun qualifies the first noun and does not interrupt the flow of the Greek. This
type of construction is found in other passages in the lxx and nt, as well as in
other Greek literature (e.g., 2 Regn 19.21; Jer 3.17; Matt 3.17; 4.16; 26.28; Luke 7.47).
These two constructions in v. 8 provide a visual balance to the text, but could
be a potential stumbling block to inattentive readers, who might overlook the
important grammatical differences.
Another interesting feature of v. 8 is an additional confession, which this
time involves an admission of inaction: the Jewish people did not petition God
to turn them from the thoughts of their evil hearts. Once again a number of
verbal parallels exist between Baruch and Daniel:
Bar 2.8 καὶ οὐκ ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ προσώπου κυρίου τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι ἕκαστον
ἀπὸ τῶν νοημάτων τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν τῆς πονηρᾶς.
Dan [θ] 9.13 καὶ οὐκ ἐδεήθημεν τοῦ προσώπου κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἀποστρέ-
ψαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδικιῶν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῦ συνιέναι ἐν πάσῃ ἀληθείᾳ σου.
For the first half, Bar 2.8 is almost identical with Dan [θ] 9.13 except that Daniel
interposes θεοῦ ἡμῶν between the article and its corresponding infinitive. The
second half of Dan [θ] 9.13 shares the admission of not turning from wrong
76 chapter 3
(though with different terms), but differs in the addition of understanding all
God’s (σου) truth. Baruch here refers to the thoughts of the heart and, as in 1.22,
calls the heart “evil” (πονηρός). The heart is occasionally labelled “evil” in the
lxx. First occurring in Gen 6.5, where the Lord sees that the thoughts of the
hearts of men are continuously evil, the association is strengthened in Jeremiah
(3.17; 16.12; 18.12), from which Baruch draws his perspective. As commented
above, τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν τῆς πονηρᾶς is disjunctive, as it is in the third rather
than the first person. (Some scribes, in light of the parallel in 1.22, have changed
the αὐτῶν to αὐτοῦ [so, A L’]). Apart from Baruch, this exact phrase occurs only
in Jer 3.17, which, given the importance of Jeremiah for Baruch, is the likely
source/inspiration. The context of Jer 3.17 further supports this view, as this
section (Jer 3.6–18) is a prophecy from the Lord given to Jeremiah to give to
Israel regarding their restoration and forgiveness. Moreover, Jer 3.17 specifically
mentions the future glory of Jerusalem and the drawing of all nations to her.
This is a particularly important theme for the last part of Baruch and will be
discussed more fully below.
Verse 9 continues the flow and thought process of 2.7: the Lord spoke ahead
of time regarding the “bad things” and he watched over them and brought them
on the Jewish people. Again we have reference to the “bad things” (τοῖς κακοῖς)
that were discussed above (1.20; 2.7). “Bad things” may not be the most pol-
ished English gloss, but its generality and unspecified nature fit Baruch’s nar-
rative. Other scholars/translators have offered different translations: “plagues”
(Whitehouse 1913, 585), “miseries” (Muraoka 2009), “disasters” (Moore 1977,
283). These can sometimes be too narrow or specific (esp. “plagues”), and it
is better to allow for a broader interpretation of Baruch
The verb γρηγορέω is used only nine times in the lxx, often to indicate
watchfulness or alertness (1Macc 12.27) (a verb form built on the perfect stem,
Conybeare 1905, 42). Two occurrences in Jer 38.28 describe the Lord’s watching
over Israel and Judah, first to oversee their “tearing down and harm” (ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς
καθαιρεῖν καὶ κακοῦν), and then to build and replant them. The collocation
between γρηγορέω and κακόω both in Jeremiah and in Baruch is distinctive
and suggests that Jeremiah may be the backcloth for Baruch here. Baruch also
echoes language found in Dan [θ] 9.14, although Daniel does not have Baruch’s
explicit reference to ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς, only an indefinite pronoun αὐτὰ referencing
back to τὰ κακὰ in 9.13.
Bar 2.9 καὶ ἐγρηγόρησε(ν) κύριος ἐπὶ τοῖς κακοῖς, καὶ ἐπήγαγε κύριος ἐφʼ
ἡμᾶς, ὅτι δίκαιος ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, ἃ ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν
Dan [θ] 9.14 καὶ ἐγρηγόρησεν κύριος καὶ ἐπήγαγε αὐτὰ ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς, ὅτι δίκαιος ὁ
κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ
The two statements in 2.9 are indicative of the theological perspective of the
entire penitential prayer section. First, the author claims that it was the Lord
who brought all these bad things upon them (καὶ ἐπήγαγε κύριος ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς). This
view is echoed in other parts of Baruch (cf. 4.29). In 2.9, this is paired with the
author’s understanding of that action: “The Lord is just in all his works” (ὅτι
δίκαιος ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ). Here the worldview of the author is
laid bare: God is responsible for what is happening in the world and, despite
what we might think, God is just (δίκαιος) in everything he does. This view is
picked up and echoed by Theodoret, Com.Bar. 2.9.
Baruch 2.10 is exactly the same as 1.18 except that 1.18 has the explicit τῆς
φωνῆς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν, whereas 2.10 only has the general possessive pronoun
τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ. Again, this verse serves as a summary to the above confession,
and is also part of a larger semantic chain involving ἀκούω and φωνή that runs
through this penitential prayer section (cf. 2.23–24).
2.2 First Petition (2.11–35)

The third Greek paragraph of Vaticanus and the second major break in the
penitential prayer occurs at 2.11. The break here is supported by a number
of features. First, there is a temporal deictic marker, καὶ νῦν. The previous
paragraph focused on events in the past, particularly how the Lord spoke to the
people of Israel and how the people sinned against the Lord. The introduction
of νῦν, used only here and at 4.24, marks a temporal shift in the narrative. Floyd
(2007, 57) claims that “and now …” is a “rhetorical hinge phrase” and so divides
the penitential prayer section into two main sections (1.15aβ–2.10 and 2.11–3.8;
so too Večho 2007, 80). The scribe of Vaticanus, however, did not interpret
Baruch’s prayer in that manner, but indicated a three-part division with an
additional paragraph break at 3.1. Moreover, καὶ νῦν does not in itself carry such
rhetorical weight. Rather, the text break is dependent on other features. This is
seen in Alexandrinus, which omits καὶ νῦν but still has a major paragraph break
at 2.11.
More important is the change of person. In the previous paragraph the
author referenced the Lord in the third person and did not directly make his
petition to God, but in 2.11 the speaker for the first time directly addresses his
prayer to the Lord and uses the vocative κύριε and the second person singular
σύ. This is the first use of κύριε in Baruch and begins a chain of addresses to the
Lord that continues until the end of the prayer (2.11, 12, 14, 16 × 2, 18, 19, 27; 3.1, 2,
4, 6), a feature that does not occur again in Baruch.
God is addressed in 2.11 as κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ. Here we note the consistent
pairing of θεὸς with the article when in the nominative case (cf. 1.21) (e.g., 2.12,
15, 19, 27, 31; 3.1, 4, 6, 27, 36; 4.9, 23; 5.3, 6, 7, 9). The pairing of κύριος and θεός is
78 chapter 3
also well established in Baruch, but up to this point God has not been called
the “God of Israel”. This new title is appropriate at this juncture, as the author
proceeds to remind God of his role in the deliverance of the Jewish people
from Egypt and his relationship with them. Although mentioned briefly earlier
(cf. 1.19), here the author lingers on the manner by which the people were
delivered: “by a mighty hand with signs and wonders and with great power and
with a high arm”. This image resonates with passages from Deuteronomy and
its reminiscences of how God had delivered his people (cf. Deut 4.34; 5.15; 7.19;
11.2; 26.8).
Once again there is a strong textual relationship between Daniel and Baruch
(cf. Werline 1998, 100–102). Baruch 2.11–13 shares a number of features with Dan
[θ] 9.15–16, such as the opening temporal marker and address (καὶ νῦν, κύριε
ὁ θεὸς), the recognition that God brought the Jewish people out of Egypt (ὃς
ἐξήγαγες τὸν λαόν σου ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ), and that the Lord made
for himself a name which had lasted up to this day (καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ ὄνομα
ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη), which is followed by a confession of sin (ἡμάρτομεν). There is,
however, one important difference in the petitions: Baruch asks for the survival
of Israel, whereas Daniel seeks God’s intervention for Jerusalem and the temple.
That Baruch does not petition God for Jerusalem and the temple is notable and
highlights the different concerns in these highly related texts. The passages in
Baruch and Daniel are tailored to their unique literary contexts and, although
there are a number of overlapping verses, the differences help to show the
individual focuses of the authors. Baruch’s focus is on the salvation of Israel,
which fits his communal context well. The author’s silence regarding Jerusalem
and the temple is, moreover, not unique (e.g., 3 Regn 8.46–51), although not
common (cf. 2Esdr 9.9), and can possibly be understood in light of the special
focus on Jerusalem in the final section (4.5–5.9).
Verse 11 concludes with a reminder that God made a name for himself by
rescuing the people of Israel and that this name has lasted up until the current
time. Reminding God of the importance of his name/reputation is a common
feature of petitions in other texts, with the exact phrase, καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ
ὄνομα ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, seen in four lxx passages: 2 Esdr 9.10; Jer 39.20; Bar 2.11;
Dan [θ] 9.15. Contra Moore (1977, 287), I am not convinced that Gen 11.4 and
the building of the tower of Babel is a good parallel for this passage despite the
similar theme of making a name for oneself (note the difference in person).
Baruch 2.12 returns to the theme of confession, opening with a distinctive
triple use of the finite verb form (aorist active indicative first person plural):
ἡμάρτομεν ἠσεβήσαμεν ἠδικήσαμεν. (Tov’s questioning whether to use a qal or
hiphʿil form for his Hebrew text indicates the inherent problem of retroversion,
Tov 1997, 72.) (Note also the short form of ἡμάρτομεν without an additional
sigma suffix, as seen in Thr 3.42; Thackeray 1909, 234.) Paralleled in Dan 9.5
(with the og version having the same terms and forms, although the last two are
inverted) and 3 Regn 8.47, this repeated use of the first person plural imbues the
text with movement and cadence (cf. Ps 105.6). This is followed by an address,
κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν (V reads κύριος), which is common in Bar 1.15–3.8. The object
of (at least) the final verb ἠδικήσαμεν is ἐπὶ πᾶσι(ν) τοῖς δικαιώμασί σου. Not
only is this the most natural pairing for the subordinate clause (as opposed to
ἀποστραφήτω ὁ θυμός σου ἀφʼ ἡμῶν in v. 13; contra Tov 1975, 20), but the previous
passages suggest that the best reading for δικαίωμα is “commandment” rather
than “righteous deeds” (so Theodoret Com.Bar. 2.12). It should be noted that
δικαίωμα in 2.19 is best glossed “righteous deeds” (leh), but here the context
with its different participant recommends an alternate gloss (see also 2.17).
The phrase ἀποστραφήτω ὁ θυμός σου ἀφʼ ἡμῶν marks the first request to God
from the people. Here the speaker asks that the Lord’s anger be turned away
from them (+ δὴ after ἀποστραφήτω in Q for emphasis, see 3.4). The rationale is
simple: there are few (ὀλίγοι; Theodoret Com.Bar 2.13 adds ἀπὸ πολλῶν) of them
left among the peoples where God scattered them (οὗ διέσπειρας ἡμᾶς ἐχεῖ; LaLSV
omit the superfluous ἐχεῖ [illac]). The speaker reminds God that their current
situation has resulted from his actions (cf. 2.4). Again, only the people of Israel
are in focus for Baruch, not God’s city Jerusalem (τῆς πόλεώς σου Ιερουσαλημ),
his holy hill (ὄρους ἁγίου σου), as specified in Dan 9.16 (one scribe of og Daniel,
967, appears to have conflated this text with Baruch, adding ἀφʼ ἡμῶν).
The petition continues with an imperative, εἰσάκουσον, as the speaker im-
plores the Lord to hear their prayer and petition (τῆς προσευχῆς ἡμῶν καὶ τῆς
δεήσεως ἡμῶν). “Prayers” and “petitions”, a common pairing in the Greek Bible
(3 Regn 8.45; Ps 6.10; Jer 11.14; Dan 9.17; Eph 6.18), are regularly offered to God in
times of distress. In 2.14 the speaker is asking God to hear their prayer and peti-
tion (both singular), which is juxtaposed with the request to “deliver us” (ἐξελοῦ
ἡμᾶς). Although deliverance would be in the Jewish people’s best interest, it is
not the reason they offer to persuade God to act. Rather, it is for God’s own sake
that he should act. Interestingly, Alexandrinus has an additional τοῦ ὀνόματος,
which changes the rationale for God’s action to “for the sake of your name” (ἕνε-
κεν τοῦ ὀνόματος σοῦ). This addition is likely due to the occurrence of ὄνομα in
v. 15, as well as the strong collocation between ἕνεκα and ὄνομα throughout the
lxx (e.g., Ex 9.16; Ps 22.3; 24.11; 78.9; 108.21; Is 48.9; Am 6.10).
Following the petition for deliverance, the speaker also asks for grace/favour
(χάρις) in the sight of those who have sent them into exile. Again this is pre-
sented as looking out for God’s own interests: give us favour “so that the whole
earth may know that you are the Lord our God” (v. 15). In addition, God is
reminded of his longstanding relationship with Israel and Israel’s family, and
80 chapter 3
how they have called on his name throughout the generations. In Baruch,
“Israel” typically refers to the nation and not specifically to Israel the person
(esp. 3.9–5.8), although both can be in view on occasion (e.g., “God of Israel”
2.11; “sons of Israel” 2.28). This is the only place in Baruch where Israel the per-
son is clearly meant, as is indicated by καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ (cf. 3.37).
The phrase κάτιδε ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἁγίου σου is rare in the lxx, but has a
parallel in Deut 26.15: κάτιδε ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἁγίου σου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ … This
near quotation of Deuteronomy in Baruch not only reinforces the relationship
between these two books (Adams 2013), but also, for the observant reader/lis-
tener, imbues this passage with Deuteronomistic echoes of petitioning for
blessings as a reward for faithful adherence to the Law. This is the theological
framework within which the exiles are to understand their displacement from
the land. They are to recognise that their only hope lies in repentance and God’s
gracious forgiveness. It is God who controls their destiny from his holy house.
The latter phrase, τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἁγίου σου, likely does not refer to the temple in
Jerusalem, but to God’s heavenly abode (see Mich 1.2; Is 63.15; Deut 26.15; contra
Wambacq 1959a, 474), although Theodoret (Com.Bar. 2.16) sees this as a refer-
ence to the temple in Jerusalem: ἐν ἐκείνῳ γὰρ τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπιφάνειαν ἐποιείτο.
Unlike a number of other passages that have been cited above, there is no
clear parallel between 2.15–16a and Daniel 9. However, the second half of v. 16
resumes the connection with Daniel 9, while also paralleling the text of 4 Regn
19.16:
2.16b–17a κλ(ε)ῖνον, κύριε, τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἄκουσον· ἄνοιξον ὀφθαλμούς σου
καὶ ἰδέ
Dan [θ] 9.18 κλῖνον, ὁ θεὸς μου, τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἄκουσον· ἄνοιξον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς
σου καὶ ἰδὲ
4 Regn 19.16 κλῖνον, κύριε, τὸ οὖς σου καὶ ἄκουσον· ἄνοιξον, κύριε, τοὺς ὀφθαλ-
μούς σου καὶ ἰδὲ
More important than the intertextual parallels for the reader of Vaticanus is
the unity of vv. 14–17a. Not only is there consistent use of the second person
singular imperative, but a majority of the imperatives are sensory-related or
syntagmatically associated with a sensory organ: εἰσάκουσον (v. 14), κάτιδε (v. 16),
κλ(ε)ῖνον + οὖς (v. 16), ἄκουσον (v. 16) ἄνοιξον + ὀφθαλμός (v. 17), ἰδέ (v. 17). In
particular, there is a strong parallel between vv. 16 and 17:
κλ(ε)ῖνον, κύριε, τὸ οὖς σου καὶ κουσον·

ἄνοιξον ὀφθαλμούς σου καὶ ἰδέ
This parallelism is damaged by the absence of κύριε in v. 17. This omission

is rectified by a majority of manuscripts (A V Q C’ LaC L Syr), however, κύριε is
not present in Vaticanus. Some mss also add the article τοὺς before ὀφθαλμούς.
Zeigler (2009, 456) suggests the addition of the article is intended to conform
Baruch to the reading in Dan [θ] 9.18, although it is more likely meant to provide
a balanced parallel with 2.16b.
The ascribing of bodily features to God (οὖς and ὀφθαλμός) was problematic
for a number of early readers, who disliked any anthropomorphising of God. For
example, Theodoret (Com.Bar. 2.17) clarifies for his readers that, despite being
portrayed in “human fashion”, the divine is not a composite of human features,
but is indescribable (for allegorical interpretations, see Aristobulus, fr. 2.8;
Philo, Conf. 135–139; Deus 57–59). This, however, was not a concern for Baruch
and other lxx writers, who regularly drew on human anatomy (particularly
sense organs) to describe God (e.g., seeing Gen 1.4; smelling Gen 8.21; walking
Gen 3.8).
The (not entirely) altruistic motivation and reminder of this petition is
that God, if he does not rescue them, will lose the people who worship him.
The structure of this sentence is somewhat odd, with the fronting of οὐχ to
occupy the theme position (suggesting emphasis) and a large subordinate
clause between the adverb and the verb δώσουσι(ν) (+ σοι in A). The author
claims that those who have died (perfect participle οἱ τεθνηκότες; τεθνεώτες in
A and Theodoret) and are residing in Hades will not give glory, as their spirits
have already been removed (aorist passive ἐλήμφθη). This view of death and
the afterlife is similar to that found in other passages of Scripture (Is 38.18; Pss
29.10; 87.11–13; 113.25; Sir 17.27–28).
As mentioned briefly in 2.12, δικαίωμα is a word with a variety of potential
glosses that are very context dependent. Further complicating the matter is the
variety of uses of δικαίωμα outside the Greek Bible, especially in the Ptolemaic
judicial papyri (Cadell 1995). The intersection of these two corpora makes
any un-nuanced gloss for δικαίωμα problematic. This caution is witnessed in
Muraoka (2009), who provides an individual lexicon sub-entry for δικαίωμα in
Bar 2.17: a “vocal expression over somebody’s justice”. The reading of δικαίωμα
in 2.17 is challenging, as it does not neatly conform to the use in 2.12 (or 2.19),
as δικαίωμα is now something being offered to the Lord (δώσουσιν δόξαν καὶ
δικαίωμα τῷ κυρίῳ), as opposed to being a possession of the Lord (ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς
δικαιώμασί σου). The parallel between vv. 17 and 18 assists in the translation of
v. 17, as v. 18 has a similar appositional structure with δόξα and a δικαιο-root,
in this case δικαιοσύνη. δικαίωμα is best glossed as “justice”, as opposed to
“righteousness” in v. 18, with the recognition that both are strongly semantically
related (see also 4Bar 6.21 for a possible development of Baruch’s use).
82 chapter 3
It is not the dead who give praises, but the living, even if they are in poor
circumstances. There have been many variations on how to translate ἡ ψυχὴ (+
αὐτοῦ B*) ἡ λυπουμένη ἐπὶ τὸ μέγεθος. In nets it is translated “the soul who is
grieving over the magnitude” (i.e., the great mass of people), whereas White-
house (1913, 586) offers “the soul that is greatly vexed”, Muraoka (2009, 446)
“sorely grieving”, and Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine (2008, 94) “l’ âme affligée
par la grandeur qui avance courbée et affaiblie”. Although Moore’s dynamic
translation (1977, 284), “those who remember better days”, is a potential trans-
lation, it presupposes a particular interpretation of the text not supported by
the context. On account of the fact that the semantic range of μέγεθος generally
invokes size (leh, Muraoka, lsj) and that ἐπί in Baruch is not typically used in
an adverbial manner, the translation adopted here is “but the soul that is pained
over the multitude”. The selection of “multitude” is important in light of the rel-
ative pronoun ὃ, which, as a neuter singular, most likely refers back to the neuter
singular τὸ μέγεθος and not the feminine singular ἡ ψυχὴ. As a result, τὸ μέγε-
θος needs to be able to accommodate the descriptors provided in the relative
clause, βαδίζει κύπτον καὶ ἀσθενοῦν, which in this case is accomplished by inter-
preting it as a largeness of people. Despite this decision, one should remember
the caveat of Moore (1977, 288): “None of the ancient versions and no modern
scholar has translated this particular clause to anyone’s satisfaction other than
his own”. I do not, however, concur with his conclusion that this results from a
“corrupted Hebrew original” (so also Gifford 1888, 263; Tov 1997, 166).
In addition to those who are grieving, the eyes that are failing and the soul
that is hungry will also give glory and righteousness (δόξαν καὶ δικαιοσύνην) to
the Lord. The images of failing eyes (Ps 68.4; 118.82, 123; Jer 14.6) and hungry
souls (Is 32.6; Jer 38.25) are well attested in the lxx and occasionally these two
images are paired (esp. Deut 28.65). The occurrence of ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ πινῶσα here and
its relationship with Jer 38.12, 25 has been used by Tov (1976, 116) as evidence
of a shared translator for Baruch and the second half of Jeremiah. This theory,
however, is based on his retroverted Hebrew text and fails to account for other
avenues of influence, specifically that the Greek text of Jeremiah may have
influenced the language and syntagmatic pairings employed by the author of
Baruch.
The petition for mercy is not based on the righteous deeds (τὰ δικαιώματα)
of their fathers or their kings (cf. 1.19; 2.33). The basis for their prayer and mercy
plea is not explicitly given, although a counter reason is anticipated by the
reader. The phrase ἡμεῖς καταβάλλομεν τὸν ἔλεον κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου has been
purported to present an uncommon use of καταβάλλω (leh), so much so that
Muraoka (2009, s.v. καταβάλλω) allocates it a unique subcategory “4. to bring
under notice: τὸν ἔλεον ἡμῶν κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου ‘(we present) to you a plea
for merciful consideration of our predicament’ Bar 2.19”. Although this might
not be the most common use in the lxx, the semantic range of καταβάλλω in
broader Greek literature easily encompasses the concept of presenting/laying
something before someone (lsj). For a discussion of κατὰ πρόσωπον as an idiom,
see 1.18.
The reason for the petition is plain: “For you have brought your anger and
your wrath against us”. τὸν θυμόν σου καὶ τὴν ὀργήν σου, translated “your anger
and your wrath” (cf. 1.13) and not as a hendiadys “furious anger” (so Moore 1977,
285), parallels a number of Jeremianic texts (39.37; 40.5; 43.7; 51.6) and recalls
the warnings God provided to his people through his servants the prophets.
As in 2.2–3, v. 20 provides another example of a so-called “citation”. What
follows in vv. 21–23 is a conglomeration of verses from different sources that
have been arranged into a single quotation. Here the language of the sources
has been so thoroughly adapted by the author to fit his own literary agenda
that despite the identification of “the prophets” by the author, determining the
sources is challenging.
It is interesting to note that at least one ancient reader possibly did not see
this as a quotation. In the majority of manuscripts (A Q V) Bar 2.20 uses λέγων
to introduce the “quotation”. However, in both Vaticanus and the Syro-Hexaplar
(so too, Bo Arm) the participle “saying” (λέγων) is absent. Although this omis-
sion in Vaticanus could be explained by homoioteleuton, i.e., the scribe’s skip-
ping over λέγων because it shares the same ending as προφητῶν, it is pos-
sible that the scribe recognised that this was not an actual quotation from
one of the prophets and dropped the signalling λέγων for that reason (Adams
2013).
Baruch 2.20 references “prophets”, although which prophet(s) Baruch means
is obscure. Upon closer inspection, Baruch seems to be paraphrasing only
one prophet, Jeremiah. For example Zink (1963, 109–113) claims that Baruch
combines Jer 27[34].11–14 and 7.34 to form this passage. Moore (1977, 288)
follows by affirming references to Jer 27[34].11–12 and 7.34, but adds Jer 16.9
and 33.10–11. Stanley (1992, 310) endorses the identification of Jer 27[34].11–14,
but challenges 7.34, seeing instead Jer 33[40].10–11 and 34[41].22b as standing
behind the text (all commentators referencing the Hebrew text, not the lxx!).
Recently, Večho (2007, 90) has agreed that this “quotation” is drawn from
Jeremiah, but she identifies a much larger number of parallel texts, claiming
that Baruch has made use of each section of Jeremiah. Although Večho may
be too generous in her identification of source texts, she is correct in her
assessment of Baruch’s use of Jeremiah. This strong emphasis on Jeremiah
reinforces the Jeremianic perspective developed in Bar 1.15–3.8 and strengthens
the ties between Jeremiah and Baruch (Adams 2013).
84 chapter 3
One issue with only being able to identify Jeremianic parallels in this Baru-
chan “quotation” is the reference to multiple prophets (2.20). Although this is
not the first time Baruch has referred to prophets in the plural (1.21), it is the first
time that a saying has been attributed to them (cf. 2.24). Nowhere in Baruch is
a specific prophet referenced by name despite the abundance of intertextual
parallels. The only author referenced by name is Moses (1.20; 2.2, 28), although
the paired references to Moses and the prophets in the penitential prayer sec-
tion fit well with Baruch’s holistic vision of the history of Israel and her ongoing
relationship with God. Not only does the author of Baruch remind the reader
of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2.34), but he recalls God’s
repeated messages given through the prophets, warning of discipline (use of
the conditional ἐάν + subjunctive). The punishment was to make the voice of
happiness and of the bride and bridegroom cease (ἐκλείψειν; ἐκλείψιν in B* A)
from the cities (πόλεων; πόλεως in A Q V, etc. cf. Jer 7.34) of Judah and from
Jerusalem (cf. Josephus, War 6.301).
The first part of the prophet’s message commands the people to work for the
king of Babylon (κλείνατε τὸν ὦμον ὑμῶν καὶ ἐργάσασθε τῷ βασιλεῖ Βαβυλῶνος).
Fischer (2014) argues that the combination of the two motifs of serving the king
and bending the shoulders is an “exclusive relationship” between Jeremaiah
and Baruch. Again, this fits with the larger patten in Baruch of drawing from
Jeremiah for his imagery and vocabulary.
In 2.21 in Vaticanus there is the first occurrence of the perfect tense-form,
δέδωκα. All of the other Greek manuscripts (A Q V L’) read ἔδωκα, which
continues Baruch’s trend of employing the aorist tense-form (see the discussion
in section 4.3 of the Introduction above). It is possible, although not conclusive,
that the scribe of Vaticanus was influenced by other passages in the lxx in
which the perfect form of δίδωμι was paired with “the land” (τὴν γῆν) and an
accompanying relative pronoun (ἣν) (cf. Gen 35.12; Num 20.12, 24; Ez 28.25).
None of these verses with linguistic similarities come from passages considered
to be literary parallels by scholars (see above), and it is unlikely that the use of
the perfect tense was part of the original text of Baruch. This, however, does
not mean that the scribe of Baruch could not have been influenced by similar
Septuagintal phrasings, which is the best explanation for the text in Vaticanus.
Baruch is not the only text to make use of “the prophets” to support a
claim, despite not citing multiple prophets (or any specific prophet, cf. Matt
2.23; Acts Pet. 24). For example, 2Esdr 9.11–12 speaks of a command from the
prophets, which is not to be found in the prophetic corpus. J.M. Myers (1974,
93) in his work on 2Esdras claims that these verses are “a general summation
of the message of the prophets” and that “verses 11 and 12 represent a patch-
work of Mosaic and prophetic ideas brought together by the writer” (1965, 79).
H.G.M. Williamson (1985, 137) also notes that “the citation does not come from a
single passage, but is rather a mosaic of many passages and scriptural allusions”.
This, he claims, “is understandable in a liturgical context, but also is of signifi-
cance as a pointer to the emergence of a view which came to regard Scripture
as a uniform authority”. Both the holistic view of Scripture and the liturgical
context fit the perspective of Baruch and Vaticanus’s readers.
Verse 24 repeats the refrain “we did not listen to your voice”. Despite the
recurrence of φωνή throughout the prayer section, which forms a strong seman-
tic chain (cf. 3.4), φωνή takes on an emphasised meaning in v. 24 in light its
relationship with vv. 22–23, in which there is a semantic clustering (five occur-
rences). The first occurrence (v. 22), like that of v. 24, refers to the voice of the
Lord, whereas the four instances in v. 23 refer to the voice of the people (cf. Jose-
phus, War 6.300–301; Rev 18.23). Here Baruch forges a sharp contrast: because
we did not listen to the voice of the Lord we have now lost our voice of happi-
ness. For the petitioners in Baruch it is only through repentance that they will
receive their voice back.
The short “citation” at Bar 2.24, although missing λέγων or ὅτι to indicate a
direct quotation, explicitly references words that the Lord had spoken through
his prophets: “And we did not listen to your voice to work for the king of Baby-
lon, and you have established your words, which you spoke by the hand of your
servants the prophets”. The words purported to be from the prophets include a
promise that “the bones of our kings and the bones of our father would be car-
ried out from their places”. The omission of a direct speech marker, although
not obscuring the invocation of the prophets, minimises the strength of the
quotation and opens a greater possibility that the following words are not
a direct citation. As with Bar 2.20–23 above, Baruch does not specify which
prophet(s) he is referring to, but once again the closest text comes from Jere-
miah. Here the best parallel is Jer 8.1, which says, “At that time, says the Lord,
they shall bring the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its rulers
and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets and the bones of
the inhabitants of Jerusalem out of their tombs …” The similarities between
these two texts were seen by some of the ancients, as is indicated by Codex
Alexandrinus (along with the Arabic text tradition), which makes an addition
to Bar 2.24 to include more of Jer 8.1, specifically, καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ τῶν ἀρχόντων
ἡμῶν.
The promises specified in 2.24 have become a reality in v. 25: “And behold,
they are cast out in the heat of the day and the frost of the night”. Although
v. 25 does not have concord in number, using the third person singular (ἐστιν),
it is apparent that the author is referring to the (plural) bones of v. 24, which
is grammatically acceptable as plural neuter nouns are regularly paired with
86 chapter 3
singular finite verbs (Schwyzer 1950, 2.607; Porter 1994, 73). More problematic
is the changing of subject in the second half of the verse, without explicitly
referencing who is to suffer. Here καὶ ἀπεθάνοσαν ἐν πόνοις πονηροῖς, ἐν λ(ε)ιμῷ
καὶ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ καὶ ἐν ἀποστολῇ does not refer back to the bones, but presumably
to their kings and fathers, also referenced in v. 24. This deadly triad is seen in
other parts of the lxx (Jer 14.12; 24.10; 45.2; Lev 26.25; 3 Regn 8.37), although the
specific term ἀποστολή bears similarity to the grouping in Jer 39.36.
The text shifts promptly to the discussion of the temple in 2.26. Although
the exact state of the temple is unspecified, some scholars (e.g., Kneucker 1879,
251; Whitehouse 1913, 575, cited) claim that this verse “evidently points to the
destruction of the temple by fire in a.d. 70”. Although the temporal reference ὡς
ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη and the claim that the state of the temple is a response to the evil
done by the Jewish people (διὰ πονηρίαν οἴκου Ισραηλ καὶ οἴκου Ιουδα) may have
led the readers of Vaticanus to form this interpretation (so Theodoret, Com.Bar.
2.25–26), this interpretive chasm is too large for modern scholars to leap.
Not only did the Lord act out in vengeance and discipline, but he also
acted in his kindness and great compassion (κατὰ πᾶσαν ἐπιείκειάν σου καὶ κατὰ
πάντα οἰκτ(ε)ιρμόν σου τὸν μέγαν). The parallel forms of “according to all your
kindnesses and according to all your compassion” are followed by a descriptor,
τὸν μέγαν, which, despite the parallel construction, is only linked to οἰκτ(ε)ιρμόν,
as both are masculine in gender, whereas ἐπιείκειάν is feminine.
Looking at 2.27–35 Knibb (1976, 268–269) has argued that this passage fits
well with the theme of exile in the intertestamental period. Although I agree
with this assessment in general, I do not agree with his claim that Bar 2.27–35
has “close affinities with the s.e.r. [Sin-Exile-Return] passages in the Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs, although it does not employ the same literary form”.
The passages that Knibb offers (e.g., T. Levi 10.1–5; 14.1–8; 16.1–5; T. Jud. 18.1; 23.1–
5; T. Iss. 6.1–4; T. Zeb. 9.5–9; T. Dan 5.4–13; T. Naph. 4.1–5; T. Ash. 7.2–7) rarely cor-
respond to the mood, vocabulary, and themes of Baruch (e.g., re-establishment
in the land) and are not adequate parallels.
The final “citation” of this section (2.28–35) identifies Moses by name and
provides a specific narrative context in which words have been given: καθὰ
ἐλάλησας ἐν χειρὶ παιδός σου Μωυσῆ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐντειλαμένου σου αὐτῷ γράψαι
τὸν νόμον σου ἐναντίον υἱῶν Ισραηλ λέγων. Contrary to 2.2–3, this passage does
not have a direct correspondent in Torah. Furthermore, unlike 2.21–23, which
reworks only Jeremiah, this “citation” draws from a number of biblical books.
Zink (1963, 109–113) identifies the influences of Lev 26.12; 3 Regn 8.47; Jer 16.15b;
Gen 50.24b; and Jer 38.31, 33. Stanley (1992, 310) has made further suggestions,
indicating parallels between this passage and Jer 37.37–41, 36.6, and Deut 30.20.
Whitehouse (1913, 586) identifies Deut 27.62; 3 Regn 8.47; Deut 6.10, Jer 19.6b;
38.31; 37.40, whereas Večho (2007, 92 n. 45) once again sees numerous parallels
primarily drawn from Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
The composite quotation opens with a conditional statement, ἐὰν μὴ ἀκού-
σητε τῆς φωνῆς μου, and continues with a corresponding apodosis containing εἶ
μήν (η μην Q* L’). The Jewish people are characterised as a “very great buzzing”
(ἡ βόμβησις ἡ μεγάλη ἡ πολλὴ αὕτη). This is the only occurrence of βόμβησις in
the lxx and before Baruch is unattested in Greek literature (although βόμβησεν
is attested in Homer, Od. 8.190). More interesting is the triple use of the arti-
cle followed by a demonstrative pronoun. This repetition is disruptive to the
reader and emphasises the subject in focus. The threat is that this large buzzing
of people will become a small one (εἰς μ(ε)ικρὰν; μακραν A Q). Johannessohn
(1925, 296–297) highlights Baruch’s use of εἰς to signal a transformation (cf. Ex
7.15, 20; 1Macc 1.39). The verb ἀποστρέφω has been translated by some as “turn”
(nets) or “reduce” (Moore 1977, 284), although I prefer the gloss “return” (so
also Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 98, “retournera”), as it reinforces the
idea that it is the Lord who brought about the growth of the Jewish people and
that he has the power to return them to their pitiful original state.
The Lord clearly anticipated Israel’s disobedience (ὅτι ἔγνων ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἀκού-
σωσί[ν] μου), because, even from the beginning, the people were stiff-necked
(ὅτι λαὸς σκληροτράχηλός ἐστι[ν]). ὅτι is the most common particle/conjunc-
tion in Baruch after καί, although the triple use of ὅτι here is distinctive for its
concentration (for a discussion on the use of ὄτι to differentiate the sections
in Baruch, see Aejmelaeus 1993). Despite being a memorable descriptor of the
Jewish people, this compound term does not occur often in the Greek Bible
(8× lxx; 1× nt), with the majority of instances arising in Exodus (33.3, 5; 34.9)
and Deuteronomy (9.6, 13) (other pasages pair σκληρύνω with τράχηλος, e.g., Jer
7.26; 17.23; 19.15). In both of these books σκληροτράχηλος is used by the Lord
in his conversation with Moses to describe the people as rebellious/stubborn,
although Babut (1995, 120) may have gone too far in claiming that this word
emphasises rejection of religious authority, which is gained from the surround-
ing context (cf. Prov 29.1 as a counter-example). Nevertheless, its use by Baruch
in this “citation” is fitting, as it recalls the conversation between Moses and God,
and the term is characteristically associated with the lxx form of Exodus and
Deuteronomy (Wevers 1995, 164).
The Lord claims, however, that in the land of their exile (ἀποικισμοῦ) they
will return to their heart. The noun ἀποικισμός is only used six times in the lxx
(2× in Bar: 2.30, 32; 4× in Jer: 26.19; 31.11; 50.11×2), although the verb ἀποικίζω is
much more common, especially in the second half of Jeremiah. The shared use
of ἀποικισμός by Jeremiah and Baruch further supports a relationship between
these works, although it does not necessarily imply that they had a shared
88 chapter 3
redactor (contra Tov 1976, 120). The phrase “return to their heart” (ἐπιστρέψουσιν
ἐπὶ καρδίαν αὐτῶν) echoes a number of passages and is regularly associated with
a returning to the Lord and the people’s being gathered from the nations in
which they have been scattered (e.g., 3 Regn 8.47 and 2 Par 6.37–38; Tob 13.5–6;
cf. Is 46.8; Jer 24.7).
Paired with the “return to their heart” is the knowledge that the Lord is
their God (καὶ γνώσονται ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν). This return coincides
with the Lord’s giving the people “a heart and hearing ears” (καρδίαν καὶ ὦτα
ἀκούοντα, 2.24). The reference to the Jewish people’s returning to their heart in
v. 23 makes the reading “I will give them a heart” in v. 24 awkward. The Jews
already had a heart, and what they needed was a (re)new(ed) heart or, as some
scribes have inserted, “an understanding heart” (συνετην καρδιαν L’ LaLSV Bo
Syr). This combination of returning to their heart, the Lord’s being their God,
and receiving a (new) heart forges a strong link with Jer 24.7: καὶ δώσω αὐτοῖς
καρδίαν τοῦ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς ἐμὲ ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος καὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν καὶ ἐγὼ ἔσομαι
αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν ὅτι ἐπιστραφήσονται ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν (cf. Jer 39.38).
This connection was also seen by Ps.-Ambrosius and the scribe of ms 26 who
added του γνωναι με to the Baruch passage (Ziegler 2006).
In response to receiving a new heart and ears, the people will praise God in
their exile and remember his name. Praising God in exile would no doubt be
a challenge for the Jewish people, but this would be a clear sign that they had
returned to God with their whole heart (cf. 3.7). Along with praising God the
people will also remember his name. μνησθήσονται, as a middle verb form of
μιμνῄσκομαι, does not solely activate the reflexive sense “remind themselves”
(Moulton 1908, 155; Moule 1959, 24; Porter 1994, 67), nor is the category of
deponency adequate (Pennington 2009), particularly for verbs of mental action
(Robertson 1919, 812). Rather, for this instance and all the other occurrences of
the middle form in Baruch (2.33; 3.5×2, 23; 4.14), one must allow μνησθήσονται
to retain its middle force, which emphasises the subject’s involvement (on the
concept of ergativity, see Porter 2009b, 65).
Remembering God’s name will naturally lead the Jews to turn away from
their hard back (τοῦ νώτου αὐτῶν τοῦ σκληροῦ) and from their evil deeds (πονη-
ρῶν πραγμάτων). The description of the Jewish people as “hard backed” (seman-
tically related to, although different from, “stiffed necked”, contra Whitehouse
1913, 587) is uncommon in the lxx, with the closest parallel being 4 Regn 17.14.
Similarly, the collocation of πονηρός and πρᾶγμα is rare in the Greek Bible,
although this phrase parallels Jer 51.22 (πονηρίας πραγμάτων), where it is placed
in a similar narrative context: God could no longer bear their πονηρίας πραγμά-
των and so punished the people (cf. Job 1.1, 8). The reason for the change is
the people’s remembering what befell their fathers, literally “the way of their
fathers who sinned before the Lord”. The use of ὁδός with a genitive modifier
occurs throughout Baruch and provides a standard way of denoting a manner
of life or action: τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, 3.13; ὁδὸν δὲ ἐπιστήμης, 3.20; τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν
[sons], 3.21; ὁδὸν δὲ σοφίας, 3.23; ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης, 3.27; τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς [wisdom],
3.31; πᾶσαν ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης, 3.37; ὁδοῖς ἐντολῶν θεοῦ, 4.13; ὁδοὺς τραχείας, 4.26.
The Jewish people’s abandoning evil deeds and the negative path of their
fathers will result in God’s returning his people to the land he promised to their
forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The coupling of ὄμνυμι with the three
forefathers occurs twelve times in the Hexateuch (esp. Deut ×7; Wevers 1995,
430) and only one other time outside that corpus, here in 2.34. The final part
of the verse, καὶ πληθυνῶ αὐτούς, καὶ οὐ μὴ σμικρυνθῶσι(ν), presents the promise
both positively and negatively in a manner similar to Jer 36.6. Once again we
see the author of Baruch pairing Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in order to frame
the future outcome of the Jewish people. The only two occurrences of οὐ μὴ in
Baruch occur here and in 2.30. This is an emphatic negative (i.e., marked) and
stresses the verb’s content (Moule 1959, 156–157; Porter 1994, 283).
The final verse of this paragraph speaks about an everlasting covenant (δια-
θήκην αἰώνιον) that God will make with his people. The eternal nature of the
covenant and its orientatation to the future may recall the promise of a new
covenant in Jer 38.31–33 (cf. Jer 27.5; 39.40). The theme of covenant is a thread
that runs throughout Baruch, even if it is not explicitly discussed. Thus Hogan
(2008, 71–93) argues that covenant theology is the predominant feature in
Baruch’s wisdom poem and one of its distinguishing features from Sirach. As
a culmination to this convenental promise, Baruch provides a well-known
proclamation using the third person plural: “I will be God to them and they
will be a people to me” (cf. Ex 6.7; Lev 26.12; Jer 38.1; 39.38; Ez 11.20; 14.11; 36.28;
37.23, 27). This is the only instance in the first half of Baruch where θεός is
not paired with κύριος (although it will be more common in the following sec-
tion).
There is a string of future tense-form verbs that begins at v. 30 with the start
of the “citation” and continues until the end of the paragraph. This sequence of
future forms is distinctive and marks this section (2.30–35) as a cohesive unit in
contrast to the non-future forms in the preceding and following passages. The
future tense-form, morphologically related to the subjunctive (Schwyzer 1950,
2.290–294), is prominent in Greek and conveys a sense of expectation (Porter
1993, 438–439). The statements in Baruch relate to expected developments, and
are not realised events. The expectant perspective would hold for the readers
of Vaticanus, who approached Baruch and other Jewish Scriptures with a much
different interpretive lens, namely, one in which the temple has been destroyed
and the Jews are a scattered people bereft of a homeland, a state that is the
90 chapter 3
exact opposite of the promise in 2.35, “I will not remove my people Israel from
the land that I have given them”.
Coinciding with this use of the future tense-form is a change of voice to
the first person singular. Prior to this citation the dominant voice had been
the first person plural of the people of Israel. Beginning in 2.30 the speaker
changes to God, who addresses the listener in the first person singular for the
remainder of the paragraph. This combination of the singular voice with the
future tense-form knits the quotation together into a highly cohesive unit.
2.3 Second Petition (3.1–8)

The fourth paragraph break in Vaticanus Baruch occurs at 3.1 (major breaks are
also found in A Q V). This is also the third major break in the penitential prayer
section and forms a three-fold division in this section (1.14–2.10; 2.11–35; 3.1–8;
so also Thackeray 1921, 95). In the previous section (2.11–35) the petitioners
identified ways in which they had disobeyed God and how they had failed to
follow the precepts that were given to them by Moses and the prophets. In this
final section (3.1–8), the people request mercy from God and ask him to look
kindly on their plight. Some scholars have claimed that this change in tone
represents the work of a separate author. This, however, is not supported by any
manuscript tradition, nor is it unreasonable to think that in the final portion
of the prayer the petitioners might press their claim and present themselves as
people who should be delivered. Additionally, the speaker in 3.2 rearticulates
the sinfulness of the people and so maintains the attitude of penitence.
Again we see Deuteronomic influence throughout Bar 3.1–8, but Marttila
(2008, 331) exaggerates when he asserts, “The whole prayer represents Deut
4:29–31 and Deut 30:1–10 in a rewritten form”. Although some themes of the
latter two passages are present in this section, Marttila’s specificity regarding
which passage was the source for Baruch exceeds the evidence.
The fourth paragraph opens with an extended address: κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ
θεὸς Ισραηλ. παντοκράτωρ is a new title for the Lord in Baruch and is found only
here and at 3.4 (V L’ 88 have παντοκράτορ with alternate spelling; ο and ω were
homophonic in this era). It is, however, a frequent term for God throughout the
lxx (esp. Jeremiah and the twelve), nt (Revelation), and early church fathers.
The combined title is seen in other places in the lxx (2 Regn 7.25, 27; 1 Par 17.24),
and represents the most frequent address in Baruch. Tov (1999a, 91–92) and
others note the consistency with which the Hebrew ‫ ה׳ צבאות‬is translated
κύριος παντοκράτωρ, although Tov cautions that the Hebrew baggage may not be
wholly taken over into the Greek (if at all for Greek readers). One must evaluate
the author’s (or for Tov, translator’s) particular motivations, and examine how
this term functioned in Greek literature. For example, παντοκράτωρ is not solely
a Jewish or Christian term, but is also used in pagan magical incantations

(e.g., addressed to Sarapis [P.Berl. inv. 21227.4]), and in inscriptions to Greek
deities (e.g., Hermes, I.Cret. ii 28.2). Interpreting παντοκράτωρ solely through
a Hebrew-translation lens thus overlooks an important literary and cultural
connection of which many Greek readers would have been aware.
Following this address the petitioners describe their pitiful state: a soul in
anguish and a spirit in weariness (πνεῦμα ἀκηδιῶν) call out to God. ἀκηδία is a
rare term in Classical/Hellenistic Greek, with the four occurrences in the lxx
(Ps 118.28; Is 61.3; Sir 29.5) being among the first known examples (it becomes
more popular in later Christian writings, Miquel 1986, 19–36; North 1973).
In 3.2 the Lord is petitioned to hear (ἄκουσον) and to have mercy (ἐλέησον
[+ “on us” Bo]). Theodoret adds ὅτι θεὸς ἐλεήμων εἶ “because you are a merci-
ful God” after ἄκουσον. Similarly Alexandrinus and others add ὅτι θεὸς ελεήμων
εἰ καὶ ἐλέησον (Q [marginal ÷] O L’; or the equivalent LaCLSV [+ nostri LaV] Syr
Arm). The terms ἄκουσον and ἐλέησον, which are not often paired in the lxx
(but Ps 29.11; 118.149), form the basis of Baruch’s petition: the speaker desires
the Lord both to hear their appeal/confession and to respond with mercy. The
need for mercy arises because they have sinned against the Lord (ὅτι ἡμάρτομεν
ἐναντίον σου, cf. 1.13, 17; 2.5). This is the last confession of personal sin and cul-
pability by the speakers in Baruch. In the next paragraph (3.4–8) the speakers
assign sin to the previous generation, from whom they distance themselves.
This fourth (short) paragraph concludes with a declarative ὅτι clause: “for
you are seated forever and we are perishing forever” (ὅτι σὺ καθήμενος τὸν αἰῶνα,
καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπολλύμενοι τὸν αἰῶνα; A* omits συ). The use of καθήμαι evokes the
enthronement of God, which is to last forever (cf. Theodoret Com.Bar. 3.3;
Ps 9.7; 44.7; 93.2; Rev 4.9–10; 5.13), and should not to be translated as “to live”
based on a speculative Hebrew retroversion of καθήμαι to ‫( שכן‬so Tov 1975,
26–27).
Vaticanus’s final sense division in the penitential prayer occurs at Bar 3.4
and is indicated by a paragraphos. An extra marginal notation by a later scribe
indicating a chapter division (wrongly) also occurs here. The likely impetus for
this break was the parallel wording with 3.1, κύριε παντοκράτωρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ.
Baruch 3.1–3 is too short for a later scribe of Vaticanus to give it its own Greek
paragraph letter. Rather, for this later scribe the two paragraphs (3.1–3 and
3.4–8) form one subdivided unit.
Following another address the speaker again implores God to hear (ἄκουσον)
their petition, although this time the author has added the emphatic particle
δή (its only occurrence in Baruch). This is the first of a number of impera-
tives which dominate the primary clauses of this paragraph, and whose sec-
ondary clauses, formed on the indicative mood, provide the rationale for the
92 chapter 3
commanded action. In v. 4 God is implored to hear their prayer, which is a com-

mon request in the lxx and often formed by the pairing of ακούω and προσευχή
(e.g., 4 Regn 20.5; 2 Par 6.20–21; 7.12; 2Esdr 1.6; Is 37.21). Interestingly, this pairing
is very rare in other Greek literature.
In this case the prayer is not only offered by living speakers, but also by those
who have died in Israel (τῆς προσευχῆς τῶν τεθνηκότων Ισραηλ). This reference
to the prayers of the dead is unique in the lxx and does not have any direct
parallels in Jewish literature (although for prayers for the dead, see 2 Macc
12.42–46). A number of scholars (Kneucker 1879, 267; Gifford 1888, 266–268;
Moore 1977, 290) claim that the reading “dead” results from a mistranslation of
the Hebrew Vorlage “men” (both ‫מתי‬, but with different pointing) and cite Is 5.13
and Aquilla’s translation of Is 41.14 and Ps 17.14 as support. The readers of Vat-
icanus, however, who lacked access to any Hebrew text (as do we), would not
have been able to explain away “the dead” so easily. These could be understood
as prayers given by the dead before they died, although an early commenta-
tor (Theodoret, Com.Bar. 3.4) claims that this verse supports the view of the
immortality of the soul.
In addition to the prayers of the dead, prayer is also made by the sons of those
who have sinned against God (υἱῶν τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων; αμαρτοντων V Qc O) and
did not listen to his voice (L’ and Theodoret, Com.Bar. 3.4 add τῶν before υἱῶν
and so associate the sin with the sons). This phrase is interesting, as it appears
that the speaker is placing the culpability for sin on the previous generation and
thus distancing the current generation from sinful actions. Moreover, the use
of the third person “their God” (θεοῦ αὐτῶν) rather than the typical first person
“our God” further emphasises this distance (though LaS has deus noster). This
disassociation undermines the clear confession of sinfulness in 3.2.
Verse 4 marks the last occurrence of voice (φωνή) in Baruch. This is an
important term and a recurring motif in the prayer section.
1.18 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου θεοῦ ἡμῶν

1.19 πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκούειν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ
1.21 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
2.5 πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκούειν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ
2.10 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ
2.22 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου
2.23 ποιήσω ἐκ πόλεων Ιουδα καὶ ἔξωθεν Ιερουσαλημ φωνὴν εὐφροσύνης καὶ
φωνὴν χαρμοσύνης, φωνὴν νυμφίου καὶ φωνὴν νύμφης
2.24 οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν τῆς φωνῆς σου
2.29 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου
3.4 οἳ οὐκ ἤκουσαν τῆς φωνῆς σοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῶν (B replaces κυρίου with σοῦ)
In all but one of these verses (2.23) φωνή is used in a consistent manner: it
is paired with the verb ἀκούω, accompanied by the negative particle οὐ or μή,
prefaced with the article, and followed by a genitive noun indicating whose
voice it is. In 2.23 the only similarity is the use of the genitive. This difference
probably results from influence on the latter verse by Jer 7.34; 16.9; 25.10; 40.11.
Otherwise, Baruch’s of φωνή is consistent.
The prayer that is offered is a request for God not to remember the injustice
of their fathers, but to remember his hand and name. The sentence is structured
around the negative subjunctive of prohibition and an imperative (μνησθῇς and
μνήσθητι, a polyptoton, both second person middle in form; see discussion on
μιμνῄσκομαι at 2.32). Here again we see the speaker associating sins (ἀδικιῶν)
with ancestors and not taking personal ownership for them despite asking that
they not be remembered. (This is the first instance of ἀδικία in Baruch; it occurs
twice more in this section, 3.7, 8.) Rather, the speaker asks God to remember his
hand (χειρός σου) and his name (ὀνόματός σου)—both of which are symbols of
what he has done for the Jewish people (cf. 2.11; 2 Par 6.32)—and to reinact their
deliverance, this time from Babylon (Theodoret, Com.Bar. 3.5).
The statement in 3.6 ὅτι σὺ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν parallels Bar 2.15 and Jer 3.22.
As in 2.15, there is a correlation between God’s name being associated with his
people and the people’s declaration of the Lord as their God. In this verse the
people assure God that they remember his status and that they will praise him
(future tense-form).
Regarding the punctuation of 3.6–7, both Rahlfs-Hanhart (2006) and Ziegler
(2006) have a full stop at the conclusion of 3.6, beginning a new sentence at
3.7. Although Q has a text break and a high point that might support that
reading, verse 7 begins with ὅτι, which is an uncommon way to start a sentence
(although not unknown; see, e.g., Plato, Apol. 1.1; lsj s.v. ὅτι). As a result, it is best
to interpret v. 7 as part of a string of subordinate clauses (three of which open
with ὅτι) governed by the dominant clause that began in 3.5 (so Theodoret,
Com.Bar. 3.6–7; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 102).
The speaker claims that the Lord put fear (φόβον) of him into their hearts in
order that they would praise his name in exile (αἰνέσομέν, future form). The “fear
of the Lord” is not a major theme in Baruch (cf. Weinfeld 1972, 274), unlike its
contemporary Sirach and other wisdom books (cf. Haspecker 1967). Moreover,
the exile community asserts that they have turned away in their hearts from
all the sins that their fathers had committed. In Vaticanus ἀπεστρέψαμεν ἀπὸ
καρδίας is corrected to ἀπεστρέψαμεν ἐπὶ καρδίαν (so A V Q) by a secondary
hand. The “incorrect” ἀπὸ καρδίας likely resulted from influence by a similar
phrase with ἀποστρέφω earlier in Baruch (1.13; 2.8, 13, 33). These two statements
appear to report a fulfillment of Jer 39.40 in which the Lord promised to put
94 chapter 3
the fear of him in the people’s hearts so that they would no longer turn away
from him (καὶ τὸν φόβον μου δώσω είς τὴν καρδίαν αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀποστῆναι
αὐτοὺς ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ). This is another example of the influence of Jer 39 on the first
half of Baruch (cf. 1.1; 2.11, 19, 24, 31), which shows the importance of Jeremiah
for Baruch’s theology and worldview.
The penitential prayer section closes with a declaration, “behold” (ἰδού),
and a statement that the people are currently in exile. Again we have tempo-
ral (σήμερον) and spatial (ἐκεῖ) deictic markers that provide a framework for
understanding the entire prayer section (just as in 2.4, the redundant ἐκεῖ is
omitted by LaLSV Syr). The speakers once again provide a reason for their exile:
their fathers had sinned against the Lord. Interestingly, the petition does not
conclude with a personal acceptance of wrongdoing, but assigns blame to the
previous generation(s).
As in 2.25 we have a triad of negative terms, all of which are prefaced by
εἰς: εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς ἀρὰν καὶ εἰς ὄφλησιν. The first two are well represented
in lxx, but ὄφλησις is a hapax legomenon in the lxx and the first of very few
occurrences in ancient literature (tlg; Wambacq 1957, 374). Both the Suda
(O 1017) and Photius’s Lexicon (s.v. ὄφλησις) give two glosses for this word, χρέος
and ὀφειλή. Muraoka (2009) glosses it as “penalty” and refers the reader to
τιμωρία. Some commentators (Harwell 1915, 16; Moore 1977, 290) have chosen
to understand this word as a Hebrew mistranslation of “devastation”, but the
use of “debt” here is not out of place nor does the inclusion of ὄφλησις demand
an alternative, non-Greek origin.
Throughout the penitential prayer section there is considerable emphasis
on God as the object of prayer and worship (1.10–14; 2.14, 32; 3.4–7). This theme,
although it makes an appearance in the final section (4.20–22), is downplayed
in the rest of Baruch. Likewise, emphasis on God’s righteousness (1.15; 2.6,
9, 18) and mercy (2.19, 27, 35; 3.2) are also minimised in the remainder of
Baruch (though see 4.22, 27, 30; 5.2, 9). This change, which has been cited as
evidence that each section had different authors (e.g., it “strongly indicate[s]
independent origins for the three parts”, Burke 1982, 36), can also be understood
as resulting from the different thematic emphases dictated by the different
sub-genre forms of the various parts of Baruch.
Baruch 3.9 marks an important shift in the narrative to a discussion of wisdom

(for a critique and problematisation of the label “wisdom poem”, see Hogan
2011, 146–147). Some scholars consider the transition so disjunctive that they
argue both this section (3.9–4.4) and the one following it (4.5–5.9) were written
by a different author(s) than the first half (Thackeray 1921, 29–37, 116–117; Met-
zger 1957, 89; Schürer 1973–1987, 3.2.734). One of the main pieces of evidence
cited in support of the latter claim is the dramatic change from prose to poetry.
No longer is the text crafted in standard prose form; the work has changed to
take on a more cadenced arrangement. The last half of Baruch is not written
in a particular type of poetry (e.g., iambic pentameter, etc.); rather, the poetry
is unstructured and reminiscent of that found in the Scriptures of Israel (for a
fuller discussion with reference to authors, see Burke 1982, 18–20).
As evidenced by other books of the ot, the mixture of poetry and prose
within a work was perfectly acceptable, especially in the prophetic books (e.g.,
Isaiah, Jeremiah). In Baruch, the switch to poetry may be related to a shift in
topic. Beginning in 3.9 the book of Baruch ceases to present a petition to the
Lord on behalf of the Jewish people and takes up the topic of wisdom, including
its source and location. Discussion of wisdom in related ot works (Job 28;
Prov 8; Sir 24) is typically presented in poetic rather than prose form, and it
is likely that this, rather than any other influence, predisposed the author to
use a similar poetic form. This does not answer the question of authorship or
origin, but it does provide a reasonable answer for why Bar 3.9–4.4 is written in
verse.
The change of topic naturally entailed new vocabulary. In addition to expec-
ted changes (e.g., a greater use of wisdom vocabulary) there are notable differ-
ences in the titles used when addressing God. The penitential prayer section
made extended use of κύριος as a title for God, but this name is completely omit-
ted from the remainder of Baruch. The author continues using θεός, however.
Although the latter term was not absent in the first half of Baruch, it was typi-
cally coupled with κύριος to make a paired-designator for God. In the wisdom
section and the one that follows θεός is used by itself. Additionally, there is a
change in conjunction use: whereas καί and ὅτι dominated in 1.1–3.8, there is a
much more balanced use of conjunctions in 3.9–4.4. Instances of καί are greatly
reduced and the author regularly employs other conjunctions such as δέ, οὐδέ,
etc. In addition to changes in vocabulary, the author also changes the syntacti-
cal arrangement of his sentences, increasing the variety of text structures (e.g.,
parallelism and mirrored clauses).
In light of these grammatical and syntactical differences a number of schol-
ars have argued that the remainder of Baruch was originally written in Greek
(Tov 1976). There are some, however, who claim that Bar 3.9–4.4 (though not
the Jerusalem poem) was also originally written in Hebrew (Hengel 1974, 170).
These scholars are apart from those who claim that all of Baruch was origi-
nally in Hebrew and who discuss the text in light of a (reconstructed) Hebrew
96 chapter 3
Vorlage (Kneucker 1879; Burke 1982). As discussed in the Introduction, this com-
mentary series focuses on the Greek text and that text will be our principle
concern.
These changes in vocabulary and style were also noticed by the ancient
scribes/readers. Every Greek majuscule text has a break at 3.9. Alexandrinus
and Venetus have major breaks while Marchalianus (interestingly) only has a
minor one. Vaticanus has an especially large break here, as is indicated not only
by the typical Greek paragraph marker, but also by an almost completely empty
line above it (with only three letters), such that the first word of the paragraph
extends into the margin (this ekthesis notably extrudes more than the others).
This is by far the most visually disjunctive break in Vaticanus Baruch, suggest-
ing that the scribe or his Vorlage considered this to be a particularly important
disjuncture.
There have been many proposals regarding the number of divisions in the
wisdom section. Hogan (2008, 81) divides this section into five parts (3.9–14,
15–23, 24–28, 29–35, and 3.36–4.4), Nickelsburg (1984, 141) proposes six stro-
phes (3.9–14, 15–19, 20–23, 24–28, 29–37[38]; 4.1–4), Harrelson (1992, 160–162)
identifies seven strophes (3.9–14, 15–21, 22–23, 24–28, 29–36, 37–38; 4.1–4), Steck
(1993) suggests three major sections (3.9–13; 3.14–4.1; 4.2–4), and most recently
Reiterer (2010, 79–82) proposes six strophes with different divisions (3.9, 10–13,
14–23, 24–28, 29–38; 4.1–4). One issue with these proposals is that justification
for the division locations is rarely provided. Few strophes are delineated con-
sistently by all scholars, except for 3.24–28 and 4.1–4. Interestingly, both of the
latter begin in places where Vaticanus has a break. The wisdom section in Vat-
icanus is divided at 3.24 with a Greek paragraph (ς) and has a minor break at
4.1. Following Vaticanus, the commentary below will be divided into two main
sections (3.9–23 and 3.24–4.4).
3.1 Wisdom is Not Among the Nations (3.9–23)

As mentioned in the Introduction (2.1), a number of scholars claim that 3.9–
4.4 was not written at the same time as 1.1–3.8 (e.g., Wes 1992, 146–147). Despite
broad scholarly consensus that the wisdom poem and the penitential prayer
had different authors, this was not a concern for its earliest readers. For exam-
ple, Theodoret (Com.Bar. 3.9) understands the second half of Baruch to be the
divine response to the first half, forming a united whole. The use of the impera-
tive (ἄκουε) and the direct address to the people of Israel (Ισραηλ) make it clear
that there has been a change in speaker. For Theodoret, this new speaker is
God, who speaks to the people either directly or through a mediator. The latter
is most likely, and the natural choice would be Baruch, even though the only
mention of him is 1.1–3.
In contrast to the view of Theodoret, Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 290) suggests

that 3.9–4.4 is not the expected oracle of salvation that would naturally follow
1.1–3.8: “Ba 3,9–4,4 ne pouvant être tenu pour l’oracle du salut escompté, nous
avons suggéré de le considérer, dans cette disposition liturgique, comme un
intermède psalmique”. Although he might be right to question how the author
joined Bar 1.1–3.8 and 3.9–4.4, his suggestion that this section is an interlude
undermines its importance and central position in the text. Baruch 3.9–23
is foundational to the development of the narrative and important for the
development of Baruch’s thought and theology.
The wisdom section begins with the phrase ἄκουε Ισραηλ, which is found
only five other times in the lxx, all of which occur in Deuteronomy (5.1; 6.5;
9.1; 20.3; 27.9). The adoption of such a memorable phrase is further evidence
of Deuteronomy’s influence on the book of Baruch, as seen in the first half.
The use of the imperative to open the wisdom passage emphasises the break
between the two halves. This is first occurrence of an imperative in the present
tense-form (see Table 3 above), which is more marked than the perfective
aspect of the aorist, and further reinforces the section division. Parallel to the
exhortation to “hear” (ἄκουε) is the call to “pay attention” (ἐνωτίσαθε). The first
(present) imperative is directed specifically to Israel, while the second (aorist)
imperative does not have an explicit addressee. Despite being in parallel, the
two imperatives appear to be addressing different audiences, since the first is
singular while the second is plural. It is possible that both are addressed to the
same group of people, the first to Israel the nation (cf. Deut 6.4), and the second
to the people (pl.) of Israel. Such a change occurs in Deut 5.1 and 20.3 where
Moses addresses the nation in the singular, but then changes to the plural. Since
Baruch returns to the second person singular, however, the plural imperative is
more anomalous here than in Deuteronomy.
As will be discussed further below (cf. 4.1), the Law plays a leading role in
this wisdom section (Weinfeld 1972; Burkes 1999, 271). At the opening of the
poem (3.9) is a reference to the commandments of life (ἐντολὰς ζωῆς), which is
paralleled by “understanding” (φρόνησιν). The specific expression ἐντολὰς ζωῆς
is not found elsewhere in the lxx, although a number of similar expressions
occur. For example, Sir 17.11 references the “law of life” (νόμον ζωῆς). A stronger
parallel occurs in Sir 45.5 where the author recounts how God gave Moses the
commandments (ἐντολὰς), which are subsequently defined as νόμον ζωῆς καὶ
ἐπιστήμης, further connecting the two concepts of law and understanding.
The term φρόνησις, which occurs three times in Baruch (3.9, 14, 28), is absent
in the books of Moses, but common in wisdom literature. In a “wisdom poem,”
it is to be expected that a number of terms within the semantic sphere of
wisdom will occur, of which this is the first. It inaugurates a strongly cohesive
98 chapter 3
unit. Throughout this wisdom section (3.9–4.4) φρόνησις and σοφία are used
in different contexts. I am not convinced that φρόνησις should be assigned
strictly to the earthly sphere and σοφία to the divine sphere, as Assan-Dhôte
and Moatti-Fine suggest (2008, 104), because both appear to function on earth.
Verse 10 opens with a double question: τί ἐστιν, Ισραηλ, τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ τῶν ἐχθρῶν
εἶ. These are the first questions in Baruch, and others occur in this wisdom
section (e.g., 3.15, 18, 29, 30). That questions are integral to the structure of the
wisdom section is not surprising, as this is a typical feature of the genre. This
element further differentiates Bar 3.9–4.4 from the other sections in Baruch,
which only have one question between them (4.17).
Another parallel construction occurs in 3.10 with ἐν γῇ τῶν ἐχθρῶν (εθνων 87*)
and ἐν γῇ ἀλλοτρίᾳ. Some manuscripts understandably add a second person
possessive “your” (σου Co LaS; so also Moore 1977, 293), but this unbalances the
parallelism. These clauses reinforce the theme of exile developed in the first
half, locating the narrative in a foreign land. The reference to a foreign land
is non-specific and does not indicate a definite location. Babylon, although it
is not referred to in Bar 3.9–4.4, is not excluded and is the natural assumption
based on 1.1–3.8. The reference to growing old, however, may suggest that in the
time when the wisdom poem is set the Jewish people had been in exile longer
than the five years mentioned in 1.2 (Moore 1977, 297).
Baruch 3.11 notes that the people of Israel have been defiled (συνεμιάνθης)
by the dead (bodies). The compound συμμιαίνω is only found here in the lxx,
although μιαίνω is well attested. The concept of defilement fits the context well
and there is therefore no need to suggest that this is a misreading (so Kneucker
1879, 280). As συμμιαίνω is a transitive verb the defiling item(s) must be iden-
tified. In this case it is τοῖς νεκροῖς, best glossed as “dead bodies”, a different
term than that used earlier to refer to the dead (1.17; 3.4, τῶν τεθνηκότων). In
Num 19.11–16 (cf. Agg 2.13) dead bodies are considered pollutants and a person
coming into contact or being in the same room with one would be considered
“unclean”. Read in light of the siege of Jerusalem and the people’s cannibalism
(2.3) it is easy to see how the people would be considered unclean in Baruch.
Although limiting the text to the latter reading would be possible, some have
argued (I think rightly) that a secondary level of meaning is also encoded, and
that the cadavers symbolise idols and idolatry (Moore 1977, 297; Assan-Dhôte
and Moatti-Fine 2008, 104–105). Such a pairing is more transparent in EpJer
vv. 26, 31, 70, where the treatment of an idol is compared to that of a dead per-
son (cf. Jer 10.11). Wisdom 13.10–18 also makes this association, particularly in
its opening stanza, ταλαίπωροι δὲ καὶ ἐν νεκροῖς αἱ ἐλπίδες αὐτῶν, οἵτινες ἐκάλε-
σαν θεοὺς ἔργα χειρῶν ἀνθρώπων (Sap 13.10). The defiling nature of idols and idol
worship is well attested and may form the backcloth to this verse (Ps 105.37–39;
Jer 2.23; Ez 20.30–32). Interestingly, Theodoret (Com.Bar. 3.11) applies this verse
to the people of Israel, claiming that they have become like corpses because of
their troubles.
In addition to being defiled, Israel has also been counted among those in
Hades (προσελογίσθης μετὰ τῶν εἰς ᾅδου). This is the second of three occurrences
of Hades in Baruch (cf. 2.17; 3.19) and is a standard way of rendering the Hebrew
word Sheol in the lxx. There are no direct parallels to this verse, but Ps 87.5
comes close. The psalmist laments that he is counted (προσελογίσθην) among
those who have gone down to the pit (λάκκον). The fact that προσελογίζομαι only
occurs five times in the lxx strengthens the connection to Ps 87, which is likely
the source of the addition of καταβαινότων following the article in some mss
(22mg LaV Syr Arm).
The people of Israel are also charged with forsaking the fountain of wisdom
(ἐγκατέλιπες τὴν πηγὴν τῆς σοφίας). According to Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 234)
this is the middle of the chiastic structure of 3.9–14, and is prominent because
it is the only monostich in the poem. Moore (1977, 297) is likely correct when
he identifies this as a response to the rhetorical question in 3.10–11 despite the
lack of causal inference (i.e., “It is because …”) in the manuscripts. If this is the
case, this statement is striking in that it claims that the people of Israel are in
exile not because they broke the divine commandments (although these are
very much in view, cf. 3.9), but because they abandoned wisdom (Harrelson
1992, 163). Although we will see in 4.1 the equating of wisdom with Torah, the
claim embodied in 3.12 must have sat uneasily with some of its readers. No other
reference to the fountain of wisdom occurs in the lxx (except for certain mss
at Sir 1.5). Nevertheless, this uniqueness does not necessarily suggest a Hebrew
source behind the text (contra Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine suggest 2008, 105).
There are, however, a few references to the fountain of life (Prov 13.14; 18.4;
Sir 21.13; 2Esdr 14.47), which explains some of the variants in the manuscript
tradition (“fountain of life” Eth; vitae et sapientiae LaS). More striking is Jer 17.13
in which Israel is accused of abandoning the fountain of life, which is equated
with “the Lord” (ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπον πηγὴν ζωῆς τὸν κύριον, cf. Jer 2.13).
Baruch 3.13 opens with a second-class conditional clause, εἰ paired with
the aorist passive indicative verb ἐπορεύθης. This is the only occurrence of the
particle εἰ in Baruch and the last of three conditional constructions (cf. 2.22,
29, both with ἐάν). The protasis is followed in the apodosis by the conditional
particle ἂν and the imperfect indicative κατῷκεις (κατῷκεις ἂν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὸν
αἰῶνα; + χρόνον in A Q SryHex Co). The use of the imperfect is less common
grammatically (although not unique), as this construction regularly takes the
aorist (Boyer 1982). Although there is a lack of negation in the apodosis in
Baruch, this does not undermine the class type. The use of ἂν indicates a
100 chapter 3
conditional statement: “If you had walked in the way of God, you would be
living in peace forever (but you did not, so you are not)”.
With regard to Bar 1.5 we discussed Baruch’s use of “Lord” (κύριος) and how
it is the dominant term for God in 1.1–3.8. Beginning at 3.9, the term used for
God is θεός, which occurs thirty-one times. This exclusive use of θεός continues
until 4.10, where God is introduced as “the Everlasting” (ὁ αἰώνιος). Baruch 3.13
marks the first occurrence of θεός in the wisdom poem and, as noted, it is
not paired with κύριος (the only prior example of θεός without a modifier is
2.35). At Bar 3.13 τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ θεοῦ is described as the pathway to eternal peace, a
pathway that has been sadly neglected by Israel. As discussed above (cf. 2.33),
the use of ὁδός with a genitive modifier occurs throughout Baruch and is a
standard way of denoting a manner of life or action. Nowhere in Baruch is this
construction more concentrated than in the wisdom section (3.13, 20, 21, 23, 27,
31, 37).
Regarding the function of the first four verses of the wisdom section, Nick-
elsburg (1984, 141) claims that 3.9–13 act as a link between the first half of
Baruch (i.e., 1.1–3.8) and the wisdom poem proper (beginning at 3.14). This view,
however, does not adequately account for the importance of these verses or
sufficiently establish a connection between the sections. The imperative with
nominative address ἄκουε, Ισραηλ is highly disjunctive, and the strong shift in
semantic domain and change of speaker are not prefaced by a cohesive tran-
sition. The first four verses of the wisdom section provide needed context for
the remainder of the poem and, rather than looking backward and employing
aspects of the penitential prayer section, only look forward, providing initial
examples of terms and constructions that are found throughout the wisdom
section.
Baruch 3.14 is very interesting for its structure and vocabulary clusters. Open-
ing with another singular imperative (μάθε), the author continues with five
subordinate clauses, all beginning with ποῦ and followed by ἐστι(ν). Here and
3.16 are the only two places where ποῦ is used in Baruch and the concentration
of this locative deictic marker is not paralleled in the Greek Bible or in Greek
literature (as far as I can determine, tlg). Moreover, the ten instances of εἰμί
verbs in 3.10–18 represent almost half of the total occurrences in Baruch.
In addition to the concentration of ποῦ, Bar 3.14 contains two important
semantic cognates for σοφία: φρόνησις and σύνεσις. These three terms occur
repeatedly throughout the wisdom section and, although they are not synony-
mous, have overlapping semantic ranges and so function similarly. Paired with
φρόνησις and σύνεσις in the first part of this verse is ἰσχύς. Moore (1977, 298)
claims that ἰσχύς does not mean physical strength here, but moral and spiri-
tual strength. He cites Micah 3.8 as support. This is unlikely, however, as the
semantic range for ἰσχύς is predominantly physical even though its source may
be God.
The second part of 3.14 begins with an articular infinitive τοῦ γνῶναι paired
with a temporal deictic marker ἅμα (the only occurrence in Baruch). The
structure suggests that acquiring φρόνησις, ἰσχύς, and σύνεσις will empower the
seeker to gain the latter qualities. These qualities are organised in pairs (each
pair with a corresponding ποῦ ἐστι), and create strong parallelism: μακροβίωσις
with ζωή and φῶς ὀφθαλμῶν with εἰρήνη. (μακροβίωσις is a neologism and oth-
erwise unattested in Greek literature until the 4th century ad.)
Baruch 3.15 consists of a two-part rhetorical question: Who has found her
(wisdom’s) place, and who has entered into her treasuries? This question has a
parallel structure and good euphony.
τίς εὗρε(ν) τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς,

καὶ τίς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῆς;
The immediate answer to this question is not given (cf. 3.32, 37), but a negative
one is provided in 3.16–31: it is not found in humans. This question has strong
parallels with Job 28.12: “But where can wisdom be found? And where is the
place of understanding?” The answer is provided by Job: “No mortal knows
its way, nor will it ever be discovered among human beings”. This and other
parallels to Job 28 are readily identified by scholars (e.g., Steck 1994; 1998, 48).
Nickelsburg (1984, 142) even goes so far as to claim that Baruch 3.9–4.4 is a
paraphrase of Job 28. Alhough it is apparent that there are a number of points
of contact between the two works, this claim is too bold, as will be seen below
(The debate over the original inclusion of Job 28 in Job is beyond the purview
of this commentary. For discussion, see Lo 2003, 1–15.)
Baruch 3.16–18 forms one large question with many subsections. Beginning
by mentioning the rulers of the nations, the question quickly shifts to the
subject of the domination of the physical world: lording over animals, hunting
birds, storing metals. These images are symbols of power and ways of expressing
control over creation. Although there are some thematic parallels, it is very
unlikely that this is an allusion to Nebuchadnezzar as he appears in Dan 2.37–38
and Jdt 11.7. (This is definitely not an allusion to Dan 4.20–21; Jer 28.6, 14, contra
Moore 1977, 298.) Rather, it is humans who are described as those who not
only govern nature, but have put their trust in that domination. This, according
to Theodoret (Com.Bar. 3.16), is the opposite of piety (εὐσεβείας). There are
possible parallels for the subduing of the earth, particularly the discussion of
mining and metal-working in Job 28.1–2, but as rightfully highlighted by Hogan
(2011, 148–149), the perspective in Baruch undermines some of the standard
102 chapter 3
assumptions inherent to the Job narrative (e.g., the availability of wisdom to

the nations) and highlights the theme of Israel’s election.
In the question beginning at 4.16 (ποῦ εἰσιν) there are four occurrences of
the nominative plural article οἱ, which is paired with six participles to make
six substantive participial phrases. Among the substantives are interpolational
phrases, which help provide associational clarity. For the second substantive
of 3.17 the author avoids the potential clumsiness of two attributives in the
intermediate position and distributes the adjuncts on either side (οἱ … καὶ τὸ
ἀργύριον θησαυρίζοντες καὶ τὸ χρυσίον, cf. bdf § 269). The use of interpositional
material with articular participles does not occur in the first half of Baruch
and thus marks a change in sytax. Amid a cluster of present active participles
and three occurrences of εἰμί, the author also includes a subordinate clause
in v. 17 (ᾧ [ως in Qc] ἐπεποίθεισαν ἄνθρωποι), which contains ἐπεποίθεισαν, a
pluperfect active indicative finite verb. The stative aspect makes this stand out
from the surrounding verbs and catches the reader’s attention. The force of the
stative aspect places the grammatical subject in focus, addressing that subject’s
state of affairs. In this case, the author emphasises the people’s trust in the
hoarded silver and gold, which, as we shall see, is contrary to the pursuit of
wisdom.
The Greek text of 3.18 is vague, despite the fact that it begins with ὅτι and
thus claims to explain the previous verse. (The ὅτι is not included in the other
Greek manuscripts and so does not create a break between 3.18 and the pre-
vious verse.) The exact thrust of the author’s argument is vague, although the
broader context provides interpretational parameters. One early interpreter of
lxx Baruch was the Ethiopic translator as witnessed in the Geʾez manuscript.
This reader identified those who amassed silver as silversmiths whose “works”
(i.e., the means of making idols) were carefully guarded, preventing anyone
from duplicating their creations (Harrelson 1992, 164). The latter translation
places the focus on the amassing of silver, although the inclusion and role of
the silversmith is still problematic. More recently, scholars have been split over
whether or not to translate τεκταίνοντες in its technical sense (Burke 1982, 87–
88). nets translates τεκταίνοντες as “scheming”, rather than “one who works” (so
Muraoka 2009, s.v. τεκταίνω), whereas leh gives both translation options for Bar
3.18 without discussion, not identifying which is to be preferred. In my trans-
lation I have adopted a meaning for τεκταίνω that relates to the most common
rendering (“to work or craft”), but instead of using the preposition “with” (as in
“with silver”, i.e., silversmiths), I have opted to translate the phrase as including
a wider referent group, “those who work for silver and are anxious and there
is no finding their works”. The idea is that the running after silver (money) is
not satisfying and is ultimately futile, as it leaves no lasting memory. This also
works with the Greek in which the nominative plural article οἱ governs the two
present participles (τεκταίνοντες, μεριμνῶντες), indicating that the people who
were working were also those who were anxious. ἐξεύρεσις, “finding” (leh) or
“searching out” (lsj), only occurs twice in the lxx. The other location is Is 40.28,
which also focuses on creation and wisdom, asserting that there is no searching
out God’s understanding (οὐδὲ ἔστιν ἐξεύρεσις τῆς φρονήσεως αὐτοῦ).
The opening of 3.19 further develops the content of 3.18: ἠφανίσθησαν καὶ
εἰς ᾅδου κατέβησαν. The people who were once living have now passed away
and reside in Hades and their vacant spots have been filled with new people
(καὶ ἄλλοι ἀντανέστησαν ἀντʼ αὐτῶν). This is the third and final mention of
Hades in Baruch (2.17; 3.11) and does not provide any new insight into Baruch’s
understanding of Hades except for the idea that one goes down (κατέβησαν) to
get there. The pairing of καταβαίνω and ᾄδης is common in the lxx (cf. Num
16.30, 33; Ps 54.16; 115.17; 138.8; Job 7.9; 17.16; Is 14.11; Ez 31.15–17). Little can be
said regarding Baruch’s eschatological perspective. There is no discussion of
resurrection at any time in Baruch, nor is there any indication that anything
will happen after death (e.g., judgement and/or vindication); the dead who are
in Hades are bodies without spirits and unable to give glory to God (cf. 2.17).
The focus of the author is fixed firmly on the physical, created world, seeking
vindication in this present reality (cf. the discussion of the Jerusalem song
below).
Following the cluster of substantive participles the author changes to regular
use of the third person plural aorist active indicative verb-form beginning with
ἠφανίσθησαν. This begins a syntagmatic chain of nine aorist indicative verbs in
the third person plural over three verses, all of which are in the active form
except the last two (v. 19 ἠφανίσθησαν, κατέβησαν, ἀντανέστησαν; v. 20 εἶδον,
κατῴκησαν, ἔγνωσαν; v. 21 συνῆκαν, ἀντελάβοντο, ἐγενήθησαν). The use of the
aorist aspect is typically default and so is used to create background, although
the present tense-form is characteristic of mainline expositional discourse
(Porter 2009b, 58). The extended use of the aorist provides no prominence
to this section (3.19–23). Moreover, the recurring -αν ending retains the same
subject and provides a repetitive cadence that reinforces the coherence of these
verses.
The sons in 3.21 are the third generation born to the young people in 3.20,
who are in turn the generation following those in 3.19. These sons are far from
“their way” (ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν). Thus the Greek manuscripts, although the
Syriac versions (also 26 239 Arm) have “her way” (i.e., wisdom’s way). This
makes better sense of the passage and so has been adopted by a number
of commentaries (Burke 1983, 68; Moore 1977, 296). However, if one were to
interpret the Greek text as it stands, the text still makes sense. By claiming that
104 chapter 3
the sons are far from their way, the author suggests that they have stepped off
the path of wisdom and, metaphorically, lost their way (cf. Job 17.9).
Starting at the end of 3.20 there is a collection of negative particles. Verses 20
and 21 read, οὐκ … οὐδὲ … οὐδὲ (so also 4.13), which has been translated “not
… neither … nor”. Along with the shared verbal aspect, this provides strong
cohesion to these verses. As mentioned above, the first half of Baruch did not
make use of the negative compound particle οὐδέ. Baruch 3.21 has the first
occurrence of οὐδέ, which is accompanied by four more, for a total cluster of
five in vv. 21–23.
The triple use of ὁδός (vv. 20, 21, 23), in addition to the semantically related
term τρίβος (vv. 21, 23), also develops cohesion in these verses (for a discussion
of ὁδός in Baruch, see 2.33). Louw and Nida (1989) place both these terms
in semantic domain 1, “Geographical Objects and Features”. Also placed in
this category is γῆ (v. 20), and, despite the classification of Χανααν, Θαιμαν,
Μερραν, Θαιμαν as proper names (domain 93), their geographic emphasis also
contributes to the theme and structural coherence of this passage.
Wisdom returns as the verb subject in 3.22 with a change of person from the
third person plural of 3.16–21. Again wisdom is neither to be seen nor heard of in
the towns/regions of Χανααν and Θαιμαν. Χανααν is referenced 105 times in the
lxx, mostly in Genesis. The Canaanites are often equated with the Philistines
(Zeph 2.5 mt; lxx has foreigners, ἀλλοφύλων; Matt 15.21–22). However, in Ez 17.4
“city of traders” (mt) is translated as “land of Canaan” (lxx) and so imports the
idea of Canaan as a land of trade (Olley 2009, 336). Tyre, the most important
city in Canaan, was known for its commerce, navigation, and production of
rare purple dye (Is 23.8; Herodotus, Hist. 2.44; Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.526c). The
theme of wisdom is also present in Ez 28.3–5, which claims that the prince of
Tyre is wiser than Daniel and that no secret is hidden from him.
Teman is in Edom (Gen 36.15, 34) and marks the southernmost part of the
land of Israel (Jos 13.4; Josephus, C.Ap. 2.116). The term Θαιμαν, referring to a
region also known as Ἰδουμαία, was likely not widely known, as is indicated by
Theodoret’s need to provide a gloss (Com.Bar. 3.22). Later readers would also
recall that Job’s friend Eliphaz (Job 2.11, “the king” in lxx) and Herod the Great
(from his father, Josephus, War 1.123) were Idumeans and, more positively, that
Idumeans were among the people who visited Jesus in Mark 3.8 (though note
the text-critical issues). In 3.23 we are given more context for Θαιμαν, namely
that they are known for their merchants and story-tellers. Directly related to
this passage is Jer 30.1 in which the author declares, “There is no longer wisdom
in Teman, counsel has perished from the wise ones, their wisdom is gone” (cf.
Hab 3.3). In light of our knowledge of these two places, the selection of Χανααν
and Θαιμαν as foils seems appropriate, and it is clear that the writer is saying
that the way of wisdom is not to be found in these two bordering regions known
for their trade and wealth.
Verse 23 opens with a reference to the “sons of Hagar”. Hagar is discussed
in two passages in Genesis (16.1–16 and 21.9–21), in which we discover that
Hagar was Egyptian by birth (Gen 21.9) and Sarah’s handmaid (similarly, there
is only one reference to Hagar in dss 1QapGen 20.32). In addition she was given
to Abraham by Sarah to be his concubine, and from their union Ishmael was
born. The biblical narrative only speaks of one son born to Hagar and does not
inform us if she had any other offspring. Baruch speaks of Hagar’s sons (plural),
a claim not supported by the biblical narrative (this is the only reference to
Hagar in the lxx outside the Genesis narrative). A more likely reading of Baruch
would be to understand “sons” as “descendants” (for an allegorical reading, see
Philo, Congr. 12). Theodoret, when commenting on this verse, uses the term
Ishmaelites and provides an explanatory note for the reader: “Hagar is the
mother of Ishmael” (Ἅγαρ δὲ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰσμαήλ; Com.Bar. 3.23). Genesis 25.13–15
lists twelve sons born to Ishmael who are said to have become princes to their
nations: Nabaioth(es), Kedar, Abdeel, Massam, Masmas, Idum(as), Masmes,
Chodam, Thaiman, Jetur, Naphais, and Kadmas (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.220). Of
particular interest is “Thaiman” (Θαιμαν), a name referenced in Bar 3.22–23,
which provides an extra point of contact between Baruch and Genesis.
There are a number ways that the Vaticanus reading of 3.23 (οἱ τε υἱοὶ Αγαρ οἱ
ἐκζητοῦντες τὴν σύνεσιν οἱ ἐπὶ γῆς) has been translated. For example, Whitehouse
(1913, 589) translates this line, “The sons also of Agar that seek understanding
[which are in the land,]”; whereas nets (2007, 929; and Reiterer 2010, 81) offers,
“nor the sons of Hagar who seek out intelligence upon the earth”. I have trans-
lated it, “The sons of Hagar who seek understanding on the earth”. The transla-
tional differences centre on two issues. First, how does this verse connect with
v. 22? Second, to which antecedent is οἱ ἐπὶ γῆς attached? The connection with
v. 22 is complicated, for although v. 23 continues the negative sense of v. 22, Vati-
canus (and L’ LaCLSV) does not include a negative particle. A negative particle is
found in other Greek manuscripts (A Q V), however, which read οὐτε οἱ υἱοὶ. Vat-
icanus reads οἱ τε υἱοὶ, which is the only use of τε in Baruch. This enclitic particle
is uncommon in the lxx and appears out of place here. Levinsohn (1987, 121–
136) has argued that τε is not used to join terms of equal significance, but either
to join unequal items or to indicate a connection between items. If we adopt
the latter option for Baruch it would be possible to understand the author as
making an addition to the previous verse, and indicating an unbalanced rela-
tionship between the cities in v. 22 and the sons of Hagar in v. 23.
Regarding the issue of the antecedent of οἱ ἐπὶ γῆς we have three main
options. First, it could link with its immediate precursor (οἱ ἐκζητοῦντες τὴν
106 chapter 3
σύνεσιν) and read, “those who seek understanding on the earth”. The second
option would be to assign οἱ ἐπὶ γῆς to the previous referent (οἱ τε υἱοὶ Αγαρ)
and translate it, “The sons of Hagar who are on the earth”. The third option
would be simply to bracket it out and claim that it is extraneous (so Whitehouse
1913, 589). Of these three options the first is preferable because of the text’s
syntactical ordering.
To the sons of Hagar the author joins “the merchants of Merran and Teman
and the authors of fables and those who seek understanding”. This is the only
occurrence of Μερραν in the lxx, which has led some scholars to posit that
this is a spelling corruption of Medan or Midian (Moore 1977, 299; Kabasele
Mukenge 1998, 223). Such a view would be further supported by Gen 37.28,
which speaks of Midianite merchants (οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ Μαδιηναῖοι οἱ ἔμποροι).
Based on the Greek text of Baruch as we have it, there is very little to say
except that the wider context and its coupling with Teman provide sufficient
information to understand the author’s point. This is also the sole occurrence in
the Greek Bible of μυθολόγος, a term that is likewise infrequently used in other
Greek literature. The first known known occurrence is in Aristotle Gen. an. 3.5,
where is it used as a label for Herodorus: Ἡρόδωρυς ὁ μυθολόγος. Both in this
context and in later usage μυθολόγος has negative connotations, which fits the
Baruchan perspective; none of these people know the way of wisdom nor can
they remember her paths.
3.2 God’s Relationship with Wisdom (3.24–4.4)

The fifth paragraph break in Vaticanus is located at the beginning of 3.24. This
break divides the wisdom passage into two. This major break is also found
in Alexandrinus, where Marchalianus and Venetus have only minor divisions.
These other manuscripts (A Q V) also have a major break at 3.29, which sup-
ports one of the strophe divisions proposed by scholars, as outlined above.
Furthermore, in Vaticanus there is a minor break (paragraphos +) at 4.1 (so
too Q), where Alexandrinus and Venetus have a major break. The latter is
the only additional break that will be incorporated into the discussion below.
Regarding the breaks in other manuscripts, see section 6 in the Introduc-
tion.
Like 3.9, this paragraph (3.24–4.4) opens with a nominative address to Israel
(ὢ Ισραηλ) and thus continues the speaker-listener roles of the previous para-
graph. The accenting on the ω differs between Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler;
Rahlfs-Hanhart has ὦ and Ziegler ὢ. Although Vaticanus did not originally have
accents, the use of accents in modern critical editions provides a limiting func-
tion for how one reads the text. Although highly useful, these accents (and
punctuation marks) are later interpretations of the text and, as such, require
investigation. In this case there is a subtle difference between the two, although
both are acceptable. ὦ indicates that the named person is being addressed,
whereas ὢ expresses the speaker’s emotion (i.e., joy) and, if followed by a voca-
tive or nominative, also facilitates an address (Ziegler 2006; Walters 1973, 228–
236). In light of the remainder of the sentence, ὢ appears to be warranted at
Bar 3.24, although it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between that and
the standard use of the exclamation with a nominative of address. According
to Johannessohn (1910, 9), the use of the exclamatory ω is a deviation from the
typical translation pattern found in the rest of the lxx.
The address is followed by ὡς, which is used in a much different manner than
in the first half of Baruch. In the penitential prayer section ὡς is consistently
paired with a temporal clause (ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, 1.15, 20; 2.6, 11, 26). Here it is
exclamatory: “How great is the house of God and how vast is the place of its
property!” It takes two nominative adjectives (μέγας, ἐπιμήκης).
Baruch’s reference to ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ has caused substantial scholarly dis-
cussion and has been used by some to date Baruch after the destruction of the
Second Temple. Although the phrase οἶκος θεοῦ is used throughout the lxx to
describe the physical temple in Jerusalem (esp. 2Esdras), it is unlikely that the
physical temple is the focus here, especially in light of the parallel statement,
ἐπιμήκης ὁ τόπος τῆς κτήσεως αὐτοῦ. Some scholars have drawn on Philo to argue
that οἶκος θεοῦ at Bar 3.24 should be understood as the whole universe created
by God (Migr. 5; Opif. 27; Aet. 112; Cher. 101; cf. Josephus, War 5.458). A similar
perspective is offered by Theodoret (Com.Bar. 3.24): “Do not think he is saying
that the temple of God is the one Solomon built: God’s temple is a mighty thing,
immeasurable and at the same time indestructible, having no end”. The ques-
tion of its physical nature (the visual as opposed to the invisible creation) is
ambiguous here, and the answer impacts the interpretation of 3.26.
In ἐπιμήκης ὁ τόπος τῆς κτήσεως αὐτοῦ the author claims that the place is vast.
The occurrence of ἐπιμήκης in Bar 3.24 is a lxx hapax, and the first recorded
appearance of this term in Greek, although it is well attested in multiple strands
of later Greek literature. The main interpretive issue in the fuller clause is the
antecedent of the genitive modifier αὐτοῦ, which could either mean “its” (i.e.,
the temple’s, nets) or “his” (i.e., God’s, Whitehouse 1913, 589). Although neither
is excluded on grammatical grounds, the temple is the more likely referent,
as that referent creates parallelism and provides further eludication of the
first half of the verse. The depiction of the house continues in 3.25, where
God’s house is described as great (μέγας), endless (οὐκ ἔχει τελευτήν), high
(ὑψηλὸς), and immeasurable (ἀμέτρητος). These adjectives, which continue the
interpretive perspective of 3.24, describe God’s house, rather than God himself,
108 chapter 3
although the description of the house would also be understood to reflect on

its occupier/creator.
Baruch 3.26–28 introduces the topic of giants: ἐκεῖ ἐγεννήθησαν οἱ γ(ε)ίγαντες.
The use of the locative marker ἐκεῖ in the theme position refers back to God’s
house and appears to indicate that the giants of old were born there. This claim
is not discussed by many scholars and at first glance appears problematic. In
light of the discussion above and based on the temporal referent (ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, i.e.,
before the construction of the Jerusalem temple), it is clear that the author is
not talking about the physical temple in Jerusalem, but rather is envisioning
all of creation, both visible and invisible, as comprising God’s house. That
the giants were born there lends further support to the view that Baruch
understood God’s house to be the whole of creation.
Related to this discussion is an interesting textual issue. Vaticanus has to
ἐγεννήθησαν, “they were born” (so too V Syr), but Alexandrinus and Marchalia-
nus (LaCLSV Sa SyrHex) have ἐγενήθησαν, “they were”, which would minimise
the potential confussion regarding where the giants were born mentioned in
the previous paragraph. The latter interpretation, “The giants were there from
the beginning”, fits later Mishnaic interpretations of Gen 6.1–4 (Tgs. Neof.; Ps.-
J.) and suggests another reason (in addition to haplography) for the alternate
reading. In contrast, the Vaticanus text explicitly mentions the concept of birth.
This could represent a subtle theological emphasis by the author, who would
be highlighting the giants’s derivative nature and reinforcing the idea that from
the beginning they were not like God.
Commentators agree that 3.26–28 draws upon Gen 6.4 and its discussion
of the antediluvian giants. Giants are sporadically mentioned in apocryphal
literature and are rarely presented positively. As examples, Sap 14.6 describes
them as “arrogant”, 3Macc 2.4 as trusting in their own strength and boldness, Sir
16.7 as people who revolt, and Jub. 7.22–23 as cannibals. In Baruch, the giants
were not chosen by God or shown the way of understanding (note again the
negative particles οὐ and οὐδέ), but they do have knowledge of war. Rieterer
(2010, 101), citing Hesiod’s Theogony 185–186, claims that the presentation of
giants as specialists in war (and as human rather than divine beings) represents
a blending of Greek and Jewish themes. A specific connection between Baruch
and Hesiod is difficult to sustain, but it is likely that the interpretation of giants
in Baruch was influenced by Greek thought/literature, whether the author of
Baruch directly engaged with Greek writers or merely with Greek-influenced
Jewish sources. For example, Baruch may have known a tradition similar to
1Enoch 6–11, the most developed Jewish narrative describing giants. 1 Enoch 8.1
pairs the giants with war imagery, stating that Azazʾel (a fallen angel) “taught
the people the art of making swords and knives, and shields, and breastplates”
(cf. 1 En. 9.6; 10.8). In addition to Azazʾel’s teaching how to make weapons, the
giants and their mothers are said to have been taught magical medicine by
the fallen angels, as well as incantations, cutting of roots, and about plants
(7.1; cf. Josephus, War 7.185). It is unclear whether or not 1 Enoch was known
to the author of Baruch. However, if similar interpretive traditions regarding
the giants’s knowledge circulated during that time, it is understandable how
the author of Baruch could have used the giants as an example of people of
renown who had knowledge, but did not know the way to wisdom.
In Baruch, the giants died because they did not have insight (παρὰ τὸ μὴ
ἔχειν φρόνησιν) and because they were thoughtless (ἀβουλία, cf. Prov 14.17). The
phrase παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν φρόνησιν is an articular infinitive governed by παρά
and, according to Votaw (1896, 20), is one of 18 different prepositions used with
infinitives in the lxx apocrypha (there are 22 in the lxx and only 10 in the nt).
Among these prepositions, Allen (1907, 33) asserts that παρά is one of the least
common and, although it is observed in the earliest Greek writers (Robertson
1919, 1062–1065), Jannaris (1897, 579) claims that is not well attested in papyri
or idiomatic Greek. This view is dated and a number of grammarians now
recognise the construction as being part of standard Hellenistic phraseology
(Schwyzer 1950, 2.370; Mayser 1926, 331). For example, there are twenty-four
examples of παρὰ τὸ μὴ with an infinitive in the lxx, seven of which are found in
Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 9.9–11; 40.10, 12; cf. Walser 2012, 209–210). Moreover, the exact
phrase, παρὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν, is found three other times in the lxx (Job 4.11, 21; 24.8),
as well as five other times in other Greek literature ([Ps.-]Aristotle, Xen. 978a
l. 33; Xenophanes, Test. fr. 28–978b l. 33; Attalus fr. 28.78). For a similar pairing
of παρά followed by διά, see sig3 834.10.
In every passage, both in the lxx (Gen 6.4; Sap 14.6; 3 Macc 2.4; Sir 16.7) and
outside (cd 2.17–21; 1 En. 6–11; Jub. 7.22–23; 2Pet 2.4; Jude 6), the giants are
subject to judgement. Later Jewish interpretive tradition makes similar claims
(Tgs. Neof.; Ps.-J. Gen 6.1–4), arguing that the flood was God’s judgement against
them. Although the flood is not specifically mentioned by Baruch, the giants
are said to have perished. It is possible, though speculative, that the author of
Baruch had the flood in mind when speaking of their demise.
It is clear that 3.26–28 form a strongly coherent unit, and so it is interesting
that Rieterer (2010, 101) divides the text at 3.27. A majority of scholars and Greek
mss (A Q V) divide the text at 3.29, which is understandable because a shift in
topic occurs there and rhetorical questions are reintroduced. Vaticanus, how-
ever, does not have a break there and the following material is thus presented
as a continuation of the thought that began at 3.24.
Verses 29 and 30 have strong parallelism and are structured nearly identi-
cally:
110 chapter 3
τίς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν καὶ κατεβίβασεν αὐτὴν ἐκ τῶν
νεφελῶν;
τίς διέβη πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ εὗρεν αὐτὴν καὶ οἴσει αὐτὴν χρυσίου
ἐκλεκτοῦ;
Both open with an interrogative pronoun (τίς) followed by an aorist active

indicative verb with a βαίν-root and a prepositional prefix. After the verb, there
is a prepositional phrase, followed by a conjunctive καί, another aorist verb,
and a feminine object (αὐτὴν). In v. 29 the question closes with another aorist
verb (κατεβίβασεν), which is directionally opposite to the first verb (ἀνέβη),
but maintains a parallel location (ἐκ τῶν νεφελῶν for τὸν οὐρανὸν). This verse is
well-balanced and provides a sense of movement within the narrative. Verse 30
continues this movement, although it changes from vertical to horizontal. The
conclusion of v. 30 does not provide the symmetry of v. 29, as there is no return
from the other side of the sea. Rather, there is a break from the established
pattern with the introduction of the future tense-form (οἴσει). The pairing of
“wisdom” with “bring” as opposed to “buy”—especially within the context of
gold (χρυσίου)—is rare in the lxx, but does not obstruct the text’s meaning.
Scholars regularly compare Bar 3.29–30 with Job 28, as both texts speak
of attempting to acquire wisdom with gold or other precious materials (Bar
3.30; Job 28.17), reference the sea (Bar 3.30; Job 28.14; cf. Philo, Migr. 218),
and talk about the heights that hide wisdom (Bar 3.29; Job 28.21, 24). These
and other images direct the reader to the realisation that wisdom, although
it has a relationship with creation, is hidden from created beings. The natural
implication is that wisdom is not attainable solely through human endeavours
or by human means; procuring it requires divine help (Bar 3.29–31; Job 28.13).
Scholars also offer Deut 30.12–13 as a parallel to Bar 3.29–30 (cf. Sheppard
1978, 171–174; Martilla 2008, 332):
Deut 30.12–13 οὐκ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω ἐστὶν λέγων τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν εἰς τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ λήμψεται αὐτὴν ὑμῖν καὶ ἀκούσαντες αὐτὴν ποιήσομεν
13 οὐδὲ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης ἐστὶν λέγων τίς διαπεράσει ἡμῖν εἰς τὸ
πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ λήμψεται ἡμῖν αὐτήν καὶ ἀκουστὴν ἡμῖν
ποιήσει αὐτήν καὶ ποιήσομεν.
There are numerous verbal similarities between this passage and Baruch,
which strongly suggests Deuteronomic influence. Baruch, however, has a rever-
sal of meaning. Whereas in Deuteronomy the author is claiming that the de-
sired object is near to them (already in them!) and easy to acquire (30.14), in
Baruch the author is claiming the opposite, that wisdom is far from them (not
in them) and is inaccessible: “There is no one who knows her way, no one who
considers her path” (3.31).
However, the one who knows (ὁ εἰδὼς, perfect adjectival participle) all things
(or, “das All kennt”, Nicklas 2010, 82) knows her (3.32). Not only does this
verse identify the only one who knows wisdom, it also contains an ontological
statement (about God): he is the one who knows all things. This is the only
assertion of God’s omniscience in Baruch and is not further developed. Instead,
the author continues by stating that God found wisdom by his understanding.
The term ἐξεῦρεν is rare in the lxx and only occurs here, at 3.37, and at 2 Macc
7.23, the last of which also discusses creation theology, specifically the “finding”
of the origin of life. For Theodoret, ἐξεῦρεν needs to be explained away, as it
suggests that God was not in possession of wisdom at the outset of time. He
claims that Baruch was speaking in “human terms” and that it is well known
that God is the fount of wisdom and so does not need to search for it. As a
result, the reader of Baruch should not take this anthropomorphism literally
(Com.Bar. 3.32, 37).
Far from being restricted by human limitations in Baruch, however, this
same individual who found wisdom is also the one who was formative in
creation, preparing the earth for all time and filling it with four-footed animals.
The creation language naturally invokes for the reader the creation narrative of
Genesis, particularly Gen 1.24–25 (cf. Job 28.24–27). Additionally, phrasing such
as ὁ κατασκευάσας τὴν γῆν and αἰῶνα χρόνον is reminiscent of Isaiah. The former
phrase is found at Is 40.28, and seven of twelve occurrences of the latter phrase
are also found in Isaiah. The emphasis in Baruch is on the enduring nature of
creation, particularly in contrast to the fleeting nature of human life (Moore
1977, 332; Nicklas 2010, 83).
The nature imagery continues in 3.33–35 with a discussion of light and stars.
Here there is only one verb of creating (ποιήσαντι, 3.35), but that does not
undermine God’s authority over the cosmos. God is the one who sends light
and it goes (πορεύεται; πορεύσεται Q V); he commands it and it obeys with
trembling (τρόμῳ). Moore (1977, 301) claims that τρόμῳ here should be glossed
as “shimmering” and not “trembling”, but there is no lexical or lexicon (lsj, leh,
Muraoka) support for his assertion. Baruch’s pairing of ἀποστέλλω and φῶς is
unique in the lxx and is rare in other corpora (cf. Philo, Post. 57). God’s calling
of the light invokes Gen 1.5, which shares the aorist form of ἐκάλεσεν. The same
verb also occurs in 3.35 with respect to the stars. The stars answer his call, say
(εἶπον B A; εἶπαν Q V etc.), “Here we are”, and shine with gladness for the one
who made them (cf. Is 40.26). A strong parallel is found at Job 38.35, in which
God chastises Job, rhetorically questioning him about his inability to do actions
that God can do, such as sending out lightning (ἀποστελεῖς δὲ κεραυνούς). The
112 chapter 3
lightning in turn asks the sender what his pleasure is (ἐροῦσιν δέ σοι τί ἐστιν).
1Enoch 43.1 also mirrors Baruch: “And I saw other lightning and the stars of
heaven. And I saw how he called them each by their names, and they obeyed
him”.
Overall, the syntax of these verses is straightforward and makes for an easy
read. In light of this structure as well as some of the themes in 3.32–35, Hogan
(2011, 153–154, following some suggestions by Steck 1993, 132, 152) argues that
this passage could be understood as a “prophetic doxology” with strong paral-
lels to Amos 5.8 and Is 40.25–26 (Steck stress Baruch’s parallels with Jer 10.6–7,
12, 16). The parallels are mostly thematic, however, with little formal structur-
ing to support such a label or a formal connection between Amos 5, Isa 40, and
Baruch. They are best understood as literary echoes and not as intentional par-
allels by the author.
As discussed in the Introduction, verses 3.36–38 are the most cited in Baruch
and were important for early Christian readers (see also Appendix 1). These
verses are a continuation of the creation narrative and summarise the entire
argument. Verse 36 provides a clear monotheistic statement: “This is our God,
no other will be considered with him”. The pronoun ἡμῶν marks the return of
the first person to the narrative, which, up until now, had been in the third
person. By referring to the creator as “our God”, the author shifts to language of
election that will dominate until the end of the wisdom section (4.4). It was the
shift to the third person at the beginning of the poem that allowed Theodoret
to claim that God’s response to the petition began at 3.9. Although it is not
discussed by Theodoret, it is possible to understand this wisdom poem as God’s
speaking through the prophet (Baruch), who alternates between statements of
God and his own perspective (so Athenagoras, Leg. 9).
Exclusive monotheistic assertions are mostly absent in the ot canon, with
the notable exception of Deutero-Isaiah (e.g., 43.10–11; 44.6). In one passage
from Isaiah (45.18), which is comparable to Baruch, a statement is given by
God which links his total lordship with his role as creator of the world. In the
Second Temple period an increasing number of writers expressed an exclusive
monotheistic perspective (e.g., Let. Aris. 132–139; Sap 12.27; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 5.3).
Josephus wrote that “as God is one, also the Hebrew race is one” (Ant. 4.201), and
Philo of Alexandria’s statement in his discussion of the First Commandment is
also illustrative: “Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and
most sacred of commandments; to acknowledge and honor one God who is
above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the
man whose rule of life is to seek for truth in purity and guilelessness” (Decal.
65; more broadly Decal. 52–81; cf. qg 4.8; Mos. 1.75; Spec. 1.1–52; Leg. 3.97–99,
436–438). This view was also espoused by a number of Christian writers. For
example, Theodoret claims, “Far from comparing Father and Son, this verse
is rejecting so-called gods” (Theodoret, Ep. 151; Ambrose, De Fide 1.3.28). The
major difference between Christian and Jewish authors is that Christian writers
were careful to include Jesus in their articulated monotheistic dictum.
In Bar 3.37, it is this one God who found out every way of knowledge (cf. 3.32
for the discussion of ἐξεῦρεν). It is here that the full answer is given to the ques-
tion posed in 3.15. Although it was suggested in 3.32, only here does the author
make it explicit: God is the one who has found her place (cf. Job 28.23). Nei-
ther Vaticanus nor the other Greek manuscripts have a demonstrative pronoun
at the beginning of v. 37, but nearly all other manuscript traditions do (La Syr
Aeth Arab), which suggests that there might have originally been a demonstra-
tive pronoun in the Greek text, which was omitted at some point in its copying
history.
God did not, however, keep the way to wisdom all to himself, but gave it
(αὐτὴν) to Jacob and to Israel whom he loved (τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ; omit
ὑπʼ A Qtxt V). The parallelism between Jacob and Israel is typical of the election
motif in Jewish Scripture, although the object given is typically the Promised
Land (Sheppard 1980, 98). There is some ambiguity as to the referent of αὐτήν: is
it “understanding” or the “way to understanding” (ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης)? The latter is,
initially, the most logical option, as it encompasses the entirety of the clause,
but the manner in which Baruch has used feminine nouns prior to this and
especially in 3.38 suggests that it is understanding/wisdom that the author is
discussing. A strict differentiation between these options, however, would be
unwise. The content of this verse parallels the election claim in Sir 24.8 where
God says to wisdom, “Make your dwelling in Jacob, and in Israel receive your
inheritance”. The selection and favouring of Jacob and Israel is emphatically
expressed in Is 44.1–2: “But now hear, Jacob my servant (παῖς) and Israel, whom
I have chosen (ἐξελεξάμην). So says the Lord God who made you … fear not, my
servant Jacob; and beloved Israel, whom I have chosen (παῖς μου Ιακωβ καὶ ὁ
ἠγαπημένος Ισραηλ ὃν ἐξελεξάμην)”. Isaiah’s discussion of election is more direct
than Baruch’s, although it is clear here that Baruch acknowledges a unique
relationship between God and the Jewish people (Kabasele Mukenge 1998,
248).
“After this she appeared on the earth and associated with humans”. It is not
clear to what “after this” is referring, but the most likely option is the period
after the election of Jacob and Israel. There is no explicit feminine noun in
3.38 to justify the use of “she” in the translation; this reading is supplied from
ἡ βίβλος in 4.1. The sentence could therefore be translated either with “it” or
“he”. This verse’s association with the monotheistic claim of 3.36 resonated with
early Christian readers, and it was easily adapted to support a reading of Jesus’
114 chapter 3
incarnation (Chrysostom, C. Mar. 3). This verse was also used to support the
early church’s equating of Jesus with divine wisdom. Theodoret claims,
This verse gives a clear reference to the incarnation of the only-begotten

and to the fact that he is creator of all and fountain of wisdom. He is
therefore also its creator and lord; of him it says in Proverbs, “The Lord
created me as the beginning of the ways of his work”; it is not God the
Word who says this, but the wisdom of God the Word developed by him.
Due to frequent citation by Christian writers, and a supposed contradiction

between the world’s access to wisdom and the exclusivity of Torah to Israel,
some scholars consider 3.38 to be a later Christian interpolation (cf. Steck 1998,
53–54; Salvesen 2001, 702). This is possible, but I think it is more likely that
early Christian readers saw the grammatical ambiguity as an opportunity to
read Jesus into the text, to interpret wisdom as a christological representation,
and to see Baruch as a prophet foretelling Jesus’ earthly appearance.
Following 3.38, Vaticanus Baruch has a minor break (paragraphos +) at 4.1
(so too Q), where Alexandrinus and Venetus have a major break. This does not
completely disrupt the flow of 3.24–4.4, but does place a division between the
incarnational reading in 3.38 and the limiting identification feature provided
in 4.1.
Baruch 4.1 opens with αὕτη ἡ βίβλος in the topic and theme position. This
is not the same book discussed in 1.1, 3, and 14. It is a different one that
requires further description: αὕτη ἡ βίβλος τῶν προσταγμάτων τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁ νόμος
ὁ ὑπάρχων εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The identification of wisdom with Torah is echoed
in Sir 24.23 and in the later Palestinian Targum paraphrases of Genesis 3.24.
The pairing with Sirach has dominated Baruch discussion to the extent that
Nickelsburg (1984, 141) claims that “3:9–4:4 contains a wisdom poem in the
tradition of Sir 24”, and Hengel (1974, 170) asserts that Baruch is “dependent on
Sirach 24”!
Although Baruch’s wisdom poem has a number of similarities with Sirach
24, there are important differences (cf. Hogan 2008, 71–100). First, the person-
ification of wisdom is less clear in Baruch than in Sirach. Second, in Baruch
wisdom is the object of a search and not the one doing the searching; the poem
is about her rather than by her, as is shown by the fact that wisdom is the
subject of only one verb, in 4.1. Third, although Sir 24.23 places wisdom in the
Torah, it is not the only place that wisdom is found; Sir 24.8–10 locates wisdom
in a tent in the encampment of Jacob, and Sir 24.11 claims she also dwells in
the city of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Sirach indicates that wisdom is not only
found among the Israelites, but also in the foreign nations: Lebanon, Aermon,
Aiggada, and Jericho (24.13–14, cf. 39.1, 4). The location of wisdom is notably
different in Baruch, which claims that wisdom is exclusively to be found in
Israel. Not only do the other nations lack wisdom, they are unable to find it no
matter how hard they look. Conversely, Israel has been given wisdom by God
through the Torah. Wisdom, as embodied by Torah, is God’s unique gift to the
people of Israel and functions in such a way as to differentiate Israel from all
other nations. Although other nations might possess people of intellect, they
are still lacking wisdom, as wisdom can come only from God, and God has given
a record of it only to Israel. It is this exclusivity that exemplifies Baruch’s unique
literary perspective: hypostatised wisdom is conceived of as embodied in Torah,
Israel’s unique gift and privilege from God (cf. Deut 4.6–8).
Coogan (1999), in a recent article, has argued that scholars are in consen-
sus regarding the theory that wisdom is depicted as a goddess in many Jewish
texts (Prov 1–9; Sap 7–9; Sir 24; Bar 3.9–4.4; 1 En. 42; 11QPsa). As evidence Coogan
(1999, 205) briefly evaluates Prov 1–9 and the prominent role attributed to wis-
dom and how the Septuagint translators had substantial interpretive problems,
especially with Prov 7.6. In further support of this thesis Coogan offers “negative
evidence” from Sir 24.23 and Job 28, arguing that these texts, which offer a dif-
ferent perspective on wisdom, are directly combatting the dominant trend of
wisdom as goddess. Coogan also mentions Bar 3.15–4.4, all of which, he claims,
was used by “othodoxy” to “demythologize the goddess Wisdom, to make her
an abstraction” (1999, 208). This abstracting tendency, however, could not be
further from the truth with respect to Baruch (and Sirach), which grounds wis-
dom firmly in Torah, a very real and tangible entity. (Furthermore, Coogan’s use
of “orthodoxy” is undefined and therefore problematic.)
Not every Jewish writer approved of this view of the location of wisdom
(Boccaccini 1998, 146). 1Enoch 42.1–2 challenges a similar perspective held by
Baruch and Sirach by claiming, “Wisdom did not find a place where she might
dwell, so her dwelling was in the heaven. Wisdom went forth to dwell among
the sons of men, but she did not find a dwelling. Wisdom returned to her place,
and sat down among the angels”. This provides a good example of the diversity
of theological perspectives in the Second Temple period.
Having identified wisdom with Torah, Baruch further claims that all who
take hold of her gain life and that all who forsake her will perish. Once again
there is some ambiguity as to the specific identification of αὐτὴν, whether it is
“the book” or “wisdom”. This is a non-issue, however, as “the book” and “wis-
dom” have just been equated in the first half of the verse. The association with
holding on to instructions for life (although using different vocabulary) is found
throughout Proverbs, especially at 4.13 (cf. 1Tim 6.12, 19). Further ambiguity
comes with the term “life”. Burke (1999, esp. 272; cf. Nickelsburg 2005, 112) is right
116 chapter 3
to problematise a strict correlation between Baruch and Sirach, as both of them

present a different picture of life. For Baruch life is presented not in opposition
to the death of the individual, but in terms of the welfare of the community.
This is not to say that the author of Baruch did not think that Torah gave life to
the individual Israelite. Here, however, it is presented as a corporate idea.
Baruch 4.2 opens with a direct address to Jacob (the third and final mention
of him in Baruch; cf. 2.34; 3.37) and a string of imperatives: ἐπιστρέφου, ἐπιλαβοῦ,
διόδευσον. The first imperative is in the present tense-form and the last two
are in the aorist. This tense-form pattern (present followed by two aorists)
does not encode temporal information, but more likely indicates something
else—either we see tense-form reduction or the first imperative marks the
change of address and so frames the grouping of commands. These are the
first imperatives to appear since the opening of the wisdom poem (3.9, 14) and
are the last in this wisdom section. The use of the second person imperative
indicates a change in person from the first person plural (ἡμῶν) of 3.36, where
the speaker was part of a larger group. Here the speaker separates himself and
directly addresses Jacob. This separation will change again in 4.4.
This is the only instance of λάμψις in the Greek Bible and the first recorded
use of the term (tlg). However, the description of the law/wisdom as radiant or
shining is not unique. As examples, Sap 18.4 mentions “the imperishable light
of the law” (τὸ ἄφθαρτον νόμου φῶς τῷ αἰῶνι δίδασθαι) and Prov 6.23 describes the
commandment of the law as “a lamp and a light and a way of life” (ὄτι λύχνος
ἐντολὴ νόμου καὶ φῶς καὶ ὁδὸς ζωῆς ἔλεγχος καὶ παιδεία). For Baruch the law is a
shining beacon which Jacob is commanded to approach.
Following the positive imperatives, the author tells Jacob what not to do:
he is not to give his glory to another, or what is profitable to a foreign nation.
Breaking the string of imperative mood-forms, 4.3 has a second person aorist
subjunctive (δῷς) negated by μή, which, although not a formal imperative, is
a common way of expressing a prohibition (bdf § 335; Porter 1994, 221). The
subject of the second part is τὰ συμφέροντα, a substantival use of a present
active participle. This verse is reminiscent of Is 42.8 in which God claims that
he will not give his glory to another (ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα
τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ), and Sir 49.5, which, describing the Jewish nation, laments:
ἔδωκαν γὰρ τὸ κέρας αὐτῶν ἑτέροις καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἔθνει ἀλλοτρίῳ (cf. Kabasele
Mukenge 1998, 275–276). Theodoret (Com.Bar. 4.3) interprets this verse from
a Christian perspective, claiming that Israel did not listen to this warning by
God and has therefore been isolated from God’s benefits, which have now been
conferred on the nations.
Baruch 4.4 marks the return of first person plural, which includes the speaker
within Israel (μακάριοί ἐσμεν, Ισραηλ; cf. Deut 33.29). This is immediately fol-
lowed by a statement of the reason for their blessedness: ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
ἡμῖν γνωστά ἐστιν. While Vaticanus has τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the pleasing things
of God”), most texts read τὰ ἀρεστὰ τῷ θεῷ (“the things pleasing to God”). This is
an important difference, not only because the dative form is the one most often
paired with ἀρεστός, but because it changes the interpretation of the verse. The
dominant reading “know what is pleasing to God” implies a sense a respon-
sibility, that “we know what we should do to please God”. This perspective is
expressed by Theodoret: “We the readers do not have any excuse for God has
made clear to us what is pleasing to him” (cf. Tob 4.21). The Vaticanus reading,
on the other hand, lacks this undertone: “We know the pleasures of God”, or,
“God has made known to us his pleasure”. The association of God’s pleasure
and the people’s learning wisdom is also seen in Sap 9.18b, καὶ τὰ ἀρεστά σου
ἐδιδάχθησαν ἄνθρωποι καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν.
4 Jerusalem and the Return of Her Children (4.5–5.9)
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 lament-
ing the loss of her inhabitants, the text proceeds to describe their return. The
return results in hope for Jerusalem and her people and is the dominant theme
in 4.5–5.9. Both the characters in Baruch and the text’s readers are assured that
exile is not permanent, but will ultimately be followed by return (Fraade 2013a,
1546).
Commentators claim that there is a strong relationship between Bar 4.5–
5.9 and Second Isaiah. Opinions range from Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 40), who
says that this section “est une suite de chants de lamentation et de consola-
tion de style deuteron-isaïen” to Moore (1977, 313), who states that “the psalm
drew its inspiration primarily, if not almost exclusively, from Deutero-Isaiah”, to
Burke (1982, 5), who claims that this third part is “composed very consciously
in the style of Second Isaiah and, textually, heavily dependent on that prior
work”. Thackeray (1921, 101) posits that this part of Baruch shows “dependence
on deutero-Isaiah, which dominates it”. Such dependency led P. Heinisch (1928)
to suggest that this was written by a disciple of Deutero-Isaiah. An issue with a
number of these comments is that the scholars who make these claims rarely
go on to describe exactly what they mean. They do not define important terms,
such as “dependence”, “inspiration”, or “Isaianic style”, but rather claim sim-
ilarities in “phrases” and “concepts” (e.g., Moore 1977, 314). The relationship
between Baruch and Second Isaiah will be discussed at needed points through-
out the discussion below (see also Adams 2016).
118 chapter 3
One feature of Baruch that is regularly compared with Isaiah is how Jerusa-
lem is depicted and personified as a woman. This personification is not unique
to Baruch, as there are a number of passages in the Greek Bible which similarly
present Jerusalem as a woman (Ez 16.1–63; Jer 4.11–18; 6.2–8; Zeph 3.1–20; Thr 1,
2, 4). What is more distinctive is that Baruch presents Jerusalem as a mother.
Although seen indirectly in Tob 13.9 and Jer 5.7 in references to Jerusalem’s
“sons”, it is fair to say that nowhere else in the Greek Bible is Jerusalem reg-
ularly presented as a mother, except for Isaiah 49–54, esp. 54.1–6. This is an
important parallel to Baruch, one that needs to be recognised and investigated
(cf. Henderson 2014).
We now turn to the role that the personified Jerusalem is given in Baruch. At
the beginning of Bar 4.5–5.9 Jerusalem is not immediately in focus. However,
at 4.9b she is given a speaking role that lasts until 4.29. That Jerusalem speaks
within the narrative is not, in itself, original. What is unique to Baruch is the
length of Jerusalem’s speech and the fact that it is uninterrupted. 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: “The Lord has
forsaken me; the Lord has forgotten me” (Is 49.14). Such restricted speeches
are also found in Jeremiah, in which Jerusalem speaks only twice and for just
one sentence (Jer 4.31; 28.35). For this aspect, the only comparable example
is found in Lamentations (1.12–22). Although Baruch parallels Lamentations
in the amount of speech given to Jerusalem, the content and structure of
those speeches are notably different. Nevertheless, it is possible that the size
of Baruch’s Jerusalem speech was influenced by Jerusalem’s presentation in
Lamentations. The nature of Jerusalem’s speech in Baruch suggests that Second
Isaiah was not the only model for or influence on the author of our text.
In addition to the amount of speech given to Baruch’s Jerusalem, another
distinctive quality is how she is presented. 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 (Alonso
Schökel 1986; 1990, 89). In Bar 4.5–5.9 there is no personal confession of sin,
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 (cf. Tob 13.9) (Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 330;
Calduch-Benages 2008, 160). Overall, although many parallels between Baruch
and Isaiah will be identified below in the commentary proper, the original
components of Baruch’s narrative are noteworthy, as is the author’s literary and
theological ingenuity.
Regarding the structure of Baruch’s Jerusalem psalm, scholars have tradi-
tionally suggested that there are six (4.5–9a, 9b–16, 17–29, 30–35, 4.36–5.4, and
5.5–9; Rost 1971, 52; Weiser 1966, 405–406), seven (4.5–20, 21–26, 27–29, 30–
35, 36–37; 5.1–4, 5–9; Thackeray 1921, 100–101; 1929, 102–103; Moore 1977, 313;
Xeravits, Forthcoming, although he subdivides these into 15 strophes), eight
(4.5–9a, 9b–13, 14–20, 21–24, 25–29, 30–35, 4.36–5.4, 5.5–9; Fitzgerald 1968, 618),
or eleven (Burke, 1982, 5–6) “stanzas”. These have typically been delineated by
an imperative and a vocative or nominative of address.
More recently, there has been a move away from this “stanza” perspective
towards dividing the text based on speaker. Evaluating the change in speak-
ers and their discourses, Steck and others have distinguished three sections in
this text: a) the announcement of salvation, which the prophet addresses to his
people (4.5–9a); b) the discourse Jerusalem addresses to her neighbours and to
her exiled children (4.9b–29); and c) the exhortation the prophet addresses to
Jerusalem (4.30–5.9) (Steck 1993, 187–200; Saldarini 2001, 971; Calduch-Benages
2008, 156; Henderson 2014). Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 292–293) distinguishes
only two major divisions in the exhortation of Bar 4.5–5.9; the first one is
addressed to the exiles (4.5–29) and the second to personified Jerusalem (4.30–
5.9). It should be noted, however, that in the first section (4.5–29) Kabasele
Mukenge also has two subdivisions: 4.5–9a and 4.9b–29.
Regarding the holistic composition of Baruch, Kabasele Mukenge (1998,
292–294) suggests that part of this section, namely 4.5–29, is a continuation of
the letter in 1.15 and addresses the exiles mentioned at the beginning of Baruch.
In this way Kabasele Mukenge argues that 4.5–29 is parallel with 4.30–5.9 +
1.15aβ–3.8. Although I agree with some of the parallels between 4.5–29 and
4.30–5.9 identified, I am not convinced that Kabasele Mukenge’s inclusion
of 1.15aβ–3.8 is the best way to interpret the similarities and construction of
Baruch.
Finally, turning to Codex Vaticanus, we find that the scribe placed major divi-
sions in this section at 4.5, 4.19, and 4.30, but also included smaller paragraphoi
at 4.25 and 4.36. Codex Alexandrinus, on the other hand, has 17 breaks (4.5, 9b,
14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 5, 8), Venetus 11 (4.5, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26,
33, 36; 5.5, 7) and Marchalianus 21 (4.5, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32,
35, 36, 37; 5.1, 2, 3, 8). What is consistent between these four codices is that they
include a primary break at 4.5 and (most) support one at 4.30. For this study we
will adopt a more restricted set of divisions based on Vaticanus’s divisions, and
not on the “stanza” divisions suggested above.
4.1 Personification of Jerusalem and Her Address to Her Neighbours

(4.5–18)
Baruch 4.5–5.9 begins with a prophet-like character addressing his people,
Israel (4.5–9a). The speaker is best identified as Baruch, who is presented at
120 chapter 3
the beginning of the narrative as the speaker. However, if we understand this

section to be a continuation of the liturgical reading that began at 1.15b, we
have here an additional layer of speaker, the voice of the reader, which (in the
narrative setting of Jerusalem) would likely be a priest.
The Jerusalem section opens with an imperative (θαρσεῖτε; cf. 4.27) followed
by a nominative (λαός μου), which in Baruch is regularly used as a nominative
of address (Conybeare 1905, 54). These people, characterised by the first person
possessive pronoun μου, are presumably God’s, although he is speaking through
an intermediary. This ambiguity confused some readers, who changed some
mss to read θεοῦ (L’ LaCV SyrHex). The people are further defined (through
apposition) as the μνημόσυνον Ισραηλ (not another imperative “remember”, so
Torrey 1945, 62 n. 59, who seeks to conform this phrase to Is 44.21; 46.8, 9).
Although the typical pairing of μνημόσυνον and Ισραηλ describes something (a
stone, etc.) that will be a memorial of/to Israel (e.g., Ex 18.12; Jos 4.7), here the
people themselves are the monument. This is the remnant of the people who
survive to bear the name Israel, and the statement mirrors a number of others
in the lxx (1Macc 3.35; Pss 33.17; 108.15). The reintroduction of the people of
Israel after an extended absence forms a boundary marker in the discourse and
signals a new section (Lee 2010, 36–37).
Similarly to Is 50.1 and 52.3 the people of Israel were sold into slavery, but
not for money or income (as if God would have need of it). Moreover, their sale
was not for their destruction (Est 7.4), but they were given to their adversaries
because they had angered God (cf. 4.9). διὰ δὲ τὸ παροργίσαι ὑμᾶς (ημας A) τὸν
θεὸν is another articular infinitive (cf. 3.28) and functions as a purpose clause to
explain why the Jewish people were sold to their opposition (τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις).
Here we note the return of the theme of God’s anger over sin and the resultant
retribution that was prevalent in the penitential prayer section, and which is
the prevailing topic in the current section (cf. 4.14–15, 19, 29, 34–35). It will later
be claimed that God had a plan for Israel when he sent them into slavery and
that this was ultimately for their benefit.
Burke (1982, 302) claims that much of the material of 4.6–8 “has been directly
appropriated from Deut 32.15–30 (Est 7.4 is also a significant source)”. The simi-
larities between these two texts are strong, not only regarding themes, but also
vocabulary and phraseology. For example, both speak of sacrificing to demons
(θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, 4.7; ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, Deut 32.17), and
provoking (παροξύνω) God (and Jerusalem) who had nourished them (ἐκτρέφω,
4.8; τρέφω Deut 32.18). By these actions the people show that they have forgot-
ten God (ἐπιλανθάνομαι; Bar 4.8; Deut 32.18), who has become angry (παροργίζω;
Bar 4.6; Deut 32.21). These linguistic similarities are limited to Deut 32.15–21 and
do not extend to 32.30, however. The connection between Deut 32.21 and Bar
4.6–7 is even stronger in Codex Vaticanus, in which Deut 32.21 has παρωξυναν
for παρώργισαν (Wevers 2006, 351), the same synonymous pair found in Baruch.
Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 298, followed by Xeravits, forthcoming) argues for a
parallel with Ps 77.40–41, which also has this pairing. Although there are the-
matic similarities between Baruch and Ps 77, this probably results not from
literary dependence, but from the fact that the authors of Baruch and Ps 77
were both influenced by Deuteronomy.
The term διαμόνιον is not common in the lxx. Although it occurs repeat-
edly in Tobit, it is not found in the same context or used in the same man-
ner as in Baruch. Psalm 105.37, Odes 2.17, and Is 65.3 are closer parallels, as
all speak of sacrificing to demons and of giving them the worship rightfully
reserved for God (cf. Ps 95.5). In Baruch, the form taken by the demons and
their exact nature are unclear. Some commentators, emphasising the child-
sacrificing nature of Deut 32.17 and Ps 105.37, claim that the author of Baruch
had this practice in mind. However, neither here nor in 4.35 does the author
develop a view of child sacrifice. Although this may be behind the text, there is
little evidence to support such a claim. Overall, the best option is to understand
the demons here as idols (Twelftree 2007, 93) without importing the otherwise
absent practice of child sacrifice.
As discussed above, the use of conjunctions changes according to the sec-
tions of Baruch. Whereas καί and ὅτι dominate 1.1–3.8 (Aejmelaeus 1993), there
is a greater diversity of conjunctions in 3.9–4.4, with fewer occurrences of καί
and more of δέ and οὐδέ. Verse 7 marks the first instance of γάρ in Baruch,
which is used 17 additional times in Bar 4.5–5.9 (18 total times in B; 20 in Rahlfs-
Hanhart). Here γάρ is used in an explanatory sense (Thrall 1962, 42–50; Porter
1994, 207) and functions on the level of the clause-complex rather than at the
higher discourse level. This is the dominant manner in which γάρ is used in
Baruch. Moreover, there are far fewer conjunctions in the final section, with a
near complete absence of the paratactic καί used to join sentences. The role of
the conjunction has changed in 4.5–5.9, with γάρ being now less marked while
other conjunctions become more prominent (cf. Aejmelaeus 1991, 33; 1993).
Vaticanus has a spelling variant παρoξύνατε in 4.7, where παρωξύνατε appears
in other manuscripts. Vaticanus has a tendency to omit the “ε” augment for
verbs whose stem begins with “o”, and so the leading vowel is not elongated
(Thackeray 1909, 199). This variation does not affect the translation or the
reading, but provides insight into the pronunciation and writing habits of the
Vaticanus scribe and/or his exemplar.
The bicolon in 4.8 is another excellent example of poetic parallelism in
which all of the semantic and syntactic features of the first line find their
counterpart in the second line.
122 chapter 3
ἐπελάθεσθε τὸν τροφεύσαντα ὑμᾶς θεὸν αἰώνιον

ἐλυπήσατε δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐκθρέψασαν ὑμᾶς Ιερουσαλημ
This bicolon provides a continuation of the pattern established in 4.7, παρoξύ-

νατε γὰρ τὸν ποιήσαντα ὑμᾶς, which was interrupted by the subordinate clause,
θύσαντες δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ. Here there are four aorist verb forms (two finite
and two participles). The second person plural verb is in the theme position,
but the focus of the sentence then switches to the finite verb’s object, which is
in the ultimate position. At this point the original subject becomes the object
(ὑμᾶς; ημας A). The only variation is the inclusion of two conjunctions in the
second line; while one is to be expected the second throws the balance off
ever so slightly. Nevertheless, the parallel is developed: both God and Jerusalem
nourish the people of Israel. The imagery of “nursing” for a male God is not
unique in the lxx (cf. Hos 11.4; Ez 16.4–7).
Baruch 4.8 contains the seventh of eleven references to Jerusalem in Baruch
and the first since the discussion of the negative events in 2.23. Although an
important element of the first half of Baruch, it is only in this final section
that Jerusalem becomes a character in the text. In the first part of Baruch
Jerusalem was presented as a historical city located in a specific geographic
locale. Jerusalem was well known as such in the ancient world (particularly
after its destruction, cf. Josephus, War 5.136–247) and was described by the
Elder Pliny as “by far the most splendid city in the East” (Hist. Nat. 5.70).
In 4.5–5.9 the geographic element is still present, but it is subordinated to
the persona of Jerusalem, an aspect that was, up to this point, completely
absent.
Although not the first occurrence of αἰώνιος in Baruch (it is used to describe
the covenant in 2.35), this is the first time in Baruch that “eternal” is paired
with God (θεὸν αἰώνιον, in attributive structure). The method of associating θεός
with αἰώνιος will change beginning at 4.10 to the substantival ὁ αἰώνιος and the
explicit reference to God will be elided for the remainder of the book. For a
more complete discussion, see Bar 5.2 below.
The subject(s) of the verbs are not explicit in 4.9a, but are provided in
4.8. The verbs are translated with “she”, referring to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is
presented here first as an observer: she has witnessed (εἶδεν) the anger from
God (ὀργὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) that has come upon the people (ὑμῖν, from the
perspective of the prophet). The inclusion of the preposition παρά is odd,
as it is superfluous. The “wrath of God” is typically formed solely with the
genitive (e.g., Ps 77.31). The preposition παρά plus genitive indicates direction
and is commonly employed with verbs of motion (e.g., coming, going), so the
inclusion of παρά in 4.9a may be used to emphasise the original location of
this anger. The pairing of παρά with a noun referring to God is only found
in the final section of Baruch (4.5–5.9) and is another distinctive syntactic
feature of this section (the only occurrence of παρά in the other sections is the
articular infinitive in 3.28). Examples of παρά paired with nouns referring to
God include: παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου (4.22), παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου (4.22, 35), παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
(4.24, 25, 36; 5.1, 2, 3), and παρʼ αὐτοῦ (3.9). παρὰ σοῦ (5.6) refers to Jerusalem
and is the only instance of παρά not coupled with a reference to God in Baruch.
For a fuller discussion of Baruch’s use of prepositions, see section 4.4 in the
Introduction.
Following this, at 4.9b, there is a marked shift in addresser from the prophet
to the character of Jerusalem, who gives an extended monologue in the first
person. Regarding this speech by Jerusalem, Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 290) has
argued that it falls within the genre of “oracle of salvation” (l’ oracle de salut).
Although his sub-genre assignment could use further delineation, he is right to
place this address by Jerusalem in a liturgical context, as it provides part of the
conclusion to the reading of Baruch before the people (cf. 1.14).
Jerusalem begins her speech not by addressing the people of Israel who
have been the focus until this point, but by speaking to the neighbours of Zion
(ἀκούσατε [+ μου L’], αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων). The term Σ(ε)ιων occurs three times
in Baruch and is always paired with αἱ πάροικοι (4.9, 14, 24). The term πάροικος
is typically glossed “stranger” (Lev 25.6, 23, 35, 40, 45, 47), but context here
suggests “neighbour” as the optimal gloss (cf. Jer 30.12). A similar use is found
in wider Greek literature (e.g., Aeschylus, Pers. 869).
The verb εἶδον has an ambiguous subject and can be translated in two ways,
as a first person singular, for Jerusalem (“I have seen …”), or as a third person
plural (“they have seen”) with the neighbours as the subject. The latter option is
adopted by nets, but this introduces an unnecessary level of confusion, as the
text would then switch from addressing the neighbours to speaking of them in
the third person. The consistent use of the first person in the following verses
supports the former view and is the one adopted here.
With the description of the exiles as Jerusalem’s sons and daughters, Bar 4.10
develops new roles and relationships for Jerusalem and her former inhabitants.
As is the case in Isaiah and other ancient works, Jerusalem is personified as a
woman. In doing this the author of Baruch makes use of a common ancient
motif of personifying cities as female (Biddle 1991; Baltzer 1992). Now her
former residents are described as her children (τῶν υἱῶν μου καὶ τῶν θυγατέρων),
which indicates that she is also a mother (a common feature in the lxx; e.g.,
Cant 2.7; 3.5, 10; Soph 3.14; 9.9). The introduction of this role is important for
Baruch, as it intensifies the relationship between Jerusalem and her inhabitants
and increases the emotional content of the poem.
124 chapter 3
The word used to describe the captivity of the children is αἰχμαλωσία. In

the first half of Baruch (1.1–3.8) the topic of exile (to Babylon) was repeatedly
discussed, but different vocabulary was used: ἀποικίζω in 1.9 and 2.14, ἀποικισμός
in 2.30, 32, and ἀποικία in 3.7, 8. In the final section of Baruch αἰχμαλωσία is used
three times to refer to the people’s captivity (4.10, 14, 24). Although the specific
location of the captivity is not provided, the first part of Baruch identified
Babylon as the place of exile and so it is likely that this passage would have
been read through that lens. This theme of exile is important for cohesion in
Baruch, as it reinforces the connection between the first and last sections.
As discussed above (1.5; 3.13), the manner by which the author(s) refers
to God changes in each section of Baruch. In the final section (4.5–5.9) the
substantive ὁ αἰώνιος becomes the default (4.14, 20, 22, 24, 35; 5.2). This absolute
usage, although dominant, is not the only appellation for God, as both θεός
(with and without the article) and “the holy one” (4.22, 37; 5.5) occur. The
expression ὁ αἰώνιος is a circumlocution for God and was introduced at 4.8 with
θεὸν αἰώνιον, a pairing not uncommon in the lxx (Gen 21.33; Is 40.28; Sus 35; Sus
[θ] 42). The articular usage found in Baruch, in which there is no additional
substantive or referent, is unique to the lxx (for related, but not exact, usages,
see 2Macc 1.25; 3Macc 6.12; Is 26.4; Sib. Or. 3.17). Consistent with the wisdom
section, κύριος is not used.
Continuing the imagery from 4.8 (ἐκτρέφω), Bar 4.11 describes Jerusalem
as “feeding” her children (τρέφω), this time with gladness (μετʼ εὐφροσύνης).
This is contrasted with Jerusalem’s sending her children out with weeping and
sadness (μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους). In the second clause, the object αὐτοὺς is
missing in most Greek majuscules (A B V), but is included in a number of other
manuscripts (Q L’ SyrHex). This not only completes the verb, but also creates a
better parallel between the two clauses, despite the fact that the latter is more
weighted, with the addition of a second object in the prepositional phrase. A
majority (eight of thirteen) of the occurrences of μετά in Baruch are found in
the final section (see section 4.4 in the Introduction), two of which are used
here in contrasting ways, μετʼ εὐφροσύνης and μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους. Both
are governed by genitive nouns in order to show the instrumental manner by
which the event is taking place (Porter 1994, 165). The contrast between joy and
weeping is well established in the lxx (e.g., 2Esdr 3.13; Est 9.22; Ecc 7.4; Tob 2.16)
and will be further developed in 4.23.
In light of the catastrophe of losing her children, Jerusalem implores her
listeners not to rejoice over her sufferings. This petition is formed by the third
person singular present active imperative ἐπιχαιρέτω (which takes the dative
μοι), the subject of which is the indefinite pronoun μηδείς (the only occurrence
in Baruch; for a discussion of the use of μηδείς as opposed to μηθείς for the
dating of lxx books, see Thackeray 1909, 58–62). The third person imperative
and use of μηδείς introduce a third-person addressee, which conflicts with the
second-person address in 4.9b. It is likely that Jerusalem’s neighbours are still
in view despite the change in person.
Jerusalem, having described herself as a mother in 4.10, now broaches the
topic of marital status. Calduch-Benages (2008, 148) argues that in the ane
it was customary to describe cities, particularly capital cities, as wives of the
patron gods (Hos 2.5–7; Is 23.10; Thr 4.21). In 4.12 Jersualem is no longer por-
trayed as married, but as a widow (τῇ χήρᾳ). The motif of the “widowed city”
appears in three other passages of the lxx, but only two refer to Jerusalem
(Is 54.4 and Thr 1.1; the other is Babylon, Is 47.8–9). Calduch-Benages (2008,
148, 153) claims that Israel and Judah in Jer 51.5 (mt; Jer 28.5, 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 nei-
ther Israel nor Judah have been widowed. Furthermore, these are not cites but
nations.
Although Jerusalem identifies herself as a widow, it is the sins of the children
that brought about this state. Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 302 n. 37) rightly notes
the emphasis on the children in Baruch: “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”. Claiming that the title “widow” is solely poetic may be going too far,
for Theodoret (Com.Bar. 4.12) rightly understands “widow” as metaphorical;
Jerusalem has been deprived of divine aid.
The sins of children are not left to the reader’s imagination, but are explicitly
identified following the causal conjunction διότι (this is a more marked con-
junction [Lee 2010, 77] and the only occurrence of διότι in Baruch). First, they
turned away from the law of God. This phrase, ἐξέκλ(ε)ιναν ἐκ νόμου θεοῦ, is iden-
tical to Job 34.27 and refers to the breaking of the command given to the people
of Israel by Moses and others (Deut 17.11; Jos 23.6; cf. Mal 2.8; 3.7; cd 16.9). Sec-
ond, the children of Israel did not know God’s righteous deeds, did not go in
the ways of his commands, and did not walk in the paths of his righteousness.
The unity of this verse is emphasised by the similarities in content, the three
third person plural aorist verbs, and also in the triple negative construction,
οὐκ … οὐδὲ … οὐδὲ, which, while indicating clausal divisions, provides unity by
repeating the latter conjunction. In Vaticanus these clauses are connected with
4.12 by a paratactic καί, although other mss have δέ (A Q V). The first clause of
4.13 opens with the fronting of the object δικαιώματα αὐτοῦ to occupy the theme
position and the placing of the verb in the final position. Clause two inverts this
order, while clause three retains the order of the first.
126 chapter 3
καὶ δικαιώματα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν (εφυλαξαν in A)

οὐδὲ ἐπορεύθησαν ὁδοῖς ἐντολῶν θεοῦ
οὐδὲ τρίβους παιδείας (+ αληθειας Q*) ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ ἐπέβησαν (V
omits ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)
For the last clause, Kneucker (1879, 324), arguing from his reconstructed He-
brew text, claims that αὐτοῦ should be paired with παιδείας. This is contrary to
the Greek construction, however, in which the natural pairing of αὐτοῦ is with
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ (V and LaSV omit ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, and so αὐτοῦ would then be asso-
ciated with παιδείας).
Kabasele Mukenge (1998, 294) argues that 4.12b–13 is a later redaction/har-
monisation by the editor, because it deviates from 4.6–7. No such problem is
noted in the manuscript tradition, however. The supposed different reasons
espoused in vv. 6–7 and 12b–13 are, moreover, not incompatible and do not
require a theory of editorial harmonisation. Others (e.g., Alonso Schökel 1990,
91–93) have identified parallels between these verses and Tob 13.9–18.
Verse 14 once again addresses the neighbours of Zion, imploring them with
the third person plural imperative (ἐλθάτωσαν) to come and remember (second
person plural μνήσθητε) the captivity of her sons and daughters. This change to
the second person is potentially disruptive to the reader, as the previous verses
did not have a second person addressee in view. One has to return to 4.9b and
the “neighbours of Zion” to find another second person reference. As of yet,
there has been no convincing theory as to how this should be understood. It
is possible that the similarities of 4.14 with 4.10—which are nearly identical
except that in v. 14 τῶν before θυγατέρων is omitted—brought the second person
address of 4.9b back to the author’s mind, or it might be that it was easier for
the author to address his audience using the second person plural. Neither of
these views is entirely satisfactory, however, and we are therefore left with a
text that alternates between third and second person addresses with no clear
rationale.
In 4.15, Jerusalem laments that he (i.e., God; ο θεος added by A to make it
explicit) brought a foreign nation against Israel, one that was from far away,
shameless, and speaking a different language (ἔθνος μακρόθεν, ἔθνος ἀναιδὲς καὶ
ἀλλόγλωσσον). This strongly parallels Deut 28.49–50 in which the Lord (κύριος),
as a punishment for Israel, promises to bring against them a nation from the
ends of the earth (ἔθνος μακρόθεν ἀπ’ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς), speaking a language they
will not understand (ὃ οὐκ ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ) and one who is shameless
(ἔθνος ἀναιδὲς). Burke (1982, 304) claims that this is a “source text” for Baruch,
and he may be right, although it depends what he means. It is clear that the
author of Baruch did not simply copy Deut 28, as some of its elements are
missing and there are differences in vocabulary. For example, ἀλλόγλωσσος is

only found in Baruch and Ez 3.6 (a likely gloss) and is absent from Deuteronomy
(cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.117, 120; Philo, Post. 91). Nevertheless, the similarities are
striking and strongly suggest Deuteronomic influence. Baruch is not the only
text to adopt the Deuteronomic imagery of bringing a distant nation with a
different language; this is also witnessed in Jer 5.15 and 6.22–23.
For Whitehouse (1913, 574), 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 63bc. Taking Baruch as a whole, the references
to Babylon in the first section (1.1–13) echo in this final section and lead the
reader to think in terms of the Babylonian exile. In this final section (4.5–5.9)
the author does not specify any particular foreign nation who exiled Israel,
however, and 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.
The second half of 4.15 in Vaticanus opens with ὅτι (so too Q, V, 86’, etc.), but
despite strong manuscript support both Ziegler and Rahlfs-Hanhart choose to
adopt the relative (οἵ) found in Alexandrinus. It is possible that the inferential
ὅτι that links the two sections was seen to be problematic, especially in light
of a strong parallel with Deut 23.49–50. In the Deuteronomy passage it is
the foreigners who are described as not respecting the elderly or the young,
but reading Baruch with ὅτι could indicate that God sent the enemy nation
because they (Israel) did not respect the old or young. This reading would
be supported by the (likely) understanding of the foreigners (now plural for
the singular nation) as the subject of 4.16 (ἀπήγαγον). It is possible that the
scribe of Alexandrinus had the latter difficulties with the implications of ὅτι
and changed his text to οι for that reason (the change could also have been an
accident and so not have interpretive motivations). The relative is not found
in Vaticanus Baruch, however, which provides an explicit reason for why God
sent the foreign nations: it was because they “did not respect the old man or
have mercy on the child”.
The foreign nation led away the beloved sons of the widow and separated
the solitary woman from her daughters (καὶ ἀπήγαγον τοὺς ἀγαπητοὺς τῆς χήρας
καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θυγατέρων τὴν μόνην ἠρήμωσαν). This is a well-balanced sentence in
which the second half mirrors the first: verb, direct object, genitive modifier—
genitive prepositional phrase, direct object, verb. As discussed above, “foreign-
ers” is the best choice as subject for both of the third person plural aorist
verbs (ἀπήγαγον [ηγαγον in A]; ἠρήμωσαν). The object of these two verbs is
Jerusalem, again described as a widow (τῆς χήρας) and as an isolated woman
128 chapter 3
(the substantival τὴν μόνην) (A and V have μονογενην in place of μόνην, but this
disrupts the balance of the verse).
The addressee changes in 4.17 from the neighbouring peoples to the children
of Jerusalem. This is enacted by a rhetorical question posed by Jerusalem in
the first person (ἐγὼ δὲ τί δυνατὴ βοηθῆσαι) and addressed to a second person
plural listener (ὑμῖν) (A smooths the Greek by replacing δυνατὴ with δυναμαι).
Although the preceding co-text suggests that the addressee (ὑμῖν) should be
the αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων, the content of 4.18 and the following verses supports
the view that Jerusalem is now speaking to her lost children: ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν τὰ
κακὰ ἐξελεῖται ὑμᾶς ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν.
Again we see γάρ appearing as an intersentential conjunction to connect
these two verses. The term κακός from the penitential prayer also returns
(cf. 2.7). Here Jerusalem speaks of the one who brought the bad things (ὁ
γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν τὰ κακὰ), and Alexandrinus (and L’) completes the sentence
by adding υμιν (so included by Rahlfs-Hanhart, but not by Zeigler 2006; the
possessive pronoun is marked with obeloi in SyrHex). The one who punished
the people will rescue them from the hands of their enemies (ὑμῶν; ημων in
V). The presentation of God as the nation’s deliverer is a continuation from
2.34, but is also very important in 4.5–5.9. In Baruch salvation is very much
tied to deliverance from physical/political affliction; there is no discussion
of “other-worldly” aspects of salvation (Burke 1982, 35). That the theme of
salvation is so prominent in Bar 4.5–5.9 has led scholars to posit even stronger
connections with Second Isaiah.
4.2 Jerusalem Addresses Her Children (4.19–29)

Vaticanus has its first major break at 4.19, despite the fact that a change of
addressee has already occurred at 4.17. As noted above in the introduction to
Bar 4.5–5.9, there is only one modern scholar of the stanza-structuring school
who breaks the text at 4.19 (Burke 1982, 5), and none of the scholars who
divide the text according to speaker puts a break here. The one who comes
closest to doing so is Steck (1993, 183), who claims that 4.17–20 are a transition
(Übergang). Of the other Greek majuscules, only Venetus segments the text
here. There is therefore little ancient or modern support for dividing the text
at 4.19. The scribe of Vaticanus probably broke the text here because of the
double (present) imperative paired with the nominative of address—a fully
grammaticalised subject (βαδίζετε, τέκνα, βαδίζετε). This is the only instance in
Baruch of a double imperative of the same word. Jerusalem directly addresses
her τέκνα, a term which acts as a nominative of address in four of its seven
occurrences in Baruch (4.19, 21, 25, 27).
Burke (1982, 5) claims, “Each individual unit in this third section is character-
istically introduced in Isaianic fashion by an imperative plus a vocative”. Burke
misspeaks when he claims that this structure is “characteristically Isaianic”,

however (he often uses “Isaianic” to refer to Second Isaiah). The author of
Isaiah did make use of a single imperative plus vocative/nominative of address
formulation (e.g., 1.2; 8.9; 23.4; 33.2; 37.17; 38.3; 40.2; 54.1), but there are not
enough instances in Second Isaiah to justify calling this a stylistic pattern, and
this formulation also occurs in other texts, including Proverbs (16 times), Sirach
(12 times), Tobit (21 times), and Psalms (61 times) (for θαρσέω in particular, see
Tob 7.17; 8.21; 11.11). Similar formulations are also found in Baruch’s lament (2.14,
16, 17; 3.2) and wisdom poem (3.9; 4.2).
On the other hand, the double imperative and vocative/nominative of ad-
dress is a distinctive feature of Second and Third Isaiah, particularly in ref-
erence to Jerusalem (cf. Is 51.9 [“Awake, awake, O Jerusalem”]; 51.17 [“Awake,
awake, stand up, O Jerusalem”]; 52.1 [“Awake, awake, O Sion”]; 60.1 [“Shine,
shine, O Jerusalem”]. See also 52.11 [“Depart, depart”, with no vocative] and 40.1
[“Comfort, comfort, O my people”]). This double imperative occurs only once
in Baruch (here in 4.19) and therefore cannot be used to claim Isaianic related-
ness for the standard pairing of the imperative with the vocative/nominative
of address. Rather the examples drawn from other works suggest the opposite:
that the imperative plus vocative/nominative of address pairing that is promi-
nent in Baruch is not dependent or inspired by Second Isaiah, but rather is a
grammatical feature common to the lxx and wider Greek literature (cf. Adams
2016).
After the double imperative, Jerusalem characterises herself as being left
desolate (κατελείφθην ἔρημος). The use of the first person pronoun ἐγώ is not
common in Baruch (four times), but there is a trio of occurrences in this section
(4.17, 19, 22). The first is followed by an explanatory γάρ introducing the reason
why the children should walk away: Jerusalem is desolate. The latter term is
witnessed in other parts of the lxx, particularly in reference to the Jewish exile
(2Esdr 9.9; 12.17; Is 64.10; Jer 40.10; 51.2; Tob 14.4).
Jerusalem further claims that she has removed (ἐξεδυσάμην) her robe of
peace and put on (ἐνεδυσάμην) sackcloth for her supplication. The paired ap-
pearance of the antithetical ἐξεδυσάμην and ἐνεδυσάμην (cf. also 5.1) is well
attested in the lxx (Lev 6.4; 16.23; 1Macc 10.62; Cant 5.3; Ez 44.19). Conversely,
the phrase τὴν στολὴν τῆς εἰρήνης is unique in the lxx. The term στολή in the
lxx often glosses priestly garments and is typically accompanied by a geni-
tive modifier (e.g., Ex 28.2, 4; 31.10). In Sirach (6.29, 31; 45.7; 50.11) the author
speaks of a robe of glory (στολὴν δόξης), a phrase that is also adopted in later
literature (1 En 62.15–16 [garments of glory and life]; T. Levi 8.5 [holy and glori-
ous garment]). The closest parallel to the latter phrase is in Ps Sol 11.8, where
the author tells Jerusalem, “Put on your clothes of glory (ἱμάτια τῆς δόξης),
130 chapter 3
prepare your robe of holiness (στολὴν τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου)” (cf. also Ps Sol
2.20).
The lack of a conjunction at the opening of 4.20 has been called problematic
by modern readers, and also appears to have been so for ancient scribes, some
of whom added one (δε V L’ Ambr.; και Theodoret). Similarly, δέ in the second
half (without a preceding μέν) was also perceived to be awkward by some and
was changed to καί (A L’ Theodoret). This is not the only verse in Bar 4.5–5.9 that
does not have an opening conjunction. Other verses begin with imperatives,
which, for the author of Baruch, seems to eliminate the need for conjunctions.
The omission of the opening conjunction in 4.20 is distinctive because 4.20
commences with a verb in the indicative mood.
Regarding Baruch’s characterisation of Jerusalem, Calduch-Benages (2008,
161) claims that Jerusalem is depicted as having a prophetic role because she
intercedes for her people by “directing her supplication to the Lord for her
sinful children”. The latter statement is not accurate, however. 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), and only asserts that she will cry out to God. The fact that
none of Jerusalem’s statements are directed specifically to God undermines
Calduch-Benages’s claim that Jerusalem is acting as an intercessor between
her people and God. Nevertheless, this is not to argue that God is outside the
hearing of Jerusalem’s statements, or to claim that the author of Baruch saw
Jerusalem’s lament as functioning on multiple levels. Furthermore, I agree that
Baruch portrays Jerusalem as acting in a prophetic role, on the grounds, with
Alonso Schökel (1990, 86), that she not only laments (4.9b–20), which is an
action commonly associated with the prophets, but also actively calls out to
her children to persuade them to take courage because God is able to rescue
them (4.21).
Verse 21 opens with two imperatives separated by a nominative of address
(θαρρεῖτε, τέκνα, βοήσατε; θαρσεῖτε in A V Q). Unlike 4.19 the two imperatives
in Vaticanus’s Bar 4.21 have different stems and verb-forms (present and aorist,
respectively; for the aspectual force of imperatives, see 4.27). In the lxx, the
imperative βοήσατε is often (though not always) accompanied by an object, a
role fulfilled in this instance by the preposition πρὸς with the accusative τὸν
θεόν. According to Baruch’s Jerusalem, the act of crying out to God will have a
direct consequence: he will deliver (ἐξελεῖται) them from domination, from the
hand of their enemies. The latter is the third instance of the future tense form
in the Jerusalem poem, which began just after Jerusalem started addressing her
children at 4.18. Although the future tense-form is found throughout Baruch,
4.5–5.9 has the greatest concentration (20 times: 4.18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 × 2, 25 × 2,
27, 29, 30, 33, 34×2, 35×2; 5.3, 4, 9). The recurring use of the future in this section
not only builds cohesion and markedness, but it grammaticalises the sense
of expectation found in the text. In Hellenistic Greek, the use of the future is
not strictly temporal, but is primarily anticipatory (Porter 1993, 403–440). The
author of Baruch talks about events that he expects/hopes/believes will come
to pass, and develops the prospect of future restoration by painting a picture of
divine deliverance.
In 4.21, the preposition ἐκ occurs three times in the subordinate clause. First,
it is prefixed to αἰρέω to form ἐξελεῖται (yielding an intensified meaning). This
is followed by two independent uses of ἐκ that are linked to the preceding verb
and indicate deliverance from two separate but parallel objects: “dominance”
(ἐκ δυναστείας; omitted by A 311) and “the hand of enemies” (ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν). A
second person possessive pronoun (υμων) is missing in Vaticanus Baruch, but
has been added in other manuscripts (e.g., A LaC Arab).
Baruch 4.22 opens with a fully grammaticalised subject (ἐγώ) in the theme
position (highly marked, Porter 2009b, 72) and a γάρ that functions at the
clause complex level. The superfluous subject pronoun highlights Jerusalem
as the character who has hoped in (ἤλπισα ἐπὶ τῷ αἰωνίῳ; + ηδη Q V) the
Everlasting for her children’s salvation. The verb ἐλπίζω is often paired with
ἐπί (and occasionally εἰς or ἐν) in the lxx (Conybeare 1905, 87–88), although
rarely in extra-biblical literature (e.g., Galen, Ven. Sect. Er. Rom. 11.189), where
ἐλπίζω is normally followed directly by a dative (“to hope in”) or accusative (“to
hope for”). In the lxx, there are a number of near parallels for the first part of
4.22 (Pss 12.6; 30.15; 54.24; Is 25.9), but none constitute literary dependence. It is
best to view 4.22 as drawing broadly on lxx vocabulary and themes rather than
specifically on any particular text.
A similar argument could be made for παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου σωτῆρος ὑμῶν, which
Burke (1982, 33) claims “corresponds precisely to Isaianic ‘yhwh your Saviour’
(cf. Is 49.26, 60.16)”. This is inaccurate, however, as “yhwh your Saviour” in lxx
Isaiah is represented either by κύριος ὁ ῥυσάμενός (49.26) or κύριος ὁ σῴζων σε
(60.16). Although it is possible that “yhwh your Saviour” could be rendered
“κύριος σωτῆρος ὑμῶν”, the use of παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου (even if it is a possible
circumlocution) should not be too quickly made equivalent, because αἰωνίος
represents an important characteristic of God for Baruch. The use of a time-
indicating noun reinforces the prominent temporal theme in the Jerusalem
passage and supports the hope of future salvation. Because God is eternal his
promises have not failed, but one day will be fulfilled.
Jerusalem’s hope is rewarded, as joy comes to her from the Holy One (καὶ
ἦλθέ[ν] μοι χαρὰ παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου). Once again (cf. 4.9) παρά co-occurs with a
name for God. The substantive ὁ ἅγιος for the name of God occurs throughout
132 chapter 3
the lxx, particularly in Isaiah (41.20; 48.17; 49.7; cf. also Sir 48.20; Hab 1.12; 3.3;
Bar 4.37; 5.5). Jerusalem’s joy is based on the act of mercy, which is signaled
by ἐπί and the dative (ἐπὶ τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ). This mercy will come (future ἥξει)
quickly (ἐν τάχει) from their everlasting saviour (παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου σωτῆρος ὑμῶν;
ημων Q V).
The Greek in 4.23 is well balanced, as the subsequent clause resolves the
tension developed in the primary:
ἐξέπεμψα γὰρ ὑμᾶς μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ,

ἀποδώσει δέ μοι ὁ θεὸς ὑμᾶς μετὰ χαρμοσύνης καὶ εὐφροσύνης εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
Conybeare (1905, 50) rightly notes the lack of μέν … δέ constructions in the lxx.
The author of Baruch knew to govern the clauses with conjunctions, however.
Here the clause complex opens with γάρ, while the subsequent clause has δέ.
The first person (embedded subject) aorist is in the theme position of the
primary clause, and is followed by an explicit object (ὑμᾶς) and a prepositional
phrase formed on μετά and two genitives (μετὰ πένθους καὶ κλαυθμοῦ; cf. 4.11).
The second clause begins with a future verb-form and has a fronted indirect
object (μοι), which retains the continuity of participant from the first clause.
There is a change of subject (fully grammaticalised ὁ θεὸς), and another μετά
prepositional phrase with a double object (μετὰ χαρμοσύνης καὶ εὐφροσύνης) (for
χαρμοσύνης, see Bar 2.23; cf. Jer 31.33; 40.11). Unlike the first clause, the second
concludes with a temporal deictic marker (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), which outlines the
duration of Israel’s positive emotional state.
Baruch 4.24 is formed on the correlative construction ὥσπερ … οὕτως, which
also occurs in 4.33 (so also 4.28, but only in A, all other Greek mss lack οὕτως).
The use of ὥσπερ invites comparison (Robertson 1919, 1140) and this is provided
by the author. In addition to ὥσπερ the author includes another conjunction
(γάρ) and an adverb (νῦν). This type of clustering is not common in Baruch and
is therefore marked. This is the second and last use of νῦν in Baruch (three
times in A, cf. 4.28) and is balanced by a temporal marker in the following
clause (ἐν τάχει). The neighbours of Zion (αἱ πάροικοι Σ(ε)ιων) in 4.10 and 4.14
were witnesses to the desolation of Jerusalem and the way in which the people
were punished because they had angered God. In 4.24, Jerusalem encourages
her children that those who witnessed their demise (τὴν ὑμετέραν αἰχμαλωσίαν)
will also witness their restoration. The possessive adjective ὑμετέραν (ημετεραν
V) is not common in the lxx (appearing only five times), but is well attested
in classical literature. It appears to function in a similar manner to shorter
possessive pronouns, although there may be an intensifying aspect (Porter 1994,
131).
The adverb οὕτως opens the second clause and develops the comparison: just
as they have seen your captivity, so they will see (future ὄψονται) your salvation.
The phrase τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν (ημων A) σωτηρίαν could be translated in
two ways depending on which object ὑμῶν modifies: “the salvation from your
God” or “your salvation from God”. Although both are possible, the latter is to
be preferred because 1) it emphasises that it is Israel’s salvation at stake; 2)
none of the other occurrences of παρά paired with God in Baruch include a
personal pronoun (cf. 4.9); and 3) other ancient scribes preferred this reading
and moved the modifier to a position after “salvation” (e.g., L’ Syr SyrHex LaV).
The subject of the final subordinate clause, which is identified by the relative
pronoun (ἣ), is salvation, which is expected to arrive with great glory and in the
splendour (λαμπρότης) of the Everlasting. The term λαμπρότης is rare in the lxx;
two of six occurrences are found in Baruch (4.24; 5.3; cf. the semantically related
λάμψιν in 4.2). Typically glossed as “lightness”, the context in Baruch supports
the rendering “splendour” (cf. Is 60.1–3) (Muraoka 2009).
Vaticanus has a minor break before Jerusalem’s address to her children at
4.25. This break is supported by other manuscripts (A major, Q minor), most
notably Coptic 822, in which this is the only paragraph division (see section
6 “Sense-Unit Delineations” in the Introduction). The paragraph opens with a
standard imperative and nominative of address, but in this case the order is
reversed and the grammatical addressee precedes the imperative. This is an
atypical syntactic arrangement and is therefore marked. The typical manner
in which μακροθυμέω (as an intransitive verb) is constructed is by pairing the
verb with ἐπί and a noun in the dative case (lsj). Uniquely here, μακροθυμέω is
transitive with a direct object in the accusative, which has resulted in a separate
entry in Muraoka (2009). The object is τὴν … ὀργήν, which brackets a modifying
prepositional phrase and aorist participle (παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπελθοῦσαν ὑμῖν).
Following a raised point punctuation in Vaticanus, the subject shifts to ὁ
ἐ(κ)χθρός, placed third in the phrase after the predicate and object (κατεδίωξέ[ν]
σε). Vaticanus omits the σου from ὁ ἐ(κ)χθρός σου, reading “the enemy” rather
than “your enemy”. Although this makes the clause refer to a generic enemy,
it is otherwise not significant. Regarding the spelling, the original scribe wrote
ἐκχθρός, a form that is found in many post-Ptolemaic papyri (Thackeray 1909,
102). The corrector did not like this spelling, however, and erased the offending
κ. In Vaticanus, there is no introductory conjunction, an omission that was
addressed in other manuscripts (e.g., Α Q V LaV add γαρ).
The next clause is introduced by καί, which, as it is not adversative, fails to
capture the reversal between the clauses. Although the enemy has overtaken
them, the tables will be turned (soon) and they will see their enemies’s destruc-
tion and triumph over them. This expectation is developed (again; cf. 4.21)
134 chapter 3
through the use of two verbs in the future middle form. Both of these verbs
are in the second person singular, which lacks concord with the second person
plural imperative in the opening of the verse. This shift, although distracting
for the reader, does not obscure the passage’s meaning and has precedence
(cf. 3.9). After the first verb (ὄψει) there is a fronted genitive modifier (αὐτοῦ)
before the object in the accusative. The timing for this reversal is provided by
the temporal phrase ἐν τάχει. This phrase only occurs twelve times in the Greek
Bible, with three occurrences clustered here (4.22, 24, 25). Ultimately Israel will
stand on the necks of their enemies, a classic pose of domination over a subju-
gated foe. Again there is a change of number from singular enemy (ὁ ἐ[κ]χθρός;
αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀπώλειαν) to plural necks (ἐπὶ τραχήλους αὐτῶν). The last phrase ἐπὶ
τραχήλους αὐτῶν ἐπιβήσῃ is nearly identical to Deut 33.29 and parallels Jos 10.24.
Theodoret (Com.Bar. 4.25) suggests specific enemies for the Jews: “referring by
foe to Idumeans, Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines”.
In Rahlfs-Hanhart, Ziegler (2006), and the corrected version of Vaticanus,
Jerusalem changes from speaking directly to her children in the second person
to speaking about them in the third person (second person returns at the
beginning of 4.27). However, in 4.26 the original scribe wrote ἐπορεύθησας,
a second person singular aorist verb, thus interpreting οἱ τρυφεροί μου as a
nominative of address with corresponding article (Conybeare 1905, 54; cf. 4.5).
The following verb (ἤρθησαν) was not given the second person form, however,
and the change to the third person remained, albeit slightly later than in the
corrected version. The children of Israel, prior to their exile, are described as οἱ
τρυφεροί. τρυφερός is a rare word in the lxx with 10 occurrences, and is glossed
by scholars as “pampered”, “delicate”, and “effeminate”, all of which have strong
negative connotations. These pampered children have walked rough paths and
have been seized as sheep by their enemies (cf. Job 24.2).
As outlined in Table 3 in the Introduction, there are twenty-three imper-
atives in Bar 4.5–5.9, six in the present tense-form (4.5, 12, 19× 2, 21, 30) and
seventeen in the aorist (4.9b, 14, 21, 25, 27, 28×2, 36, 37; 5.1 × 2, 2 × 2, 5 × 4). More
relevant to this verse are four imperatives of θαρσέω, three in the present tense-
form (4.5, 21, 30) and one in the aorist (4.27). In the lxx and nt combined, θαρ-
σέω occurs 36 times, with 35 in the imperative (the one exception is θαρροῦσα in
Prov 1.21). Of the 35 imperatives, 33 are in the present tense-form and only two
in the aorist (Jdt 11.1; Bar 4.27). That such consistency exists suggests that this
may be an idiomatic usage (Fanning 1990, 350), or that θαρσέω, because of its
association with the imperfective aspect, is marked. The use of the aorist in 4.27
is distinctive and stands out because of its rarity. (This discussion excludes ref-
erences to θαρρέω, which, despite its strong association with θαρσέω, functions
differently: out of nine occurrences in the Greek Bible three are imperatives,
three indicatives, two participles, and one an infinitive. Aspectually, they are
similar, with all but one [θαρρῆσαι, 2Cor 10.2] in the present tense-form.)
There is some obscurity in the second half of 4.27 that hinders a smooth
English translation. Some components appear to have been elided. The subject
of the third person future verb (ἔσται) is ὑμῶν … μνεία (with a fronted genitive
modifier), which is interposed by a preposition and participial phrase ὑπὸ τοῦ
ἐπάγοντος (επαγαγοντος Q V L’). Translated literally into English this would
read, “Your memory will be by the one who brought”. This does not make
communicative sense and therefore, in light of the context and the parallels
in 4.18, 29, I have translated it, “Your memory will be [preserved] by the one
who brought [these things]”.
Baruch 4.28 opens with ὥσπερ γὰρ. As mentioned in 4.24, there are three
occurrences of ὥσπερ in Baruch (4.24, 28, 33), all of which are followed by γάρ,
forming a conjunctive pairing. This collocation is witnessed 25 times in the
Greek Bible, almost exclusively in books whose language of composition was
originally Greek.
The Greek in the first half of 4.28 is difficult to render into English. The
intended meaning is readily discernible, but it is tricky to relate the articular
infinitive with preposition to the finite construction. The first clause reads
ἐγένετο ἡ διάνοια ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ πλανηθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. Here the clausal subject
is διάνοια, “mind” or “understanding”, which is preceded by ἐγένετο. The issue
comes with the aorist passive articular infinitive εἰς τὸ πλανηθῆναι, which does
not neatly join with ἐγένετο. The role of the passive voice is to indicate passive
causality, with the object of the action foregrounded as the grammatical subject
of the verb. The translation of nets, “for just as your intention became to go
astray from God”, adequately captures the sense and awkwardness of the verse.
I have translated it, “for just as your mind was led astray from God”, to highlight
the use of the passive (πλανηθῆναι).
The Greek of the second clause is more straightforward, although again we
see an incomplete verb-object pairing. Jerusalem commands (imperative) her
children to multiply by ten (δεκαπλασιάσατε), but the author does not provide
the necessary object: what are the Israelites supposed to multiply? The closest
possible referent is the aorist passive participle ἐπιστραφέντες (corrected from
ἐπιστραφές B*), the pairing of which, Burke (1983, 221) claims, is best translated,
“Turn yourself around ten times to seek him”. His rendering is based upon a
misconstrual of voice, however.
Two possible ways to interpret what Harwell (1915, 55) calls “impossible
Greek” are to understand Jerusalem as imploring her children to seek God
repeatedly, using a 10× multiplier for emphasis (décuplez, Assan-Dhôte and
Moatti-Fine 2008, 118–119), or as an indicator of effort, “ten times as hard”
136 chapter 3
(Moore 1977, 310). Henderson (2014) has recently suggested that the phrase
could possibly refer to the return of Israel with tenfold the number who went
into exile, an understanding that might indicate a relationship to Zach 8.23 (cf.
Is 49.20–21), which describes how a returning Jew would be accompanied by
ten non-Jews who wished to return with him and seek God. This is the only
occurrence in the lxx of verb δεκαπλασιάζω (though for the adverb, cf. Dan 1.20),
which is also very rare in wider Greek literature (cf. Philo, Mig. 169).
The final verse of this paragraph begins by repeating the common refrain:
it was God who brought these bad things upon his people. First appearing in
2.9, the use of ἐπάγω with God as the subject, τὰ κακὰ as the object (sometimes
omitted), and the Jewish people as the indirect object repeatedly arises in this
section of Baruch (4.9, 10, 14, 15, 18, 27, 29). In addition to bringing bad things
on Israel, God is also seen as the source/bringer of joy, a theme more fully
developed in the final section.
4.3 Address to Jerusalem (4.30–5.9)

Baruch 4.30–5.9 is the final section of Baruch and provides a closing both to the
prophetic section (4.5–5.9) and to Baruch as a whole. Here, the text shifts from
having Jerusalem address her exiled children to having the prophet of 4.5–9a
address Jerusalem. Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine (2008, 120) label Bar 4.30–5.9
“God responds to Jerusalem”. Although their description is not inaccurate, it is
important to recognise that God is not directly speaking to Jerusalem, but is
working through an intermediary (i.e., a prophet, possibly Baruch).
One of the most discussed features of this final section is the similarity
between Bar 4.36–5.9 and Ps Sol 11.3–8. A number of scholars argue for the
priority of the Psalms of Solomon over Baruch, a few (e.g., Pesch 1955) argue
for Baruchan priority, and many are unsure about the relationship between the
two (Steck 1993, 240–242), suggesting a common shared source (Kneucker 1879,
43–44; Pfeiffer 1949, 422; for a lengthy discussion, see Kabasele Mukenge 1990,
330–356). The relationship between Baruch and Psalms of Solomon (whatever
it may be) has also been used to determine the date of Baruch, or at least of the
final section/compilation (see Moore 1974). These parallels will be discussed
below where appropriate.
Nearly every modern scholar breaks the text at 4.30. Vaticanus and Alexan-
drinus have a major break here, Marchalianus a minor break, and (interest-
ingly) Venetus no break at all. Vaticanus has only one other division within
4.30–5.9, a paragraphos at 4.36. Modern scholars often prefer to divide the text
into more sections (see above) and to identify intricate substructures. As a
recent example, Henderson (2014) claims that the Zion Song (4.30–5.4) has a
seven-part concentric structure with 4.37a as its focal point.
The function of the imperative is to give a command. Embedded within this

mood is a social relationship in which the speaker exerts his authority/elevated
status by giving a command to an (inferior) person (Halliday and Hasan 1985,
12). In Bar 4.19–29 Jerusalem commanded her children to hope and trust in God.
In 4.30–5.9 there is a new speaker—the prophet of 4.5–9a (Baruch?)—who
has a different relationship with Jerusalem, one of authority, which is gram-
maticalised through the imperative. Thus, although there is no change in the
grammatical construction (imperative + vocative), the change in speaker/lis-
tener creates a new interpersonal dynamic. At 4.30 there is a change from a
plural subject (the children of Israel) to a singular one (Jerusalem). The remain-
der of the imperatives in Baruch are in the second person singular.
Jerusalem is told to take comfort because the one who named her will
comfort her (θάρσει, Ιερουσαλημ, παρακαλέσει σε ὁ ὀνομάσας σε). In addition to
the use of imperative + nominative of address, Bar 4.30–5.9 also continues
the use of the future verb form (παρακαλέσει) to grammaticalise expectation
(cf. 4.21). This future form is not found in the other manuscripts (A Q*(vid)
V), which have the παρακαλει and so make a future expectation a realised
event. The person comforting Jerusalem will be the one who named her (ὁ
ὀνομάσας). The latter phrase is interesting, but it fits well in the larger narrative,
as God (through his prophet) gives Jerusalem new names in 5.4. The phrase
ὁ ὀνομάσας is unique in the lxx, but there is a near parallel in Is 62.2, which
also refers to Jerusalem: καὶ καλέσει σε τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ καινόν ὃ ὁ κύριος ὀνομάσει
αὐτό.
Baruch 4.31–32 is structured on a thrice repeated exclamation of δείλαιος.
The first two subjects are in the plural (δείλαιοι οἱ σὲ κακώσαντες; δείλαιαι αἱ
πόλεις), and the last in the singular (δειλαία ἡ δεξαμένη). The term δείλαιος is
rare in the lxx with only five occurrences. One of interest is Nah 3.7, where the
prophet foretells that after Nineveh’s destruction people will exclaim, δελαία
Νινευη. Notable in the Baruch clauses is the lack of predicates. The verbless
clause is common in Greek (Porter 1994, 287), although not in English. In
English, the future mood from 4.30 (in Vaticanus) should be used, perpetuating
the sense of expectation. In this case, the destruction of Jerusalem’s enemies is
expected.
The first δείλαιος exclamation condemns those who harmed Jerusalem (σε)
and those who rejoiced at her fall. Here two aorist participial substantival
phrases share a common article (οἱ σὲ κακώσαντες καὶ ἐπιχάρεντες). Those harm-
ing and those rejoicing could represent two different (though united) groups,
or they could represent one group with two given names/descriptors. Both are
grammatically viable options (Wallace 1983), but the latter is to be preferred.
The second δείλαιος exclamation addresses the cities which had enslaved
138 chapter 3
Jerusalem’s children (αἷς ἐδούλευσαν τὰ τὲκνα σου). The dative relative pronoun
indicates who was being served (αἱ πόλεις). The final δείλαιος is applied to the
city (singular) that received the Jerusalemites. A majority of scholars claim
that this is a reference to Babylon (Theodoret), although some (Kneucker 1879)
argue for a Roman background and posit Rome as the un-named city. The
destruction of foreign cities is not an unfamiliar concept in Judaism, especially
in relation to end-time redemption (cf. Is 54.3; Sir 36.1–12; 1 En. 91.9).
The unnamed city is in focus for the next three verses (4.33–35), in which
the author further outlines its destruction. As in 4.24, verse 33 has an ὥσπερ …
οὕτως construction, which indicates a balanced comparison: “just as … so …”
This balance is further developed through consistent pairing of the verb with a
prepositional phrase (three times) involving ἐπί, a dative article and noun, and
an adjoining possessive pronoun:
ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐχάρη ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ πτώσει καὶ εὐφράνθη ἐπὶ τῷ πτώματί σου,
οὕτως λυπηθήσεται ἐπὶ τῇ ἑαυτῆς ἐρημίᾳ.
The first half of the latter stanza is twice as long as the second and has strong
parallelism, reinforcing the idea that the city celebrated Jerusalem’s destruc-
tion. She can expect to be grieved (future λυπηθήσεται) at her own desolation
to the same degree she rejoiced at Jerusalem’s downfall.
At the beginning of 4.34 there is a first person verb (περιελῶ; third person
in O LaL). The first person is out of place in Bar 4.30–5.9, where the second
person address and third person discussion of God and his actions frame the
bulk of the narrative. The subject of the first person must be God, and the
attribution of a saying directly to him disrupts the narrative flow. What God
promises is that he will take away the city’s rejoicing at her multitudes, such
that her pride becomes mourning. In the English translation I have added a
second possessive in order to improve the flow of the English (cf. Theodoret).
Although not captured in English translations, there is a potential word play in
Greek with τὸ ἀγαλλίαμα and τὸ ἀγαυρίαμα (this is absent in A, which has ἄγαλμα
in place of ἀγαλλίαμα).
In the final clause, καὶ τὸ ἀγαυρίαμα αὐτῆς εἰς πένθος, Vaticanus omits the
ἔσται which is found in other manuscripts. This does not result in faulty Greek,
however. Moulton (1908, 71–72; bdf §145; Wallace 1996, 47–48) rightly notes
that εἰς with the accusative can be used to replace a predicate (cf. Gen 2.24; Is
40.4). In this case the best translational insertion would be a future form of εἰμί
(i.e., ἔσται), as it provides continuity with other future forms in 4.34–35.
Destruction will come about by fire, which the Everlasting will bring. The
narrative again refers to God in the third person, a style that will be maintained
for the remainder of the book (for παρὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου, see 4.9). As mentioned
above, Babylon is likely the city in focus, although the reference to destruction
could also apply to other cities. Kneucker (1879) goes too far in equating the
fiery destruction with the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in ad 79 and the asso-
ciated destruction of Pompeii, although later readers may have made such a
connection.
The most interesting aspect of 4.35 is not its syntax, but its content: the
verse claims that the foreign city will be inhabited by demons for a long time.
As discussed previously with regard to 4.7, διαμόνιον does not occur regularly
in the lxx (except in Tobit). In 4.7 the children of Israel were accused of
sacrificing to demons and not to God. Here a different context exists, although
the use of the same (distinctive) term connects the two passages. Moore (1983,
237–238) argues that, unlike 4.7 in which actual demons are in view, here the
alleged translator of the Hebrew has mistranslated “wild animals” as “demons”,
influenced by Is 13.19–21 and 34.14. His argument draws too heavily on the
alleged Hebrew text, however, and is inapplicable to a consideration of how the
text would have been received by later readers. Furthermore, even if Is 34.14
did provide background for “demons” in Bar 4.35, it is questionable whether
the author of Baruch would have known of the original Hebrew of the Isaianic
text. The typical understanding of διαμόνιον as idols (Twelftree 2007), although
not impossible, does not fit the context well. Neither is a literal “sending of
demons” a convincing concept. Theodoret (Com.Bar. 4.35), an early Christian
reader, does not dwell on this point. He claims that “she [Babylon] sustained
this retribution under the Persians”. Additionally, Theodoret speaks of the
city’s being uninhabited (thus not inhabited by demons). Overall, there is
no satisfying interpretation to the issue of demons in Baruch. The negative
depiction of the foreign city is clear, but only from context.
The final paragraph break in Vaticanus occurs at 4.36 (paragraphos). The
same text division is found in Alexandrinus (major break), and in Venetus
and Marchalianus (minor break). In Vaticanus, the final paragraph opens with
another imperative plus nominative of address (most other mss have περιβλε-
ψαι), but this instance is distinctive in that a modifying prepositional phrase
indicates the direction Jerusalem should look (περίβλεψε πρὸς ἀνατολάς, Ιερου-
σαλημ). Baruch 4.36 and 5.5 are the only places in the lxx or the nt in which
περιβλέπω is governed by πρός (no other examples were found on tlg or seg).
Moore (1977, 311) asserts that Baruch is so confident that he speaks in the past
tense. This understanding overlooks the aspectual nature of most imperatives,
however (Moule 1959, 20–21; Porter 1993, 336–360; Fanning 1990, 325).
Looking to the east (πρὸς ἀνατολάς), Jerusalem will see her joy coming to
her from God (τὴν εὐφροσύνην τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι ἐρχομένην; επερχομενην A).
140 chapter 3
As in 5.8 and the rest of the lxx, πρός is paired with a bearing to indicate a
cardinal direction (Johannessohn 1925, 267–268). The term εὐφροσύνη occurs
seven times in Baruch, appearing in each of the three major sections (e.g., 2.23;
3.35). The highest concentration is in Bar 4.5–5.9, where it appears five times
(4.11, 23, 29, 36; 5.9). The return of joy is an important theme in 4.5–5.9 and is
used by the author to encourage his readers and to provide them with hope for
the future. This joy has its origin in God and can only come from him.
The joy that is coming to Jerusalem results from the return of her sons
(ἰδοὺ ἔρχονται οἱ υἱοί σου). Interestingly this passage claims that Jerusalem sent
her sons away (οὕς ἐξαπέστειλας, second person), not that they were taken
from her by God or a third party. Nevertheless, they are returning, having
been gathered from the east to the west by the word of the holy one, and are
rejoicing in the glory of God. Apart from the dominant idea of the return of
Jerusalem’s children, the next most frequent topic in 4.30–5.9 is God’s glory,
which is mentioned seven times in eleven verses (4.37; 5.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9). This
recurring motif forms a semantic string, which creates strong unity within
this passage. This glory, moreover, is often collocated with God. Specified by
a genitive modifier, the attribution to God provides the parameters for the type
of glory Jerusalem will have: it is divine, godly glory as opposed to human glory.
Theodoret (Com.Bar. 4.37) highlights the origin of this glory by noting that God
alone has restored Jerusalem; Jerusalem the vulnerable widow did not (and was
not able to) restore herself.
In addition to noting the recurring motif of Jerusalem’s restoration, a number
of commentators (e.g., Burke 1983, 239–240) claim that there is a significant
parallel between 4.36–37 and Ps Sol 11.2–3. These two passages share a common
theme of the restoration of her children to Jerusalem, as well as substantial
shared vocabulary. There are also considerable parallels between 4.36–37 and
5.5 (see below). The similarities between 5.5 and Ps Sol 11.2–3 are even more
striking and may form the better parallel. Similarities within Baruch should
not be overlooked, however, as they further develop the unity of the passage
and the section’s main themes (Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 349).
In light of her sons’s return, Jerusalem is told (aorist imperative ἔκδυσει)
to take off her robe of mourning and oppression (στολὴν τοῦ πένθους καὶ τῆς
κακώσεώς σου). This is the fifth and final use of πένθος in Baruch (4.9, 11, 23,
34; 5.1), an important term that has contributed to development of the theme
of grief in Bar 4.5–5.9. In addition to πένθος there are a number of terms in
this section in Louw and Nida’s semantic domain 25 “Attitudes and Emotions”:
θαρσέω (4.5, 21, 27, 30), λυπέω (4.8, 33), εὐφροσύνη (4.11, 23, 29, 36; 5.9), κλαυθμός
(4.11, 23), ἐπιχαίρω (4.12, 31), αἰσχύνομαι (4.15), ἀγαπητός (4.16), ἐλπίζω (4.22), χαρά
(4.22), χαρμοσύνη (4.23), μακροθυμέω (4.25), παρακαλέω (4.30), δείλαιος (4.31, 32),
χαίρω (4.33, 37; 5.5), εὐφραίνω (4.33), ἀγαλλίαμα (4.34), ἀγαυρίαμα (4.34). This
concentration of “Attitudes and Emotions” not only creates strong cohesion
within the text, but also indicates the overall focus.
Having taken off her robe of mourning, Jerusalem is told to put on the beauty
of the glory that comes from God. This is the inverse action of 4.21 where
Jerusalem took off her clothing of peace and put on sackcloth. God’s glory is
only called beautiful (εὐπρέπεια) in one other location in the lxx (Jer 23.9;
cf. Ps 144.5), although Jerusalem is told to put on her glory in Is 52.1 and the
garments of her glory in Ps Sol 11.7. The role of the temporal phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
in this sentence is unclear. Some translations (Moore 1977, 308; Burke 1983, 147)
pair this phrase with ἔνδυσαι and read, “put on forever …”. The latter rendering
does not recognise the similar pairing of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ in Bar
5.4, however. It is thus better translated, “put on the beauty of the glory from
God forever” (cf. nets, Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 122). Interestingly,
Alexandrinus (LaLSV Arab) adds σοι prior to the temporal phrase to indicate that
it was given to Jerusalem forever, not that she should put it on forever (although
the latter reading might also be implied).
With the same clause construction as 5.1, Jerusalem is also to put on the
double-cloak of righteousness that comes from God (τὴν διπλοΐδα τῆς παρὰ τοῦ
θεοῦ δικοσύνης; B has a spelling mistake for δικαιοσύνης, as the αι are omitted).
Muraoka (2009) thinks διπλοΐδα in Baruch is a metaphor for δικαιοσύνης (cf.
Job 29.14), but this is highly improbable, as δικαιοσύνης is part of the modifying
genitive phrase (τῆς … δικαιοσύνης) and is therefore unlikely to be part of the
inherent semantic meaning of the word. Μίτρα (“headband”) is only used here
in Baruch; elsewhere in the lxx it is a sign of honour worn by Aaron the high
priest (Ex 28.37; emphasised by Theodoret, Com.Bar. 5.1; cf. Let. Aris. 98), Judith
(Jdt 10.3; 16.8), and a bridegroom (Is 61.10). In wider Greek literature it was used
to indicate a badge of rank in the Ptolemaic court (lsj), and was employed by
early tragic and comedic poets (Euripides, Bacch. 833; Aristophanes, Thesm.
941).
Throughout Bar 4.5–5.9 the author has regularly referred to God as “the Ever-
lasting” (ὁ αἰώνιος; 4.8, 10, 14, 20, 22, 24, 35; 5.2), and Bar 5.2 is the final occurrence
of this appellation. In the lxx αἰώνιος is typically used as an adjective and is fre-
quently paired with διαθήκη (cf. Bar 2.28). More than merely a cognomen, ὁ
αἰώνιος makes an important theological statement regarding the author’s per-
ception of God. This view of the eternal nature of God is explicit in 4.8 and
provides a temporal perspective to God’s everlasting relationship with his peo-
ple.
Unlike the previous verses that refer to God in oblique cases, Bar 5.3 treats
God as a fully grammaticalised subject (complete with the article) and places
142 chapter 3
him in the theme position. This construction is highly marked (Porter 2009b,
72). God will show (future form δείξει) Jerusalem’s glory to everyone under
heaven. The author uses the elliptical feminine article (τῇ) to construct this
clause. This is common in the lxx for references to χώρα and γῆ (Conybeare
1905, 52), although here it is paired with a different geographic location, namely
ὑπ’ οὐρανός. The use of ὑπό with accusative, although well-documented in
other Greek literature, is infrequent in Baruch where all the other occurrences
(except 1.12) are with the genitive (cf. 3.37; 4.12, 26, 27, 35; 5.6). Johannessohn
(1925, 182) highlights the lack of article between the preposition and its object as
something that distinguishes lxx texts translated later (e.g., Job, Proverbs) from
those translated earlier (e.g., Exodus, Deuteronomy). Irenaeus (Haer. 5.35.2)
is not interested in discussing this verse’s grammatical composition. He uses
the verse instead as proof for a literal (i.e., non-allegorical) reading of events
regarding the earthly Jerusalem.
Like 5.3, Bar 5.4 also opens with γάρ, which is the dominant inter-sentential
conjunction in the last verses of Baruch (5.3, 4, 6, 7, 9). God is again the verbal
actor, but unlike 5.3 he is not in the nominative case. The author uses the
passive, placing the verb (κληθήσεται) in the opening position, making the
adjunct παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ the acting participant, and having the theme (σου τὸ
ὄνομα) be acted upon. The name that Jerusalem receives is twofold: εἰρήνη
δικαιοσύνης, “Peace of righteousness” (possibly a paronomasia on the name of
Jerusalem), and δόξα θεοσεβείας, “Glory of the fear of God”. There are no direct
parallels for either name in the lxx, although this passage bears a striking
resemblance to Is 62.2 in which the kings of the earth will see Jerusalem’s glory
and she will be called by a new name which the Lord will give to her. The
parallel to Jer 23.6 suggested by some scholars (Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine
2008, 124) only works with the Hebrew text, not the lxx. Theodoret (Com.Bar.
5.4) asserts that Jerusalem still retains these names in his day, and claims
that the saving passion which occurred outside her walls has made her both
illustrious and famous.
Moore (1977, 315–316) claims that Bar 5.5–9 is a later addition based on Ps
Sol 11 or a parent source. One major issue with this theory is the full integration
of Bar 5.5–9 in every manuscript tradition. This consistency makes it unlikely
that there was a previous Baruch version lacking 5.5–9. Either this addition
must have become so prevalent as to dominate the entire Baruchan tradition,
or it was affixed so soon after the release of Baruch that the former version was
overturned. Similarly, Xeravits’s (forthcoming) claim that 5.7–9 is a separate,
later addition (and that Baruch ends at 5.6) also lacks textual support. Baruch
5.5–9 is best considered an original component and not an addition by a later
scholar/scribe.
As mentioned above, there is substantial verbal and thematic overlap be-

tween 4.36–37 and 5.5. These verses also exhibit strong similarities with Ps Sol
11.2–3 (cf. also Is 49.18), which suggests a relationship of some sort, although
its exact nature is not easy to determine (Steck 1993, 240–242). There is no evi-
dence that later scribes have made any corrections or emendations of Baruch
toward the text of Psalms of Solomon.
Bar 4.36–37 περίβλεψε πρὸς ἀνατολάς, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ ἴδε τὴν εὐφροσύνην
τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σοι ἐρχομένην. 37 ἰδοὺ ἔρχονται οἱ υἱοί σου, οὕς
ἐξαπέστειλας, ἔρχονται συνηγμένοι ἀπ’ ἀνατολῶν ἕως δυσμῶν τῷ
ῥήματι τοῦ ἁγίου χαίροντες τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ.
Bar 5.5 ἀνάστηθι, Ιερουσαλημ, καὶ στῆθι ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑψηλοῦ καὶ περίβλεψε
πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ ἴδε σου συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα ἀπὸ ἡλίου δυσμῶν
ἕως ἀνατολῶν τῷ ῥήματι τοῦ ἁγίου χαίροντας τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ μνείᾳ.
Ps Sol 11.2–3 στῆθι, Ιερουσαλημ, εφ’ ὑψηλοῦ καὶ ἰδὲ τὰ τέκνα σου ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν
καὶ δυσμῶν συνηγμένα εἰς ἅπαξ ὑπὸ κυρίου. ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ἔρχοντα τῇ
εὐφροσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῶν, ἐκ νήσων μακρόθεν συνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς
ὁ θεός (Rahlfs-Hanhart).
Baruch 5.5 contains the final imperative and nominative of address combina-
tion in Baruch, which have been an important structural and stylistic feature
of Bar 4.5–5.9. The opening of this verse is not another example of the dou-
ble imperative of 4.19 (ἀνάστηθι and στῆθι are not synonyms, contra Kabasele
Mukenge 1998, 350). Rather, the pairing of the semantically related ἀνάστηθι
and στῆθι is an idiomatic way of speaking (e.g., Acts 26.16). The personifica-
tion of Jerusalem continues as the speaker tells her to act in a way consistent
with human behaviour, namely to stand on the highest point (of the city?!) in
order to get the best view. What she sees is the return of her children, who have
been gathered (σου συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα) from the west to (ἕως) the east (liter-
ally, “from the setting of the sun to its rising”; ανατολων ηλιου μεχρι δυσμων O
LaLSV Bo SyrHex Bo). The inverting of west and east is uncommon, with only
one other example in the lxx (Is 59.19; cf. Pss 49.1; 112.3 for the standard order).
The phrase σου συνηγμένα τὰ τέκνα is marked for the reader, as it fronts
the genitive pronoun before its adjunct. According to Raurell (1980, 295) this
emphasis on Jerusalem’s children explicitly challenges the Gentile inclusion
theme of Is 40–66. For Raurell, Baruch presents the Gentiles as enemies of
the Jewish people and as excluded from participation in the glory of God.
I think that Baruch, although holding to a nationalistic view of Jerusalem’s
redemption, does not condemn all Gentiles, just those who have wrongfully
treated Jerusalem and her children.
144 chapter 3
Jerusalem’s children had been led from Jerusalem by their enemies on foot.
Now in 5.6 there is a new actor, God, who is bringing them back to her. The verb
εἰσάγει is in the present tense-form, but almost all translators use the future
tense to render it (e.g., nets). This is likely due to the parallel in 5.9 where
God (with the future tense-form ἡγήσεται) will lead Israel. In order to show
the differences in form I have translated 5.6 as “God is bringing them to you”.
This is to be understood based on the future outlook of the larger discourse
(conditional, but expected).
According to the author of Baruch, God is raising Jerusalem’s children in
glory, as on a royal throne. The phrase ὡς θρόνον βασιλείας is problematic and has
been the source of much debate (for an overview, see Burke 1983, 251–253; 2016).
Mostly seen as a Hebraic corruption (Kneucker 1879, 347–348), this phrase
suggests a stately or royal return for the exiles. That this verse was a problem to
early Greek readers is indicated by the exchanging of υἱούς for θρόνον by a large
number of manuscripts to read υἱούς βασιλείας (A Q LaCSV Arab). The change to
υἱούς provides insight into the way this passage was read. For these scribes the
sons of Jerusalem are the focus, not the physical object of the throne. Vaticanus
retains the θρόνον reading, and so has been translated “as on a royal throne”
by nets despite the awkwardness of the pharse in English. Another possible
solution is to read the particle ὡς as a preposition with the meaning “to” (cf. lsj
s.v. ὡς, C. iii; Muraoka 2009, 749 vii) marking a destination with the accusative
of a person (cf. 2Macc 4.5). If this option is taken, ὡς θρόνον βασιλείας is best
rendered “to a royal throne”, which further defines the reference to Jerusalem in
the preceding colon. This has the added benefit of paralleling Jer 3.17 in which
Jerusalem will be called the throne of the Lord (θρόνος κυρίου) in the last days
(so, Henderson 2014).
Most commentators agree that Is 40.4–5a (and also Ps Sol 11.4) influenced
the writer of Bar 5.7. Some see Is 40 as the primary parallel for Bar 5.7 (Burke
1983, 253; Kabasele Mukenge 1998, 253), whereas others see Ps Sol 11.4 as the
key background text which itself provides the interpretive lens for Is 40.4
(Moore 1977, 312). Although Is 40.4 is likely behind both texts, Bar 5 and Ps
Sol 11 share some features that indicate an additional connection. For exam-
ple, ὁμαλισμός, “levelling”, is a rare word in the lxx with only three occur-
rences. Two (Bar 5.7; Ps Sol 11.4) are applied in the same manner in similar
literary contexts, whereas the third (Mic 7.12) discusses the leveling of the city
itself.
Bar 5.7 συνέταξε(ν) γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ταπεινοῦσθαι πᾶν ὄρος ὑψηλὸν καὶ θ(ε)ῖνας
ἀενάους καὶ φάραγγας πληροῦσθαι εἰς ὁμαλισμὸν τῆς γῆς, ἵνα
βαδίσῃ Ισραηλ ἀσφαλῶς τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξῃ·
Is 40.4–5a πᾶσα φάραγξ πληρωθήσεται καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθή-
σεται καὶ ἔσται πάντα τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθεῖαν καὶ ἡ τραχεῖα εἰς πεδία
καὶ ὀφθήσεται ἡ δόξα κυρίου.
Ps Sol 11.4 ὄρη ὑψηλὰ ἐταπείνωσεν εἰς ὁμαλισμὸν αὐτοῖς οἱ βουνοὶ ἐφύγοσαν
ἀπὸ εἰσόδου αὐτῶν
Moore (1977, 315) argues for a direct relationship between Bar 5.5–9 and Ps Sol
11, because of Baruch’s use of the aorist verb ἐσκίασαν. He calls it an “illogical
shift in tense from present to past”. The aorist is potentially problematic from
a traditional grammar perspective (although it could be considered a “present
aorist”), but from an aspectual outlook, there is no problem at all. The author
is presenting the action in a different light, not in a different temporal sphere.
The temporal understanding is provided by the context as a whole in which the
prophet/God is discussing a time that is yet to come, which is grammaticalised
through the future tense-form and subjunctive mood.
Baruch 5.7 is structured on the aorist indicative συνέταξε(ν) (in theme posi-
tion), on which the author hangs two present active infinitives. The infinitives
create two parallel but constrasting clauses. In the first, every high mountain
and everlasting hill is to be made low, whereas in the second the valleys are to
be filled in. The purpose of all this is to make level ground so that Israel may
walk securely in the glory of God. This is the third and final occurrence of ἵνα
in Baruch, which is paired with the only three subjunctive verbs in the book.
The infrequency of the subjunctive mood results from the author’s preference
for grammaticalising expectation through the future tense-form.
God’s transforming of nature is not limited to hills and valleys, but extends
to woods and fragrant trees. Baruch 5.8 resembles Ps Sol 11.5, as both contain
the phrase πᾶν ξύλον εὐωδίας and have similarities in vocabulary, actors, and
subjects. The image of ξύλον εὐωδίας is uncommon and thus strengthens the
connection between Baruch and Ps Sol 11. One later interpretation (e.g., 1 En
25.4–5) equated the “fragrant tree” with the tree of life, whose fruit was reserved
for the elect. Theodoret (Com.Bar. 5.8) claims that the trees are symbolic of
the nations and that all of them are called to attention upon Israel’s return.
Although this is an interesting assertion, Theodoret sadly does not provide any
insight into why he offers this interpretation. The different interpretations of
“fragrant tree” are of secondary importance to the author’s emphasis, both here
and in the rest of Baruch, that all of the events happen at God’s command
(προστάγματι τοῦ θεοῦ).
Baruch concludes this vision of the future by stating, “God will lead Israel
with joy in the light of his glory together with the mercy and righteousness
that come from him”. In the opening position in 5.9 is ἡγήσεται, which resumes
146 chapter 3
the mood of expectation through use of the future tense-form. By returning

to the future tense-form the author ensures that the previous text is framed
by expectation, reinforcing the forward-looking perspective of 4.30–5.9. Once
again God is portrayed as the source and bringer of joy (4.29, 36, 37; 5.9). In
addition to joy, Israel will also be led in the light of God’s glory together with
mercy and righteousness. Light is a regular attribute for glory, particularly in
Baruch (4.2, 37; 5.7, 9). The imagery of this verse likely draws on the tradition of
the pillar of light/fire that led Israel through the wilderness (cf. Ex 13.21), as well
as other traditions in which the light of God figures prominently (e.g., Is 42.16;
61.1–3, 19).
The pairing of ἐλεημοσύνη and δικαιοσύνη is rare in most of the lxx, but very
common in Tobit (1.3; 4.7; 12.8–9; 14.11). The other pairing outside of Tobit and
Baruch is Prov 21.21: ὁδὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης εὑρήσει ζωὴν καὶ δόξαν.
In the lxx (unlike the mt) those who walk in the way of righteousness and
mercy find life and glory, a concept that echoes Baruch (cf. 1 En 5.7). Both of
these abstract concepts, ἐλεημοσύνη and δικαιοσύνη, are governed by σύν, a rare
pairing that is infrequent in the lxx (cf. 3.35; 4.11; Johannessohn 1925, 209–210).
Moreover, σύν does not function in isolation, but is grammatically associated
with the preceding μετά.
Overall, the redeemed and restored Jerusalem contrasts not only the lament-
ing Jerusalem depicted earlier in Bar 4.9b–18, but also the desecrated “historic”
Jerusalem of 1.1–13. The connection between Babylon (1.4) and the cities that
will be punished elsewhere in the song also forges a link between the opening
and closing of Baruch. Although the exact relationship between the Jerusalem
song and the first half of Baruch is debatable, it is clear that the final section
of Baruch directly addresses the situation of the previous sections: the song of
4.30–5.9 proclaims a reversal of the situation experienced not only by the liter-
ary Jerusalem, but also by the Jewish people who remain in captivity and forced
exile.
Subscriptio
All the Greek majuscules (A B Q V) as well as a number of minuscules (and

Arm) have βαρουχ for the subscription. There are, however, a variety of other
subscriptions found in the manuscripts: βαρουχ στιχων φιδ' L’ −311; βαρουχ αντι-
γραφον 410; τελος ιερεμιου προφητου 538; βαρουχ (τετελεσται βαρουχ SyrHex) ολος
ωβελισται κατα τους ο' O (+ κατα τους εβδομηκοντα προοιμιον εστι τουτο των θρηνων
ο ου κειται παρα τοις λοιποις SyrHexmg); explicit liber baruch LaC; finitur epistola
secunda baruch scribae SyW.
chapter 4
Introduction to the Epistle of Jeremiah
1 Texts of the Epistle of Jeremiah
1.1 Greek Codices and Texts of the Epistle of Jeremiah

The Greek text of EpJer is found in Alexandrinus (A) and Vaticanus (B), but
is missing from Sinaiticus (‫)א‬. There are some textual differences between the
two uncial codices (and between these manuscripts and Q and V), but they are
not substantial enough to speak of “different versions”. The text of Vaticanus
appears to be the superior exemplar. The Lucianic or “Antiochian” recension(s)
exhibit similar consistency, despite a tendency to “upgrade” the Greek. The
Epistle of Jeremiah is extant in codex Marchalianus (Q; Cozza-Luzi 1890), a
sixth century uncial manuscript originally copied in Egypt and known for its
Hexaplaric material, as well as Codex Venetus (V; Holmes and Parsons 1827),
an eighth-ninth century manuscript. The Epistle of Jeremiah is also found in a
number of miniscule texts: 26, 36, 46, 48, 51, 62, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96, 106, 130, 147,
198, 231, 233, 239, 311, 393, 407, 410, 449, 490, 534, 538, 544, 567, and 710.
Of importance, particularly for the discussion of dating below, is 7Q2, a small
fragment of Greek text thought to contain EpJer 43–44 (Baillet, Milik, and De
Vaux 1962). The certainty of this association is by no means assured, as the
fragment is very small, containing only 22 letters. However, if this fragment is a
portion of EpJer, then it provides the earliest evidence of the text’s existence.
1.2 Hebrew Texts

There are no extant texts or fragments of EpJer in Hebrew, but a number of
scholars have identified issues in the Greek and on that basis have posited
that Greek EpJer is a translation of an earlier Hebrew Vorlage. Despite a lack
of textual evidence, the posited Hebrew original has influenced EpJer studies
and is a recurring component of commentaries.
1.3 Other Editions

As mentioned in the Introduction to Baruch (at 1.3), EpJer exists in a number of
translations. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah form one book in the Vulgate
(with the Epistle of Jeremiah labelled Baruch 6), which is placed after Lamen-
tations and before Ezekiel. In the Coptic tradition the ordering is generally the
same, although Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22) has a unique ordering: Jeremiah, Lamen-
tations, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch.

148 chapter 4
Cowe (1991) highlights the importance of Armenian ms 95 (whose exemplar

predates Codex Alexandrinus) as a potential window into the early text. The
singular readings of this manuscript provide a new perspective on EpJer and
insight into how that manuscript’s scribe/Vorlage interpreted the Greek text. I
am not convinced of its significance for determining the original text, however.
The Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic versions of EpJer only vary
in minor ways from the Greek text. Omissions and additions are infrequent
with only a handful of variants more than a few words in length. The changes
that do occur are not consistent between versions and probably represent later
changes rather than providing a window into early versions of the text.
2 Dating, Provenance, and Purpose of the Epistle of Jeremiah
2.1 The Date of the Epistle of Jeremiah

When attempting to determine the date of any document there is both internal
and external evidence to consider. Regarding internal evidence, the “letter”
is addressed to those who are about to be exiled to Babylon (praef.), which
suggests that the author knew about the exile. Allusions to Deutero-Isaiah
provide further clues as to the date, and the terminus post quem for dating EpJer
based on internal evidence is thus roughly the middle of the 6th century bc.
Many scholars have also used v. 2 to determine the date of EpJer’s compo-
sition. This verse states that the exiles will be in Babylon ἕως γενεῶν ἑπτά. The
traditional perspective is expressed by Ball (1913, 596):
When our author makes Jeremiah predict a sojourn of the Jews in Baby-
lon for “seven generations”, he does it deliberately. He can hardly have
been ignorant of the famous prophecy of the seventy years, or of the less-
heeded estimate of three generations involved in the statement that the
exiles were to serve Nebuchadnezzar and his son and his son’s son (Jer
25.12; 27.7). He seems, in fact, to be giving us a clue to his own period.
Seven generations, allowing forty years to the generation according to Old
Testament reckoning, would cover 280 years. If we count from the exile of
Jechonias (597bc), this brings us to the year 317 bc, or counting (as the
author may have done) from 586bc, the year of the final Captivity, we
arrive at 306bc, some thirty years after the arrival of Alexander in Baby-
lon.
There is no internal evidence that would suggest a later date than 306 bc, but it
should be noted that the reference to forty years per generation is suspiciously
introduction to the epistle of jeremiah 149
precise and that such a specific date should therefore not be held to with too
much fervency.
Turning to external evidence, there are two items to consider. The first is the
earliest reference to EpJer in later literature, which is generally thought to be
2Macc 2.1–4 (Moore 1977, 327): “And that the prophet [Jeremiah], after giving
them the law, commanded those who were migrating not to forget the ordi-
nances of the Lord or to be led astray in their thoughts on seeing the gold and
silver statues and their adornment” (2.2). Although it is not certain, it is possible
that 2Macc 2.2 alludes to EpJer, and if so, EpJer must have been written prior
to 2Maccabees. The latter observation does not permit precise dating of EpJer,
however, because there are continuing debates over the dating of 2 Maccabees
itself (deSilva 2002, 269–270), and because it is not clear whether the reference
in 2Maccabees traces to the original author (Jason) or to the epitomiser. Thus
using 2Maccabees as a means of dating EpJer is problematic. Furthermore,
Dimant (2001, 107–108) has challenged the supposed reference and argued that
2Macc may have drawn instead from the Apocryphon of Jeremiah c. Neverthe-
less, Dimant concedes that Apocryphon of Jeremiah c may have been depen-
dent on EpJer, or all three texts may draw on a common tradition. Whatever
the literary relation may be, Dimant claims that the links among them favour a
second century bc terminus ante quem.
Potentially more important for dating EpJer is its possible inclusion among
the dss (7Q2), which, if accurate, provides the first evidence for its existence
and places the terminus ante quem sometime around 100 bc. The small size
of 7Q2 and its fragmentary nature weaken the force of this argument, but no
scholar has challenged the identification to date.
Between the 6th and 1st centuries bc, scholars widely agree that the Greek
text of EpJer dates to after the Alexandrian conquests, probably to the third
or second centuries bc (Gunneweg 1975, 186; Kratz 1998, 82; Nickelsburg 2005,
148). If one holds to a Hebrew original then the date of Hebrew composition
would naturally precede the Greek translation.
2.2 The Provenance of the Epistle of Jeremiah

Determining the provenance of EpJer requires speculation (Pfeiffer 1949, 413–
417). The Egyptian hypothesis of the nineteenth century (e.g., Gifford 1888, 290)
has been challenged and ruled out by a number of scholars (cf. Moore 1977,
328), although it is possible that this may have been the place of Greek transla-
tion, if EpJer indeed had a Hebrew original.
The author’s knowledge of and familiarity with aspects of Babylonian reli-
gion may indicate that Mesopotamia in general, and Babylon in particular,
was the location of EpJer’s composition. The picture of Babylonian religion
150 chapter 4
developed by EpJer, including the depiction of idols and the priesthood has
been excellently documented by Naumann (1913, 3–31). The primary issue with
this view is that the author could have learned about Babylonian religion
elsewhere and have written the letter in any locale.
The other option provided by scholars is Palestine (Moore 1977, 328), based
on the letter’s superscription. Although Palestine is (also) presented in other
texts as being under threat of idolatry (1 En. 99.7; 104.9), the lack of additional
support makes this option tenuous. Overall, none of these geographical options
have sufficient support to draw a firm conclusion regarding the provenance of
EpJer.
2.3 The Purpose of the Epistle of Jeremiah

The purpose of EpJer appears to be plain: to dissuade Jews from worshiping
false gods. Inherent within the tirade is a sharp critique of Babylonian and non-
Jewish religious culture more generally, a perspective that must have endured
throughout the Hellenistic era (Fernández Marcos 2002, 36). The warning again
idolatry may be applicable to other geographic regions, include Palestine and
other locales, although they are not in the explicit purview of the work.
Some scholars have posited different motivations for EpJer’s composition.
For example, Pfeiffer (1949, 432) claims that EpJer was primarily directed to-
wards gentiles as a defence against the charges of anti-Jewish writers that the
Jewish people were atheistic and despised the gods (e.g., Posidonius ca. 140 bc;
Appolonius Molon fl. ca. 70bc). Thackeray (1927, 57–60) suggests that EpJer
may have been a veiled attack on Tammuz worship, a cult that flourished in
the Temple during the time of Jeremiah (Ez 8.14). These theories have not been
widely adopted by scholars and lack sufficient evidence to be convincing.
3 The Language and Grammar of the Epistle of Jeremiah
3.1 The Original Language of the Epistle of Jeremiah

The Epistle of Jeremiah has been lambasted for its supposed “poor Greek”. For
example, Ball (1913, 597) begins his discussion by asserting, “It is incredible
that a piece so formless, so confused, so utterly destitute of the graces of style,
as this ‘Epistle’ now is, should have been thought worthy of preservation in
the Alexandrian Canon of Scripture, had [Greek] been its original condition”.
Ultimately Ball labels EpJer a “crude effusion of an illiterate fanatic”, a comment
that far exceeds the evidence.
Ball is part of the majority of 20th century scholars who seek to explain
the strange phraseology and vocabulary of EpJer by positing a Hebrew original
that was either misread or corrupted through use and time. For example, there
are places in EpJer where an alternate reading would make better sense, and
challenging readings are thought to derive from corruption or misreading of
unpointed Hebrew text (e.g., v. 10 moths vs. food; v. 71 marble vs. linen; for other
examples, see Ball, 1913, 597–598; Kratz 1998, 74). In v. 9, “on the roof” has also
been used to argue for a Semitic original, with Aramaic as the original language
(Torrey 1945, 66; Pfeiffer 1949, 430).
A related question is: Which text of Scripture did the author of EpJer use,
Hebrew or Greek? One key piece of evidence for EpJer’s dependency on a
Hebrew rather than Greek version of Jeremiah is v. 69 and its reference to a
scarecrow in a cucumber field (Kratz 1995, 9). This verse of EpJer strongly par-
allels the Hebrew text of Jer 10.5, while the phrase in question is (traditionally
considered) absent in the surviving lxx version. A number of scholars have
used this absence as (negative) evidence for the author of EpJer’s dependence
on a Hebrew source-text (e.g., Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008, 329). Never-
theless, this position has recently been challenged by Thomas (2008, 557–559),
who discusses the various ways in which Jer 10.5a was translated, especially
ways that this verse might have been incorporated into the Greek text.
The theory of a Hebrew original for EpJer was not always dominant. In the
19th century a number of scholars thought that EpJer was originally composed
in Greek. O.F. Fritsche (1851, 206) held this position firmly, and E. Schürer also
commented that EpJer was “certainly of Greek origin” (Schürer 1896, 3.195; the
opinion of a Hebrew origin found in Schürer 1987, 744 is that of the revisers).
Recently the question of original language has been revisited by Ben Wright
(2010), who challenges the preconceptions and arguments of Hebrew-original
scholars, urging that the Greek text be taken seriously (Fernández Marcos 2002,
34). In his study Wright seeks to read the Greek text of EpJer on its own terms
without recourse to Hebrew reconstructions. In so doing Wright challenges
a number of assumptions held by previous scholars, although he does admit
that there are a couple of places where a misreading of a Hebrew Vorlage
would make good explanatory sense. Although Wright does not argue that
EpJer was originally written in Greek, he does successfully reopen the question,
and future EpJer scholars will need to interact with his work.
In this commentary (as per the requirements of the series) I will be focusing
solely on the Greek text of EpJer. I will interact with some of the Hebrew
arguments, but give primary consideration to the Greek text.
3.2 Verbs in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah

It is not surprising that the most common verb mood-form in EpJer is
the indicative (see Table 8). Within the indicative mood, there is a strong
152 chapter 4
preference for present tense-forms, with very few occurrences of the aorist (see
Table 9). (This is very different from the preference shown by the author[s] of
Baruch; see Table 2 above.) This penchant for present tense-form verbs high-
lights occurrences of the aorist, as they provide a break to the established pat-
tern. The opposite tense-form preference is found in subjunctive mood-form
verbs, for which the aorist tense-form is almost exclusively used (37 out of 38
occurrences, see Table 9). This association is common in Hellenistic Greek, par-
ticularly in comparison to the future indicative (bdf § 363; Jannaris 1897, 129;
Robertson 1919, 323–324). Both of these forms occur with regularity in EpJer and
are used to grammaticalise the author’s expectation of uncertain future events
(cf. bdf §318, 363; Porter 1993, 403–439; Evans 2001, 39–40). The high number
of subjunctive mood-form and future tense-form verbs highlights the future-
orientated nature of the text.
table 8 Finite verb mood-forms in the Epistle of

Jeremiah
Mood-form Total Tense-form distribution
Indicatives 75 See Table 9 below

Subjunctives 38 37 aorist, 1 present
Infinitives 21 11 present, 10 aorist
Imperatives 6 5 aorist, 1 present
Optatives 1 1 aorist
table 9 Tense-form distribution of indicative verbs in the Epistle of Jeremiah
Tense-form Total Location
Present 42 vv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 × 2, 11, 12, 13, 15xs, 17, 18 × 2, 19 × 2, 21, 23,

25 × 2, 26, 27 × 2, 29, 30, 31, 33, 41 × 2, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 60,
61 × 2, 67, 70
Future 25 vv. 1, 2 × 3, 9 × 2, 12, 13, 22, 26, 33, 37, 38, 50, 54 × 3, 57 × 2, 58,
66 × 2, 71 × 2, 72
Aorist 3 vv. 5, 43, 47
Perfect 3 vv. 1, 43, 70
Imperfect 2 v. 23 × 2
table 10 Participles in the Epistle of Jeremiah
Tense-form Total Location
Present 30 vv. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 25, 27 × 2, 30, 31, 38, 40, 42,
43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 57 × 2, 58 × 2, 59, 72
Aorist 14 vv. 2, 4, 5, 27, 32, 24, 41, 42, 43, 46, 61 × 2, 64, 67
Perfect 14 vv. 7, 11, 15, 17 × 2, 20, 24, 30 × 2, 38, 45, 58, 62, 70
Future 1 v. 1
The author of EpJer shows a clear preference for participles in the present
tense-form. Of note is the high use of the perfect tense-form, which occurs
equally as often as the aorist. The perfect participle is infrequent in Hellenistic
Greek (Porter 1994, 190) and its regular use in EpJer is therefore unexpected.
The use of the perfect indicative only occurs three other times in EpJer (see
Table 9), which reinforces the uniqueness of its use in the participial form. The
future passive participle is very rare in the lxx.
Finally, the use of verbs in EpJer is noticeably different to Baruch. The only
substantial similarity is the use of the future tense-form in both works. This
parallel is a result of the shared future orientation of both works and does
not indicate that the works had the same author or authors with the same
preferences. The dissimilarity in verb usage in general reinforces the need to
differentiate these two works and to treat them individually (Adams 2011).
3.3 Conjunctions in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah

One of the most striking features of EpJer is the number of conjunctions.
Although there are many καί conjunctions, there are significant occurrences
of other, less-common conjunctions that differentiate EpJer from other lxx
works. This, it has been argued, supports the view that EpJer is not a translation
from Hebrew, but was originally composed in Greek. At least, the style is not
typical “translation Greek”.
For such a short work there are a surprising number of higher-level conjunc-
tions, which would suggest that the work is precise in its logical connections
(Demetrius, Eloc. 192). Wright (2007, 943) claims that this is not the case, as the
sheer preponderance of conjunctions is actually distracting to the reader, but
despite his opinion, the logical connectors seem to be used in a precise manner.
The number of conjunctions and their location in EpJer are given in the table
below.
154 chapter 4
table 11 Conjunctions in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah
καί (coordination at 2, 3 × 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 × 3, 13× 2, 17× 2, 18, 21 × 2, 27, 29 × 2, 30 × 2,

the word level) 32, 38, 47, 48, 50 × 2, 53, 54, 55, 57 × 4, 59 × 3, 61, 69 × 2, 70× 2, 71
= 44
καί (all others) 4, 7, 8, 9 × 2, 12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 30, 40, 41, 43, 50, 54, 58 × 2,
60 × 2, 61, 70 × 2, 71 = 25
οὔτε 27× 2, 33 × 4; 34 × 2, 35, 37, 43, 49 × 2, 52, 57× 3, 62× 2, 63× 4,
65 × 2 = 25
δέ 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 × 2, 10, 13× 2, 19, 21, 27× 2, 31, 38, 40, 42, 43, 54, 55, 60,
62, 70 = 23
γάρ 6, 7, 15, 23× 2, 29, 41, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59, 65, 69, 72 = 17
τε 6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 25, 46 × 2, 50, 53, 61, 66, 71 × 2 = 14
οὖν 2, 4, 14, 22, 28, 39, 44, 49, 51, 56, 64, 68, 72 = 13
ἤ 18, 39, 44, 45, 54 × 2, 56, 58 × 5 = 13
ὄτι 22, 28, 29, 43, 49, 50 × 2, 51, 56, 64, 68, 71 = 12
ὥσπερ 8, 15, 17, 19, 26, 31, 43, 53, 54, 69 = 10
ἐάν 23, 26 × 2, 33 × 2, 34 = 6
οὐδέ 23, 53, 66 × 2 = 4
μέν 19, 54, 59 = 3
ὅτε 9, 23 = 2
ἀλλά 26, 50 = 2
μήτε 26 × 2 = 2
ἕως 2=1
ὅπως 17 = 1
ὥστε 58 = 1
διό 68 = 1
Conjunctions are not only used in isolation, but also paired. Such pairings are
well known in classical Greek literature, although scarce in the lxx (Thrall 1962,
98–102). The pairing of conjunctions in EpJer is exemplified by ὥσπερ, which is
paired with another conjunction in all but one instance (v. 31). For example: καὶ
ὥσπερ (vv. 8, 17, 43), ὥσπερ γὰρ (vv. 15, 53, 69), μὲν ὥσπερ (v. 19), ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ (v. 26),
δὲ ὥσπερ (v. 54). Additionally, there are two instances of tripled conjunctions (δὲ
καὶ ὅτε v. 9; οὐδὲ γάρ ὅτε v. 23). The latter include the only two occurrences of
ὅτε, a conjunctive particle with temporal overtones. In five places, an adverb is
joined by two conjunctions: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ (vv. 21, 27, 70), ἔτι δὲ καὶ (v. 40), and
καὶ γὰρ ὅταν (v. 54).
3.4 Greek Grammatical Constructions in Vaticanus Epistle of Jeremiah

Another feature of the Greek text of EpJer is the striking variety of grammat-
ical constructions. For example, in Vaticanus EpJer there are ten catenative
constructions scattered throughout the work (vv. 5, 7, 18, 33 × 2, 34, 40, 41, 45,
67). (In most mss there are eleven, but B omits the complementing infinitive
in v. 46.) Although most of these are initiated by a form of δύναμαι, the author
plays with the word order as well as with moods/tense-forms. There are also six
periphrastic constructions (vv. 7, 17, 24, 36, 45, 62). In two instances the partici-
ple precedes the auxiliary verb and in one instance a non-indicative mood is
employed.
A third feature is the high occurrence of interpositions, insertions of a word
or phrase between a substantive or participle and its governing definite article
(e.g., vv. 10, 12, 13, 19, 38, 47, 58, 70). Translations from Hebrew do not normally
have a high level of interpositions, as the article is attached directly to a noun or
participle in Hebrew, and typical Greek renderings maintain this association.
Interpositions, and catenative and periphrastic constructions are not absent
in Greek works translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, but they are not typically
found in this concentration. Two explanations offer themselves to account
for this data. Either EpJer was originally composed in Greek, or the Greek
translator took extra care to use constructions typical of the receptor language
and was not as closely tied to the text as translators of other lxx books.
4 Epistle of Jeremiah and Scripture
There is no explicit citation of Scripture in EpJer, nor is there any overt allusion
(as indicated by the author) to a biblical writer or passage other than to the
“author”, who is presented as the prophet Jeremiah (praef.). Rather, EpJer draws
generally on Jewish writings, and particularly those that criticise idolatry (e.g.,
Pss 113.12–16; 134.15–18; Jer 10; Is 40.18–20; 41.6–7; 44.9–20; 46.1–7; Bel). This view
is summarised by Thomas (2008, 549): “The author of EpJer demonstrates a
dependence on earlier Jewish writings, more specifically, the genre of ‘polemic
against foreign idolatry’”.
A number of articles have attempted to map out the relationship between
EpJer and Jer 10 (cf. Doering 2012, 154–155). The theory of a specific, dependent
relationship was advanced by Kratz (1995), who argued that the first part of
EpJer (vv. 7–28) is based on Jer 10.5a while the latter part of EpJer (vv. 29–72)
is based on Jer 10.5b. (Kratz also argues that Jer 29 [36] underpins the whole of
EpJer.) Although I acknowledge the role of Jer 10 in EpJer, particularly in certain
verses, I am not convinced that this relationship can bear the weight that Kratz
156 chapter 4
places on it. Recently, Thomas (2008) has re-evaluated the texts of Jeremiah and
the various arguments used to support a relationship between EpJer and Jer 10.
Although he is sympathetic to Kratz’s argument, Thomas (2008, 549 n. 10) has
rightly noted the problems with this structural outline: 1) the reference to the
scarecrow in the cucumber field (v. 69), drawn from Jer 10.5a, comes at the end
of EpJer; and 2) Kratz’s lack of engagement with Jer 10.2 and 4. Challenging the
consensus that EpJer was dependent on the longer Hebrew version of Jeremiah,
Thomas argues that EpJer draws on the shorter Hebrew text of Jer 10, one similar
to that found in the Greek lxx and 4QJerb.
5 Epistle of Jeremiah’s Literary Influence
5.1 Epistle of Jeremiah in the New Testament and Jewish Writings

There is no clear indication of dependence upon EpJer by any of the New
Testament writers. Although EpJer could be used to illuminate New Testament
passages, such as the discussion of idols in 1Corinthians 8, there is no direct tie.
A similar absence is witnessed in Jewish writings. Although there are a num-
ber of later polemics against idols and idolatry (e.g., Apocalypse of Abraham;
Sap 13) with similar themes and critiques, it is impossible to determine direct
dependence on EpJer, as these motifs are also found in other writings, including
some that later formed the Jewish canon. However, since EpJer was transmit-
ted as an appendix to the book of Jeremiah, one can also assume that it was
accepted in (certain) Jewish communities, particularly those living in Israel,
who are the depicted as the letter’s recipients (cf. Moore, 1977, 325; Kratz 1998,
84–85). The use of EpJer in Israel is supported by its inclusion among the doc-
uments found at Qumran (e.g., 7Q2).
Thackeray (1927, 57–60) has suggested that EpJer was prescribed reading in
the synagogue for the Jewish fast on the seventeenth of Tammuz (Haftorah).
There is, however, very little evidence for this assertion, and his argument has
not been adopted by many scholars.
5.2 Epistle of Jeremiah in Early Church Writings

Although explicit citations of EpJer are lacking in the New Testament and
Jewish writers, the influence of EpJer can be seen in some of the writings by
early church fathers. This is due primarily to EpJer’s inclusion in the Jeremianic
corpus and its later canonical status (e.g., Jer, Baruch, Lam, EpJer; Athanasius,
Ep. 39.4, §552). The inclusion of EpJer in certain canon lists continued even
after Jerome labelled EpJer a pseudepigraphon (Jerome, Comm. on Jeremiah,
praef.; Migne pl 24.706).
As EpJer is primarily about idolatry it is not surprising that it is used by early

Christian writers when they discuss the folly of worshiping idols. The earliest
explicit citation of EpJer comes from Tertullian (Scorpiace 8), who quotes EpJer
3–5 with a brief introduction stating that these are the words of Jeremiah
written prior to the exile (the verses are also later paraphrased in Cyprian of
Carthage’s De dominica oratione 5). Concurrent with Tertullian is Aristides,
whose Apologia 3 and 13 appear to paraphrase sections of EpJer, although it
is not certain that he drew only from EpJer and not also from other sources.
Theodoret of Cyrus, from whom we have a complete commentary on Baruch,
discusses the role of idols in Ep. 146. He begins with a citation of Jer 10.11, which
has similar content to EpJer. This is followed by another quotation explicitly
attributed to Jeremiah, but not neatly conforming to any known passage. It
bears resemblance to EpJer 11 and may therefore be a misquotation or a citation
by Theodoret of a version of EpJer that is no longer extant. Firmicus Maternus
makes extended use of EpJer in his discussion of the biblical condemnation
of idolatry (De errore profanarum religionum 28.4–5, where he cites EpJer 5–10,
21–24, 28–31, 50–57). The Epistle of Jeremiah was also used by later writers, such
as Thomas Aquinas, who cites EpJer 30 in his Summa Theologiae ii 102.6.
The Greek and Latin Fathers were not the only early Christians to make
use of EpJer, as can be seen by the number of early translations (e.g., Syriac,
Armenian). This is particularly true for the Coptic Church, from which we have
a number of manuscript portions: Codex 802, Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22 + Mississippi
Coptic Codex ii), and Codex 826 (for editions, see Schüssler 1995). There is no
text of EpJer in Codices 801, 803–808, and 827, although there is one ostracon
which contains a verse of EpJer (EpJer 31; Feder 2002, 51). Sadly, none of the
surviving lectionaries that reference the Jeremiah corpus contain any portion
of EpJer (L 31–33, 36, 40, 50, 80, 99).
6 Epistle of Jeremiah’s Sense-Unit Delineations in Greek and Coptic

Codices
There are a number of proposals for how the text of EpJer should be divided.
The standard editions of Rahlfs-Hanhart (2006) and Ziegler (2006) offer a
twelve-part division and break the text at the same locations, although there
is one minor difference in their verse numberings: prologue, 1–6, 7–14, 15–
22, 23–28, 29–39, 40–44, 45–51, 52–56/56b, 56b/57–64, 65–68, 69–72. While
some of these breaks have been adopted by later scholars, only Assan-Dhôte
and Moatti-Fine (2008) have accepted Ziegler’s division placements in their
entirety. Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine have added some minor nuances,
158 chapter 4
namely identifying six major divisions with twelve overall breaks: prologue,
1–6, 7–28 (7–14, 15–22, 23–28), 29–56a (29–39, 40–44, 45–51, 52–56a), 56b–68
(56b–64, 65–68), 69–72.
Moore (1977, 317–318; cf. Fraade 2013b, 1535) breaks from Rahlfs-Hanhart and
Ziegler by identifying only 10 strophes: 1–7, 8–16, 17–23, 24–29, 30–41a, 40b–44,
45–52, 53–56, 57–65, 66–73 (Moore labels EpJer’s prologue as v. 1 and so differs
from the verse numbers in Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler). Kratz (1998) also offers
a ten-part division, although subsumed into eight major sections: prologue, 1–6,
7–14, 15–22, 23–28, 29–64 (29–39, 40–44, 45–64), 65–68, 69–72. More recently,
Brooke (2007) has offered an eleven-part division (not counting the prologue)
in which the body (vv. 7–72) is divided into ten stanzas (slightly different than
those of Moore) that form a five-tiered chiasm.
As discussed in the Introduction to Baruch, paragraph sense divisions are
important textual features for understanding how early scribes and readers
interpreted the text. As this commentary is based on Codex Vaticanus, it will
adopt Vaticanus’s paragraph divisions. However, paragraph breaks in other
manuscripts (A Q V), particularly those that differ from Vaticanus, will also be
discussed below.
6.1 Codex Vaticanus (B)

There are six major breaks in Vaticanus’s Epistle of Jeremiah (praef., 14, 28, 39,
51, 64). These divisions are marked with a paragraphos, a space in the previous
line, and a paragraph number in the left margin. The preface is marked by
indentation, and the lines resume their normal length at the beginning of v. 1.
There are no paragraph markings at v. 1, but there is a sizable gap in the previous
line (6 letter space), which would indicate a minor break and that this is a new
paragraph. There are no other minor breaks.
6.2 Codex Alexandrinus (A)

There is only one level of break in Alexandrinus, and all instances are consis-
tently marked with ekthesis and a space at the end of the preceding line: praef.,
1, 2, 9*, 39, 44*, 58, 62, 64, 72.
6.3 Codex Marchalianus (Q)

There are many sense divisions in Marchalianus. Just as in Baruch, major
divisions are indicated by ekthesis, paragraphos, and, if there was sufficient
space, a blank space in the previous line (praef., 4, 8, 17, 17*, 23, 32, 45, 64). Minor
divisions are marked by a paragraphos and a raised dot (·) in the previous line
(1, 2, 3, 5*, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 15*, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 33*, 34*, 35, 36, 36*, 37,
38, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 58*, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 68*, 70, 72).
In addition to these standard breaks, there are also Greek chapter markings,
which were likely added by a second hand, since they are smaller than the
other division marks and easy to miss. These chapter markers occur at three
points in the text: Β 15, Γ 28, Δ 40 (there is no Alpha chapter mark, but this is
likely because it would have occurred at the very beginning of the work). These
chapter divisions are intriguingly similar to the major divisions in Vaticanus,
although they are not totally aligned. Sadly these markings stop at v. 40.
6.4 Codex Venetus (V)

Similar to Venetus Baruch, major breaks in Venetus EpJer are indicated by
ekthesis and a gap of 1–3 letters in the previous line. Minor breaks are marked
by a 1–3 space gap, but lack ekthesis. Venetus EpJer has 10 major breaks (praef.,
1, 7, 21, 31, 40, 42, 44, 48, 63b) and 1 possible minor break (v. 59).
6.5 Coptic Codex 822 (P.Bod. 22)

Codex 822 has few major divisions for EpJer, although there are a number of
smaller breaks indicated by a raised dot (·). Unfortunately the outside edge of
the codex is damaged and some breaks may no longer be identifiable. Two of
the breaks in this codex occur at places other than those found in most Greek
texts (vv. 25, 44b). Both are marked by a stylised colon (:). Two other breaks are
of note. First, there is a single space in v. 19 before ⲙⲉⲛ, which might indicate
a break. Second, it appears that the text in v. 68 does not begin at the margin,
but rather has a space. Due to the damage to the vellum it is uncertain if there
was a flaw at that spot or if the space was intentional, but the lack of writing is
notable.
table 12 Sense divisions in the Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek and Coptic manuscripts
B A Q V 822 Notes
Pref. m m m m Ἀντίγραφον
1 m m m m διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας
2 m+ εἰσελθόντες οὖν
2* m μετὰ τοῦτο
3 m νυνὶ δὲ ὄψεσθε
4 m εὐλαβήθητε οὖν
5* m εἴπατε δὲ
6 m ὁ γὰρ ἄγγελός
7 m m γλῶσσα γὰρ
8 m καὶ ὥσπερ παρθένῳ
160 chapter 4
table 12 Sense divisions in the Epistle of Jeremiah in Greek and Coptic manuscripts (cont.)
B A Q V 822 Notes
9* m m+ ἔστι δὲ καὶ
11 m περιβεβλημένων αὐτῶν
14 m ὅθεν γνώριμοί
14* m μὴ οὖν φοβηθῆτε
15 m ὥσπερ γὰρ σκεῦος
15* m καθιδρυμένων αὐτῶν
17 m καὶ ὥσπερ τινὶ
17* m τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν
18 m λύχνους καίουσιν
19 space ⲙⲉⲛ
21 m+ m ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα
23 m τὸ γὰρ χρυσίον
24 m ἐκ πάσης τιμῆς
25 m (:) ἄνευ ποδῶν / ⲉⲩⲉⲓⲛⲉ
27* m ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ
28 Μ m γνόντες οὖν
31 m m ὠρύονται δὲ
32 m ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ
33 m οὔτε ἐὰν κακὸν
33* m οὔτε καταστῆσαι
34* m ἐάν τις αὐτοῖς
35 m ἐκ θανάτου ἄνθρωπον
36 m ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν
36* m ἐν ἀνάγκῃ
37 m χήραν οὐ μὴ
38 m τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους
39 Μ m πῶς οὖν νομιστέον
40 m+ m ἔτι δὲ καὶ αὐτῶν
42 m m αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες
43 m ὅταν δέ τις
44 m πάντα τὰ γενόμενα
44* m πῶς οὖν νομιστέον
44* (:) ⲙⲛ̅
45 m ὑπὸ τεκτόνων
46 m αὐτοί τε
48 m m ὅταν γὰρ ἐπέλθῃ
B A Q V 822 Notes
51 Μ m τίνι οὖν
54 m καὶ γὰρ ὅταν
55 m βασιλεῖ δὲ καὶ
57 m οὔτε ἀπὸ κλεπτῶν
58 m m ὥστε κρεῖσσον
58* m ἢ καὶ θύρα
59 m m? ἥλιος μὲν (extra space after the raised dot)
60 m ὡσαύτως καὶ ἀστραπή
61 m καὶ νεφέλαις ὅταν
61* Μ τὸ δὲ πῦρ1
62 m ταῦτα δὲ οὔτε
63* m οὐ δυνατῶν
64 Μ Μ m γνόντες οὖν
66* m οὐδὲ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος
67 m τὰ θηρία ἐστὶν
68 m space κατʼ οὐδένα οὖν
68* m διὸ μὴ φοβηθῆτε
70 m τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον
72 Μ m κρίσσων οὖν
Table symbols:
p paragraphos
m Major break
m Minor break
m+ (only in Q) Paragraphos + large mid-line letter
* Paragraph break in middle of verse
7 The Greek Text and Translation in This Commentary
7.1 The Greek Text

The text used for this edition of the Epistle of Jeremiah comes from the 1999
facsimile edition of Codex Vaticanus B (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1999).
1 This is a textual variant from τό τε πῦρ in B, Rahlfs-Hanhart, Ziegler.

162 chapter 4
The text of EpJer in Codex Vaticanus begins on page 1140 col. 1, concludes on
1143 col. 1, and consists of 381 lines (9×42 lines/col. + 3 = 381; see Appendix 2).
Very little needs to be said here that has not already been covered in the
Introduction to Baruch (7.1). The scribal patterns witnessed in Vaticanus Ba-
ruch hold for EpJer and so need no further comment.
7.2 Nomina Sacra

There are only four nomina sacra in Vaticanus EpJer (θεός: praef., 1, 61; πνεῦμα:
24), which is a low number for a text of this size. One of the most interesting
aspects of the nomina sacra in EpJer is the conscientious manner of their
employment. In this epistle, there are numerous references to foreign gods,
and any time θεός is used in the plural or in reference to foreign gods the
scribe refrained from using the shortened form; the word was written out in
full. However, when the text refers to the God of Israel, the scribe uses a nomen
sacrum. A similar pattern is observed for πνεῦμα. In v. 24 πνεῦμα is written in the
nomen sacrum form as it refers to the lack of spirit in idols. In contrast, πνεῦμα
is written out in full in v. 60 as it clearly refers to wind and not the divine spirit.
This conscientious application of nomina sacra based on context and function,
rather than purely on lexical form, indicates that the scribe (or the exemplar he
was copying from) was careful in the application of this feature.
A similar pattern is evidenced in Codex Alexandrinus. Alexandrinus uses
the nomina sacra form for more words and, therefore, has more occurrences
(θεός: praef., 1, 61; πνεῦμα: 24, 60; οὐρανός: 66; ἀνθρώπος: 10, 13, 15, 25, 35, 36 × 2,
50, 52, 63). However, the same selectivity is seen in applying nomina sacra only
to references to the one God. A unique feature of Codex Alexandrinus is that
it has a nomen sacrum for πνεῦμα in v. 60, which refers to wind rather than to
the Spirit. Nevertheless, these examples overall support the view that nomina
sacra function in a particular manner and were used by scribes exclusively for
reference to divine people or objects with positive associations.
7.3 English Translation

This translation technique used for EpJer in this edition is the same as that
for Baruch. The rendering of the Greek is fairly “literal”, and there has been
no attempt to provide a polished English reading. Rather, I have allowed the
structure and syntax of the Greek text to inform my English translation. I have
striven to be consistent in the way that I render lexical items, but the role of the
lexical unit in context has been given primary consideration.
One of the issues with EpJer that plagues any translator is the fact that
pronominal and adjectival references in the Greek text are not always clear.
This ambiguity is especially evident when converting EpJer into the target
language of English. In the translation I have left such referents ambiguous,

although the careful reader should be able to discern from context which object
is being referred to. Particular issues will be handled in the commentary proper.
Finally, a comment is needed regarding the verse demarcations in EpJer.
There is substantial confusion over verse numbers, which no doubt comes
from the differences found in modern Greek editions (Swete, Rahlfs-Hanhart,
Ziegler). In addition, some commentaries (e.g., Moore 1977) also have different
numberings, labelling the preface of EpJer v. 1. In this commentary I have
adopted the verse divisions of Ziegler, although there are times in which the
divisions in Rahlfs-Hanhart are to be preferred. Some of these differences will
be discussed further in the commentary.
chapter 5
The Text and Translation
of the Epistle of Jeremiah

Inscriptio: ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΙΕΡΕΜΙΟΥ
(Α) ἀντίγραφον ἐπιστολῆς, ἧς ἀπέστειλεν Ιερεμίας πρὸς τοὺς ἀχθησομένους αἰχ-

μαλώτους εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων ἀναγγεῖλαι αὐτοῖς
καθότι ἐπετάγη αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ.
1 διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας, ἃς ἡμαρτήκατε ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀχθήσεσθε εἰς Βαβυλῶνα 5
αἰχμάλωτοι ὑπὸ Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων. 2 εἰσελθόντες οὖν
εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἔσεσθε ἐκεῖ ἔτη πλείονα καὶ χρόνον μακρὸν ἕως γενεῶν ἑπτά, μετὰ
τοῦτο δὲ ἐξάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκεῖθεν μετʼ εἰρήνης. 3 νυνὶ δὲ ὄψεσθε ἐν Βαβυλῶνι θεοὺς
ἀργυροῦς καὶ χρυσοῦς καὶ ξυλίνους ἐπʼ ὤμοις αἰρομένους δεικνύντας φόβον τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν. 4 εὐλαβήθητε οὖν μὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀφομοιωθέντες τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις ἀφομοι- 10
ωθῆτε καὶ φόβος ὑμᾶς λάβῃ ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς 5 ἰδόντας ὄχλον ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν
αὐτῶν προσκυνοῦντας αὐτά, εἴπατε δὲ τῇ διανοίᾳ σοὶ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, δέσποτα.
6 ὁ γὰρ ἄγγελός μου μεθʼ ὑμῶν ἐστιν, αὐτός τε ἐκζητῶν τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. 7 γλῶσσα
γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστι(ν) κατεξυσμένη ὑπὸ τέκτονος, αὐτά τε περίχρυσα καὶ περιάργυρα,
ψευδῆ δέ ἐστι(ν) καὶ οὐ δύνανται λαλεῖν. 8 καὶ ὥσπερ παρθένῳ φιλοκόσμῳ λαμβά- 15
νοντες χρυσίον 9 κατασκευάζουσι(ν) στεφάνους ἐπὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν·
ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὅτε ὑφαιρούμενοι οἱ ἱερεῖς ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον
εἰς ἑαυτοὺς καταναλουσι(ν), 10 δώσουσι(ν) δὲ ἀπʼ αὐτῶν καὶ ταῖς ἐπὶ τοῦς τέγους
πόρναις. κοσμοῦσί τε αὐτοὺς ὡς ἀνθρώπους τοῖς ἐνδύμασι(ν), θεοὺς ἀργυροῦς καὶ
θεοὺς χρυσοῦς καὶ ξυλίνους· 11 οὗτοι δὲ οὐ διασῴζονται ἀπὸ ἰοῦ καὶ βρωμάτων. περι- 20
βεβλημένων αὐτῶν ἱματισμὸν πορφυροῦν 12 ἐκμάσσονται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν διὰ
τὸν ἐκ τῆς οἰκ(ε)ίας κονιορτόν, ὅς ἐστι(ν) πλείω ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς. 13 καὶ σκῆπτρον ἔχει
ὡς ἄνθρωπος κριτὴς χώρας, ὃς τὸν εἰς αὐτὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα οὐκ ἀνελεῖ. 14 ἔχει δὲ
ἐγχειρίδιον δεξιᾷ καὶ πέλεκυν, ἑαυτὸν δὲ ἐκ πολέμου καὶ λῃστῶν οὐκ ἐξελεῖται.
ὅθεν γνώριμοί εἰσιν οὐκ ὄντες θεοί· 25
(Β) μὴ οὖν φοβήθητε αὐτούς. 15 ὥσπερ γὰρ σκεῦος ἀνθρώπου συντρ(ε)ιβὲν ἀχρεῖον
γ(ε)ίνεται, 16 τοιοῦτοι ὑπάρχουσιν οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν, καθιδρυμένων αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖς
οἴκοις. οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν πλήρεις εἰσὶ(ν) κονιορτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ποδῶν τῶν εἰσπορευ-
ομένων. 17 καὶ ὥσπερ τινὶ ἠδικηκότι βασιλέα περιπεφραγμέναι εἰσὶν αἱ αὐλαὶ ὡς
ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἀπηγμένῳ, τοὺς οἴκους αὐτῶν ὀχυροῦσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς θυρώμασί(ν) τε καὶ 30
κλείθροις καὶ μοχλοῖς, ὅπως ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν μὴ συληθῶσι. 18 λύχνους καίουσι(ν)
5 ἁμαρτίας] ὑμῶν erased by corrector. 18 καταναλουσι(ν)] Most mss have καταναλώ-

σουσι. ‖ τέγους] Ziegler (2007, 496) is mistaken when he states that B has στεγους as opposed
to τεγους. 20 θεοὺς] θεούς not found in other mss. 22 πλείω] Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler
have πλείων. 24 ἐγχειρίδιον] Corrected from ἐνχειρίδιον. The γ is added above the line.
‖ ἐγχειρίδιον] B omits ἐν.
Inscriptio: Epistle of Jeremiah
(Α) A copy of the epistle which Jeremiah sent to those about to be led captive
into Babylon by the king of Babylon, to announce to them just as it was
commanded to him by God.
1 Because of the sins which you sinned against God, you will be led
as captives into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Babylonians. 2
Therefore, when you go into Babylon you will be there many years, for a long
time, up to seven generations, but after this I will lead you from there with
peace. 3 But now you will see in Babylon gods of silver and gold and wood,
carried on shoulders, creating fear among the nations. 4 Take care, therefore,
lest you, too, having become like the gentiles, be like them and have fear
of them seize you, 5 seeing the crowd before and behind them worshiping
them, and you say in your heart, “It is necessary to worship you, O master”.
6 For my angel is with you, and he himself is seeking out your souls. 7 For
their tongue has been smoothed by a craftsman, and they themselves are
overlaid with gold and silver, but they are false and are not able to speak. 8
And just as for ornament-loving maidens, they, taking gold, 9 make crowns
for the heads of their gods. But it also happens that priests, stealing gold and
silver from their gods, will spend it on themselves, and they will give of them
also to the prostitutes on the roof. 10 And they adorn them with clothes like
human beings, gods of silver and gods of gold and wood. 11 But they cannot
save themselves from rust and food. Having been dressed in purple clothing,
12 they have their faces wiped because of the dust of the house, which is thick
on them. 13 And he has a sceptre like a human regional judge, he who will not
kill the one who sins against him. 14 And he has a dagger in his right hand
and an axe, but he will not deliver himself from war and robbers. For this
reason they are known as not being gods.
(B) Therefore, do not fear them. 15 For just as a human dish becomes useless
when broken, such are their gods, which have been set up in their houses.
16 Their eyes are full of dust from the feet of those who come in. 17 And just
as courtyards are fenced off against anyone who has wronged the king, as
someone being led away for death, the priests fortify their houses with doors
and bolts and bars, so that they might not be robbed by thieves. 18 They light
168 chapter 5
καὶ πλείους ἢ ἑαυτοῖς, ὧν οὐδένα δύνανται ἰδεῖν. 19 ἔστι(ν) μὲν ὥσπερ δοκὸς
τῶν ἐκ τῆς οἰκ(ε)ίας, τὰς δὲ καρδίας αὐτῶν φασιν ἐκλείχεσθαι, τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
ἑρπετῶν κατεσθοντων αὐτούς τε καὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν αὐτῶν οὐκ αἰσθάνονται. 20
μεμελανωμένοι τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ καπνοῦ τοῦ ἐκ τῆς οἰκ(ε)ίας. 21 ἐπὶ
τὸ σῶμα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐφίπτανται νυκτερίδες, χελ(ε)ιδόνες καὶ τὰ 5
ὄρνεα, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἔλουροι. 22 ὅθεν γνώσεσθε ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί· μὴ οὖν
φοβεῖσθε αὐτά. 23 τὸ γὰρ χρυσίον, ὃ περίκεινται εἰς κάλλος, ἐὰν μή τις ἐκμάξῃ
τὸν ἰόν, οὐ μὴ στίλψωσιν· οὐδὲ γάρ, ὅτε ἐχωνεύοντο, ᾐσθάνοντο. 24 ἐκ πάσης
τιμῆς ἠγορασμένα ἐστίν, ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι(ν) πνεῦμα. 25 ἄνευ ποδῶν ἐπʼ ὤμοις
φέρονται ἐνδεικνύμενοι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀτιμίαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, αἰσχύνονταί τε καὶ 10
οἱ θεραπεύοντες αὐτὰ διὰ τό, μήποτε ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν πέσῃ, διʼ αὐτῶν ἀνίστασθαι·
26 μήτε ἐάν τις αὐτὸ ὀρθὸν στήσῃ, διʼ ἑαυτοῦ κ(ε)ινηθήσεται, μήτε ἐὰν κλιθῇ,
οὐ ὀρθωθῇ, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ νεκροῖς τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῖς παρατίθεται. 27 τὰς δὲ θυσίας
αὐτῶν ἀποδόμενοι οἱ ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν καταχρῶνται· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες ἀπʼ
αὐτῶν ταριχεύουσαι οὔτε πτωχῷ οὔτε ἀδυνάτῳ μὴ μεταδωσι(ν)· τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν 15
ἀποκαθημένη καὶ λεχὼς ἅπτονται.
(Γ) 28 γνόντες οὖν ἀπὸ τούτων ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς. 29 πόθεν
γὰρ κληθείησαν θεοί; ὅτι γυναῖκες παρατιθέασι(ν) θεοῖς ἀργυροῖς καὶ χρυσοῖς καὶ
ξυλίνοις· 30 καὶ ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις αὐτῶν οἱ ἱερεῖς διφρεύουσιν ἔχοντες τοὺς χιτῶνας
διερρωγότας καὶ τὰς κεφαλὰς καὶ τοὺς πώγωνας ἐξυρημένους, ὧν αἱ κεφαλαὶ 20
ἀκάλυπτοί εἰσιν, 31 ὠρύονται δὲ βοῶντες ἐναντίον τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν ὥσπερ τινές
ἐν περιδείπνῳ νεκροῦ. 32 ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ αὐτῶν ἀφελόμενοι οἱ ἱερεῖς ἐνδύ-
σουσι(ν) τὰς γυναῖκας αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία. 33 οὔτε ἐὰν κακὸν πάθωσιν ὑπό τινος
οὔτε ἐὰν ἀγαθόν, δυνήσονται ἀνταποδοῦναι· οὔτε καταστῆσαι βασιλέα δύνανται
οὔτε ἀφελέσθαι. 34 ὡσαύτως οὔτε πλοῦτον οὔτε χαλκὸν οὐ μὴ δύνωνται διδόναι· 25
ἐάν τις αὐτοῖς εὐχὴν εὐξάμενος μὴ ἀποδῷ, οὐ μὴ ἐπιζητήσωσιν. 35 ἐκ θανάτου
ἄνθρωπον οὐ μὴ ῥύσωνται οὔτε ἥττονα ἀπὸ ἰσχυροῦ μὴ ἐξέλωνται. 36 ἄνθρωπον
τυφλὸν εἰς ὅρασιν οὐ μὴ περιστήσωσιν, ἐν ἀνάγκῃ ἄνθρωπον ὄντα οὐ μὴ ἐξέλωνται.
3 αἰσθάνονται] Corrected from ἐσθάνονται. The αι is added above the line. 6 ἔλουροι] Should
read αἴλουροι. 7 περίκεινται] Corrected from περίκινται. The ε is added above the line.
9 ἐπ’] Corrected from ἐφ’. The π is added above the line. 10 ἐνδεικνύμενοι] Corrected from
ἐνδικνύμενοι. The ε is added above the line. 13 οὐ] There is space for an erased μή, although
this is difficult to determine, as the spot is badly smudged. 15 μεταδωσι(ν)] Most mss
have μεταδιδόασι. 16 λεχὼς] Most mss have λεχω. I do not agree with Ziegler (2006, 498)
that the corrector changed λεχως to λεχω, because the sigma is still clear. 18 κληθείησαν]
Dittography of γὰρ κληθείησαν, which is marked out and erased. 22 περιδείπνῳ] Corrected
from περιδίπνῳ. The ε is added above the line. 27 ἰσχυροῦ] B omits οὐ. 28 ἐξέλωνται]
Corrected from ἐξέλωντε. The αι is added above the line.
the text and translation of the epistle of jeremiah 169
lamps and more than [they do] for themselves, none of which they are able
to see. 19 They are just as a beam of wood from a house, and their hearts, they
say, are licked up as the creeping animals from the ground consume them
and also their robes; they do not notice, 20 having been blackened in their
face from the smoke from the house. 21 Bats, swallows, and birds descend on
their bodies and on [their] heads, and in the same way also do cats. 22 For this
reason you will know that they are not gods; therefore, do not fear them. 23
For the gold, which they wear for beauty, unless someone wipes the rust, they
will certainly not shine, for they did not notice even when they were being
cast. 24 At all cost things in which there is no breath are bought. 25 Without
feet they are carried on shoulders displaying their dishonour to people, and
even those who attend them are ashamed because by them they are made
to stand, so that it might never fall to the ground. 26 Even if anyone stands
it upright, it will not move by itself, nor if it is tipped, it will not straighten
itself, but just as to the dead, gifts are placed before them. 27 And their priests,
selling the sacrifices, use them, and also in the same way their wives preserve
some of them with salt; they do not share, neither with the poor, nor with the
disabled. A woman who sits apart and one who has just given birth touch the
sacrifices.
(Γ) 28 Therefore, knowing from these things that they are not gods, do not
fear them. 29 For in what way might they be called gods? For women set
[food] before gods of gold, silver, and wood. 30 And in their houses the priests
sit apart, having clothes torn and head and beard shaved, whose heads are
uncovered, 31 and shouting, they roar before their gods just like those at a
funeral banquet. 32 The priests, taking from their clothing, clothe their wives
and children. 33 Neither if they suffer evil from someone, nor if [they receive]
good, they will not be able to repay. Neither are they able to appoint a king,
nor to depose. 34 In the same way, neither riches nor copper are they able to
give. If someone, vowing a vow to them, does not fulfill [it], they will certainly
not demand [it]. 35 They surely cannot save a man from death, nor can they
deliver the weak from the strong. 36 They can surely not restore sight to the
blind man, and they certainly cannot deliver a person in distress. 37 They
170 chapter 5
37 χήραν οὐ μὴ ἐλεήσωσιν οὔτε ὀρφανὸν εὖ ποιήσουσι(ν). 38 τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους

λίθοις ὡμοιωμένοι εἰσὶ(ν) τὰ ξύλινα καὶ τὰ περίχρυσα καὶ τὰ περιάργυρα, οἱ δὲ
θεραπεύοντες αὐτὰ καταισχυνθήσονται.
(Δ) 39 πῶς οὖν νομιστέον ἢ κλητέον αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχειν θεούς; 40 ἔτι δὲ καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν
Χαλδαίων ἀτιμαζόντων αὐτά, οἵ ὅταν ἴδωσιν ἐνεὸν οὐ δυνάμενον λαλῆσαι, προσεν- 5
εγκάμενοι τὸν Βῆλον ἀξιοῦσι(ν) φωνῆσαι, ὡς δυνατοῦ ὄντος αὐτοῦ αἰσθέσθαι, 41
καὶ οὐ δύνανται αὐτοὶ νοήσαντες καταλιπεῖν αὐτά, αἴσθησιν γὰρ οὐκ ἔχουσιν. 42
αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες περιθέμεναι σχοινία ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς ἐγκάθηνται θυμιῶσαι τὰ πίτυρα·
43 ὅταν δέ τις αὐτῶν ἐφελκυσθεῖσα ὑπό τινος τῶν παραπορευομένων κοιμηθῇ, τὴν
πλησίον ὀνειδίζει, ὅτι οὐκ ἠξίωται ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτὴ οὔτε τὸ σχοινίον αὐτῆς διερ- 10
ράγη. 44 πάντα τὰ γενόμενα αὐτοῖς ἐστι(ν) ψευδῆ· πῶς οὖν νομιστέον ἢ κλητέον
ὡς θεοὺς αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχειν; 45 ὑπὸ τεκτόνων καὶ χρυσοχόων κατεσκευασμένα εἰσίν·
οὐθὲν ἄλλο μὴ γένηται ἢ ὃ βούλονται οἱ τεχν(ε)ῖται αὐτὰ γενέσθαι. 46 αὐτοί τε οἱ
κατασκευάζοντες αὐτὰ οὐ μὴ γένωνται πολυχρόνιοι. 47 πῶς τε δὴ μέλλει τὰ ὑπʼ
αὐτῶν κατασκευασθέντα; κατέλιπον γὰρ ψεύδη καὶ ὄνειδος τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις. 48 15
ὅταν γὰρ ἐπέλθῃ ἐπʼ αὐτὰ πόλεμος καὶ κακά, βουλεύονται πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς οἱ ἱερεῖς
ποῦ συναποκρυβῶσι μετʼ αὐτῶν. 49 πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν)
θεοί, οἳ οὔτε σῴζουσιν ἑαυτοὺς ἐκ πολέμου οὔτε ἐκ κακῶν; 50 ὑπάρχοντα γὰρ ξύλινα
καὶ περίχρυσα καὶ περιάργυρα γνωσθήσεται μετὰ ταῦτα ὅτι ἐστὶ(ν) ψευδῆ· τοῖς
ἔθνεσι πᾶσι τοῖς τε βασιλεῦσι φανερὸν ἔσται ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι θεοὶ ἀλλὰ ἔργα χειρῶν 20
ἀνθρώπων, καὶ οὐδὲν θεοῦ ἔργον ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστι(ν).
(Ε) 51 τίνι οὖν γνωστέον ἐστὶν ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί; 52 βασιλέα γὰρ χώρας οὐ μὴ
ἀναστήσωσιν οὔτε ὑετὸν ἀνθρώποις οὐ μὴ δῶσι(ν) 53 κρίσιν τε οὐ μὴ διακρίνωσιν
ἑαυτῶν οὐδὲ μὴ ῥύσωνται ἀδίκημα ἀδύνατοι ὄντες· 54 ὥσπερ γὰρ κορῶναι ἀνὰ
μέσον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς. καὶ γὰρ ὅταν ἐμπέσῃ εἰς οἰκίαν θεῶν ξυλίνων ἢ 25
περιχρύσων ἢ περιαργύρων πῦρ, οἱ μὲν ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν φεύξονται καὶ διασωθήσονται,
αὐτοὶ δὲ ὥσπερ δοκοὶ μέσοι κατακαυθήσονται. 55 βασιλεῖ δὲ καὶ πολεμίοις οὐ
μὴ ἀντιστῶσι(ν). 56 πῶς οὖν ἐκδεκτέον ἢ νομιστέον ὅτι εἰσὶ(ν) θεοί; οὔτε ἀπὸ
κλεπτῶν οὔτε ἀπὸ λῃστῶν οὐ μὴ διαθῶσι(ν) θεοὶ ξύλινοι καὶ περιάργυροι καὶ
περίχρυσοι, 57 ὧν οἱ ἰσχύοντες περιελοῦνται τὸ χρυσίον καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον καὶ τὸν 30
ἱματισμὸν τὸν περικείμενον αὐτοῖς ἀπελεύσονται ἔχοντες, οὔτε ἑαυτοῖς οὐ μὴ
8 ἐγκάθηνται] Corrected from ἐνκάθηνται. The γ is added above the line. 10 ὀνειδίζει]
Corrected from ὀνιδίζει. The ε is added above the line. 12 ὡς] Most mss have ωστε. ‖ κατε-
σκευασμένα] Corrected from κατασκευασμένα. The ε is added above the line. 13 γένηται]
Some other mss have γενωνται. 15 κατασκευασθέντα] εἶναι θεοί omitted. 24 ἀδίκημα]
Instead of ἀδικούμενον. 29 διαθῶσι(ν)] Other mss have διασωθωσι(ν); διασωθουσιν in A.
surely cannot have mercy on the widow, nor will they do the orphan good.
38 These wooden things, overlaid with gold and overlaid with silver, are like
stones from the mountains; those who serve them will be put to shame.
(Δ) 39 How, therefore, are they to be thought or called gods? 40 And yet, even
the Chaldeans themselves dishonour them (when they see someone who is
dumb, unable to speak, they bring him and request Bel to speak, as though
he was able to understand), 41 and they themselves perceiving are not able to
abandon them, for they have no insight. 42 And the women, having wrapped
cords around themselves, sit in the streets, burning bran as incense. 43 And
when one of them, having been led away by someone passing by to have
sexual intercourse, she insults her neighbour because she was not as worthy
as she herself was, nor was her cord broken. 44 Everything that happens to
them is false. How, therefore, are they to be thought or called as gods? 45
They have been made by carpenters and goldsmiths; nothing other can they
be than what the craftsmen wished them to be. Those who made them will
certainly not live long themselves. 46 How then will those things made by
them continue? 47 For they left behind lies and disgrace for those who come
after. 48 For when war and evil comes upon them, the priests consult among
themselves where they might hide with them. 49 How, therefore, do they not
understand that they are not gods, who neither save themselves from war
nor from evil? 50 For being wood and covered in gold and covered in silver,
it will be known after these things that they are false; it will be revealed to
all nations and kings that they are not gods, but works of human hands, and
there is no work of god in them.
(E) 51 Therefore, to whom is it known that they are not gods? 52 For they
can surely not establish a king of the country, nor can they surely give rain
to people. 53 They are surely not able to decide their own case, nor rescue
the wrong, as they are powerless. 54 For they are just like crows between
heaven and earth. For when fire falls into the house of the gods, who are
wooded or covered with gold or covered with silver, their priests will flee
and be rescued, but they will be consumed like the centre beams. 55 And
they cannot even resist a king or enemies. 56 How, therefore, is it admitted
or thought that they are gods? 57 Neither from thieves nor from robbers can
the gods of wood, covered with silver and covered with gold be saved, the
strong of whom will remove the gold and silver and they will go away with
the clothing placed around them, nor will they help themselves. 58 So, it is
172 chapter 5
βοηθήσωσιν· 58 ὥστε κρεῖσσον εἶναι βασιλέα ἐπιδεικνύμενον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀνδρείαν

ἢ σκεῦος ἐν οἰκίᾳ χρήσιμον, ἐφʼ ᾧ κεχρήσεται ὁ κεκτημένος, ἢ οἱ ψευδεῖς θεοί·
ἢ καὶ θύρα ἐν οἰκίᾳ διασῴζουσα τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ὄντα ἢ οἱ ψευδεῖς θεοί, καὶ ξύλινος
στῦλος ἐν βασιλείοις ἢ οἱ ψευδεῖς θεοί. 59 ἥλιος μὲν γὰρ καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἄστρα ὄντα
λαμπρὰ καὶ ἀποστελλόμενα ἐπὶ χρείας εὐήκοά εἰσιν· 60 ὡσαύτως καὶ ἀστραπή, 5
ὅταν ἐπιφανῇ, εὔοπτός ἐστι(ν)· τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν πάσῃ χώρᾳ πνεῖ· 61
καὶ νεφέλαις ὅταν ἐπιταγῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιπορεύεσθαι ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην,
συντελοῦσι τὸ ταχθέν· 62 τό τε πῦρ ἐξαποσταλὲν ἄνωθεν ἐξαναλῶσαι ὄρη καὶ
δρυμοὺς ποιεῖ τὸ συνταχθέν. ταῦτα δὲ οὔτε ταῖς εἰδέαις οὔτε ταῖς δυνάμεσιν αὐτῶν
ἀφωμοιωμένα ἐστίν. 63 ὅθεν οὔτε νομιστέον οὔτε κλητέον ὑπάρχειν αὐτοὺς θεούς, 10
οὐ δυνατῶν ὄντων αὐτῶν οὔτε κρίσιν κρῖναι οὔτε εὖ ποιεῖν ἀνθρώποις.
(ς) 64 γνόντες οὖν ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς. 65 οὔτε γὰρ βασιλεῦσιν
οὐ μὴ καταράσωνται οὔτε μὴ εὐλογήσωσι. 66 σημεῖά τε ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐ
μὴ δείξωσιν οὐδὲ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος λάμψουσιν οὐδὲ φωτισοῦσιν ὡς σελήνη. 67 τὰ θηρία
ἐστὶ(ν) κρείττω αὐτῶν, ἃ δύνανται ἐκφυγόντα εἰς σκέπην αὐτὰ ὠφελῆσαι. 68 κατʼ 15
οὐδένα οὖν τρόπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν φανερὸν ὅτι εἰσὶ(ν) θεοί· διὸ μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς.
69 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν συκηράτῳ προβασκάνιον οὐδὲν φυλάσσον, οὕτως οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν
εἰσι(ν) ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι. 70 τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ τῇ ἐν
κήπῳ ῥάμνῳ, ἐφʼ ἧς πᾶν ὄρνεον ἐπικάθηται, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ νεκρῷ ἐρρ(ε)ιμμένῳ
ἐν σκότει ἀφωμοίωνται οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν ξύλινοι καὶ περίχρυσοι καὶ περιάργυροι. 71 20
ἀπό τε τῆς πορφύρας καὶ τῆς μαρμὰρου τῆς ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς σηπομένης γνωσθήσεται
ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί· αὐτά τε ἐξ ὑστέρου βρωθήσονται, καὶ ἔσται ὄνειδος ἐν τῇ
χώρᾳ. 72 κρείσσων οὖν ἄνθρωπος δίκαιος οὐκ ἔχων εἴδωλα, ἔσται γὰρ μακρὰν ἀπὸ
ὀνειδισμοῦ.
Subscriptio: ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΙΕΡΕΜΙΟΥ 25
1 κρεῖσσον] Corrected from κρῖσσον. The ε is added above the line. 14 δείξωσιν] Corrected
from δείξωσι. The ν is added above the line for ease of reading/speaking. ‖ ἥλιος] οὐ μή
omitted. 15 κρείττω] Corrected from κρίττω. The ε is squished between the ρ and the ι
at the bottom of the line.
better to be a king who shows his own manliness, or a useful vessel in a house
which the owner will use, than false gods; or even a door that keeps those in
the house safe, than false gods; even a wooden pillar in a palace, than false
gods. 59 For the sun and moon and stars are bright, and having been sent for
a service, they are obedient. 60 In the same way lightning, when it appears,
is clearly visible. The same wind also blows in every country. 61 And to the
clouds, when commanded by God to travel throughout the whole inhabited
world, they fulfill what was commanded. 62 And fire sent from above to
destroy mountains and forests, does what it is ordered. But these things are
similar neither in appearance nor in their power. 63 For this reason neither
think nor call them to be gods, for they are not able either to judge a case or
to do good to people.
(ς) 64 Therefore, knowing that they are not gods, do not fear them. 65 For
they can neither curse nor bless kings, 66 and they surely do not show signs
in heaven for the nations, nor shine like the sun or give light like the moon.
67 Wild animals, who are able to flee to shelter and to help themselves, are
better than them. 68 Therefore, it is clear to us that they are in no way gods.
For this reason do not fear them. 69 For just as a scarecrow in a cucumber
patch guards nothing, so their gods are wood and covered with gold and
covered with silver. 70 In the same way also their gods of wood and covered
with gold and covered with silver are similar to a thorn bush in a garden on
which every bird perches, and also like a corpse thrown into the darkness.
71 And from the purple and marble which is rotting on them you will know
that they are not gods, and they themselves at last will be consumed and it
will be a disgrace for the land. 72 Therefore it is better for a righteous person
not to have idols, for he will be far from reproach.
Subscriptio: Epistle of Jeremiah

chapter 6
Commentary on the Epistle of Jeremiah
Inscriptio
A limited number of inscriptions are used to introduce the text of EpJer. The
most common, in B A O Bo Syr, is επιστολη ιερεμιου. A similar heading is found in
the Latin manuscripts LaCL, which read incipit epistola hieremiae (+ prophetae
LC). The other Greek majuscules (Q V) have the simple επιστολη without an
authorship attribution. Of interest is the inscription in ms 538, which has the
title επιστολη προς βαρουχ.
1 Narrative Setting and Introduction (Preface–14a)
The Epistle of Jeremiah opens with a preface that provides the overall frame-
work for the text. Although self-identified as an epistle (ἐπιστολῆς), this work
does not conform to the formal features typical of a letter opening (Doering
2006, 49; Adams 2010), but rather takes the form of a sermon/homily (Wright
2010, 126), or a tirade (Moore 1977, 317) against idolatry. It is clearly polemical
in nature (deSilva 2002, 217), with strong satirical overtones.
The prologue reports that this is a copy (ἀντίγραφον) of a letter that Jeremiah
sent to those who were about to be exiled. The latter statement introduces both
the sender and recipient of the letter (for similar use of ἀντίγραφον cf. 1 Esd 6.7;
1Macc 8.22; Philo, Legat. 315; Josephus, Ant. 12.35, 225; 13.166). Contra Niebuhr
(1998, 425), the use of ἀντίγραφον does not mean that the letter claims to be
identical to the one in Jer 36.1–23. The letter sender is introduced simply as
Jeremiah (+ ο προφητης 239). No further specification is provided and none is
needed, as it is clear that the letter purports to be from Jeremiah the prophet.
This has led to EpJer’s inclusion in the Jeremianic additions and may reflect
the reference in Jer 36.30–32 to Jeremiah’s sending a number of letters to
the Jewish Diaspora community. The letter recipient of EpJer is identified by
the prepositional phrase πρὸς τοὺς ἀχθησομένους αἰχμαλώτους εἰς Βαβυλῶνα.
The substantive τοὺς ἀχθησομένους is interesting, as it is a rare future passive
participle (Latin mss put it in the past-tense: abductos, abducemini). The term
provides a temporal and geographic framework for the letter narrative: since
the recipients have yet to go into exile to Babylon, the letter purports to be
written prior to 586bc or even 597bc, the year in which Jeremiah informed

commentary on the epistle of jeremiah 175
his recipients (already in exile) to settle in Babylon (cf. Jer 36; Kratz 1998, 88).
Nevertheless, that the intended addressees are still located in Jerusalem offers
the possibility that later readers still dwelling in and around Jerusalem might
also feel addressed by this letter opening (Doering 2006, 53; 2012, 157).
The letter opening provides a rationale for the letter and sets the tone.
Jeremiah (αὐτῷ; αυτοις A), foreseeing the exile, is commanded by God to write to
the people in order to warn them about the challenges they will face in Babylon,
specifically the trap of idolatry. The reference to God’s commanding Jeremiah
to write recalls Jeremiah’s prophetic office, as well as parallel passages in the
book of Jeremiah (cf. Jer 36.1). Regarding the tone created by the introduction,
the future tense-form creates a sense of ominous expectation: the people are
about to be exiled.
Following the prologue, there is a minor paragraph break. This is the only
non-major break in Vaticanus EpJer and functions as a marker for the opening
of the letter. This break is also found in the other Greek manuscripts (A Q V).
The letter proper commences with an indictment of the Jewish people that
identifies the (general) cause of their future deportation: it is because they have
sinned against God (cf. Jer 16.10–13). The original scribe of Vaticanus included
the personal pronoun ὑμῶν (erased by the corrector of B), emphasising the
people’s responsibility for the sin. Specific sins are not delineated, nor is such
a delineation necessary, as the central idea is simply that the exile will occur
because of the sins the people have committed against God.
The text begins by speaking of God in the third person. This is the dom-
inant way in which God will be discussed in EpJer, although not with com-
plete consistency (cf. vv. 2, 6). The reference to Nebuchadnezzar in v. 1 fits
with the narrative identity of the speaker as Jeremiah. The phrasing βασι-
λέως τῶν Βαβυλωνίων is rare in the lxx, where the form βασιλέως Βαβυλῶ-
νος is more typical. The only other instance which includes the article is Is
39.7.
Verse 2 identifies the amount of time the Jewish people will spend in Baby-
lon. This is accomplished by a clustering of locative (Βαβυλῶνα, ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν)
and temporal markers (ἔτη, χρόνον, ἕως γενεῶν ἑπτά, μετὰ τοῦτο). The temporal
duration of exile is given three times with increasing specificity: many years,
for a long time, up to seven generations. “Seven generations” is a very specific
delineation that has been used by a number of scholars to calculate the date at
which EpJer was composed (see section 2.1 in the Introduction above). Depend-
ing on the date one uses for the exile (597 or 586bc), seven generations, at forty
years per generation, would put EpJer’s date of composition at 317 or 306 bc
(Ball 1913, 596). The sharp contrast between EpJer’s “seven generations” and
canonical Jeremiah’s prediction of seventy years (Jer 25.12; 36.10; and also three
176 chapter 6
generations in mt Jer 27.7), of which the author of EpJer must have been aware,
is striking.
In EpJer 2, God declares that after the seven generations have been com-
pleted he will bring them out from Babylon with joy (μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ ἐξάξω ὑμᾶς
ἐκεῖθεν μετʼ εἰρήνης). The verb ἐξάξω marks the first instance in which God
speaks in the first person. God is depicted as speaking directly to his people,
promising their future deliverance. God’s role as the people’s liberator is a stan-
dard theme in the lxx and the book of Jeremiah, and ἐξάγω in EpJer recalls
other lxx references to God’s deliverances, particularly the redemption of the
Israelite people from Egypt (Deut 5.6, 15; 6.21, 23).
Another temporal deictic marker, νυνὶ δέ, brings the reader back to the
narrative present. The author maintains an atmosphere of expectation by using
the future tense-form (ὄψεσθε), warning the future exiles about what they will
see in Babylon. The mention of gods of silver, gold, and wood is a common
refrain in EpJer, although there is some slight variation. Here there are gods
formed out of three materials (silver, gold, wood), but in later verses (e.g., v. 38)
gods are made of wood and overlaid with gold or silver. The discussion of idols
in EpJer is consistent with the well-known Babylonian practice discussed in
Dan [θ] 5.4, where Belshazzar worshiped gods of gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood,
and stone with vessels taken from the Jerusalem temple.
The description of the gods in EpJer matches that found in a letter from
Jeremiah to the exiles in 2Macc 2.2: “[Jeremiah] instructed those who were
being deported not to forget the commandments of the Lord, or to be led astray
in their thoughts on seeing the gold and silver statues and their adornment”.
In EpJer, these “gods” are carried around on shoulders (ἐπʼ ὤμοις is a fronted
modifier), creating fear among the nations (Muraoka 2009). Although not
explicitly stated, the Jewish and Christian readers would know that the creation
of gods is unambiguously condemned by God in Ex 20.23, which would be part
of the framework with which they would read the text.
Verse 4 is a very confusing sentence. The polyptoton of ἀφομοιόω and the
general construction of the sentence do not allow for an easy English transla-
tion. Moore (1977, 335) claims that ἀφομοιωθέντες … ἀφομοιωθῆτε is not standard
Greek, but a rendering of the Hebrew infinitive absolute. The fact that the two
words are separated by τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις challenges this assertion, however, and
the use of the same verb twice in one sentence, although not typical in English,
is common enough in Greek. Recourse to Hebrew is not required.
The identification of grammatical referents provides another challenge. For
example, although εὐλαβήθητε is the closest verb that could be paired with the
negative particle μή, context does not allow for such an association. Rather, the
negative particle functions as a conjunction, “Beware, lest …”. Second, although
grammatically the most likely referent of ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς is τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις (because
it is the closest option), context and the way in which φόβος is used throughout
EpJer indicate that the actual referent is θεούς in v. 3. For my translation, I have
drawn upon the rendering in nets, which adequately captures the meaning of
v. 4 while maintaining its convoluted construction.
The risk outlined in v. 5 continues the thought of v. 4; the Jewish people are
not to allow themselves to be influenced or impressed by the idol procession
where throngs of people surround the “god” worshiping it. Moreover, they are
to resist taking part in any form of worship, especially any form of confession,
identified by the phrase, εἴπατε δὲ τῇ διανοίᾳ σοὶ. This expression has parallels
in Gen 17.17; 27.41; Deut 7.17; and Is 14.13, all of which indicate the seriousness
of the action: something you say in your heart is what you truly believe. In
EpJer, the heart’s thought is an act of worship and a declaration: “It is necessary
to worship you, O master”. The latter pronouncement takes the form of a
catenative construction, a syntactical unit in which the verbal complement of
the first verb (present tense-form δεῖ) is a present infinitive (προσκυνεῖν).
Interestingly, Alexandrinus (and Arab) omits the second half of v. 5 (εἴπατε
δὲ τῇ διανοίᾳ σοὶ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν, δέσποτα). Ball (1913, 600) suggests that the
latter phrase might be a later interpolation, but the omission could also result
from haplography. The fact that the phrase is included in almost every other
manuscript supports the latter option.
God’s warning is connected to a subsequent explanation by the use of γάρ:
God’s ἄγγελος is with them, watching over their lives. Verse 5 includes the
second and last instance in which EpJer has God use the first person singular,
μου (cf. v. 2). There is one other first person pronoun in EpJer, ἡμῖν in v. 68. Here
the prophet refers to himself and the people of Israel, and does not include God.
The term ἄγγελος could be glossed as either “messenger” or “angel”. Nearly
every translation opts for the latter, and I can see no reason to disagree, as it
best fits the narrative context. In EpJer, the task of the angel is to preserve the
people, although Kratz (1998, 90) rightly notes that the angel could also have a
punitive function (“gegebenenfalls auch strafende?”). Parallels in the lxx to an
angel who guards Israel are easy to identify, most notably in Ex 23.20–24 and
32.34, although a number of other texts also recount angelic protectors (Tob 5.4;
Dan 3.49; Bel 34). Naumann (1913, 1) uses the reference to an “angel” to support
his post-exilic dating of the text, arguing that guardian angels were of minor
significance in pre-exilic literature.
As discussed in the Introduction, EpJer’s use of conjunctions is noteworthy.
In v. 6 we have the first of 14 occurrences of τε, a substantial amount for such a
short work. To provide context, there are 274 instances of τέ in the lxx. The most
in any one book is 33 (3Macc), while the whole of the Pentateuch has only 55.
178 chapter 6
This particle is common in wider Greek literature, however, and EpJer parallels
such usage (Josephus = 4,623 times; Philo = 2,051; Apollonius of Rhodes, Arg. =
420; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. = 4,579).
Nearly every modern commentator thinks verse 7 begins a new section, but
a break is not supported by the two major Greek manuscripts (A B; only V has
a major break). For Vaticanus v. 7 continues the previous discussion, and the
subject returns to created “gods”.
The gods’s tongue (γλῶσσα, singular) has been smoothed out by a craftsman.
This is described via a periphrastic construction (ἐστι[ν] κατεξυσμένη) in which
the aspect-giving complement is in the perfect tense-form (stative) (A omits
ἐστι[ν] and so disrupts the periphrastic). These tongues (αὐτά, plural) have
been covered with gold and silver, but all is fake, as they are not able to speak.
The latter idea is expressed through a catenative construction, δύνανται λαλεῖν.
Similar reminders of the muteness of idols despite their ornamentation are
seen in biblical (Ps 113.12–13; 134.15–16) and other extra-biblical texts (Syb. Or.
3.30–31; 5.73–85; Clement, Strom. 5.76.1; Heraclitus, F115).
Another comparison is offered in v. 8 by the opening paired conjunction καὶ
ὥσπερ. This is the first occurrence in EpJer of ὥσπερ, which will be used repeat-
edly throughout the book (vv. 8, 15, 17, 19, 26, 31, 43, 53, 54, 69) to compare idols
with constructed images and to contrast “the gods” though the use of metaphor
(Robertson 1919, 1140). The image used in v. 8 is that of decoration-loving maid-
ens who are given crowns just as the “gods” are. The instance of φιλοκόσμῳ is a
hapax legomenon in the lxx and the first known occurrence of this word and its
cognates in Greek literature. It is later used by a variety of Greek authors, often
in a pejorative sense (e.g., Philo, Flac. 148; Plutarch, Conj. praec. 48, Mor. 145a).
Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler disagree as to where v. 9 begins (and regarding
other verse divisions). In the current context, Ziegler places a break between
χρυσίον and κατασκευάζουσι(ν), whereas Rahlfs-Hanhart locates one after the
high point (·). The latter option is to be preferred, as it is less disruptive for
reading the Greek.
According to v. 9, not only is there a problem with the construction of the
gods, but there is also a systemic issue with the priesthood: the priests do not
respect their gods and steal gold and silver from them in order to spend it
on themselves and hire prostitutes. In Vaticanus, v. 9 is introduced by a triple
conjunction (δὲ καὶ ὅτε) followed by the present middle participle ὑφαιρούμενοι,
a rare word in the lxx. The priests, in the nominative, are the subject of v. 9
and the object of the narrator’s ridicule: these priests spend gold pilfered from
their gods on themselves. Most manuscripts have καταναλώσουσι, but Vaticanus
has καταναλουσι(ν), which is problematic, as it would be a very rare form of
καταναλίσκω (Thackeray 1909, 259). It appears most likely that two letters (ωσ)
were omitted. For the translation and commentary, the sense of καταναλώσουσι
has been adopted.
The term τέγος, with the omission of σ (Thackeray 1909, 117; Ziegler [2007,
496] is mistaken when he states that B has στεγους as opposed to τεγους),
here stands for “roof”, although in later Greek it also stood for brothel (lsj).
Torrey (1945, 66) argues that the phrase ἐπὶ τοῦς τέγους indicates an Aramaic
origin for EpJer, and that it is a mistranslation of “for hire”. The Greek makes
sufficient sense, however, as sacred prostitutes might have slept on the roof
in the summer months or performed ritual acts there (Moore 1977, 338). The
ancient historian Herodotus (Hist. 1.181) reports of a native Babylonian woman
who stayed in the tower (a shrine to Bel) at night.
These same priests dress the gods of silver, gold, and wood in clothes like
humans, but the gods are not able to save themselves from rust and food (ἀπὸ
ἰοῦ καὶ βρωμάτων; βρωσεως L’ LaCLV). While the mention of rust is understand-
able (they are covered/formed from metal), the sense of the latter noun is
obscure. Ball (1913, 597; followed by Moore 1977, 338) claims that this is a mis-
translation of unpointed Hebrew and should read “from rust and moths” (cf. Is
51.8; 55.10; Matt 6.19). Naumann (1913, 36), although ultimately concluding that
EpJer is a translation, nevertheless offers a way by which the Greek can be read
on its own terms. He argues that although βρῶμα in classical Greek literature
always referred to “bread” or “food”, in later Greek, particularly medical texts,
βρῶμα paired with ἰός could be signify “corruption” or “decay” (see Naumann
for references). More recently, Wright (2010, 138–139) has further developed this
idea by reading v. 10 in light of its surrounding context. If one acknowledges the
parallels between v. 10 and v. 19 (along with their accompanying co-text) then
one can see v. 10 as the ultimate insult for so-called “gods”: their metals corrode
and the wood becomes food for vermin. Not having access to the (supposed)
Hebrew text, it is likely that the early Greek readers would have understood the
use of βρῶμα in the latter manner.
The irony continues as the gods, who now look like humans and are dressed
in fine purple clothes, are nevertheless not able to keep themselves clean
and require someone to wipe their faces, which are covered in dust. As will
be discussed further below (cf. v. 15), the gods are referenced with a perfect
participle in the genitive plural, which is paired with a genitive plural noun
to form a genitive construction, περιβεβλημένων αὐτῶν (i.e., genitive absolute,
see Fuller 2006 for discussion of this construction). The absoluteness of this
construction is compromised, however, because the gods (grammaticalised in
αὐτῶν) also function as a key component of the following clause.
The verb ἐκμάσσονται (A ἐκμάσωνται) in the middle voice-form has posed
a challenge for some commentators who do not see the specified action as
180 chapter 6
compatible with the grammaticalised person (e.g., Moore 1977, 338, who posits
a Hebrew mistranslation). The middle voice is not an issue, however, for two
reasons. First, the middle form occurs a number of times in EpJer, nearly
all of which can be understood from the surrounding context. Second, the
immediately preceding verb (περιβεβλημένων) is in the middle and has the
same subject; this creates continuity in the discourse. Overall, the function of
the middle voice has been understudied, with commentators defaulting to the
idea of reflexivity rather than embracing the concept of ergativity (the idea that
causality is inherent in the action; Porter 2009b, 65).
There is one textual issue in v. 11: the form of πολύς. A majority of manuscripts
(as well as Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler) have πλείων (nominative masculine
singular), whereas Vaticanus has πλείω (accusative neuter plural). Although the
third person singular ἐστι(ν) can accommodate a plural subject, a noun in the
accusative case cannot serve that function. The expected double nominative
for ἐστι(ν) is thus absent in Vaticanus.
Although strict parallelism is lacking, there is symmetry between vv. 12
and 13 in the subject (gods) and verb (ἔχει), the objects being held (weapons:
sceptre, dagger, axe), the inactivity of the (powerless) victim, and the sentence
arrangement, especially the placement of a negative particle and future verb at
the end of each sentence (οὐκ ἀνελεῖ, οὐκ ἐξελεῖται).
According to Naumann (1913, 4–5) the depictions of the gods in EpJer are
consistent with Babylonian statues and reliefs depicting gods, and it is there-
fore possible (although unprovable) that the author of EpJer had a particular
idol or god in mind when writing (contra Moore 1977, 338). Two of the objects
held by the gods make sense (σκῆπτρον and πέλεκυν [+ εκ πολεμων A]), but the
dagger (ἐγχειρίδιον) is unexpected. Occurring six times in the lxx, ἐγχειρίδιον is
not typically a symbol for strength or dominion, although in Ez 21.8–10 the Lord
is about to draw out his dagger and destroy the unrighteous and the lawless. The
use of ἐγχειρίδιον in Ez 21 is also questioned by lxx commentators (Olley 2009,
373). The use of this term in earlier Greek literature (Aeschylus, Suppl. 21) sug-
gests that ἐγχειρίδιον may have some symbolic value, although this is lost for
the modern reader.
The first paragraph of EpJer concludes with a statement that will become a
refrain throughout the text: “For this reason they are known as not being gods”
(ὅθεν γνώριμοί εἰσιν οὐκ ὄντες θεοί; cf. also vv. 22, 28, 49, 51, 68, 71; Dafni 2003).
Due to its repetition it is clear that this is an important theme of EpJer and
likely the major message of the work. It is interesting that Moore (1977, 339,
following Ball) identifies γνώριμοι as a problem. According to Moore, γνώριμοι
in the lxx is typically used to refer to “friends” and, as “friends” does not work
in this clause, that the “translator” must have misread ‫ מודצים‬as a noun rather
than as a participle. Challenging this reading Wright (2010, 138) correctly notes
that γνώριμοι is used by Plato (Resp. 8.558c; 10.614e) and Xenophon (Hell. 5.4.2)
to mean “well-known, notable, known to all”. The term also takes on a similar
meaning in Homer, Od. 16.9. This sense of the term fits EpJer, and there is
therefore no need to posit a Hebrew translation mistake.
2 The Uselessness of False Gods (vv. 14b–27)
Codex Vaticanus breaks the text at 14b with a Greek paragraph marker. This
break is not paralleled in other Greek manuscripts or in modern scholarly edi-
tions. As mentioned in the Introduction, nearly every modern scholar breaks
the text at the beginning of v. 15 (ὥσπερ γὰρ σκεῦος …). This is not well sup-
ported by Greek manuscripts, however, with only Q providing a (minor) break.
Text divisions in Q are so ubiquitous that they provide little support for includ-
ing one here.
By breaking the text at v. 14b the scribe of Vaticanus places the initial decla-
ration in the topic position of vv. 14b–27. The οὖν conjunction that opens this
paragraph is important for understanding the criteria by which the scribe of
Vaticanus made paragraph divisions. Although mostly used in an inferential
manner in Greek (Porter 1994, 214), οὖν is a conjunction that can function on
a high discourse level (Denniston 1954, 425–430). In EpJer Vaticanus it appears
that the latter is one of the ways that οὖν functions, as every paragraph (exclud-
ing the preface at which point οὖν would be odd) begins with an οὖν: vv. 14b, 28,
39, 51, 64.
Paired with this conjunction in v. 14 is a declaration about not fearing idols:
μὴ οὖν φοβήθητε αὐτούς. The verb φοβηθῆτε, with a circumflex accent on the
final η, would be a subjunctive form, as in Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler (2006).
Another possibility is φοβήθητε, an aorist passive imperative (cf. also vv. 28,
64, and 68). If one accepts the latter accenting, there are six imperatives in
EpJer (vv. 4, 14, 22, 28, 64, 68), all but one of which (v. 22, present) are in
the aorist tense-form. The drawback to the imperative accenting is that the
negated aorist imperative is not widely used in Greek, but a second person
plural would also be unusual as a subjunctive of prohibition (bdf § 335). All
things considered, the imperative accenting is to be preferred, as it further
indicates the interpersonal relationship between the speaker and the listener:
the speaker is asserting a position of authority over the listeners and telling
them what to do. This sense of authority and direction would not be captured
by the subjunctive, which does not encode a hierarchical relationship between
speaker and listener, but rather a more equitable relationship (Porter 1994, 56).
182 chapter 6
The narrator, having asserted that his addressees should not fear the gods,
returns to metaphorical comparisons with ὥσπερ. As mentioned in v. 8, there
are ten occurrences of ὥσπερ in EpJer, three of which are followed by γάρ to form
a conjunctive pairing (vv. 15, 43, 69). This collocation is witnessed 25 times in
the Greek Bible, mostly in books whose language of composition was originally
Greek. The image developed by ὥσπερ is of a dish that, when broken, becomes
useless. The comparison finds its completion with τοιοῦτοι, which equates the
broken dish to the gods. The gods are said to have been set up in their houses
(τοῖς οἴκοις; τοις κηποις A), a phrase that describes the gods through the use of
a perfect participle (καθιδρυμένων) which, paired with αὐτῶν, forms a genitive
absolute (cf. v. 11). Of fourteen perfect participles in EpJer, a majority have “the
gods” as their subject.
The gods continue to be the subject of v. 16, although the imagery of v. 15
does not persist. The focus in v. 16 is the gods’s eyes, which have been covered
with dust by the feet of people entering their house. The use of κονιορτοῦ recalls
for the reader the image of the dust-covered god in v. 11. In the latter case, the
gods needed the priests to wipe them down, whereas here they are blinded.
The irony developed in v. 16 is strong: the people who want to come and see
the gods bring in so much dust with their feet that their gods are unable to
see. The inclusion of feet as the mode by which the dust enters adds to the
embarrassment.
Comparison is resumed in v. 17 with καὶ ὥσπερ. In this case it is not the gods
themselves that are being criticised, but the actions their priests take to secure
them from robbers. The gods’s house is likened to a palace fortified against
intruders who desire to harm the king. The palace has a fence surrounding it,
while the priests make use of doors, bolts, and bars to protect their gods. To
describe the fence the author of EpJer uses a perfect periphrastic construction
with a participle preceding the auxiliary verb (περιπεφραγμέναι εἰσὶν). Although
periphrastic constructions in the lxx are typically formed by placing the aux-
iliary verb first, both types of syntactical arrangements are possible. The key
argument in v. 17 is that the gods’s are unable to protect themselves. The priests
are aware of this fact, but do not recognise the irony of their actions: a real god
would be able to protect himself.
Between descriptions of the palace and temple there is a curious phrase: ὡς
ἐπὶ θανάτῳ ἀπηγμένῳ. This clearly relates to the person who has wronged the
king τινὶ ἠδικηκότι βασιλέα, whose inclusion is justified by a parallel reference
to thieves (ὑπὸ τῶν λῃστῶν) in the second half. However, the reason for the
additional clause is uncertain.
The absurdity of the priests continues in v. 18 with extravagant lamp lighting;
they provide more light for their gods who cannot see than they supply to them-
selves. This contrast is grammaticalised by πλείους ἢ (A has πλειονας and omits

ἢ), a standard way of indicating a comparative relationship in Hellenistic Greek.
Again we witness another catenative construction (δύνανται ἰδεῖν; for the use
of δύναμαι in EpJer, see v. 33). In Vaticanus the object of the construction is the
priests, as indicated by a relative and an indefinite pronoun (ὧν οὐδένα; ων ου A).
Verse 19 has the first example of a μέν … δέ construction in Vaticanus EpJer
(cf. v. 54), with the μέν being paired with ὥσπερ (on the rarity of this construc-
tion in the lxx, see Conybeare 1905, 50). Although μέν … δέ constructions typi-
cally involve a comparison (Robertson 1919, 1153; Denniston 1954, 370), this one
does not indicate a strong contrast. Rather, the second clause seems to be a con-
tinuation of the first (this might explain why μέν is replaced by δε in many mss;
A Qmg L’ LaCLV Syr). At the beginning of v. 19, the author develops the imagery
of wood. The gods are like a beam of wood from a house, in that both the beam
and the gods’s wooden hearts (and garments) are consumed by ἑρπετῶν. A simi-
lar parody is employed by Lucian (Somn. 24), who recounts how whole families
of mice and rats sometimes live inside gods.
In EpJer, the inherent problem is that the gods are devoid of understanding
and are completely unaware of what is happening to them. That handmade
gods are void of all perception and comprehension is a common theme for
ancient writers (e.g., Plutarch, Is. Os. 76, Mor. 382b). In the case of EpJer, the
gods’s ability to notice is hampered by a layer of smoke covering their face
(τα προσωπα in Q* L’), which links back to the lamp reference in v. 18. Moore
(1977, 341) has posited that the variant found in Alexandrinus (της γης καιομενου
for τῆς οἰκ(ε)ίας) is best understood as coming from the Hebrew. Wright (2010,
135–136), however, has rightly shown this theory to be unlikely, and further
comment is therefore not necessary.
The phrase ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ only occurs eight times in the lxx (three times
in EpJer 21, 27, 70) and three times in the nt. Notably, all instances appear
in works that are either Greek compositions (2 and 3 Maccabees, Mark, Luke,
Romans) or possible translations that have good Greek (Tobit, Judith). The
phrase is also witnessed in other Greek writers (e.g., Aristotle, Phys. 2.2, 194a;
Epictetus, Diatr. 1.11.36; Pausanias, Descr. 3.1.9), suggesting that it is a recognised
Greek idiom. This provides additional insight into the Greek text of EpJer and
its author.
This phrase is used to introduce the topic of cats sitting on the heads of
the gods. This is a humorous image which adds to the ridiculousness of the
critique. Lee (1971) and others have argued that οἱ αἴλουροι is not original,
but a corruption derived from later interpretation of Latin editions. I am not
convinced of the need for this conjecture despite the spelling difficulty found in
Vaticanus, as the sentence can be easily understood and οἱ αἴλουροι fits with the
184 chapter 6
surrounding context of referencing animals. Naumann’s (1913, 29) claim that οἱ

αἴλουροι is a later Egyptian addition is unfounded.
Verse 22 is nearly identical with v. 14, although there are some minor differ-
ences.
v. 14 ὅθεν γνώριμοί εἰσιν οὐκ ὄντες θεοί· μὴ οὖν φοβήθητε αὐτούς.

v. 22 ὅθεν γνώσεσθε ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί· μὴ οὖν φοβεῖσθε αὐτά.
Most notably, there are two changes in verb morphology: v. 14 has a participial
phrase with εἰμί and one finite verb, whereas v. 22 has two finite verbs. Second,
the author utilises the passive form in v. 14, but in v. 22 there are two verbs
(future and present) in the middle voice-form. Despite these minor differences,
the similarities and the close proximity of the verses forge a strong connection
between vv. 14 and 22 in the reader’s mind. The cohesion of EpJer will also be
reinforced elsewhere in the text through the use of this refrain (cf. v. 68).
Verse 23 opens with τὸ χρυσίον in the theme position, followed by a relative
pronoun. This pronominal clause is rhematic material and provides further
information about the theme (i.e., the gold): the gods περίκεινται the gold
in order to enhance their beauty. The second half of v. 23 is structured as a
third-class conditional (ἐάν + subjunctive). In the protasis the author, building
on the previous reference to gold, develops the image of rust that tarnishes the
metal of the gods. The apodosis brings this idea to its conclusion: if someone
does not wipe the rust away, then the gods will certainly not shine. The verb
στίλψωσιν is in the plural, which contrasts the singular of the individual who
does the wiping and the singular of the gold. Despite lack of concord in number,
nets takes the person wiping as the implied subject of the apodosis: “Unless
someone wipes off the corrosion, they will not make it shine”. However, in the
preceding secondary clause the author has provided a plural subject, i.e., the
gods who wear the gold. The best way to take στίλβω is “to shine” (Muraoka,
leh), as opposed to “to make shine” (so nets). The selection of gods as the
verbal subject also works with the following clause, which has two plural
verbs, the context surrounding which clearly indicates that the gods are the
(non-explicit) subject (ἐχωνεύοντο, ᾐσθάνοντο).
The apodosis contains the first occurrence of οὐ μὴ in Vaticanus EpJer, a
pairing that occurs 16 times (23, 34×2, 35, 36×2, 37, 46, 52 × 2, 53, 55, 57× 2, 65,
66; cf. 26). For the majority of occurrences this pairing has been translated as
“surely/certainly not”. There are some times, however, that this is problematic
for the English translation and so it was not translated as such. As translations
obscure the full meaning of the source language, the Greek text should be reg-
ularly consulted to ensure a proper interpretation (see the discussion in v. 33).
Building on the idea of the gods’s being cast from moulds, v. 24 criticises
people who purchase things at great cost that have no πνεῦμα. The fronting of
the prepositional phrase ἐκ πάσης τιμῆς indicates the emphasis of v. 24. This
phrase is followed by a periphrastic construction in which the participle pre-
cedes the auxiliary verb (ἠγορασμένα ἐστίν; ηγορασμενοι V). The things that are
bought are characterised as not having πνεῦμα (cf. Jer 10.14), which could be
glossed as “spirit” or “breath”. The latter gloss is more common in modern trans-
lations, but the scribe of Vaticanus clearly interpreted it as “spirit” because he
wrote it as a nomen sacrum (cf. section 7.2 above). Either option is acceptable,
as both convey the message: there is no life in these idols.
These lifeless idols are carried on shoulders, because they are without feet
(ἄνευ ποδῶν). The carrying image strongly parallels Is 46.7 in which idols are
carried on shoulders (αἴρουσιν αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων). This parallel (and the similar
wording in v. 3) is likely the cause of some of the textual variants in EpJer (e.g.,
αιρονται A). The carrying around of the idols only shows the gods’s dishonour
(τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀτιμίαν). The use of ἀτιμία forms a play on words with τιμή in
v. 24.
The original scribe of Vaticanus wrote ἐφ’ ὤμοις which was corrected by a
later scribe to read ἐπʼ ὤμοις. The phrase ἐφ’ ὤμοις is the solitary example of an
aspirated ἐπί in the lxx (Thackeray 1909, 127).
Continuing the image of Is 46.7, the idols, once they have finished being
paraded around, are then fastened down in order to ensure that they do not
tip over (cf. Sap 13.16). This is portrayed as being shameful (αἰσχύνονταί) to the
attending priests, an idea emphasised by Vaticanus’s inclusion of the particle
τε. According to Denniston (1954, 512–513) and others, the juxtaposed τε καί is
rare in Greek orators and inscriptions. However, it is often used by poets and
some prose writers with an added sense of emphasis or redundancy over the
singular καί. The satirical image of securing gods is also developed by Lucian
(Somn. 24), who talks about how “gods” are supported by bars, props, and nails
driven right through them.
The structuring of the second half of v. 25 is odd, as the author splits the
articular infinitive (διὰ τό … ἀνίστασθαι) with an interposing clause, μήποτε
ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν πέσῃ, which is either fronted for emphasis or placed within the
infinitive construction to ensure correct association. Either way the syntactic
disruption creates prominence at the clausal level. Moreover, the infinitive
is in the passive, indicating passive causality, with the object of the action
foregrounded as the grammatical subject of the verb. In addition, the plural
agent (δι’ αὐτῶν; reflexive δι’ εαυτων A O L’) is placed in the preceding position
and thus highlighted. The lack of an explicit subject in the accusative case is
awkward, although it can be supplied by the previous clause.
186 chapter 6
The first half of v. 26 is built upon two third-class conditionals with corre-
sponding apodoses, the content of which parallels other lxx texts (e.g., Sap
13.15–16; Is 46.7). Like v. 23, the subject of the initial verb is the impersonal pro-
noun τις, but once the initial action is complete the unknown subject exits and
the focus is once again on the gods. The reference to the gods in v. 26 is in the
singular (αὐτὸ; αυτον A), not the plural, a continuation of the singular from the
end of v. 25. Oscillation between plural and singular references to the gods is
sporadic throughout EpJer and not predictable. Moore (1977, 344) asserts that
this inconsistency of number reflects a Hebrew Vorlage, but he does not pro-
vide any evidence for his claim. The inconsistency in person could be a Greek
phenomenon and so there is no justification for positing a Hebrew text back-
ground here.
There is a potential textual issue in Vaticanus v. 26. Following the οὐ there is
space for an erased μή, although it is difficult to verify, as it is badly smudged.
The erasure of the μή would be problematic, as the following verb is subjunctive
and, as a non-indicative mood, should take the negative particle μή rather than
οὐ.
The final clause of v. 26 introduces another important image for EpJer, that
of νεκρός. The identification of an idol as something dead is not unique to
EpJer, but is a standard rhetorical trope levied against pagan worship and ritual
(cf. Sap 13.10, 18), and the author of EpJer also uses the term “dead” in other
locations to reinforce this idea (cf. vv. 31, 70). The irony developed in this clause
once again showcases the folly of idol worship: just as (ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ) the dead no
longer need food, so idols (which are not living) do not need food either (cf.
Sir 30.18–19; Bel 7). The conjunction pairing ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ is rare in the lxx (three
total occurrences: 4Macc 9.22; 16.13; EpJer 26). On the pairing of ὥσπερ with
other conjunctions, see v. 8.
The critique of foreign priests continues in v. 27, where they are charged
with taking and selling some of the sacrifices and keeping the rest for them-
selves. In addition to their theft they do not share (μὴ μεταδωσι[ν]) with the
poor or disabled (οὔτε πτωχῷ οὔτε ἀδυνάτῳ), but keep everything for themselves.
When discussing the actions of the priests most manuscripts have the present
active indicative μεταδιδόασι, but Vaticanus has a negative particle with aorist
subjunctive, μὴ μεταδωσι(ν). The latter reinforces the negative emphasis of the
statement, and introduces that element of conditionality which is a grammat-
icalised component of auxiliary moods.
As if the attack in v. 27 were not sufficient, the narrator of EpJer adds
further chastisement: women with their periods and women who have
just given birth (ἀποκαθημένη καὶ λεχὼς ἅπτονται) touch the sacrifices. From
a Jewish perspective there were few greater pollutants (Lev 15.19–28), and
there could therefore be no greater disgrace or insult to the impiety of the

priests.
There is one notable spelling variant in v. 27: Vaticanus has λεχώς, whereas
most manuscripts have λεχω. I disagree with Ziegler (2006, 498) that the cor-
rector of Vaticanus has changed λεχώς to λεχω, as the sigma is still clear in the
manuscript. Vaticanus’s λεχως is a valid alternate dialectical spelling and would
not be problematic for later Greek readers (cf. Chariton, Chaer. 3.8.2).
For a discussion of ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ, see v. 21.
3 The Corruption of Their Priests (vv. 28–38)
The third paragraph of Vaticanus opens similarly to the second: γνόντες οὖν ἀπὸ
τούτων ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς. However, unlike v. 14 in which
the author commences a paragraph with the imperative (μὴ οὖν φοβήθητε
αὐτούς), the topic slot of vv. 28–38 is filled by a clause identifying something
that the reader knows. Importantly for the scribe of Vaticanus, the high-level
conjunction οὖν is present. This paragraph division differs from most editions
and commentaries in that the paragraph break comes before rather than after
the refrain. The content of v. 28 will be discussed in relation to v. 68 below. It
is enough for the moment to say that there is little of particular interest apart
from the recurrence of the refrain, which provides a sense of cohesion for the
text as a whole.
The indictment continues in v. 29 with a pointed question: πόθεν γὰρ κλη-
θείησαν θεοί. The particle γάρ provides a logical connection with the preceding
material, but in Vaticanus it is functioning at the clause complex level and not
at the paragraph level. Noteworthy here is the use of the aorist optative κληθεί-
ησαν (κληθησονται A), the only instance of this mood-form in EpJer. Grammat-
icalising the semantic feature of projection (with an element of contingency
greater than that of the subjunctive; Moule 1959, 23), the optative provides a
sense of remoteness and vagueness. In this case, the use of the optative empha-
sises how unlikely it is that the idols are actually gods. As the optative is by far
the rarest mood-form in the lxx, its use is highly marked, bringing the question
to the foreground of the text.
There is a minor difficulty in the Greek of the second sentence. The verb
παρατιθέασι(ν) typically takes both a direct and indirect object (Muraoka), but
the direct object is missing here. There is no logical reason for its omission.
The most likely object to fill this void is a food item, as that would fit with the
preceding paragraph and be a common pairing in the lxx (cf. 4 Macc 6.15; Bel
11; [θ] 13).
188 chapter 6
The narrator, having discussed the actions of the women, now focuses on
the behavioural patterns of the priests. The priests are described as sitting
apart with torn clothes torn, heads and beards shaved, and heads uncovered.
These are all external signs of mourning (cf. Ez 44.20) that Jewish priests were
prohibited from adopting (Lev 21.5–6). Conybeare (1905, 300) identifies the
participle of ἔχοντες τοὺς χιτῶνας διερρωγότας as “the classical form” of the
perfect διέρρωγα, used intransitively. According to Conybeare this is the only
“strong” occurrence of this perfect in the lxx (cf. 2 Regn 14.30; 1 Macc 5.14; 13.45).
In addition to donning the appearance of mourners, the priests also shout and
cry out (ὠρύονται δὲ βοῶντες) like (ὥσπερ) those at a funeral banquet. There are
a few interesting facets to the Greek text. First, the order of ὠρύονται δὲ βοῶντες
is not as expected, as the participle would typically precede the finite verb.
Second, we have another instance of ὥσπερ, which the author uses elsewhere
to help facilitate his comparative illustrations (cf. v. 8). The interesting aspect
of this particular use of ὥσπερ is that it is the only time in EpJer where it is
not paired with another conjunction. Finally, the term περίδειπνον is a hapax
legomenon in the lxx, although well known in classical and other Hellenistic
literature (Demosthenes, Cor. 288; Menander, Aspis. 233; Lucian, Luct. 24).
Lucian’s discussion of funeral rites and actions is apt for comparison with EpJer,
as his closing phrase insinuates that such actions are ridiculous (γέλοιος).
The chastisement of the priests concludes (for the moment) in v. 32, where
they are accused of stealing clothing from the gods to clothe their wives and
children. The phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματισμοῦ αὐτῶν is placed in the theme position,
with the remainder of v. 32 providing rhematic information. The owners of the
garments (αὐτῶν) are not explicitly referenced, but the context again allows us
to conclude that the gods are these owners. Interestingly, both Rahlfs-Hanhart
and Ziegler adopt the present ἐνδύουσι even though the two best manuscripts,
Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, have the future ἐνδύσουσι(ν). The latter option is
to be preferred and should have been adopted in their reconstructed texts.
Beginning at v. 33 there is a long string of negative particles (22 total in
vv. 33–37), with a frequent οὔτε … οὔτε pairing. This is a common construction
in Greek literature and is used to create localised cohesion (Denniston 1954,
505, 508). The author of EpJer, moreover, constructs his clauses by pairing
οὔτε with οὐ μὴ. The high concentration of negative particles highlights the
negative characteristics of the subject in question, but does not translate well
into English. In my English translation, although endeavouring to include every
negative particle, I have occasionally omitted some, as they would be too
confusing for the English reader. In these cases, I refer the reader to the Greek
text in order fully to grasp the manner by which the author has constructed his
text.
Paired with the negative particles are three third-class conditionals formed
by ἐάν and the (aorist) subjunctive (2 in v. 33 and 1 in v. 34). The first ἐάν and
subjunctive in v. 33 is unremarkable except for its relationship with the second
ἐάν conditional, which lacks a finite verb. The latter absence is explained by
ellipsis, that the second conditional implicitly adopts the verb of the first. The
conditional in v. 34 parallels v. 26 with ἐάν τις in the protasis, although here
there is an emphatically negated (οὐ μὴ) verb in the apodosis.
In addition to subjunctives governed by ἐάν, there are additional subjunctive
mood-form verbs which create a syntagmatic chain of seven aorist subjunctive
verbs in vv. 34–37. After this long string there is one verb in the future tense-
form (ποιήσουσι). The association of verbs in the subjunctive mood with the
future indicative is well documented in Greek grammars, as both grammati-
calise an uncertain reality; the future expresses an expectation of an event and
the subjunctive is a projection of the speaker (Porter 1994, 57; Moulton 1908,
164–165). Pairings of subjunctives and future verbs in EpJer are also found in
vv. 52–57 (13 finite verbs: 5 future indicative, 8 aorist subjunctive) and vv. 65–66
(5 finite verbs: 2 future indicative, 3 aorist subjunctive).
There are three catenative constructions in vv. 33–34, all of which are con-
structed with δύναμαι as the finite verb. Catenative constructions combine a
finite verb (usually one of volition or ability) with an infinitive to form a syn-
tactical unit. The tense-form of the finite verb tends to be in the imperfective,
although the perfective aspect is also used (Porter 1993, 487). The first construc-
tion is δυνήσονται ἀνταποδοῦναι with δύναμαι in the future tense-form (eleven
instances in the lxx). The finite verb and the infinitive provide the verbal aspect
of the construction, but in this case, since δύναμαι is in the future (an aspectu-
ally vague tense-form), the aspect is taken solely from the aorist infinitive. Con-
trary to Robertson (1919, 878–879) and Turner (1963, 89), the use of a so-called
“modal” verb (i.e., an aorist verb acting a replacement for the future) is not a for-
mal substitution, as can be witnessed here with the use of the future tense-form
which formally grammaticalises expectation (Porter 1993, 438–439). A similar
issue arises in v. 34, as δύναμαι is in the subjunctive mood-form (δύνωνται); this
is slightly more common with fourteen occurrences in the lxx and one in the
nt. In v. 33 both verbs are in the present tense-form, although the use of the
subjunctive mood-form for δύναμαι alters the reader’s perception of the text.
The second catenative construction of v. 33 is also noteworthy, as the syntactic
order is inverted and the finite verb has not one but two dependent infinitives:
καταστῆσαι βασιλέα δύνανται οὔτε ἀφελέσθαι.
Another interesting grammatical feature of v. 38 is the insertion of a prepo-
sitional phrase between a definite article and noun (τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους λίθοις).
The separation of an article from its corresponding noun (vv. 9, 11, 19, 38, 70) or
190 chapter 6
participle (vv. 12, 46, 58, 71) is a recurring feature of EpJer. The use of interpo-
sition is not common in lxx translation texts, and the ratio of occurrences in
EpJer is therefore significant, supporting the theory of a Greek original (Wright
2010, 132).
Having discussed the Greek of vv. 34–37 we now turn to the verses’s content,
which is a scathing indictment of idolatry. In these verses the narrator describes
the general incompetency of the “gods” and their inability to act. They are espe-
cially unable to perform those actions that are normally within the purview of
the divine: repayment of good/evil, giving of money, fulfilling of oaths, saving
from death, and delivering of the oppressed (for depictions of Zeus as acting
in such ways, see Aeschylus, Suppl. 443–445). Such critiques are not unique to
EpJer, but are found throughout the ancient world. For example, Aesop Fab. 34
(Perry’s numbering) satirises vows offered to the gods that could not be fulfilled,
and Aesop Fab. 30 and 291 suggest that people should look after themselves and
not fully rely on the gods to give help to their worshipers.
This depiction of the “gods” as impotent sharply contrasts the presentation
of Israel’s God in the lxx, who makes the poor rich (1 Regn 2.7; Job 2.10),
establishes kings (Jer 37.9; Dan [θ] 2.44), requires the keeping of vows (Deut
23.22), repays people for evil (Jer 16.18), kills and makes alive (Deut 32.39; 1 Regn
2.6), lifts up those who are bowed down and upholds the widow and fatherless
(Ps 145.8–9; 1 Regn 2.8).
4 Bel Worship and Idol Makers (vv. 39–50)
The fourth paragraph break in Vaticanus (and fifth in A) occurs at the beginning
of v. 39. This break position is not adopted by modern scholars, who typically
divide the text at v. 40. The paragraph opens with οὖν, indicating an inferential
relationship with the previous paragraph, but unlike the opening sentences
in vv. 1, 14, and 28, vv. 39–50 commences with a question: πῶς οὖν νομιστέον ἢ
κλητέον αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχειν θεούς; This is the first of five instances of πῶς in EpJer,
all but one of which (v. 46) are paired with οὖν (vv. 39, 44, 49, 56). The πῶς οὖν
pairing is rare in the Greek Bible, with only seven total occurrences in the lxx
including the four from EpJer (4Macc 1.5; 2.24; 13.5), and seven in the nt (Matt
12.26; 22.43; 26.54; John 9.10, 19; Rom 4.10; 10.14). This pairing is very common in
other Greek writers, however (tlg).
The most striking feature of v. 39 is the use of two verbal adjectives (νομιστέον,
κλητέον). Characterised by -τεος or -τεον endings (also -τος), the verbal adjective
is related to the participle, but lacks voice and aspect (Moulton 1908, 221;
Robertson 1919, 372). The -τεος or -τεον endings are rare in the Greek Bible (15
times), although nine occur in EpJer (vv. 39×2, 44× 2, 51, 56 × 2, 63× 2; cf. 2 Macc
2.29×2, 31; 6.17; Prov 26.23; Luke 5.38). This Attic Greek feature is frequently
used in authors such as Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon (Naumann 1913,
34), and, because there is no real Hebrew counterpart, suggests a Greek original
(Wright 2010, 131).
Verses 40–41 form one sentence, the Greek of which is, according to Moore
(1977, 346), so awkward that it must be a result of poor translation. Wright (2007,
943) correctly notes that the Hebrew retroversion that has been proposed
is similarly incoherent, and suggests that the overworked Greek might be a
(poor) stab at rhetorical style rather than a translation. Regardless, vv. 40–41 are
arguably the most difficult of EpJer for determining how the individual parts
hold together to form a coherent whole.
The sentence opens with ἔτι δὲ καὶ (a conjunctive δὲ and an adverbial ἔτι
and καὶ) and a genitive construction (αὐτῶν τῶν Χαλδαίων ἀτιμαζόντων). The
following clause also has the Chaldeans as subject, indicated by the relative
pronoun (οἵ), which compromises the “absolute” nature of the construction.
Of interest in this clause is the rarer catenative construction with the main
verb in the participle form (οὐ δυνάμενον λαλῆσαι; + τοτε λαλησαι A; cf. Sap 13.18;
Matt 10.28). The third clause is particularly problematic, as the object is not
explicit: it is not clear whether the (non-)speaker is the mute person whom the
Chaldeans brought or Bel their god. Here there is a distinctive use of δυνατός
with the participle of εἰμί, which replaces the modal verb in what would have
been a catenative construction (δυνατοῦ ὄντος αὐτοῦ αἰσθέσθαι; cf. Prov 3.28).
In the following clause the Greek suggests that Chaldeans, even though they
know that their gods cannot speak, do not abandon them and are therefore as
senseless as their gods. Their actions dishonour the gods by putting them in a
position to fail.
Outside of the preface, EpJer has spoken in generalities about the geograph-
ical location of these gods and has not named them. This pattern is broken in
v. 40 with specific references to Chaldeans and Bel (Βῆλον; Βηλ A). The mention
of Χαλδαίων links vv. 39–50 to the opening verses of EpJer (praef.–4) and pro-
vides continuity for the reader’s interpretive framework. That the mute person
is brought to Bel is understandable, as Bel is the alternate name for the Baby-
lonian god Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon (cf. Jer 27.2; Bel 1–22), who is
known for his healing powers.
The characters developed in vv. 40–41 are abandoned in vv. 42–43, which
focus on specific women. These women are identified as temple prostitutes, a
profession/practice that was prohibited by Jewish law (Deut 23.17–18). Accord-
ing to EpJer, these women wrap cords around themselves, sit in the streets,
and burn bran as incense (cf. Theocritus, Id. 2.33). Then, when a stranger
192 chapter 6
comes by, they have sexual intercourse with him. A similar practice is described
by Herodotus (Hist. 1.199), who claims that cultic prostitutes wore cords and
slept with strangers. Despite similarities, however, it is apparent that EpJer is
not dependent on Herodotus, for three reasons. First, EpJer does not support
the claim by Herodotus that every Babylonian woman must fulfill this cus-
tom once in her lifetime. Second, Herodotus does not mention the burning
of bran incense. Third, there is no mention of payment or of the sanctuary of
Aphrodite in EpJer. Although some of these details may be assumed in EpJer,
the differences are substantial enough to claim that EpJer is not dependent on
Herodotus, but likely draws on a similar tradition.
The woman who was selected by a passerby in v. 43 insults her neighbour
because her neighbour was not worthy (ἠξίωται) and her cord remains intact.
The verb ἠξίωται is one of three perfect tense-form indicatives in EpJer (vv. 1, 43,
70) and διερράγη is one of three aorist tense-form indicative verbs (vv. 5, 43, 47).
A majority of the indicative verbs in Vaticanus EpJer are in the present tense-
form (42 out of 75; see Table 8). This high frequency of present tense-forms is
atypical for Greek narratives; Greek writers characteristically used the present
tense-form to structure expositional discourse (Porter 2009b, 58).
Everything that happens to “them” is false (πάντα τὰ γενόμενα αὐτοῖς ἐστι[ν]
ψευδῆ). Although the preceding subject would suggest that what is happening
to the women (αὐτοῖς) is false (as they are the nearest antecedent), context again
informs us that the author has switched subjects. In fact, the events discussed
in v. 44 are happening to the gods (cf. v. 58) and the personal pronoun (αὐτοῖς)
precedes its referent (θεούς). For a discussion of the final half of v. 44, see its
parallel in v. 39.
Nearly every modern commentator beings a new paragraph at v. 45. This
break is not supported by Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, or Venetus, but only by
Marchalianus. The more logical break within vv. 39–50 is at the beginning of
v. 44 (supported by A), as there is a change in subject at that point, and a
return to the topic of idols who are the subject for the periphrastic construction
(κατεσκευασμένα εἰσίν). Moreover, v. 45 does not open with any connective,
higher-level conjunctive, but rather has a prepositional phrase in the theme
position (ὑπὸ τεκτόνων καὶ χρυσοχόων), which links v. 45 to v. 44.
The critique is continued in the following clause with the statement that
the gods can be nothing else than what the craftsmen wish them to be. This is a
well-constructed sentence with balancing pronouns (οὐθέν, αὐτά), a completed
comparative structure (ἄλλο … ἤ), and corresponding γίνομαι verbs. In the first
half, (i.e., between ἄλλο and ἤ; Conybeare 1905, 94) there is the negative adverb
and a finite verb (μὴ γένηται) and the catenative construction βούλονται …
γενέσθαι, with its fronted main verb, encloses the latter half.
The irony of gods’s being fashioned by craftsmen was not lost on other
ancient authors. For example, Is 46.6 mocks people who pay a goldsmith to
make an idol and then bow down to it (cf. Jer 10.9; cf. Syb. Or. 3.30–31; 5.73–85).
Likewise, Horace (Sat. 1.8.3) speaks of a carpenter who chooses a log to be a
god. Idol-making was seen by certain ancient philosophers (esp. Zeno) as not
sacred and of little value (Cicero, Nat. d. 1.27.77; 1.36.101; Plutarch, Stoic. rep. 7,
Mor. 1034b).
The longevity of the craftsmen and their work is the subject of v. 46. The nar-
rator of EpJer rightly notes that the makers of such works will not be around
for a long time (πολυχρόνιοι); how, therefore, will their work (which is made by
human hands) endure? The term πολυχρόνιος has a range of applications in the
lxx, from spending substantial time in a place (Gen 26.8), to describing the
age of a person (Job 32.9; Sap 2.10). However, 4Macc 17.12 uses this word to dis-
cuss the incorruptibility of long-lasting life and immortality from God (τὸ νῖκος
ἀφθαρσία ἐν ζωῇ πολυχρονίῳ; deSilva 2006, 245). The use of πολυχρόνιος in EpJer
clearly indicates a short, temporal existence, which is implicitly contrasted
with the everlasting nature of God. (On the short existence of idols, see Sap
14.13: “For neither have they existed from the beginning nor will they exist for-
ever”.) It is this limited existence that proves that they are not (true) gods. The
explicit reference to gods, εἶναι θεοί, a phrase found in other Greek manuscripts,
is missing in Vaticanus. This disrupts what would have been another catenative
construction, μέλλει … εἶναι.
In v. 47 there is another instance of a prepositional phrase placed between
the article and participle (τὰ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν κατασκευασθέντα, so also vv. 12, 58, 71).
For a discussion of its importance for EpJer, see v. 38.
The craftsmen who fabricated the gods have left behind lies and disgrace
(ψεύδη καὶ ὄνειδος) for those who come after. This is the only occurrence of
ψεῦδος in EpJer, but its cognate ψευδής occurs six times and is an important
feature of the text (cf. v. 58). The difference between these cognate terms is
minor, however, and only due to the placement of the accent (ψεύδη: noun “lies”,
versus ψευδῆ: adjective, “false”). In v. 47, “lies” rather than “false” better suits
the context and I have accented it accordingly (so Rahlfs-Hanhart 2006; Ziegler
2006). The term ὄνειδος only occurs twice in EpJer (vv. 47 and 71); however, this
should not undermine its importance, as the second occurrence is important,
providing the concluding framework by which the reader interprets the letter
(cf. v. 71).
Verse 48 discusses the inability of the so-called gods to defend themselves
in times of danger. Once again there is a change in subject that is not explicitly
marked, but is inferred from the context. Verse 48 opens with a temporal deictic
marker (ὅταν) in the theme position followed by the post-positive conjunction
194 chapter 6
γάρ and an aorist subjunctive (ἐπέλθῃ). The text asserts that in times of danger
(e.g., war and bad things [πόλεμος καὶ κακά]) the priests would need to hide both
themselves and their gods. The author confronts his readers with the fact that
the “gods” are not only unable to save their people, but they are even unable to
save themselves. The picture presented is one in which the priests are huddling
with their idols in fear, an image not applied to the God of Israel or his priests
in the Jewish Scriptures.
The inability of the “gods” to act is further developed in v. 49 with the last
of four rhetorical questions posed in vv. 39–50 (cf. vv. 39, 44, 46, 49): “How,
therefore, do they not understand that they are not gods, who neither save
themselves from war nor from evil?” Just like v. 39, this question begins with
the rare πῶς οὖν pairing. The focus here is on the people’s lack of understanding
(αἰσθέσθαι). The verb αἰσθάνομαι occurs four times in EpJer (19, 23, 40, 49) and
a total of twelve times in the Greek Bible. (Most are in books from the wisdom
tradition, e.g., Proverbs, Job, Wisdom of Solomon.)
The final half of v. 49 is well constructed: οἳ οὔτε σῴζουσιν ἑαυτοὺς ἐκ πολέμου
οὔτε ἐκ κακῶν. First, the οὔτε … οὔτε construction is idiomatic Greek. Second,
each adverb is paired with a prepositional phrase governed by ἐκ (ἐκ πολέμου,
ἐκ κακῶν). This concise criticism provides the thrust of the argument and leaves
no doubt about how the author expected his question to be answered.
The paragraph and argument based on the gods’s construction ends (tem-
porarily) in v. 50. Ultimately the gods, who are made of wood and covered with
gold and silver, will be exposed and all the nations and kings will know that
they are not gods, but merely the work of mortals. The use of the passive voice
(γνωσθήσεται, ἔσται; εστιν A) in Vaticanus is conspicuous, indicating passive
causality with the object of the action foregrounded. The gods themselves will
not make this truth known—they cannot! Rather, their very nature will expose
the reality: they are not gods.
5 The Inability of the Gods (vv. 51–63)
The paragraph break by Vaticanus at v. 51 only has support from one other
Greek manuscript, Marchalianus, which has a minor break. Most scholars
break the text at v. 52, but this verse does not have the requisite οὖν conjunction
required by the scribe of Vaticanus.
Almost every translation of v. 51 (nets; Moore 1977; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-
Fine 2008; Wojciechowski 2010) reads, “Who then does not know that they are
not gods”, indicating that all people recognise this fact. However, in B, A, and a
number of minuscules the οὐ following the οὖν is omitted (although the neg-
ative is inserted in A before the ἐστίν). Despite the problematic manuscript

support, Zeigler (2006) retains the first negative, whereas it is omitted in Rahlfs-
Hanhart (2006). In Vaticanus this negative is omitted and the reading is there-
fore different, namely a rhetorical question, “To whom is it known that they are
not gods?” (τίνι οὖν γνωστέον ἐστὶν ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι[ν] θεοί;).
The latter question is related to those in vv. 14, 22, and 68, although those
verses have statements rather than questions. In v. 51, there is no second clause
with an imperative commanding not to fear the “gods” (cf. v. 68).
Beginning at v. 52 and continuing until v. 57 there is a cluster of negative par-
ticles (cf. vv. 33–37). This recurring feature provides extra cohesion to vv. 51–63
and helps differentiate it from the previous paragraph. (The number of nega-
tive particles in vv. 52–57 may have influenced the inclusion of οὐ in v. 51.) Paired
with these negatives is a syntagmatic chain of finite verbs exclusively formed by
the aorist subjunctive and future indicative (13 finite verbs: 5 future indicatives,
8 aorist subjunctives). A similar pairing is witnessed in vv. 33–37, supporting
the theory that this collocation is not arbitrary, but (as is well documented in
grammars) intentionally created by the author as a way of grammaticalising
expectation (Porter 1994, 57; Moulton 1908, 164–165).
The first challenge leveled by the author of EpJer against the gods is the
inability of the gods to establish a king and to give rain to the people. The
first clause recalls the discussion in v. 33 (although here βασιλέα is placed in
the theme position): the gods are not able to appoint or depose kings. In v. 52
the establishment of a king is paired with the providing of rain for the people.
Where the foreign gods fail, the God of Israel succeeds. Although the latter
claim is not explicit in the text, the God of Israel’s ability both to establish
kings (3 Regn 14.14; Dan [og] 2.44) and to provide rain for his people (Deut
11.14; 3 Regn 17.1; 18.41–45; Ps 146.8) is well-documented in Scripture. The Greek
in v. 52 is sufficiently clear that positing emendations and translational errors
is unnecessary (contra Ball 1913, 607).
Verse 53, like v. 52, opens with the object in the theme position (κρίσιν),
marking a change in topic. The new topic is the judgement which the gods are
incapable of providing. Neither are they able to rescue those who have been
wronged (οὐδὲ μὴ ῥύσωνται ἀδίκημα). The reason for this is clear: they are pow-
erless (ἀδύνατοι ὄντες). The Greek phrase in Vaticanus, οὐδὲ μὴ ῥύσωνται ἀδίκημα,
is awkward, as the object provided (ἀδίκημα) does not fit the broader context.
Most manuscripts have the passive participle ἀδικούμενον, which provides a
more suitable object.
A number of commentators consider the opening clause of v. 54 (ὥσπερ γὰρ
κορῶναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς) problematic and argue for an alter-
nate reading (“clouds” for “crows”), positing a misreading of a Hebrew original
196 chapter 6
(Ball 1913, 607, followed by Moore 1977, 352; Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine 2008,
327). Wright (2010, 136) has correctly undermined this position by critiquing the
manner by which this alternate reading was constructed, i.e., via Syriac. Such
a methodology is highly problematic, as the Syriac translation is based on the
Greek text and does not therefore provide a window onto a Hebrew original as
most commentators claim. Moreover, the Greek text is both stable and under-
standable, with the only textual issue being the inclusion of the article αἱ prior
to κορῶναι in Alexandrinus. An issue with the crow imagery still remains, how-
ever. Are crows flying in the air useless? The original meaning/understanding
of the metaphor may no longer be discernible, but the thrust of the argument is
readily accessible despite the inability of modern scholars to discern the ratio-
nale for its inclusion.
The text of EpJer continues by switching to the problem of fire (πῦρ), the
mention of which is withheld until the very end of the clause. Verse 54 opens
with another example of the triple conjunction καὶ γὰρ ὅταν (cf. v. 9). The
temporal conjunction ὅταν, paired with the subjunctive ἐμπέσῃ, allows the
author to speak of a (not too) hypothetical event. Given a fire in the temple,
the priests would be able to flee, but the gods would not be able to leave and
would be consumed just like the beams in a fire. This contrast is grammatically
highlighted by an idiomatic use of the μέν … δέ construction. The irony is
palpable: those who serve the gods are able to save themselves, unlike their
gods who are unable to save anybody. Additionally, the worshipers leave their
gods in a burning building, not caring for their safety or survival.
The gods are not even able to resist kings or enemies (v. 55). This inability
begs the question: how is it admitted or thought that they are gods? Unlike the
parallels in vv. 39, 44, and 63, v. 55 does not have ὑπάρχειν as a main verb. This
omission, although an aberration from the established pattern of EpJer, does
not disrupt the translation, as the finite verb of being can easily be supplied.
Moreover, the repetitive use of this refrain communicates the nature of the
statement unproblematically.
The topic of the gods’s inability to resist is continued in v. 56. This time
the danger comes from thieves and robbers who remove their gold, silver, and
clothes (Q* omits καὶ περιάργυροι). Here again the author fronts the indirect
objects which are identified by pairing οὔτε particles with ἀπό prepositional
phrases, οὔτε ἀπὸ κλεπτῶν οὔτε ἀπὸ λῃστῶν. The inability of the gods to enact
their own salvation is emphasised by use of the passive διαθῶσι(ν) which keeps
the focus on the gods, but denies them any agency.
The subordinate clause of v. 57 opens with a relative pronoun ὧν which refers
back to the thematic thieves and robbers; the strongest of whom will make off
with gold, silver, and the clothing of the gods. The final phrase, οὔτε ἑαυτοῖς οὐ
μὴ βοηθήσωσιν, is difficult, as it resumes the discussion of the gods without a

fully grammaticalised reference to them. The only assistance comes from the
use of οὔτε. As the use of οὔτε in isolation is odd for EpJer and is not idiomatic
Greek, the occurrence links the reader back to its previous use in v. 56 (οὔτε ἀπὸ
κλεπτῶν οὔτε ἀπὸ λῃστῶν). As a result, the subordinate clause becomes a large
diversion to the flow of the clause complex.
The vulnerability of idols to robbers is frequently discussed by ancient writ-
ers. For example, in Aesop’s Fable 295 a farmer laments the loss of his mattock
and, while he was petitioning a god for its return, recognises his folly, as the god,
who had had his possessions stolen, was offering a reward to humans for infor-
mation about their location. Similarly, Lucian ( Jupp. comf. 8; Tim. 4) speaks of
Zeus’s having been carried away by robbers and melted down.
Verse 58 opens with a comparative conjunction ὥστε and κρεῖσσον (κρεισσων
A Q) in the theme position. The use of this comparative adjective provides the
structure for v. 58, forming a series of comparisons with the five successive uses
of ἤ. These evaluations contrast functional items (a manly king, a useful vessel
[cf. Sap 13.11], a protective door, a wooden beam) with false gods, indicating that
being almost anything else is preferable to being an idol. There has been some
discussion regarding the kingly image, as it is not as degrading or inanimate
as the other comparators (Moore, 1977, 355). As a result, Torrey (1945, 65) has
offered the alternate reading of “crutch” (‫ )פלך‬which is similar in form to the
Hebrew word for “king” (‫)מלך‬. This, however, has no textual support, nor does
it account for the remainder of the clause (ἐπιδεικνύμενον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀνδρείαν)
which is dependent on the human image. As a result, the reading of “king”
should be adopted.
Although the adjective ψευδής has been used previously in EpJer (vv. 7, 44,
50), its triple use in v. 58 marks its final occurrences as part of the author’s
refrain: these things are better ἢ οἱ ψευδεῖς θεοί. Although the reader by this time
in the narrative is clearly aware that the gods worshiped by the Babylonians are
not real, v. 58 makes the point explicit through the three pairings of ψευδεῖς with
θεοί.
Verse 59 begins with μέν (omitted by Qtxt), but unlike vv. 19 and 54 there
is no corresponding δέ. Rather, μέν is juxtaposed with γάρ to form a paired
explanatory conjunction. The μὲν γάρ pairing is well attested in Greek literature,
particularly in Aristotle and Herodotus (cf. Denniston 1954, 76). This begins a
chain of statements that run from v. 59 to v. 61 in which the author talks about
created items that do what they were created to do.
First, the author focuses on astrological bodies (sun, moon, stars) and their
obedience (εὐήκοά εἰσιν) in fulfilling their intended service. In a similar way
(ὡσαύτως καί) lightning, when it appears (ὅταν ἐπιφανῇ) is clearly visible
198 chapter 6
(εὔοπτός ἐστι[ν]). Clouds, when ordered (ὅταν ἐπιταγῇ) by God, fulfill what was
commanded (συντελοῦσι τὸ ταχθέν), and fire sent from above to destroy moun-
tains and forests, does what it was ordered (ποιεῖ τὸ συνταχθέν). Although these
sentences do not parallel each other structurally or grammatically, some sim-
ilarities in phrasing exist. First, the first two comparisons conclude with an
adjective paired with a finite εἰμί verb (εὐήκοά εἰσιν, εὔοπτός ἐστι[ν]). Second,
both vv. 60 and 61 have a temporal conjunction followed by the aorist passive
subjunctive (ὅταν ἐπιφανῇ, ὅταν ἐπιταγῇ). Third, the elemental subject (light-
ning, cloud) is fronted in order to establish the topic, and is immediately fol-
lowed by ὅταν and a subordinate clause. The major difference between the two
is that ἀστραπή is in the nominative, whereas νεφέλαις is in the dative and is
separated from its corresponding verb, creating strong emphasis (bdf § 475).
Fourth, the final two sentences end with a present active verb followed by
an articular aorist passive participle (συντελοῦσι τὸ ταχθέν, ποιεῖ τὸ συνταχθέν).
These similarities provide cohesion to vv. 59–61 and inform the reader that
vv. 59–61 should be viewed as a unit in their evaluation in v. 62.
There are two deviations from the developed pattern in vv. 59–61 that war-
rant discussion. First, τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν πάσῃ χώρᾳ πνεῖ (v. 60) does not
neatly fit with the surrounding co-text. Not only is it formed by a single clause,
but it does not have the sense of fulfillment that the other sentences do. Sec-
ond, there is a change in structural pattern when it comes to the clouds. In the
other three examples all of the natural features have been placed in the nomi-
native case, but here clouds (νεφέλαις) is in the dative case-form. Although one
would expect, based on the established pattern, that the clouds would be the
subject of the verb, this is not the case in Vaticanus. To fix this Alexandrinus has
the nominative singular νεφέλη, and a number of minuscules have the nomi-
native plural νεφέλαι. The indirect passive ἐπιταγῇ in Vaticanus, with the actor
specified by a prepositional phrase (ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ), is to be translated, “It is com-
manded by God to the clouds”. This grammatical dissonance is resolved in the
following phrase by the use of the plural verb (συντελοῦσι) with the clouds as the
assumed subject. (For a discussion of the aspirated nature of the aorist verbs in
v. 61, see Thackeray 1909, 237.)
In v. 62 the gods are contrasted with the examples from nature developed
in vv. 59–61, although once again the gods are not grammaticalised, but are
implicit in the demonstrative pronoun ταῦτα (the fifth and final use in EpJer,
vv. 2, 10, 28, 50, 62). This pronoun is the subject of the periphrastic construction,
which is placed at the end of the clause (ἀφωμοιωμένα ἐστίν).
The fifth paragraph closes not with a rhetorical question as above, but with
an admonition. The parallels between v. 63 and vv. 39, 44, 49, and 56 are notable,
although there are some differences.
v. 39 πῶς οὖν νομιστέον ἢ κλητέον αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχειν θεούς;

v. 44 πῶς οὖν νομιστέον ἢ κλητέον ὡς θεοὺς αὐτοὺς ὑπάρχειν;
v. 49 πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν αἰσθέσθαι ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί …
v. 56 πῶς οὖν ἐκδεκτέον ἢ νομιστέον ὅτι εἰσὶ(ν) θεοί;
v. 63 ὅθεν οὔτε νομιστέον οὔτε κλητέον ὑπάρχειν αὐτοὺς θεούς
The first four examples open with πῶς οὖν and so create a question, “how, there-
fore …” In vv. 39, 44, and 56, this question makes use of verbal adjectives to
question why idols are called or thought to be gods. Turning to v. 63, we see
the author again making use of two verbal adjectives as well as the infini-
tive phrase ὑπάρχειν αὐτοὺς θεούς. The author also uses a double adverb (ὅθεν
οὔτε) as the opening, the οὔτε of which is repeated to form another οὔτε …
οὔτε pairing (cf. v. 33). The most important variation is the move away from
the (rhetorical) question in vv. 39, 44, 49, and 56 to the author’s directing
his reader in the manner of their thoughts and actions (v. 63). This is not
accomplished through the use of the imperative (cf. v. 14), but rather through
the causal use of ὅθεν and the lack of interrogative (Robertson, 1919, 962–
963).
The justification for the author’s perspective is provided: “They are not able
either to judge a case or to do good to people”. Once again there is a paired use
of οὔτε for comparative purposes. In addition, there is a two-part catenative
construction: δυνατῶν ὄντων … κρῖναι … ποιεῖν. Just like v. 40 (δυνατοῦ ὄντος …
αἰσθέσθαι) the first part is formed with a participle of εἰμί and an inflected form
of δυνατός.
6 Conclusion (vv. 64–72)
Apart from the opening paragraph break at v. 1, the paragraph division at

v. 64 has the best support from the Greek majuscules, with A, B and Q having
major breaks. Most commentators view v. 64 as the conclusion to the previous
section (vv. 51–63), but this is not the perspective of Vaticanus. This paragraph
opening is consistent with that of v. 28 and the two verses share a number of
similarities.
v. 28 γνόντες οὖν ἀπὸ τούτων ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς
v. 64 γνόντες οὖν ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς
Similarities between v. 28 and v. 64 include the use of the conjunction οὖν,

the participle γνόντες in the clause’s theme position and the paragraph’s topic
200 chapter 6
position, and a statement asserting that “they are not gods” paired with a
negated imperative. The only difference is the inclusion of a prepositional
phrase (ἀπὸ τούτων) in v. 28. For a full discussion of this refrain’s parallels in
EpJer, see v. 68 below.
The collocation of negative particles, οὔτε … οὔτε pairings, the aorist sub-
junctive, and the future indicative re-emerge in vv. 65–66, although not in the
same concentration as before (cf. vv. 34–37, 52–57). In vv. 65–66 there are three
aorist subjunctives followed by two future indicatives, a clustering that further
supports the view that there is a strong relationship between the future indica-
tive and the subjunctive in Greek more generally (Porter 1994, 57; Moulton 1908,
164–165).
The use of the double negative in v. 65 continues the author’s practice of
doubling negative particles (cf. vv. 23, 26, 34–37, etc.). In the first instance, the
author uses the typical οὐ μή to emphasise the gods’s inability to curse. This
is immediately followed by another double negative (οὔτε μή) negating their
ability to bless. The pairing of οὔτε μή is uncommon and only occurs nine times
in the lxx, three times as single uses (Deut 31.6; Sir 30.19; EpJer 65) and three
times in pairs (Deut 4.28; Job 15.29; Ex 24.23). Even more than the standard
double negative, οὔτε μή is emphatic. The use of οὔτε, despite being paired with
μή, completes the οὔτε … οὔτε construction, which is good Greek practice and
almost always followed by ancient writers (e.g., Plato, Resp. 1.341b; Thucydides,
Hist. 8.92.11; Xenophon, Cyr. 6.6.5–6).
The image developed in v. 67 is that of wild animals able to flee to shelter
and so help themselves, something the idol gods are incapable of doing. Ball
(1913, 609), followed by Moore (1977, 356), claims that “there seems to be
something wrong about the reason” and so changes the Greek text to read
“to help themselves”, rather than “to be hidden”. Although this might be a
smoother reading, there is no textual evidence to support this emendation.
Furthermore, the Greek text is sufficiently clear so as to make this speculation
unwarranted.
To develop a comparison the author uses κρείττω, utilising the -ττ- spelling
of Attic Greek (Gignac 1976, 146–147). This is interesting because in v. 58 the
author opted for the alternate, non-atticising spelling of κρεῖσσον. Although
Attic spelling is not common in EpJer, there is another example in v. 35 (ἥττονα),
as well as certain words that suggest Attic influence (e.g., ἐξ ὑστέρου, v. 71;
ἀφομοιόω, vv. 4, 62, 70; Naumann 1913, 36). Another option is that the change is
a result of scribal preference and inconsistency. If this is the case it is possible
that the scribe was influenced by the later Atticism movement.
Verse 68 recalls the content of v. 64 and the refrain that is sounded through-
out EpJer (vv. 14, 22, 28, 64, and 68).
v. 14 ὅθεν γνώριμοί εἰσιν οὐκ ὄντες θεοί· μὴ οὖν φοβήθητε αὐτούς.

v. 22 ὅθεν γνώσεσθε ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί· μὴ οὖν φοβεῖσθε αὐτά.
v. 28 γνόντες οὖν ἀπὸ τούτων ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς
v. 64 γνόντες οὖν ὅτι οὔκ εἰσι(ν) θεοί, μὴ φοβήθητε αὐτούς
v. 68 κατʼ οὐδένα οὖν τρόπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν φανερὸν ὅτι εἰσὶ(ν) θεοί· διὸ μὴ φοβήθητε
αὐτούς
By placing these five verses adjacent to each other some important similarities
emerge. First, their final clauses are very similar, including a negative particle,
an imperative of φοβέω, and an object in the accusative plural (though with dif-
ferent genders: αὐτούς vs. αὐτά). The first four verses (vv. 14, 22, 38, 64) also have
a cognate of γινώσκω and the phrase “that they are not gods” (with varying con-
structions). As for connectors, the first two have ὅθεν, an adverb that often indi-
cates motion from, but can have the inferential sense “from which” (i.e., “there-
fore”; lsj, leh). The other three have explicit inferential conjunctions (οὖν).
This comparison also highlights the uniqueness of the first clause of v. 68.
Whereas the first four instances of the refrain simply claim, “They are not gods”,
v. 68 is emphatic, summing up the entirety of the argument: “Therefore, it is
clear to us that they are in no way gods”. First, new terms are introduced: κατʼ
οὐδένα … τρόπον, and φανερόν. Second, the author omits any cognate of γινώσκω.
Third, the author reintroduces the first person plural (ἡμῖν). As mentioned
above (cf. v. 6), there are only two instances of the first person pronoun in EpJer.
The first person plural, especially when it includes the reader, is highly marked,
greatly increasing the prominence and salience of the clause (Westfall 2009,
82–83). The similarities and differences between v. 68 and vv. 14, 22, 28, and
64, create a sense of continuity with the previous argument and a feeling of
summative climax: from all the things already stated, the reader knows that
there is no way that the idols are gods.
Following this refrain the author provides one last set of comparisons deni-
grating the wooden gods covered with gold and silver. The first image is that of a
scarecrow (προβασκάνιον) in a cucumber patch which is not able to guard any-
thing. The term προβασκάνιον is very rare in Greek literature (10 occurrences)
and the instance in EpJer is the oldest recorded usage. Although is likely best
glossed as “scarecrow” in EpJer (Naumann 1913, 42; cf. Horace, Sat. 1.8.1–7),
Plutarch (Quaest. conv. 5.7.3, Mor. 681f) uses it to describe an amulet to ward off
the evil eye. Again (cf. v. 8) the author develops the comparison through the use
of ὥσπερ γάρ, this time paired with οὕτως opening the complimenting clause.
The image of a scarecrow is found in Hebrew versions of Jer 10.5 and similar-
ities with EpJer 69 suggest a literary connection. The absence of this image in
Greek translations of Jeremiah has been used to support a claim that EpJer was
202 chapter 6
originally written in Hebrew (so Moore 1977, 357). This, as Wright (2010, 140)
has correctly noted, is not conclusive evidence that EpJer was a translation,
but rather suggests that the author had knowledge of Hebrew or, I would spec-
ify, knowledge of the Hebrew text of Jeremiah. (There is also a possibility that
a Greek version of Jeremiah existed that had this reading of Jer 10.5, although
that is less likely.) For a discussion of the ways that Jer 10.5a may have been
taken from the shorter version of Jeremiah and so not demand dependence on
the longer Hebrew version, see Thomas (2008, 557–559).
The next comparison (τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ) contrasts the gods with a thorn
bush in a garden (τῇ ἐν κήπῳ ῥάμνῳ) upon which every bird perches. The phrase
τῇ ἐν κήπῳ ῥάμνῳ is another example of interposition with the prepositional
phrase ἐν κήπῳ placed between the article and its noun (cf. v. 38). The term
ῥάμνος occurs five times in the lxx and is limited amost exclusively to Jud
9.14–15 and the discussion of which tree would be king (cf. also Ps 57.10).
The third and final comparison is to a corpse thrown into the darkness.
Initiated by ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ (cf. v. 21), this image is full of contempt, as leaving
a corpse unburied was the highest insult in Jewish society (cf. Deut 28.25–26;
Josephus, War 1.594). Similar images (although not exact) are found throughout
the lxx (e.g., Jer 14.16; Bar 2.25), but recourse to them is hardly needed to
understand the author’s intention in EpJer.
The final piece of evidence cited by the author to argue that the wooden
idols are not gods is that the purple (cloth) and marble are rotting on them
(τῆς ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς σηπομένης, another interposing prepositional phrase). The sec-
ond part of this image has posed a problem for interpreters, as marble does
not rot. According to Moore (1977, 357) the translator confused the homograph
‫ שש‬which could be glossed “marble” or “fine linen” depending on vowel point-
ing. Wright (2010, 140) has recently challenged the theory that the Greek in v. 71
is a result of translation error. First, Wright notes that the semantic range of
σήπω is not limited to “rot” (contra Muraoka), but can also encompass the idea
of “wasting away” or “corrupting” (e.g., Job 16.7). These latter meanings could
easily accommodate the term “marble”. As additional support, Wright discusses
the summarising role of v. 71, noting that it recalls similar items and themes
throughout the whole of the work. The gods are unprotected, helpless, useless,
and ultimately they will decay, regardless of the material used for their con-
struction.
The prepositional phrase ἐξ ὑστέρου is only found here in the lxx. Although
ὕστερος occurs on its own nine times, the pairing with ἐκ is standard Greek and
used by many classical and Hellenistic writers (Hippocrates, Coac. 418; Aristo-
tle, An. pr. 87a; Dionysus Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 4.73.2; Diodorus Siculus, Bib.
hist. 10.30.2).
The epistle ends not with a traditional letter ending, but rather with a
proverbial maxim: “It is better for a righteous person not to have idols, for he
will be far from reproach”. This saying provides a summary (οὖν) of the entire
work and provides the closing words of the invective. The use of κρείσσων (with
-σσ- not -ττ-, cf. v. 67; Gignac 1976, 146–147) begs the question, Better than what?
The answer is not provided by the author, but the letter as a whole supplies it:
better than one who worships idols. It is noteworthy that the author of EpJer,
despite talking about idols throughout the whole of the work, reserves the term
εἴδωλα for the last verse as an emphatic conclusion to the argument (Fernández
Marcos 2002, 37). Finally, the term ὄνειδος is important for the author of EpJer as
it is used to summarise all that is wrong with the worship of false gods. Also used
in v. 47, ὄνειδος encapsulates the pollution that idol worship brings, namely,
that it is a disgrace for the land (ὄνειδος ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ). Moreover, ὄνειδος provides
a linking word to ἀπὸ ὀνειδισμοῦ in the final verse. The manner by which the
author ends EpJer is intentional. It is not by accident that ἀπὸ ὀνειδισμοῦ are
the final two words, as the entire motivation for this work has been to keep the
(future) Jewish exiles from reproach.
Subscriptio
There are a variety subscriptions appended to the Epistle of Jeremiah. The sub-
scription in Vaticanus and some other manuscripts (Q O SyrHex pr. finitur)
only references EpJer: επιστολη ιερεμιου. Other manuscripts include a reference
to Baruch, which indicates the interpretive framework within which the scribe
and/or his Vorlage operated. The different subscriptions are as follows: επιστολη
(+ τελος προφητειας ιερεμιου 51) L; επιστολη προς βαρουχ 538; ιερεμιας προφη-
της βαρουχ θρηνοι και επιστολη A Arab; ιερεμιας V; τελος ιερεμιου 46; τελος των
ρηματων του προφητικωτατου ιερεμια 106; explicit epistola ieremiae LaC; finitur
prophetia ieremiae prophetae in pace dei. amen Bo; epistola ieremiae de idolis
finitur. amen. liber verborum ieremiae prophetae Fa; finitur epistola ieremiae
prophetae, cuius oratio nobiscum sit Syr.
appendix 1
Church Fathers’s Citations of Baruch
Readers should note some discrepancies in verse numbering. In some older

manuscripts there is an alternate numbering system in which what is now
labelled Bar 3.36 in the new editions of Rahlfs-Hanhart and Ziegler was pre-
viously labelled Bar 3.35. For a list of patristic citations in which portions of
Baruch are attributed to Jeremiah, see Bogaert (2005, 331–332) and Feuerstein
(1997).
Ambrose, Concerning Repentance 1.9.43, Bar 3.1–2

Ambrose, Concerning Repentance 1.9.43, Bar 5.1
Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.3.28, Bar 3.36–38
Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith 2.9.80, Bar 3.36–38
Athenagoras, Legatio pro Christianis 9, Bar 3.36
Athenasius, Against the Arians, Discourse 1, 4.12, Bar 4.20, 22
Athenasius, Against the Arians, Discourse 1, 6.19, Bar 3.12
Athenasius, De Decritus 3.12, Bar 3.12
Augustine, Civ. 15.23, Bar 3.26–28
Augustine, Civ. 18.33, Bar 3.36–38
Augustine, Ep. 164.17, Bar 3.38
Augustine, Ps. 98 14, Bar 3.38
Augustine, Praed. 1.42, Bar 2.31
Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 15, Bar 3.3
Basil, Dogmatic 1, Bar 3.36
Chrysostom, Against Marcionists and Manichaeans 3, Bar 3.36–38
Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 19.12, Bar 3.36
Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 2.2, Bar 3.38
Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 2.3.36.3, Bar 3.16–19
Constitution of the Holy Apostles 5.3.20, Bar 3.36–38
Constitution of the Holy Apostles 6.4.36, Bar 4.4
Cyprian, Exhortation to Martyrdom, Addressed to Fortunatus 2.6, Bar 3.36–38
Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture 2.17, Bar 2.24

206 appendix 1
Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture 11.15, Bar 3.36–38

Gregory of Nazianzen, Ep. 102, Bar 3.38
Gregory of Nazianzen, Or. 30.13, Bar 3.36, 38
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 2.1, Bar 3.38
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 4.42, Bar 3.36–38
Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 5.39, Bar 3.36–38
Hyppolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus 2, Bar 3.36–38
Hyppolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus 5, Bar 3.36
Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.35.1–2, Bar 4.36–5.9
Jerome, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 5, Bar 3.36–38
Jerome, Ep. 77.4, Bar 5.5
John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1.8, Bar 3.38
(missing from some mss.)
John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18, Bar 3.36, 38
John Cassian, Against Nestorius 4.9, Bar 3.36–38
John Cassian, Against Nestorius 5.5, Bar 3.38
John Cassian, Against Nestorius 4.13, Bar 3.37–38
John Cassian, Conference 5.12, Bar 3.10
John Cassian, Conference 7.5, Bar 3.10
John Cassian, The Twelve Books on the Institutes 5.1, Bar 3.1
Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.13, Bar 3.36–38
Lactantius, Divine Institutes: Epitome 44, Bar 3.36–38
Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins: Thekla 3, Bar 3.14–15
Methodius, Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna 10, Bar 3.24–25
St. John of the Cross, Book the Second 8.6, Bar 3.23
St. John of the Cross, Book the Second 17.7, Bar 3.31
Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue 1, Bar 3.36, 38
Theodoret of Cyrus, Ep. 151, Bar 3.36–38
Theodoret of Cyrus, Ep. 76, Bar 3.38
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae ii 103.3, Bar 4.1
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae iii 4.4, Bar 3.38
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae iii 40.1, Bar 3.38
appendix 2
Folio Columns of Baruch and Epistle

of Jeremiah in Greek Manuscripts
Although not needed for the average reader, this appendix provides the first
word(s) of each column of Greek text along with modern chapter and verse
numbers. This will allow for easy reference for those wishing to consult the
original manuscripts, which I would personally encourage.
1 Codex Vaticanus (B)
1.1 Baruch
1127 col. 2 Baruch begins at the head of the column

1127 col. 3 1.8 [ἐξενεχθέν]τα ἐκ τοῦ
1128 col. 1 1.13 [ἡ]μῶν πρὸς κύριον
1128 col. 2 1.20 Μωυσῇ παιδὶα
1128 col. 3 2.5 [ἐγε]νήθησαν ὑποκάτω
1129 col. 1 2.13 [ὀλί]γοι ἐν τοῖς
1129 col. 2 2.20 προφητῶν oὕτως
1129 col. 3 2.27 κύριε ὁ θεὸς
1130 col. 1 2.34 [σμι]κρυνθῶσι(ν)
1130 col. 2 3.8 [σήμε]ρον ἐν τῇ ἀποικίᾳ
1130 col. 3 3.18 [τε]κταίνοντες καὶ μεριμνῶντες
1131 col. 1 3.28 [ἀπώ]λοντο διὰ τὴν ἀβουλίαν
1131 col. 2 4.1 προσταγμάτων τοῦ θεοῦ
1131 col. 3 4.11 μετὰ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ πένθους
1132 col. 1 4.21 πρὸς τὸν θεόν
1132 col. 2 4.28 [πλα]νηθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
1132 col. 3 5.1 [κακώ]σεώς σου καὶ ἔνδυσαι
1133 col. 1 5.9 δόξης αὐτοῦ σὺν
1.2 Epistle of Jeremiah
1140 col. 1 EpJer begins at the head of the column

1140 col. 2 v. 7 ἐστι(ν) κατεξυσμένη

208 appendix 2
1140 col. 3 v. 15 [ἀχρεῖ]ον γ(ε)ίνεται, τοιοῦτοι

1141 col. 1 v. 23 στίλψωσιν· οὐδὲ γάρ
1141 col. 2 v. 30 [πώγω]νας ἐξυρημένους, ὧν
1141 col. 3 v. 40 [ἀτι]μαζόντων αὐτά, οἵ
1142 col. 1 v. 48 [συναποκρυ]βῶσι μετʼ αὐτῶν
1142 col. 2 v. 57 περίχρυσοι, ὧν οἱ ἰσχύοντες
1142 col. 3 v. 63 [ὄν]των αὐτῶν οὔτε
1143 col. 1 v. 72 [ἄν]θρωπος δίκαιος οὐκ
2 Codex Alexandrinus (A)
2.1 Baruch
361b col. 2 Baruch begins at the head of the column

362a col. 1 1.10 ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον
362a col. 2 1.20 συνέταξεν κύριος
362b col. 1 2.10 καὶ οὐκ ἠκούσαμεν
362b col. 2 2.20 ἐν χειρὶ τῶν παίδων
363a col. 1 2.30 [ἀκού]σωσίν μου
363a col. 2 3.7 [ἀπεστρέψα]μεν ἐπὶ καρδίαν
363b col. 1 3.23 καὶ οἱ μυθολόγοι
363b col. 2 4.1 οἱ κρατοῦντες αὐτὴν
364a col. 1 4.16 καὶ ἤγαγον
364a col. 2 4.29 ὁ γὰρ ἐπαγαγὼν
364b col. 1 5.7 συνέταξεν γὰρ
368a col. 2 EpJer begins at the head of the column

368b col. 1 v. 12 ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας
368b col. 2 v. 25 [πο]δῶν ἐπʼ ὤμοις
369a col. 1 v. 37 χήραν οὐ μὴ
369a col. 2 v. 50 [περί]χρυσα καὶ περιάργυρα
369b col. 1 v. 62 τὸ δὲ πῦρ
folio columns of baruch and epistle of jeremiah 209
3 Codex Marchalianus (Q)
3.1 Baruch
523 Baruch begins at the top of the page

524 1.8 Σιουαν σκεύη
525 1.13 ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης
526 1.21 τῆς φωνῆς κυρίου
527 2.6 ἡ αἰσχύνη τῶν προσώπων
528 2.15 πᾶσα ἡ γῆ
529 2.23 ἐκ πόλεων Ιουδα
530 2.29 βόμβησις ἡ μεγάλ
531 3.2 ἡμάρτομεν ἐναντίον
532 3.11 συνεμιάνθης τοῖς νεκροῖς
533 3.22 ὤφθη ἐν Θαιμαν
534 3.33 ἀποστέλλων τὸ φῶς
535 4.7 παρoξύνατε γὰρ
536 4.16 καὶ ἀπήγαγον
537 4.25 κατεδίωξέν γὰρ σε
538 4.36 ἀνατολάς, Ιερουσαλημ
539 5.8 ξύλον εὐωδίας
559 EpJer begins at the top of the page

560 v. 8 καὶ ὥσπερ παρθένῳ
561 v. 17 καὶ ὥσπερ τινὶ
562 v. 25 αἰσχύνονταί τε καὶ
563 v. 33 οὔτε ἐὰν κακὸν
564 v. 42 ἐγκάθηνται θυμιῶσαι
565 v. 50 ἔργα χειρῶν ἀνθρώπων
566 v. 58 ξύλινος στῦλος
567 v. 69 φυλάσσον, οὕτως
210 appendix 2
4 Codex Venetus (V)
4.1 Baruch
94b col. 1 Baruch begins one third down the column

94b col. 2 1.11 αὐτῶν ὡς
95a col. 1 2.9 καὶ ἐγρηγόρησεν
95a col. 2 2.27 καὶ κατὰ πάντα
95b col. 1 3.15 καὶ τίς εἰσῆλθεν
95b col. 2 4.5 μου μνημόσυνον
96a col. 1 4.29 σωτηρίας ὑμῶν
97b col. 2 EpJer begins one third down the page

98a col. 1 v. 12 διὰ τὸν
98a col. 2 v. 34 οὔτε χαλκὸν
98b col. 1 v. 57 καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον
Bibliography
Ackroyd, P.R. 1972. “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme.” Pp. 166–181 in Studies
in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 22. Leiden: Brill.
Adams, S.A. 2010. “Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistologaphy: A Matter of Rela-
tionship.” Pp. 33–55 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, edited by S.E. Porter and
S.A. Adams. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill.
. 2011. “Epistle of Jeremiah or Baruch 6: The Importance of Labels.” Journal for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44: 26–30.
. 2013. “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations’.”
Pp. 63–83 in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, edited
by G.G. Xeravits, I. Kalimi, and T. Nicklas. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature
Studies 16. Berlin: de Gruyter.
. 2016. “Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: The Use of Isaiah in 1 Baruch
4:5–5:9.” In Studies in Baruch, edited by S.A. Adams. Deuterocanonical and Cognate
Literature Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming.
Aejmelaeus, A. 1982. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew
Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fenni-
cae 31. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
. 1987. “What Can We Know About the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?”
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99: 58–89.
. 1991. “Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translator.” Pp. 23–36
in vii Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies
Leuven 1989, edited by Claude E. Cox. Society for Biblical Literature Septuagint and
Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
. 1993. “oti Causale in Septuagintal Greek.” Pp. 17–36 in On the Trail of the
Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, edited by A. Aejmelaeus. Kampen: Kok
Pharos Publishing House.
. 2001. “What We Talk about When We Talk about Translation Technique.”
Pp. 531–552 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cog-
nate Studies: Oslo, 1998, edited by B.A. Taylor. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series
51. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Allen, H.F. 1907. The Infinitive in Polybius Compared with the Infinitive in Biblical Greek.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alonso Schökel, L. 1986. “Jerusalem Inocente Intercede Baruc 4, 9–19.” Pp. 39–51 in
Salvacion en la Palabra Targum—Derash—Berith En Memoria del Profesor Alejandro
Diez Macho, edited by D.M. Leon and A.D. Macho. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad.
. 1990. Hermenéutica de la Palabra, iii. Interpretación teológica de textos bíblicos.
Bilbao: ega.
212 bibliography
Assan-Dhôte, I., and J. Moatti-Fine. 2008. La Bible d’Alexandrie: Baruch, Lamentations,

Lettre de Jérémie: Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Introduction et notes. Paris:
Cerf.
Asurmendi Ruiz, J. 2006. “Baruch: Causes, Effects and Remedies for a Disaster.” Pp. 187–
200 in History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History,
edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Liter-
ature Yearbook 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Auld, A.G. 2005. Joshua: Jesus, Son of Nauê, in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary
Series. Leiden: Brill.
Babut, J.-M. 1995. Les Expressions idiomatiques de l’ hébreu biblique. Cahiers de la Revue
Biblique 33. Paris: Gabalda.
Baillet, M., J.T. Milik, and R. De Vaux. 1962. Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration
de la falaise, les grottes 2q, 3q, 5q, 6q, 7q à 10q, le rouleau de cuivre. Discoveries in the
Judaean Desert 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ball, C.J. 1913. “The Epistle of Jeremy.” Pp. 596–611 in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament in English, edited by R.H. Charles. Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Baltzer, K. 1992. “Stand-Tyche oder Zion-Jerusalem: Die Auseinandersetzung mit den
Göttern der Zeit bei Deuterojesaja.” Pp. 114–120 in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Bib-
lischer Theologie: Festschrift Horst D. Preuss, edited by J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zöbel.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Barr, J. 1979. “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations.” Mitteilungen
des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Battiston, J.J. 1968. “An Examination of the Literary and Theological Background of the
Wisdom Passage in the Book of Baruch.” PhD dissertation, Duke University.
Bergren, T.A. 2010. “The Structure and Composition of 5 Ezra.” Vigilae christianae 64:
115–139.
Bewer, J.A. 1924. “The River Sud in the Book of Baruch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 43:
226–227.
Biddle, M.E. 1991. “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Per-
sonification of Cities in the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 172–194 in The Biblical Canon in
Comparative Perspective, edited by K.L. Younger, W.H. Hallo, and B.F. Batto. Scripture
in Context 4. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
Birdsall, J.N. 2003. “The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance.” Pp. 33–41 in The
Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, edited by S. McKendrick and O.A.
O’Sullivan. London: The British Library.
Blass, F., and A. Debrunner, edited by R.W. Funk. 1961. A Greek-Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Boase, E. 2006. The Fulfillment of Doom? The Dialogic Interaction between the Book of
bibliography 213
Lamentations and the Pre-Exilic/Early Exilic Prophetic Literature. Library of Hebrew

Bible 437. New York: t&t Clark.
Boccaccini, G. 1998. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between
Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bogaert, P.-M. 1972. “Le livre deutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine.”
Pp. 31–48 in Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R.P. dom Bernard Botte à l’ occasion du
cinquantième annivarsaire de son ordination sacerdotale (4 juin 19972), edited by
B. Botte. Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César.
. 1974. “Le nom de Baruch dans la littérature pseudépigraphique. L’Apocalypse
syriaque et le livre deutérocanonique.” Pp. 56–72 in La littérature juive entre Tenach
et Mischna: Quelques problèmes, edited by W.C. van Unnik. Recherches Bibliques 9.
Leiden: Brill.
. 1982. “Le personnage de Baruch et l’ histoire du livre de Jérémie: Aux orig-
ines du livre deutérocanonique de Baruch.” Pp. 73–81 in Studia Evangelica, vii:
Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies Held at Oxford,
1973, edited by E.A. Livingstone. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur 126. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
. 1999. “ii. Le texte de l’ Ancien Testament.” Pp. 7–26 in Bibliorum Sacrorum
Graecorum Codex Vaticanus B. Prolegomena, edited by P. Canart, P.-M. Bogaert, and
S. Pisano. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
. 2005. “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine: Disparition et
reintegration.” Revue Bénédictine 115: 286–342.
Boyer, J.L. 1982. “Second Class Conditions in New Testament Greek.” Grace Theological
Journal 3: 81–88.
Brayford, S. 2007. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill.
Brooke, G.J. 2007. “The Structure of the Poem against Idolatry in the Epistle of Jeremiah
(1 Baruch 6).” Pp. 107–128 in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques:
Études réunies en l’ honneur de Jean-Daniel Kaestli et Éric Junod, edited by A. Frey and
R. Gounelle. Publications de l’ Institut romand des sciences bibliques 5. Lausanne:
Editions du Zèbre.
Brugsch, H. 1872. “Das Buch Baruch, koptisch.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 10: 134–136.
. 1873. “Das Buch Baruch, koptisch.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alter-
tumskunde 11: 18–21.
. 1874. “Das Buch Baruch, koptisch.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alter-
tumskunde 12: 46–49.
Bsciai, A. 1870. Liber Baruch Prophetae. Rome: Typis S. Congregationis de Propaganda
Fide.
Burke, D.G. 1982. The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original
Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate
Studies 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
214 bibliography
. 2016. “Translating hōs thronon basileias in Baruch 5.6.” In Studies in Baruch,

edited by S.A. Adams. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies. Berlin: de
Gruyter, forthcoming.
Burkes, S. 1999. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.” Journal for
the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 30: 253–276.
Cadell, H. 1995. “Vocabulaire de la législation ptolémaïque: Problème du sens dikaiôma
dans le pentateuque.” Pp. 207–221 in ΚΑΤΑ ΤΟΥΣ Ο’: Selon les Septante: Trente Études
sur la bible grecque des Septante en homage à Marguerite Harl, edited by G. Dorival
and O. Munnich. Paris: Cerf.
Calduch-Benages, N. 2008. “Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5–5:9).” Pp. 147–164 in Bibli-
cal Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, edited by H. Lichtenberger,
F.V. Reiterer and U. Mittmann-Richert. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Studies Year-
book 2008. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Canart, P., and C.M. Martini. 1965. The Holy Bible: The Vatican Greek Codex 1209 (Codex
b) Facsimile Reproduction by order of his Holiness Paul vi. The New Testament. Intro-
duction. Vatican City: Vatican.
Cohen, C. 1973. “The ‘Widowed’ City.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University 5: 75–81.
Collins, J.J. 1979 “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14: 1–20.
Conybeare, F.C., and St.G. Stock. 1905. Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Read-
ings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes. Boston: Ginn and co. Peabody: Hendrickson
1995 edition cited here.
Coogan, M.D. 1999. “The Goddess Wisdom—‘Where Can She Be Found?’: Literary
Reflections of Popular Religion.” Pp. 203–209 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near East-
ern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, edited by R. Chazan,
W.W. Hallo, and L.H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, in: Eisenbrauns.
Cowe, S.P. 1991. “The Armenian Version of the Epistle of Jeremiah: Parent Text and
Translation Technique.” Pp. 373–391 in vii Congress of the International Organization
for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leuven 1989, edited by C.E. Cox. Society for
Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Cozza-Luzi, G. 1890. Prophetarum codex Graecus Vaticanus 2125. Rome.
Craig, K.M. Jr. 1995. “Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah.” Pp. 853–858 in Mercer Commen-
tary on the Bible, edited by W.E. Mills and R.F. Wilson. Macon, ga: Mercer University
Press.
Croy, N.C. 2006. 3 Maccabees. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill.
Dafni, E.G. 2003. “οἱ οὔκ ὄντες θεοί in der Septuaginta des Jeremiabuches und in der Epis-
tel Jeremias. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Werdegang des sogenannten Alexan-
drinischen Kanons.” Pp. 235–245 in The Biblical Canons, edited by J.-M. Auwers and
H.J. de Jonge. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 163. Leuven:
Leuven University Press.
bibliography 215
Dancy, J.C. et al. 1972. The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther,
Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel and Prayer of Manasseh. Cambridge
Bible Commentary on the Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davila, J.R. 2005a. “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon
has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” Journal for the Study of the Pseude-
pigrapha 15: 3–61.
. 2005b. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or other? Jour-
nal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supple-
ment Series 105. Leiden: Brill.
Denniston, J.D. 1954. The Greek Particles. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
deSilva, D.A. 2002. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
. 2006. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text of Codex
Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill.
Desnitsky, A.S. 2005. “The Septuagint as a Base Text for Bible Translations in Russia.”
The Bible Translator 56: 245–252.
De Troyer, K. 2012. “The Seventy-Two and Their Many Grandchildren: A Review of
Septuagint Studies from 1997 Onward.” Current in Biblical Researchd 11: 8–64.
Dimant, D. 2001. Qumran Cave 4: xxi: Parabiblical Texts, Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 30. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Doering, L. 2006. “Jeremiah and the ‘Diaspora Letters’ in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary
Communication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present.” Pp. 43–72
in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by
Means of Scriptural Interpretation, edited by K. de Troyer and A. Lange. Atlanta: sbl.
. 2012. Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 298. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
Eissfeldt, O. 1965. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Trans. P.R. Ackroyd. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Evans, T.V. 2001. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew
Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2010. “The Potential of Linguistic Criteria for Dating Septuagint Books.”Bulletin
of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43: 5–23.
Falk, D.K. 1998. Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah 27. Leiden: Brill.
Fanning, B.M. 1990. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Mono-
graphs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Feder, F. 2002. Biblia Sahidica: Ieremias, Lamentationes (Threni), Epistula Ieremiae et
Baruch. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 147.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
216 bibliography
Fernández Marcos, N. 2000. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version
of the Bible. Translated by W.G.E. Watson. Leiden: Brill.
. 2002. “The Other Septuagint: From the Letter of Aristeas to the Letter Jere-
miah.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 28: 27–41.
Feuerstein, R. 1997. Das Buch Baruch: Studien zur Textgestalt und Auslegungsgeschichte.
Europaische Hochschulschriften. Reihe xxiii, Theologie 614. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
. 2004. “ ‘Nicht im Vertrauen auf die Verdienste unserer Vater und Konige legen
wir dir unsere Bitte um Erbarmen vor’ (Bar 2,19): Aspekte des Gebetes im Buch
Baruch.” Pp. 255–291 in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran: Inaugural Conference of
the isdcl at Salzburg, Austria, 5–9 July 2003, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and
Jeremy Corley. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2004. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Fischer, G. 2014. “Baruch, Jeremiah’s ‘Secretary’? The Relationships Between the Book
of Jeremiah and the Book of Baruch.” In Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the
Scriptures, edited by E.J.C. Tigchelaar. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum
lovaniensium. Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming.
Fitzgerald, A. 1968. “Baruch.” Pp. 614–619 in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by
R.E. Brown, J.E. Fitzmyer, and R.E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, nj: Prentice Hall.
Floyd, M.H. 2007. “Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective
of Baruch.” Pp. 51–81 in Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2: The Development of
Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, edited by M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, and
R.A. Werline. sbl Early Judaism and Its Literature 22. Atlanta: sbl Press.
Fraade, S.D. 2013a. “1 Baruch.” Pp. 1545–1564 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings
Related to Scripture, edited by L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, and L.H. Schiffman. Philadel-
phia: Jewish Publication Society.
. 2013b. “The Letter of Jeremiah.” Pp. 1535–1544 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jew-
ish Writings Related to Scripture, edited by L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel, and L.H. Schiff-
man. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Fritzsche, O.F. 1851. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten
Testamentes. Leipzig: Weidmann.
Fuller, L.K. 2006. “The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Pro-
posal for Clearer Understanding.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism
3: 142–167.
Gifford, E.H. 1888. “Baruch.” Pp. 241–286 in Apocrypha of the Speaker’s Commentary,
edited by H. Wace. London: John Murray.
Gignac, F.T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods.
Vol. i: Phonology. Testi e Documenti per lo Studio dell’Antichità 55. Milan: Istituto
Editoriale Cisalpino—La Goliardica.
Givón, T. 1979. “Preface.” Pp. ix–xvii, in Syntax and Semantics Volume 12: Discourse and
Syntax, edited by T. Givón. New York: Academic Press.
bibliography 217
Goldstein, J.A. 1979–1980. “The Apocryphal Book of 1 Baruch.” Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Academy for Jewish Research 46–47: 179–199.
Gunneweg, A.H.J. 1975. “Der Brief Jeremias.” Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römi-
scher Zeit 3/2: 183–192.
Gurtner, D. 2009. Second Baruch: A Critical Edition to the Syriac Text. Jewish and Chris-
tian Texts in Context and Related Studies. New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language
in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deakon University.
Harrelson, W. 1992. “Wisdom Hidden and Revealed According to Baruch (Baruch 3.9–
4.4).” Pp. 158–171 in Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Her-
itage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp, edited by E. Ulrich,
J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll, and P.R. Davies. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
Supplement Series 149. Sheffield: jsot Press.
Harrington, D.J. 1999. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Harwell, H.H. 1915. “The Principal Versions of Baruch.” PhD Dissertation, Yale Univer-
sity.
Haspecker, J. 1967. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre liter-
arische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. Analecta biblica 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelin-
stitut.
Heinisch, P. 1928. “Zur Entstehung des Buches Baruch.” Theologie und Glaube 20: 696–
710.
Henderson, R. 2014. Second Temple Songs of Zion. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Liter-
ature Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hengel, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press.
Herzer, J. 2005. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou): Translated with an Introduction and
Commentary. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World
22. Atlanta: sbl press.
Hiebert, R.J.V. 2001. “Translating a Translation: The Septuagint of Genesis and the nets
Project.” Pp. 263–284 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, edited by Bernard Taylor. Atlanta: sbl Press.
Hill, R.C. 2006. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Prophets. Vol. 1: Commentary on
the Prophet Jeremiah, Commentary on the Prophet Baruch, Commentary on the Book
of Lamentations. Brookline, Ma: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Himbaza, I. 2004. “Baruch.” Pp. 673–686 in Introduction à l’ Ancien Testament, edited by
T. Römer, J.-D. Macchi and C. Nihan. Le Monde de la Bible 49. Geneva: Labor et Fides.
Hoberg, G. 1902. Die älteste lateinische Übersetzung des Buches Baruch. Freiburg: Herder.
Hogan, K.M. 2008. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra: Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic
Solution. Suplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 130. Leiden: Brill.
218 bibliography
. 2011. “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch.” Pp. 145–159 in The
“Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, edited by D.C.
Harlow, K.M. Hogan, M. Goff, and J.S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Holmes, R., and J. Parsons. 1827. Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum Variis Lectionibus,
Tom. 4. 5 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jannaris, A. 1897. An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and
Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time: Founded upon the Ancient
Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. London: Macmillan.
Jellicoe, S. 1968. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford, Clarendon.
Johannessohn, M. 1910. “Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Präpositionen in der Septu-
aginta.” Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde genehmigt von der
Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich Wilhelms Universität zuu Berlin.
. 1925. Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta. Nach-
richten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttinen Philologisch-Histori-
sche Klasse Beiheft. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Kabasele Mukenge, A. 1995. “Les Citations internes en Ba. 1, 15–3, 8: Un Procédé Rédac-
tionnel et Actualisant.” Le Muséon 108: 211–237.
. 1998. L’ unité littéraire du livre de Baruch. Études Bibliques 38. Paris: Gabal-
da.
. 2000. “Les Particularités des Témoins Latins de Baruch: Etude d’ un phéno-
mène de réception scripturaire.” Revue biblique 107: 24–41.
Kasser, R. 1964. Papyrus Bodmer xxii et Mississippi Coptic Codex ii: Jérémie xl,3–lii,34,
Lamentations, Epître de Jérémie, Baruch i,1–v,5 en sahidique. Cologny-Genève: Bib-
liothèque Bodmer.
Kenyon, F.G. 1912. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Second
Edition. London: Macmillan.
Kneucker, J.J. 1879. Das Buch Baruch: Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklä-
rung auf Grund des Wiederhergestellten Hebräischen Urtextes. Leipzig: F.A. Brock-
haus.
Knibb, M.A. 1976. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” Heythrop
Journal 17: 253–272.
Koch, D.-A. 1986. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwen-
dung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie
69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Korpel, M.C.A. 2000. “Introduction to the Series Pericope.” Pp. 1–50 in Delimitation
Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, edited by M.C.A. Korpel and J.M. Oesch.
Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Kratz, R.G. 1995. “Die Rezeption von Jeremia 10 und 29 im Pseudepigraphen Brief
des Jeremia.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman
Periods 26: 2–31.
bibliography 219
. 1998. Der Brief des Jeremia. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Apokryphen 5. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kulik, A. 2010. 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavic Apocalypse of Baruch. Commentary on Early Jew-
ish Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lee, G.M. 1971. “Apocryphal Cats: Baruch 6.” Vetus Testamentum 21: 111–112.
Lee, J.A.L. 1983. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Chico:
Scholars Press.
Lee, J.H. 2010. Paul’s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom 1:16–8:39. Lingistic
Biblical Studies 3. Leiden: Brill.
Lefevre, A., and M. Delcor. 1973. “Les livres deutérocanoniques.” Pp. 679–739 in Intro-
duction à la Bible, Tome ii: Introduction critique à l’ Ancien Testament, edited by
H. Cazelles. Paris: Desclée.
Levinsohn, S.H. 1987. Textual Connections in Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Mono-
graph Series 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Lo, A. 2003. Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31. Supple-
ments to Vetus Testamentum 97. Leiden: Brill.
Louw, J.P. and E.A. Nida. 1989. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains, 2 vols. Second edition. New York: United Bible Societies.
Lundbom, J.R. 1986. “Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jere-
miah”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36: 89–114.
. 1992. “Baruch.” P. 1.617 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman.
London: Doubleday.
Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, ed. 2003. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.
Revised edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Marshall, J.T. 1898. “Baruch, Book of.” Pp. 251–254 in A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by
J. Hastings. Edinburgh: t&t Clark.
Martin, R.A. 1960. “Some Syntactical Criteria of Translation Greek.” Vetus Testamentum
10: 295–310.
. 1974. Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents. Septuagint
and Cognate Studies 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Scholars Press.
. 1977. Syntactical and Critical Concordance to the Greek Text of Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah. The Computer Bible 12. Wooster, oh: Biblical Research Asso-
ciates.
. 1991. “Syntax Criticism of Baruch.” Pp. 361–371 in vii Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leuven 1989, edited by
C.E. Cox. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Marttila, M. 2011. “The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of
Baruch.” Pp. 321–346 in Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative
Traditions in the Second Temple Period, edited by H. Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and
M. Marttila. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 419.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
220 bibliography
Mattei-Cerasoli, L. 1935. Liber Baruch secondo il testo del codice Biblico cavense. Analecta
Caensia 1. Mont-Cassin.
Mayser, E.1926. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einschluss
der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Band ii.1 Sat-
zlehre, analytischer Teil, erste Hälfte. Reprint 1970. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
van der Meer, M.N. 2011. “Problems and Perspectives in Septuagint Lexicography: The
Case of Non-Compliance (ΑΠΕΙΘΕΩ).” Pp. 65–86 in Septuagint Lexicography: Pre-
History, Usage, Reception, edited by E. Bons and J. Joosten. Society for Biblical Liter-
ature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58. Atlanta: sbl Press.
Mendels, D. 1992. “Baruch, Book of.” Pp. 1.618–620 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by
D.N. Freedman. London: Doubleday.
Metzger, B.M. 1957. An Introduction to the Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 1991. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Metzger, B.M., and B.D. Erhman. 2005. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michael, T.S.L. 2007. “Baruch.” Pp. 925–931 in A New English Translation of the Septu-
agint, edtied by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Milne, H.J.M., and T.C. Skeat. 1938. Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. Lon-
don: British Museum.
Miquel, P. 1986. Lexique du desert. Étude de quelques mots-clés de vocabularire monas-
tique grec ancien. Spiritualité orientale 44. Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Bellefontaine.
de Moor, J.C. 2000. “Micah 7:1–13: The Lament of a Disillusioned Prophet.” Pp. 149–196
in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, edited by M.C.A. Korpel
and J.M. Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Moore, C.A. 1974. “Towards the Dating of the Book of Baruch.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
36: 312–320.
. 1977. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 44. London: Yale University Press.
. 1992. “Jeremiah, Additions to.” Pp. 3.698–706 in Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited
by D.N. Freedman. London: Doubleday.
Moule, C.F.D. 1959. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Second edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moulton, J.H. 1908. A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Third
edition. Edinburgh: t&t Clark.
Muraoka, T. 2009. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters.
Myers, J.M. 1965. Ezra, Nehemiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 14. New Haven: Doubleday.
. 1974. i and ii Esdras: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 42. New Haven: Doubleday.
bibliography 221
Naumann, W. 1913. Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Jeremiasbrief. Beihefte zur

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 25. Giessen.
Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 1984. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pp. 89–156 in Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian
Writings, Philo, Josephus. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
. 2005. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. Second edition.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Nicklas, T. 2010. “Schöpfungstheologie im Buch Baruch: Bedeutung und Funktion.”
Pp. 81–93 in Theologies of Creation in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity: In
Honour of Hans Klein, edited by T. Nicklas and K. Zamfir. Deuterocanonical and
Cognate Literature Studies 6. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Niebuhr, K.-W. 1998. “Der Jakobusbrief in Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe.” New
Testament Studies 44: 420–443.
North, J.L. 1973. “ἀκηδία and ἀκηδιᾶν in the Greek and Latin Biblical Tradition.” Texte
und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 112: 387–392.
Oesterley, W.O.E. 1914. The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents.
New York: Fleming H. Revell.
. 1935. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. London: spck.
Olley, J.W. 1998. “Texts Have Paragraphs Too—A Plea for Inclusion in Critical Editions.”
Textus 19: 111–125.
. 2009. Ezekiel: A Commentary based on Iezekiēl in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint
Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill.
O’Neill, J.C. 1989. “The Rules Followed by the Editors of the Text Found in the Codex
Vaticanus.” New Testament Studies 35: 219–228.
Payne, P.B., and P. Canart. 2000. “The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex
Vaticanus.” Novum Testamentum 42: 105–113.
Pennington, J.T. 2009. “Setting Aside ‘Deponency’: Rediscovering the Greek Middle
Voice in New Testament Studies.” Pp. 181–203 in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in
the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, edited by S.E. Porter
and M. Brook O’Donnell. New Testament Monographs 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoe-
nix Press.
Pesch, W. 1955. “Die Abhängigkeit des 11. salomonischen Psalms vom letzten Kapi-
tel des Buches Baruch.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 67: 251–
263.
Pfeiffer, R.H. 1949. History of New Testament Times: With an Introduction to the Apoc-
rypha. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Pike, K.L. 1967. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human
Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Pisano, S. 1999. “iii. The Text of the New Testament.” Pp. 27–41 in Bibliorum Sacrorum
222 bibliography
Graecorum Codex Vaticanus B. Prolegomena, edited by P. Canart, P.-M. Bogaert, and

S. Pisano. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
Porter, S.E. 1993. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense
and Mood. Second edition. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang.
. 1994. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second edition. Biblical Languages:
Greek 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
. 2009a. “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph: Textual and Linguistic Implica-
tions.” Pp. 175–195 in The Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis, edited by R. de
Hoop, M.C.A. Korpel, and S.E. Porter. Pericope 7. Leiden: Brill.
. 2009b. “Prominence: An Overview.” Pp. 45–74 in The Linguist as Pedagogue:
Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, edited
by S.E. Porter and M. Brook O’Donnell. New Testament Monographs 11. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix Press.
. 2010. “The Babatha Archive, the Egyptian Papyri and their Implications for
Study of the Greek New Testament.” Pp. 213–237 in Early Christian Manuscripts:
Examples of Applied Method and Approach, edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. Texts
and Editions for New Testament Study 5. Leiden: Brill.
Rabin, C. 1968. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Textus 6:
1–26.
Rahlfs, A. 1899. “Alter und Heimat der vatikanischen Bibelhandschrift.”Nachrichten von
der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse 1: 72–79.
Rajak, T. 2009. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raurell, F. 1980. “ ‘Doxa’ i particularisme nacionalista en Ba 4,5–5,9.”Revista Catalana de
Teologia Barcelona 5: 265–295.
Reiterer, F.V. 2010. “Verstehst du die Tugenden der Klugheit? Anfragen zu Gott und zum
Wert der von ihm geschenkten Einsicht.” Pp. 77–125 in Deuterocanonical Additions
of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies, edited by G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér.
Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 5. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Robertson, A.T. 1919. Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Re-
search. Third edition. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Robins, H.T. 1910. “The Complexity of the Book of Baruch.” International Journal of the
Apocrypha 20: 4–7.
Ropes, J.H. 1926. The Text of Acts in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1: The Acts of the
Apostles, edited by F.J.F. Jackson and K. Lake. Volume 3. London: Macmillan.
Rost, L. 1971. Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepirgraphen
einschliesslich der grossen Qumran-Handschriften. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
Sabatier, P. 1751. Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones seu Vetus Italica. 2 volumes. Paris.
Saldarini, A.J. 2001. “The Book of Baruch.” Pp. 927–982 in The New Interpreter’s Bible:
Volume 6, edited by L.E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon.
bibliography 223
Salvesen, A. 2001. “Baruch.” Pp. 699–703 in The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by
J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, W. 1887. Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass
bis auf den zweiten Philostratus: Bd. 2. 5 Bände. Stuttgart; Reprint: Nachdruck Olms,
Hildesheim 1964
Schmitt, A. 1966. Stammt der sogenannte “θ”-Text bei Daniel wirklich von Theodotion?
Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 9, Göttengen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht.
Schürer, E. 1896. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vols. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
. 1973–1987. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vols.
Revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Furgus Millar and Matthew Black. Edinburgh:
t&t Clark.
Schüssler, K. 1995. Biblia Coptica—Die koptischen Bibeltexte. Das sahidische Alte und
Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schwyzer, E. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. 2 vols. Munich: Beck.
Shanks, H. 1987. “Jeremiah’s Scribe and Confidant Speaks from a Hoard of Clay Bullae.”
Biblical Archeology Review 13: 58–65.
. 1996. “Fingerprint of Jeremiah’s Scribe.” Biblical Archeology Review 22: 36–38.
Sheppard, G.T. 1978. “Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underly-
ing Sirach 24:23.” Pp. 166–176 in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of
William Sanford LaSor, edited by G.A. Tuttle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
. 1980. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of
the Old Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
151. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Shier, L.A. 1942. “Old Testament Texts on Vellum.” Pp. 25–167 in Coptic Texts in the
University of Michigan Collection, edited by W.H. Worrell. University of Michigan
Studies Humanistic Series 46. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Skeat. T.C. 1984. “The Codex Vaticanus in the 15th Century.” Journal of Theological
Studies 35: 454–465.
. 1999. “The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine.” Journal of
Theological Studies 50: 583–625.
Smith, A. 2014. A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography,
and Scribal Hands. New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 48. Leiden: Brill.
Sollamo, R. 1975. “Some ‘Improper’ Prepositions, such as ΕΝΩΠΙΟΝ, ΕΝΑΝΤΙΟΝ,
ΕΝΑΝΤΙ, etc., in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 25: 773–
782.
. 1979. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Annales Acade-
miae Scientarum Fennicae. Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suo-
malainen Tiedeakatemia.
224 bibliography
. 1995. Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint. Society for Biblical
Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Stanley, C.D. 1992. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline
Epistles and Contemporary Literature. Society for New Testament Studies Mono-
graph Series 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steck, O.H. 1993. Das Apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration
‘kanonischer’ Überlieferung. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1994. “Israels Gott statt anderer Götter—Israels Gesetz statt fremder Weisheit:
Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Hi 28 in Bar 3,9–4,4.” Pp. 457–471 in “Wer ist wie
du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels,
für Otto Kai-ser zum 70 Geburtstag, edited by I. Kottsieper, J. van Oorschot, D. Röm-
held, and H.M. Wahl. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 1998. Das Buch Baruch. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Apokryphen 5. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. 2000. The Prophetic Books and Their Theological Witness. Translated by J.D. No-
galski. St. Louis, mo: Chalice Press.
Stoderl, W. 1922. Zur Echtheitsfrage von Baruch 1–3,8. Münster: Aschendorff.
Stone, M.E. 1999. “The Axis of History at Qumran.” Pp. 133–149 in Pseudepigraphic
Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 January, 1997, edited by E.G. Chazon
and M.E. Stone. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. Leiden: Brill.
Strobel, A. 1973. Trauer um Jerusalem: Jeremia, Klagelieder, Baruch. Stuttgarter Kleiner
Kommentar, 11. Stuttgart: Bibelwerk.
Swete, H.B. ed. 1901–1905. The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Third
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1914. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Second edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thackeray, H.St.J. 1903. “The Greek Translators of Jeremiah.” Journal of Theological
Studies 4: 245–266.
. 1909. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint.
Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 1921. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. Schweich Lectures
1920. London: British Academy.
. 1927. Some Aspects of the Greek Old Testament. London: Allen.
. 1929. “Baruch.” Pp. 102–110 in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by
C. Gore, H.L. Goudge, and A. Guillame. New York: Macmillan.
Thomas, B.D. 2008. “Reevaluating the Influence of Jeremiah 10 upon the Apocryphal
bibliography 225
Epistle of Jeremiah: A Case for the Short Edition.”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 120: 547–562.
Thrall, M.E. 1962. Greek Particles in the New Testament. New Testament Tools and
Studies 3. Leiden: Brill.
von Tischendorf, C. 1884. Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio octava critica maior. Edi-
ted by C.R. Gregory. Lipsiae.
Torrey, C.C. 1945. The Apocryphal Literature: A Brief Introduction. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Tov, E. 1975. The Book of Baruch. Text and Translations 8. Pseudepigrapha Series 6.
Missoula: Scholars Press.
. 1976. 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 Mono-
graphs 8. Missoula: Scholars Press.
. 1997. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Second Edi-
tion, revised, and enlarged. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 8. Jerusalem: Simor.
. 1999a. “Three Dimensions of Words in the Septuagint.” Pp. 85–94 in The
Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 72. Leiden: Brill.
. 1999b. “The Relation Between the Greek Versions of Baruch and Daniel.”
Pp. 519–526 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Sup-
plements to Vetus Testamentum 72. Leiden: Brill.
. 2000. “The Background of the Sense Divisions in the Biblical Texts.” Pp. 312–350
in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship, edited by M.C.A. Korpel
and J.M. Oesch. Pericope 1. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Turner, N. 1963. Syntax: Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: t&t
Clark.
Twelftree, G.H. 2007. “Demons.” Pp. 91–100 in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible:
Volume 2, edited by K.D. Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon.
Večho, T.S. 2007. “There is Hope for the Scattered People (Bar 1:15aα–3:8).” Biblical
Viewpoint 67: 73–97.
Votaw, C.W. 1896. “The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Wackernagel, J. 1907. Hellenistica. Göttingen: Officina Dieterichiana.
Wallace, D.B. 1983. “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-Kai-Noun Plural Con-
struction in the nt.” Grace Theological Jouranl 4: 59–84.
. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Walser, G.A. 2012. Jeremiah: A Commentary based on Ieremias in Codex Vaticanus. Sep-
tuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill.
Walters, P. 1973. The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
226 bibliography
Wambacq, B.N. 1957. Jeremias, Klaagliederen, Baruch, Brief van Jeremias. Boeken van
het Oude Testament. 10. Roermond and Maaseik.
. 1959a. “Les Prières de Baruch (1,15–2,19) et de Daniel (9,5–19).” Biblica 40:
463–475.
. 1959b. “L’ unité littéraire de Bar. i–iii,8.” Pp. 455–460 in Sacra Pagina: Mis-
cellanea biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica vol. i, edited by
J. Coppins. Paris: Gembloux.
. 1966. “L’ unité du livre de Baruch.” Biblica 47: 574–576.
Watson, F. 2004. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: t&t Clark.
Weinfeld, M. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weiser, A. 1966. The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development. Translated from the
fifth edition by H. Hartwell. New York: Association Press.
Werline, R.A. 1998. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of
a Religious Institution. sbl Early Judaism and its Literature 13. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
Wes, M.A. 1992. “Mourning Becomes Jerusalem: Josephus, Jesus the Son of Ananias, and
the Book of Baruch (i Baruch).” Pp. 119–150 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early
Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, edited by J.N. Bremmer and
F. García Martínez. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 5. Kampen: Kok
Pharos Publising House.
Westcott, B.F., and F.J.A. Hort. 1882. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original
Greek. New York: Harper & Bros. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988.
Westfall, C.L. 2005. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship
between Form and Meaning. Library of New Testament Studies 297. New York: t&t
Clark.
. 2009. “A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek.” Pp. 75–
94 in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the
Greek New Testament, edited by S.E. Porter and M. Brook O’Donnell. New Testament
Monographs 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Wevers, J.W. 1995. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Society for Biblical Literature
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
. 2006. Deuteronomium. Volume 3.2. Second edition. Vetus Testamentum Grae-
cum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Whitehouse, O.C. 1913. “The Book of Baruch.” Pp. 569–595 in The Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha of the Old Testament in English, edited by R.H. Charles. Volume 1. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Williamson, H.G.M. 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, tx:
Word.
Willis, T.M. 2000. “ ‘They Did Not Listen to the Voice of the Lord’: A Literary Analysis of
Jeremiah 37–45.” Restoration Quarterly 42: 65–84.
bibliography 227
Winer, G.B. 1882. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek Regarded as
a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Third Edition. Translated W.F. Moulton.
Edinburgh: t&t Clark.
Wojciechowski, M. 2010. “Ancient Criticism of Religion in Dan 14 (Bel and Dragon), Bar
6 (Epistle of Jeremiah), and Wisdom 14.” Pp. 60–76 in Deuterocanonical Additions of
the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies, edited by G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér.
Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 5. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wolff, C. 1976. Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Wright, B.G. 1989. No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text.
Society for Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
. 2007. “Letter of Ieremias.” Pp. 942–945 in A New English Translation of the
Septuagint, edtied by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2010. “The Epistle of Jeremiah: Translation or Composition?” Pp. 126–142 in
Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies, edited by
G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 5.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wright, J.E. 1998. “Baruch: His Evolution from Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer.” Pp. 264–289
in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, edited by M.E. Stone and T.A. Bergren. Harris-
burg, Pa.: Trinity Press.
. 2003. Baruch Ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. Studies on
Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Xeravits, G.G. Forthcoming. Take Courage, O Ierusalem …: Studies in Baruch 4–5. Deute-
rocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ziegler, J. 2006. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Volume xv. Third edition.
Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis
editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Zink, J.K. 1963. “The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocrypha.” PhD dissertation,
Duke University.
Zoega, G. 1810. Catalogus codicum copticorum manuscriptorum qui in museo Borgiano
velitris adservantur. Rome.
Greek Word Index
ἀδικέω 195 δεσμώτης 58

ἀδικία 93 δέ 12, 65, 95, 121, 125, 131, 197
ᾅδης 103 δείλαιος 137–138
ἄγγελος 177 δέομαι 75
ἅγιος 131 διαμόνιον 121, 139
αἰσθάνομαι 194 διάνοια 69
αἰσχύνω 185 διαρρήγνυμι 192
αἰχμαλωσία 124 διασκορπίζω 73
αἰώνιος 30, 100, 122, 124, 141 διασπείρω 73
ἀκηδία 91 δίδωμι 81, 84, 116
ἀκούω 91–93, 96–97 δικαιοσύνη 141
ἀλλόγλωσσος 127 δικαίωμα 79, 81, 82
ἅμα 101 διοτι 74, 125
ἀναβαίνω 110 δόξα 81
ἀναφέρω 58 δοῦλος 68
ἀναγινώσκω 61 δύναμαι 189
ἀντίγραφον 174 δυνατός 191
ἀξιόω 192
ἀπειθέω 67 ἐάν 84, 99, 154, 184, 189
ἀπό 15 ἐγώ 66, 112, 116, 122, 128–129, 131–132, 175, 177
ἀποικισμός 87, 124 ἐγχειρίδιον 180
ἀποικίζω 87, 124 εἰ 99
ἀποστολή 86 εἴδωλον 203
ἀποστρέφω 87, 93 εἰμί 13, 67, 85, 100, 138, 180, 184, 191, 198
ἀποστέλλω 111 είς 138
ἀρεστός 117 εἰσακούω 79
ἀστραπή 198 ἐκ 68, 131
ἀτιμία 185 ἐκεῖ 94, 108
αὐτός 73, 75, 110, 113, 124, 126, 175, 186, 188, 192, ἐκδύω 129
201 ἐκμάσσω 179
ἀφανίζω 103 ἐκτρέφω 124
ἀφομοιόω 176 ἐκχθρός 133
ἐλεέω 91
βαρουχ 46 ἐλπίζω 131
βασιλεύς 195 ἐν 15
βιβλίος 54, 61–62 ἐναντίον 15, 66
βόμβησις 87 ἔναντι 15, 66
βρῶμα 79 ἐνδύω 188
ἐντολάς 97
γάρ 12, 121, 128–129, 131–132, 177, 187, 197 ἐνωτίζομαι 97
γεννάω 108 ἐξαγορεύω 62–63
γίνομαι 73 ἐξάγω 68, 176
γινώσκω 201 ἐξαιρέω 130–131
γλῶσσα 178 ἐξεύρεσις 103
γνώριμος 180 ἐξευρίσκω 111, 113
γρηγορέω 76 ἐπάγω 136
greek word index 229
ἐπί 15, 132, 185 μανθάνω 100

ἐπιμήκης 107 μαννα 58
ἐπιστολῆς 174 μέγας 86
ἐργάζομαι 69 μέγεθος 82
ἔρχομαι 126 μέν 132, 183, 197
εὐσεβείας 101 Μερραν 104, 106
εὐφροσύνη 140 μετά 15, 132
μεταδίδωμι 186
ἡμέρα 62 μή 186
μηδείς 124–125
Θαιμαν 104 μιμνῄσκομαι 88, 93, 126
θαρσέω 134 μίτρα 141
θεός 28, 30, 69, 77, 89, 95, 100, 122, 124, 132, μνημόσυνον 120
162, 177, 192 μόνος 128
μυθολόγος 106
ἰδού 94
Ἰδοθμαία 104 νεκρός 186
ἱερεύς 56 νεφέλη 198
Ισραηλ 28, 96, 120 νῦν 77, 132
ἵστημι 70
ἰσχύς 100–101 ὁ 102
ὁδός 89, 100, 104
καί 12, 50–51, 65, 95, 121, 125, 130, 153, 185 ὅθεν 199, 201
καιρός 63 οἴχομαι 69
κακός 75–76, 128 ὁμαλισμός 144
καλέω 187 ὄμνυμι 89
κάθημαι 91 ὄναμα 79
καρδία 69 ὄνειδος 203
κάρις 79 ὀνομάσας 137
κατά 15, 67 ὁράω 122–123
καταβαίνω 99, 103 ὅταν 198
καταβάλλω 82, 83 ὅτι 12, 85, 87, 102, 121, 127
καταβιβάζω 110 οὐ 186
καταναλίσκω 178 οὐδέ 12, 65, 95, 104, 121
κονιορτός 182 οὖν 181, 187, 190, 199, 201, 203
κρείσσων 201–203 οὔτε 197, 200
κρίσις 195 οὕτως 132–133, 138, 201
κύριος 28, 30, 32, 56, 68–70, 77, 89, 100, 124, ὄφλησις 94
126
παιδεία 126
λάκκος 98 παῖς 68
λαμβάνω 81, 95 πολύς 180
λαμπρότης 133 παντοκράτωρ 91
λάμψις 116 παρά 15–16, 109, 122–122, 131, 133
λέγω 83, 85 πάροικος 123
λεχώ 187 πείθω 102
πένθος 140
μακροβίωσις 101 περί 15, 60
μακροθυμέω 133 περιβάλλω 180
230 greek word index
περίδειπνον 188 τέ 177

περίκειμαι 184 τέγος 179
πνεῦμα 28, 162, 185 τεθνηκόντες 81
ποιέω 69, 71, 111, 189 τέκνον 128
πολυχρόνιος 193 τεκταίνω 102
πονηρός 88 τιμή 185
πορεύομαι 99, 111 τίς 110
ποῦ 100 τρέφω 124
πρᾶγμα 88 τρόμος 111
προβασκάνιον 201
πρός 130 υἱός 92, 144
προσευχή 92 ὑπέρ 60
προσλογίζομαι 99 ὑπό 15, 142
πρόσωπον 67 ὑποκάτω 73
προφητεία 51 ὑφαιρέω 178
προφήτης 83
πῦρ 196 φέρω 110
φιλόκοσμος 178
ῥάμνος 202 φόβος 93, 177
φοβέω 181, 201
σήμερον 94 φρόνησις 97–98, 100–101
σκιά 60 φωνή 85, 92–93
σκιάζω 145 φῶς 111
σκληροτράχηλος 87
Σουδ 55 Χανααν 104
σοφία 98, 100 χήρα 125–127
στολή 129 χρυσίον 110, 184
συμμιαίνομαι 98
συμφέρω 116 ψεῦδος 193
σύνεσις 100–101 ψυχή 82
συντάσσω 145
στίλβω 184 ὦ/ὤ 106–107
σχεδιάζω 67–68 ὡς 107
ὥσπερ 132, 138, 154, 178, 182–183, 188
Modern Author Index
Ackroyd, P.R. 57 Dafni, E.G. 180

Adams, S.A. 3, 9, 55, 71–72, 80, 83, 117, 129, Dancy, J.C. 7
153, 174 Davila, J.R. 5, 9, 12
Aejmelaeus, A. 12, 31, 50, 87, 121 Debrunner, A. 14, 66, 67, 102, 116, 138, 152, 181,
Allen, H.S. 109 198
Alonso Schökel, L. 118, 126, 130 Delcor, M. 7
Assan-Dhôte, I. 51, 57, 59, 61, 68, 70, 73–74, Denniston, J.D. 181, 183, 185, 188, 197
82, 87, 93, 98–99, 135–136, 141–142, 151, 157, deSilva, D.A. 6, 16, 61, 149, 174, 193
194, 196 Desnitsky, A.S. 31
Auld, A.G. 21, 32 De Troyer, K. 31
De Vaux, R. 147
Babut, J.-M. 87 Dimant, D. 149
Baillet, M. 147 Doering, L. 155, 174–175
Ball, C.J. 148, 151, 175, 177, 179–180, 195, 196,
200 Ehrman, B.D. 27
Baltzer, K. 123 Eissfeldt, O. 54
Barr, J. 11–12 Evans, T.V. 5, 152
Battistone, J.J. 64 Eynikel, E. 67, 79, 82, 102, 103, 111, 184, 201, 220
Bergren, T.A. 17
Bewer, J.A. 55 Falk, D.K. 58
Biddle, M.E. 123 Fanning, B.M. 13, 134, 139
Birdsall, J.N. 2 Feder, F. 3, 157
Blass, F. 14, 66, 67, 102, 116, 138, 152, 181, Fernández Marcos, N. 64, 150–151, 203
198 Feuerstein, R. 4, 64
Boccaccini, G, 115 Fischer, G. 8, 84
Bogaert, P.-M. 1, 3, 8, 11, 18, 50–51 Fitzgerald, A. 119
Boyer, J.L. 99 Floyd, M.H. 56–57, 61, 63–64, 77
Brayford, S. 31 Fraade, S.D. 61, 117, 158
Brooke, G.J. 158 Fritsche, O.F. 151
Brugsch, H. 3 Fuller, L.K. 179
Bsciai, A. 3 Funk, R.W. 14, 66, 67, 102, 116, 138, 152, 181,
Burke, D.G. 2, 4, 9, 11, 31, 64, 94–96, 102–103, 198
115, 117, 119–120, 128, 131, 135, 140–141, 144
Burkes, S. 97 Gifford, E.H. 68, 82, 92, 149
Gignac, F.T. 27, 200, 203
Cadell, H. 81 Givón, T. 20
Calduch-Benages, N. 118–119, 125, 130 Goldstein, J.A. 6, 54, 59
Canart, P. 27 Gunneweg, A.H.J. 149
Collins, J.J. 10 Gurtner, D. 9–10, 29
Conybeare, F.C. 67, 76, 120, 131–132, 134, 142,
183, 188 Halliday, M.A.K. 137
Coogan, M.D. 115 Hanhart, R. 12, 63, 93, 106, 121, 127–128, 134,
Cowe, S.P. 148 157–158, 163, 178, 181, 193, 195
Cozza-Luzi, G. 1, 147 Harrelson, W. 96, 99, 102, 118
Craig, K.M. 61 Harrington, D.J. 6
Croy, N.C. 29 Harwell, H.H. 3, 4, 52, 66, 94, 135
232 modern author index
Haspecker, J. 93 Mendels, D. 5
Hassan, R. 137 Metzger, B.M. 1, 27, 95
Hauspie, K. 67, 79, 82, 102, 103, 111, 184, 201, Michael, T.S.L. 60
220 Milik, J.T. 147
Heinisch, P. 117 Milne, H.J.M. 1, 27
Henderson, R. 118, 119, 136, 144 Miquel, P. 91
Hengel, M. 95, 114 Moatti-Fine, J. 51, 57, 59, 61, 68, 70, 73–74, 82,
Herzer, J. 10 87, 93, 98–99, 135–136, 141–142, 151, 157, 194,
Hiebert, R.J.V. 31 196
Hill, R.C. 18 de Moor, J.C. 20
Himbaza, I. 61 Moore, C.A. 4–6, 17, 53, 56–59, 61, 64, 66–68,
Hoberg, G. 3 70, 73, 76, 78, 82–83, 87, 92, 94, 98–101,
Hogan, K.M. 89, 94, 96, 101, 112, 114 103, 106, 111, 117, 119, 136, 139, 141–142,
Holmes, R. 50, 147 144–145, 149–150, 156, 158, 163, 174, 176,
Hort, F.J.A. 1 179–180, 183, 186, 191, 194, 196–197, 200,
202
Jannaris, A. 109, 152 Moule, C.F.D. 88–89, 187
Jellicoe, S. 2 Moulton, J.H. 27, 66, 75, 88, 138, 189–190, 195,
Johannessohn, M. 60, 87, 107, 140, 142, 146 200
Muraoka, T. 62, 67, 70, 73, 76, 81–82, 94, 102,
Kabasele Mukenge, A. 3, 8–9, 51, 53, 61, 64, 111, 133, 141, 144, 176, 184, 187
71, 97, 99, 106, 113, 116–119, 121, 123, 125–126, Myers, J.M. 56, 84
136, 140, 143–144
Kasser, R. 3, 22 Naumann, W. 150, 177, 179–180, 184, 191,
Kenyon, F.G. 1 200–201
Kneucker, J.J. 2, 4–5, 11, 53, 56, 59, 61, 64, 86, Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 4, 10, 57, 59, 61, 95,
92, 96, 98, 126, 136–137, 139, 144 100–101, 114–115, 149
Knibb, M.A. 64, 86 Nicklas, T. 111
Korpel, M.C.A. 20 Nida, E.A. 66, 70, 104, 140
Kratz, R.G. 149, 151, 155–156, 158, 175, 177 Niebuhr, K.-W. 174
Kulik, A. 10 North, J.L. 91
Oesterley, W.O.E. 6
Lee, G.M. 183 Olley, J.W. 20, 53, 104, 180
Lee, J.A.L. 5 O’Niell, J.C. 1
Lee, J.H. 120, 125
Lefevre, A. 7 Parsons, J. 50, 147
Levinsohn, S.H. 105 Payne, P.B. 27
Lo, A. 101 Pennington, J.T. 88
Louw, J.P. 66, 70, 104, 140 Pesch, W. 4, 136
Lundbom, J.R. 9 Pfeiffer, R.H. 4, 136, 149–151
Lust, J. 67, 79, 82, 102, 103, 111, 184, 201, 220 Pike, K.L. 20
Pisano, S. 1
Marshall, J.T. 4 Porter, S.E. 12–13, 20, 51, 67, 86, 88–89,
Martin, R.A. 11, 15 103, 116, 121, 131–132, 137, 139, 142, 152–153,
Martini, C.M. 27 180–181, 189, 192, 195, 200
Marttila, M. 2, 9, 59, 73, 90, 110
Mattei-Cerasoli, L. 3 Rabin, C. 32, 58
Mayser, E. 109 Rahlfs, A. 2, 12, 63, 93, 106, 121, 127–128, 134,
Van der Meer, M.N. 67 157–158, 163, 178, 181, 193, 195
modern author index 233
Rajak, T. 6 Tov, E. 2, 9, 11, 20, 58, 61, 65, 68, 78–79, 82, 88,
Raurell, F. 143 90, 95
Reiterer, F.V. 96, 105, 108 Turner, N. 189
Robertson, A.T. 74, 88, 109, 132, 152, 178, 183, Twelftree, G.H. 121, 139
189, 199
Robins, H.T. 7 Večho, T.S. 77, 83, 87
Ropes, J.H. 1 Votaw, C.W. 109
Rost, L. 119
Wackernagel, J. 66
Sabatier, P. 3 Wallace, D.B. 137–138
Saldarini, A.J. 119 Walser, G.A. 109
Salvesen, A. 114 Walters, P. 107
Schmid, W. 66 Wambacq, B.N. 9, 54, 80
Schmitt, A. 64 Watson, F. 7
Schürer, E. 62, 95, 151 Weinfield, M. 97
Schüssler, K. 3, 157 Weiser, A. 119
Schwyzer, E. 13, 86, 89, 109 Werline, R.A. 6, 63–64, 78
Shanks, H. 52 Wes, M.A. 7, 64, 72, 96
Sheppard, G.T. 110, 113 Wescott, B.F. 1
Shier, L.A. 3, 22 Westfall, C.L. 50, 201
Skeat, T.C. 1, 27 Wevers, J.W. 87, 89, 121
Smith, A. 21 Whitehouse, O.C. 2, 4–6, 11, 52, 54–55, 58, 61,
Sollamo, R. 66 67, 71, 76, 82, 86, 88, 105–106, 127
Stanley, C.D. 83, 86 Williamson, H.G.M. 85
Steck, O.H. 2, 7, 51, 58, 61–62, 64–65, 96, 101, Willis, T.M. 69
112, 114, 119, 128, 136, 143 Winer, G.B. 74
Stoderl, W. 57, 59 Wojciechowski, M. 194
Stone, M.E. 19 Wright, B.G. 12, 151, 153, 174, 179, 181, 183,
Strobel, A. 7 190–191, 196, 202
Swete, H.B. 20, 66, 163 Wright, J.E. 52
Thackarey, H.St.J. 4, 17, 58, 62–63, 66, 68, Xeravits, G.G. 119, 121, 142
74, 79, 90, 95, 117, 119, 121, 125, 133, 150, 156,
178–179, 185, 198 Ziegler, J. 3, 20, 28, 50, 58, 63, 81, 88, 93,
Thomas, B.D. 151, 155–156, 202 106–107, 127–128, 134, 157–158, 163, 178–179,
Thrall, M.E. 12, 121, 154 181, 187, 193, 195
von Tischendorf, C. 1 Zink, J.K. 83, 86
Torrey, C.C. 11, 53, 120, 151, 179, 197 Zoega, G. 8
Scripture Index
Unless specified, all references are to the Septuagint.
Genesis 34.9 87
1.4 81
1.5 111 Leviticus
1.24–25 111 6.4 129
2.24 138 15.19–28 186
3.8 81 16.23 129
6.1–4 108–109 21.5–6 188
6.4 108–109 25.6 123
6.5 76 25.23 123
8.21 81 25.35 123
11.4 78 25.40 123
16.1–6 105 25.40 123
17.17 177 25.45 123
21.9–21 105 25.47 123
21.9 105 26.3–39 68
21.33 124 26.12 86, 89
25.13–15 105 26.25 86
26.8 78, 193 26.29 72
27.41 177
35.12 84 Numbers
36.15 104 3–4 69
36.34 104 3.6 56
37.28 106 16.30 103
39.20 58 16.33 103
50.24b 86 19.11–16 98
20.12 84
Exodus 20.24 83
6.7 89
7.15 87 Deuteronomy
7.20 87 1.41 66
9.16 79 4.6–8 115
13.21 146 4.19 71
18.12 120 4.27 73
20.23 176 4.28 200
23.20–24 177 4.29–31 90
24.3 55 4.34 78
24.23 200 5.1 97
28.2 129 5.6 176
28.4 129 5.15 78, 176
28.37 141 6.4 97
31.10 129 6.5 97
32.34 177 6.10 86
33.3 87 6.21 176
33.5 87 6.23 176
scripture index 235
7.17 177 1 Regnorum

7.19 78 2.6 190
9.1 97 2.7 190
9.6 87 2.8 190
9.13 87 9.1 51
9.23 66 25.16 67
11.2 78
11.14 195 2 Regnorum
17.11 125 7 55
20.3 97 7.25 90
23.17–18 191 7.27 90
23.22 190 14.30 188
23.49–50 127 19.21 75
26.8 78
26.15 80 3 Regnorum
27.9 97 2.4 70
27.62 86 4.2 56
28 68–69, 126 8.37 86
28.13 73 8.45 79
28.25–26 202 8.46–51 78
28.49 126 8.47 79, 86, 88
28.53 71 14.14 195
28.64 73 17.1 195
28.65 82 18.41–45 195
30.1–10 90
30.3 73 4 Regnorum
30.14 110 6.28–29 72
30.20 86 11.9 56
31.6 200 12.8 56
31.9–13 55 17.4 88
32.15–21 120 19.6 80
32.15 120 20.5 92
32.16–17 17 21.15 67
32.17 120–121 23.1–3 55
32.18 120 25.1–21 53
32.21 121 25.13–16 57
32.30 120 25.8 53
32.29 190
33.29 116, 134 1 Paralipomenon
4.37 51
Josue 5.14 51
4.7 120 6.18–32 51
9.2a–f 55 9.11–12 51
10.24 134 17.24 90
13.4 104 29.18 69
23.6 125
2 Paralipomenon
Judicum 6.10 70
19.30 67 6.20 92
236 scripture index
2Paralipomenon (cont.) 4.7 146

6.32 93 4.21 117
6.37–38 88 5.4 177
7.12 92 7.17 129
10.15 70 8.21 129
20.3 55 11.11 129
12.8–9 146
1Esdrae 13.5–6 88
3.5 74 13.9–18 126
3.9 74 13.9 118
4.54 74 14.4 129
4.63 74 14.11 146
6.7 174
6.32 74 1 Maccabees
1.29 54
2Esdrae 1.39 87
1.6 92 3.35 120
1.7–11 57 4.36–39 55
3.13 124 5.14 188
9.7 64 8.22 174
9.9 78, 129 10.62 129
9.10 78 12.27 76
9.11–12 84 13.45 188
11.4 55
14.47 99 2 Maccabees
18.1–18 55–56 1.25 124
18.1 55 2.1–4 149
19.1–3 56 2.2 149, 176
19.3 62 2.16 62
19.32 65 2.29 191
2.31 191
Esther 4.5 144
3.8 73 6.17 191
7.4 120 7.23 111
9.22 124 12.27 74
12.42–46 92
Judith
8.14 69 3 Maccabees
9.14–15 202 2.4 108–109
10.3 141 6.12 124
11.1 134
11.7 101 4 Maccabees
16.8 141 1.5 190
2.24 190
Tobit 6.15 187
1.3 146 9.22 186
2.14 129 13.5 190
2.16 124, 129 16.13 186
3.13 73 17.12 193
scripture index 237
Psalmi 9.51 69
6.10 79
9.7 91 Prouerbia
12.6 131 1–9 115
17.4 92 1.21 134
22.3 79 3.28 191
24.11 79 4.13 115
29.10 81 6.23 116
29.11 91 7.6 115
30.5 131 8 95
33.17 120 13.4 99
44.7 91 14.17 109
49.1 143 18.4 99
54.16 103 21.21 146
54.24 131 26.23 191
57.10 202 29.1 87
68.2 82
77 121 Ecclesiastes
77.31 122 7.4 124
77.40–41 121
78.9 79 Canticum
87.5 99 2.7 123
87.11–13 81 5.3 129
88.30 60
93.2 91 Job
95.5 121 1.1 88
105.6 79 1.8 88
105.37–39 98 2.10 190
105.37 121 2.11 104
108.15 120 4.11 109
108.21 79 4.21 109
112.3 143 7.9 103
113.12–16 155 15.29 200
113.12–13 178 16.7 202
113.25 81 17.9 104
115.17 103 17.16 103
118.28 91 24.2 134
118.82 82 24.8 109
118.123 82 28 95, 101, 110, 115
118.149 91 28.1–2 101
134.15–18 155 28.12 101
134.15016 178 28.13 110
138.8 103 28.14 110
144.5 141 28.17 110
145.8–9 190 28.21 110
146.8 195 28.23 113
28.24–27 111
Odae 28.24 110
2.17 121 29.14 141
238 scripture index
Job (cont.) Psalmi Salomonis

32.9 193 2.20 130
34.27 125 11 4, 142, 144–145
38.35 111 11.2–3 140, 143
11.3–8 136
Sapientia 11.4 144–145
2.10 193 11.5 145
3.14 123 11.7 141
7–9 115 11.8 129
9.9 123
9.18 117 Osee
12.27 112 2.5–7 125
13 156 11.4 122
13.10–18 98
13.10 186 Amos
13.11 197 1.1 53
13.15–16 186 5 112
13.16 185 5.8 112
13.18 186, 191 6.10 79
14.6 108–109
14.13 193 Michaeas
18.4 116 1.2 80
7.12 144
Siracides
1.5 99 Joel
6.29 129 4.2 73
6.31 129
16.7 109 Jonas
17.11 97 3.5 55
17.27–28 81
21.13 99 Nahum
22.17 69 3.7 137
24 95, 114
24.8–10 114 Habacuc
24.8 113 1.12 132
24.13–14 115 3.3 104, 132
24.23 114–115
29.5 91 Sophonias
30.18 186 2.5 104
30.19 200 3.1–20 118
36.1–12 138
39.1 115 Aggaeus
39.4 115 1.1 53
45.7 129 2.13 98
48.20 132
49.5 116 Zacharias
50.11 129 1.1 53
8.23 136
scripture index 239
Malachias 47.8–9 125

2.8 125 48.9 79, 120
3.7 125 48.17 132
49–54 118
Isaias 49.7 132
1.2 129 49.14 118
5.13 92 49.18 143
8.9 129 49.20–21 136
13.19–21 139 49.26 131
14.11 103 50.1 120
14.13 177 51.8 179
23.4 129 51.9 129
23.8 104 51.16 60
23.10 125 51.17 129
25.9 131 52.1 129, 141
26.4 124 52.11 129
32.6 82 52.3 120
33.2 129 54.1–6 118
34.14 139 54.1 129
37.17 129 54.3 138
37.21 92 54.4 125
38.3 129 55.10 179
38.18 81 59.19 143
39.7 175 60.1–3 133
40–66 143 60.1 129
40 112 60.16 131
40.1 129 61.1–3 146
40.2 129 61.3 91
40.4–5a 144–145 61.10 141
40.4 138, 144 61.19 146
40.18–20 155 62.2 137, 142
40.25–26 112 63.15 80
40.26 111 64.10 129
40.28 103, 111, 124 65.3 121
41.6–7 155
41.14 92 Jeremias
40.20 132 1.2 53
42.8 116 2.13 99
42.16 146 2.23 99
43.10–11 112 3.6–18 76
44.1–2 113 3.17 75–76, 144
44.6 112 3.22 93
44.9–20 155 4.4 65
44.21 120 4.11 118
45.18 112 4.31 118
46.1–7 155 5.7 118
46.6 193 5.15 127
46.7 185–186 6.2–8 118
46.8 88, 120 6.22–23 127
240 scripture index
Jeremias (cont.) 25.10 93

7.25 67 25.12 148, 175
7.26 87 25.16 73
7.34 83–84, 93 26.2 53
8.1 85 26.19 87
9.9–11 109 27.2 191
9.12 66 27.5 89
9.19 72 27.7 148, 175
10 155–156 28.5 125
10.2 156 28.6 101
10.4 156 28.14 101
10.5 151, 201–202 28.35 118
10.5a 151, 156, 202 28.59 53
10.5b 155 29 155
10.6–7 112 30.1 104
10.9 193 30.12 123
10.11 98, 157 31.11 87
10.12 112 31.33 132
10.14 185 33.4 67
10.16 112 33.4b–5a 69
11.2 65 33.10–11 83
11.14 79 34.11–14 83
14.6 82 35.1 53
14.12 86 36 55, 175
14.16 202 36.1–23 174
16.9 83, 93 36.1 51, 55, 175
16.10–13 175 36.2 58
16.10 66 36.4 55
16.12 76 36.6–7 60
16.15b 86 36.6 86, 89
16.18 190 36.10 175
17.13 99 36.25 56
17.23 87 36.30–32 174
17.25 65 37.9 190
17.26 58 37.37–41 86
18.11 65 37.40 87
18.12 76 38.1 89
19.3 72 38.12 82
19.6b 86 38.25 82
19.9 72 38.28 76
19.15 87 38.31–33 89
20.1 56 38.31 86–87
23.6 142 38.33 69, 86
23.9 141 39 9
24.1 58 39.1 53
24.7 88 39.12 51
24.10 86 39.20 78
25.1 53 39.32 65
25.3 53 39.36 86
scripture index 241
39.37 83 1.9 57
39.38 88–89 1.10–15 58
39.40 89, 93 1.10–14 94
40.5 83 1.10 56–57
40.10 109, 129 1.11 59
40.11 93, 132 1.12 30, 60, 142
40.12 109 1.13 31, 60, 68–69, 83, 91, 93
42.13 65 1.14–13.8 14–15, 51, 55, 64, 69
43 9 1.14–12.5 19
43.1 53 1.14–12.10 61, 90
43.7 83 1.14 21, 51, 54–55, 61–63, 114, 123
43.8–10 62 1.15–13.8 61, 65, 75, 79, 83
43.9 53 1.15–12.19 4
43.32 51 1.15–12.5 61, 74
45.2 86 1.15 59, 61, 74, 94, 107
46.1 53 1.16–17 74
48.5 57 1.16 66
49–51 69 1.17–18 74
50–51 9 1.17 66, 91
50.1–7 52 1.18–19 67
50.11 87 1.18 69, 77, 83, 92
51.2 129 1.19–20 70
51.5 125 1.19 67–68, 78, 82, 92, 124
51.16 83 1.20 60, 65, 68–69, 75–76, 84,
51.22 88 107
51.31–35 52 1.21 60, 69, 74, 77, 84, 92
51.31 53 1.22 67, 69, 75–76
52.1–5 53 2.1 31, 70–71, 96
52.31 53 2.2–3 72, 83, 86
2.2 68, 71–72, 84
Baruch 2.3–4 85
1.1–4.4 14 2.3 71–73, 98
1.1–3.8 4, 6, 10, 12–15, 30, 56, 59, 62, 2.4 31, 73, 79, 94
95–98, 100, 121, 124 2.5 73, 91–92
1.1–14 7 2.6 60–61, 63, 65, 74, 94, 107
1.1–13 15, 50–51, 54, 127, 146 2.7 31, 74, 76, 128
1.1–3 96 2.8 75, 93
1.1 10, 21, 51, 53–55, 62, 94, 114 2.9 75–77, 94, 136
1.2 53–54, 62, 98 2.10 66, 74, 77, 92
1.3a–14 54 2.11–35 61, 77, 90
1.3–4 55 2.11–13 78
1.3 54–55, 57, 62, 114, 147 2.11 21, 60–61, 63, 65, 69, 77–78,
1.4 55, 146 80, 93–94, 107
1.5–3.8 7 2.12 77–78, 81
1.5–7 55 2.13 31, 93
1.5 51, 56, 100, 124 2.14–17a 80
1.6 57 2.14 67, 77, 79–80, 94, 124, 129
1.7 56 2.15–16a 80
1.8 57, 68 2.15 77, 79, 93
242 scripture index
Baruch (cont.) 3.9–15 19

2.16 77, 80, 129 3.9–14 99
2.16b 81 3.9–13 100
2.17 79–81, 99, 103, 129 3.9 7, 21, 30, 56, 94–97, 99–100,
2.18 77, 81, 94 106, 112, 116, 123, 129, 134
2.19 77, 79, 81, 83, 94 3.10–18 100
2.20–23 85 3.10–12 31
2.20 31, 51, 68–69, 71, 83–84 3.10–11 99
2.21–23 83, 86 3.10 98
2.21 84 3.11 98, 103
2.22 85, 92, 99 3.12–13 30
2.23–24 77 3.12 99
2.23 85, 88, 92–93, 122, 132, 140 3.13 56, 89, 99–100, 124
2.24 51, 68–69, 71, 84–86, 88, 92, 3.14 30, 97, 100–101, 116
94, 116 3.15–14.4 115
2.25 85, 202 3.15 98, 101, 113
2.26 53, 60, 62, 65, 86, 107 3.16–31 101
2.27–35 86 3.16–21 104
2.27 68, 77, 94 3.16–18 101
2.28–35 86 3.16 17, 100
2.28 68, 71, 80, 84, 141 3.17 14, 102
2.29–35 13 3.18 14, 98, 102–103
2.29 92, 99 3.19–23 103
2.30–35 89 3.19 99, 103
2.30 87, 89–90, 124 3.20 17, 89, 100, 103–104
2.31 77, 94 3.21–23 104
2.32 87, 93–94, 124 3.21 89, 100, 103–104
2.33 82, 88, 93, 100, 104 3.22–23 105
2.34 84, 89, 128 3.22 104–105
2.35 90, 94, 100, 122 3.23 17, 88–89, 100, 104–105
3.1–8 19, 61, 67, 90 3.24–24.4 19, 96, 106, 114
3.1–3 91 3.24–28 96
3.1 21, 56, 61, 63, 77, 91 3.24 21, 96, 106–107, 109
3.2 77, 90–92, 94, 129 3.25 107
3.4–8 91 3.26–28 108–109
3.4–7 94 3.26 107
3.4 56, 63, 66, 68, 75, 77, 79, 3.27 77, 89, 100, 109
90–92 3.28 16, 97, 120, 123
3.5 88, 93 3.29–31 110
3.6–7 93 3.29–30 110
3.6 77, 93 3.29 17, 98, 106, 109–110
3.7 88, 93, 124 3.30 98, 109–110
3.8 30, 62, 93, 100, 124 3.31 89, 100, 111
3.9–5.9 3, 10, 30 3.32–35 112
3.9–5.8 80 3.32 30, 101, 111, 113
3.9–4.4 4, 7, 9, 11–14, 65, 94–98, 101, 3.33–35 111
114–115, 121 3.33 30
3.9–38 19 3.35–37 30
3.9–23 96–97 3.35 111, 140, 146
scripture index 243
3.36–38 18, 112 4.20 30, 124, 130, 141

3.36 17, 68, 77, 112–113, 116 4.21–29 19
3.37 80, 89, 100–101, 111, 113, 116, 4.21–24 31
142 4.21 68, 128, 130–131, 133–134, 137,
3.38 17, 113–114 141
4.1–4 96 4.22 30, 94, 123–124, 129–131, 134,
4.1 96–97, 99, 106, 113–114 141
4.2 30, 116, 129, 133, 146 4.23 77, 124, 132, 140
4.3 84, 116 4.24 30, 77, 123–124, 130, 132–135,
4.4–5.4 4 138, 141
4.4 17, 112, 116, 123–124 4.25 31, 123, 128, 130, 133–134
4.5–5.9 4, 7, 11–15, 30, 78, 95, 117–119, 4.26 89, 134, 142
121–124, 127–128, 130, 134, 136, 4.27 94, 120, 128, 130–131, 134–136,
140–141, 143 142
4.5–9a 119, 136–137 4.28 133–135
4.5 21, 134 4.29 31, 75–76, 118, 120, 131,
4.6–8 120 135–136, 140, 146
4.6–7 31, 121, 126 4.30–35.9 19, 136–138, 140, 146
4.6 120 4.30 21, 31, 94, 131, 134, 136–137
4.7–8 18 4.31–32 137
4.7 17, 120, 122, 139 4.31 14, 75
4.8 30, 120–122, 124, 141 4.32 17
4.9–10 31 4.33–35 139
4.9 77, 120, 123, 131, 133, 136, 139, 4.33 131–132, 135, 138
140 4.34–35 31, 120, 138
4.9a 122 4.34 131, 138, 140
4.9b–20 130 4.35 30, 121, 123–124, 139,
4.9b–18 146 141–142
4.9b–16 130 4.36–35.9 17, 136
4.9b 118, 123, 125–126, 134 4.36–37 140, 143
4.10 30, 56, 100, 123–126, 132, 136, 4.36 123, 134, 136, 139–140, 146
141 4.37 30–31, 124, 132, 134, 140, 146
4.11 124, 132, 140, 146 4.37a 136
4.12b–13 126 5 144
4.12 125, 142 5.1 30, 75, 123, 129, 134, 140–
4.13 89, 104, 125 141
4.14–15 31, 120 5.2 30, 94, 122–124, 134,
4.14 30, 88, 123–124, 126, 132, 134, 140–141
136, 141 5.3 30, 70–71, 77, 123, 131, 133,
4.15 126–127, 136 141–142
4.16 102, 127 5.4 31, 131, 137, 140–142
4.17–29 130 5.5–9 142, 145
4.17–20 128 5.5 16124, 132, 134, 139–140, 143
4.17 98, 128–129 5.6 31, 77, 123, 140, 142, 144
4.18 31, 75, 128, 130, 135–136 5.7–9 142
4.19–35 13 5.7 77, 140, 142, 145–146
4.19–29 128, 137 5.8 140, 145
4.19 21, 31, 120, 128–130, 143 5.9 30–31, 77, 94, 131, 140, 142,
4.20–22 94 144–146
244 scripture index
Threni seu Lamentationes 28–38 187

1 118 28–31 157
1.1 125 28 180–181, 187, 190, 198–
1.12–22 118 201
2 118 29–72 155, 198
2.20 72 29 187
4 118 30 157
4.21 125 31 98, 154, 157, 178, 186
3.42 79 32 188
33–37 188, 195
Epistle of Jeremiah 33–34 189
praef.–44a 174 33 155, 183, 184, 188–189, 195,
praef.–4 191 199
1 162, 175, 190, 192, 199 34–37 189–190, 200
2 148, 175–177, 198 34 155, 189
3–5 157 35 184, 200
3 177, 185 36 155, 184
4 176–177 37 184
5–10 157 38 155, 176, 189, 193, 202
5 155, 177, 192 39–50 190–192, 194
6 175, 177, 201 39 181, 190–192, 194, 196,
7–28 155 198–199
7 155, 178, 197 40–41 191
8 154, 178, 182, 186, 188, 201 40 154, 190, 194, 199
9 154, 178, 189, 196 41 155
10 151, 155, 179, 198 42–43 191
11 157, 180, 182, 189 43–44 147
12 155, 180, 190, 193 43 154, 178, 182, 192
13 155, 180 44 190–192, 194, 196–199
14 184, 187, 190, 195, 199– 45 155, 192
201 46 155, 184, 190, 193–194
14b–27 181 47 155, 192–193, 203
14b 181 48 193
15 154, 178–179, 181–182 49 180, 190, 194, 198–199
16 182 50–57 157
17 154, 178, 182 50 194, 197–198
18 155, 182–183 51–63 194–195, 199
19 154–155, 178–179, 183, 189, 51 180–181, 191, 195
194, 197 52–57 189, 200
21–24 157 52 184, 194–195
21 154, 183, 187, 202 53 154, 178, 184
22 180–181, 184, 195, 200– 54 154, 178, 183, 195–197
201 55 184, 196
23 154, 184, 186, 194, 200 56 190–191, 196–199
24 155, 162, 185 57 184, 195–196
25 185–186 58 155, 190, 192–193, 197,
26 98, 154, 178, 184, 186, 189, 200
200 59–61 198
27 154, 183, 186–187 59 197
scripture index 245
60 162, 198 2.27–38 101

61 197, 198 2.44 195
62 155, 198 3.49 177
63 191, 196, 198–199 4.20–21 101
64–72 199 6.18 55
64 181, 199–201 9 65, 80
65–66 189, 200 9.2 56
65 184, 200 9.5 68, 79
66 184 9.8 66
67 155, 162, 200 9.11 68
68 177, 180–181, 184, 187, 195, 9.16 79
200–201 9.17 79
69 151, 154, 156, 178, 182, 201
70 98, 154–155, 183, 186, Daniel [θ]
189 1.20 136
71 151, 180, 190, 193, 202 2.27–38 101
2.44 190
Ezechiel 3.49 177
3.6 127 4.20–21 101
5.10 72 5.2 59
8.14 150 5.4 176
11.17 73 5.11 59
11.20 89 5.18 59
12.15 73 5.22 59
14.11 89 7.27 71
16.1–63 118 9 65, 80
16.4–7 122 9.5–6 66
17.4 104 9.5 68, 79
20.30–32 99 9.7 64
21 180 9.8 66
21.8–10 180 9.10 69
28.3–5 104 9.11 68
28.25 84 9.12 70–71
31.6 60 9.13 75–76
31.15–17 103 9.14 76
36.28 89 9.15–16 78
37.23 89 9.15 78
37.27 89 9.16 79
44.19 129 9.17 79
44.22 188 9.18 80–81
Susanna Daniel [MT]

35 124 8–12 64
Susanna [θ] Bel-et-Draco

42 124 1–22 191
7 186
Daniel [OG] 11 187
1.20 136 34 177
246 scripture index
Bel-et-Draco [θ] 1 Corinthians

13 187 1.20 17
1.27 17
Matthew 2.6 17
2.23 84 10.14–21 17
3.17 75
4.16 75 2 Corinthians
6.19 179 8 156
10.28 191 10.2 135
12.26 190
15.21–22 104 Galatians
22.43 190 4.21–31 17
26.28 75
26.54 190 Ephesians
6.18 79
Mark
3.8 104 1 Timothy
6.12 115
Luke 6.19 115
5.38 191
7.47 75 2 Peter
2.4 109
John
1.14 17 Jude
3.13 17 6 109
9.10 190
9.19 190 Revelation
4.9–10 91
Acts 5.13 91
26.16 143 18.2–8 17
18.23 85
Romans
4.10 190
10.14 190
Ancient Jewish Sources
Aristobulus 3 Baruch
Fragments 1.1 10
2.8 81 1.3–5 52
2.5 10
2Baruch 11.1–9 10
1–77 9 13.1 10
78–87 9
77.19 52 4 Baruch
78.1–80.7 10 1.1–11 10
3.11–14 10
scripture index 247
5.1 10 7.185 109

5.30 10 Contra Apionem
5.18 51 2.116 104
6.1 10
6.11 52 Jubilees
6.17 52 7.22–23 108–109
6.21 81
7.2 52 The Letter of Aristeas
8.8 10 98 141
9.7–18 10 132–139 112
1 Enoch Philo
5.7 146 De aeternitae mundi
6–11 108–109 112 107
7.1 109 De cherubim
8.1 108 101 107
9.6 109 De Confusione Linguarum
10.8 109 135–139 81
25.4–5 145 De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia
42.1–2 115 12 105
42.11 115 De Decalogo
43.1 112 52–81 112
62.15–16 129 65 112
91.9 138 De Migratione Abrahami
99.7 150 5 107
104.9 150 169 136
218 110
Josephus De Opificio Mundi
Antiquitates judaicae 27 105
1.117 127 De posteritate Cain
1.120 127 57 111
1.220 105 91 127
10.179 52 De Specialibus Legibus
10.180–185 52 1.1–52 112
12.35 174 De Vita Mosis
12.225 174 1.75 112
13.166 174 In Flaccum
14.185–267 56 148 178
16.160–178 55 Legum Allegoriae
Bellum judaicum 3.97–99 112
1.123 104 3.436–438 112
1.594 202 De Legatione ad Gaium
4.201 112 315 174
5.136–247 122 Quod Deus sit immutabilis
5.442 70 57–59 81
5.458 107 Questiones et Solutiones in Exodum
6.201–213 72 4.8 112
6.300–301 85
6.301 84
248 scripture index
Testament of Asher 10.1–15 86

7.2–7 86 14.1–8 86
16.1–5 86
Testament of Issachar
6.1–4 86 Testament of Naphtali
4.1–5 86
Testament of Judah
18.1 86 Testament of Zebulun
23.1–5 86 9.5–9 86
Testament of Levi Testament of Dan

8.5 129 5.4–13 86
Qumran
Damascus Document (CD) 1Q34 62

2.17–21 109
8.20–21 19 4Q389
16.9 125 1.7 55
1QapGen 4Q505–509 62
20.32 105
7Q2 19, 156
1QS
2.15–16 68 11QPsa 115
Rabbinic Sources
b. Baba Batra b. Moʿed Qaṭan

14b 18 26a 18
15a 18
Seder ʾOlam Rabbah
b. Megillah 26 52
14b 19
15a 19 y. Soṭah
16b 19, 52 9.13 18
19a 18
b. Menaḥot
30a 18
scripture index 249
Ancient Graeco-Roman Sources
Aeschylus Demetrius
Persae De Elocutione
869 123 192 153
Aeschylus Demosthenes
Supplices De Corona
21 180 288 188
443–445 190
Diodorus Siculus
Aesop Bibliotheca historica
Fabulae 10.30.2 202
30 190
34 190 Dionysus Halicarnassus
291 190 Antiquitates Romanae
295 197 4.73.2 202
Aristophanes Epictetus
Thesmophoriazusae Diatribai (Dissertationes)
941 141 1.11.36 183
Aristotle Euripides
Analytica Priora Bacchae
87A 202 833 141
De Generatione Animalium
3.5 106 Galen
Physica De Venae Sectione Adversus Erasistrateos
2.2 183 Romae Degentes
2.194a 183 11.189 131
Athenaeus Heraclitus
Deipnosophistae F115 178
12.526c 104
Herodotus
Attalus Historiae
Fragments 1.181 179
28.78 109 1.199 192
2.44 104
Chariton
De Chaerea et Callirhoe Hesiod
3.8.2 187 Theogonia
185–186 108
Cicero
de Natura Deorum Hippocrates
1.27.77 193 Praenotiones coacae
1.36.101 193 418 202
de Optimo Genere Oratorum
14 32
250 scripture index
Homer Plutarch
Odyssea Conjugalia Praecepta
8.190 87 48 178
16.9 181 De Iside et Osiride
76 183
Horace Quaestiones convivialum libri IX
Satirae 5.7.3 201
1.8.1–7 201 De Stoicorum repugnantiis
1.8.3 193 7 193
Julius Caesar [Ps.-]Aristotle

Bellum gallicum De Xenophane
7.63–90 72 978a l. 33 109
Lucian Sibylline Oracles

Juppiter confutatus 3.17 124
8 197 3.30–31 178, 193
De Luctu 5.73–85 178, 193
24 188
Somnium (Vita Luciani) Tacitus
24 183, 185 Historiae
Timon 5.3 112
4 197
Theocritus
Menander Idylls
Aspis 2.33 191
233 188
Thucydides
Pausanias The History of the Peloponnesian Wars
Graeciae description 2.70.1–4 72
3.1.9 183 8.92.11 200
Plato Xenophanes
Apologia Testimonia
1.1 93 F28 109
Respublica
1.341B 200 Xenophon
8.558C 181 Cyropaedia
10.614E 181 6.6.5–6 200
Hellenica
Pliny 5.4.2 181
Naturalis historia
5.70 122
scripture index 251
Christian Sources
Acts of Peter 5.35.2 142

24 84
Jerome
Ambrose Commentariorum in Jeremiam
De Fide libri VI
1.3.28 113 praef. 156
Aristides Tertullian
Apologia Scorpiace
3 157 8 157
13 157
Theodoret
Athanasius Commentary on Baruch
Epistula 1.1 51
39.4 156 1.10 58
1.14 62–63
Athenagoras 1.15 64
Legatio pro Christianis 1.16 65
9 17, 112 1.19 67
2.2 72
Besa 2.5 74
Epistula 2.9 77
72.23–27 18 2.12 79
2.13 79
Chrysostom 2.16 80
Against Marcionists and Manicheans 2.17 81
3 114 2.25–26 86
3.3 91
Clement 3.4 92
Stromata 3.5 93
5.76.1 178 3.6–7 93
3.9 62, 96
Cyprian 3.11 99
De dominica oratione 3.16 101
5 157 3.22 104
3.23 105
Eusebius 3.24 107
Vita Constantini 3.32 111
4.36 2 3.37 111
4.3 116
Firmicus Maternus 4.12 125
De errore profanarum religionum 4.25 134
28.4–5 157 4.35 139
4.37 140
Irenaeus 5.1 141
Adversus Haereses 5.4 142
5.35.1 15 5.8 145
252 scripture index
Epistulae Thomas Aquinas

146 157 Summa Theologiae
151 113 II 102.6 157
III 4.4 17
III 40.1 17
Papyri and Inscriptions
I. Cret. P. Berol.
28.2 91 27.4 91

(Septuagint Commentaries) Sean A. Adams - Baruch and The Epistle of Jeremiah - A Commentary Based On The Texts in Codex Vaticanus-Brill Academic Publishers (2014) PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Septuagint Commentaries) Sean A. Adams - Baruch and The Epistle of Jeremiah - A Commentary Based On The Texts in Codex Vaticanus-Brill Academic Publishers (2014) PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah

Septuagint Commentary Series

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sept

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

7 The Greek Text and Translation in This Commentary 26

2 The Text and Translation of Baruch 33

4 Introduction to the Epistle of Jeremiah 147

4 Epistle of Jeremiah and Scripture 155

5 The Text and Translation of the Epistle of Jeremiah 165

6 Commentary on the Epistle of Jeremiah 174

Appendix 1: Church Fathers’s Citations of Baruch 205

Anyone writing a book becomes indebted to a number of people along the

1 Suggestions for the final compilation date of Baruch 5

1.1 Greek Codices

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi: 10.1163/9789004278493_002

Regarding the dating of Vaticanus, there is widespread agreement that it

1.2 Hebrew Texts

1.3 Other Editions

of Jeremiah were eventually incorporated into the Vulgate in the form of an

2 Dating, Provenance, Purpose, and Unity of Baruch

2.1 Dating of Baruch

table 1 Suggestions for the final compilation date of Baruch

Mendels (1992, 620) ca. 200 bc or after ad 70

2.2 Provenance of Baruch

2.3 Purpose of Baruch

2.4 Unity of Baruch

transmission history in the Greek manuscript tradition is remarkably stable

3 Baruch and Scripture

3.1 Baruch and the Jeremianic Corpus

3.2 Baruch and Jeremiah

3.3 Baruch’s Use of Scripture

3.4 The Person of Baruch and His Other Attributed Writings

4 Language and Grammar of Baruch

4.1 The Original Language of Baruch

4.2 Conjunctions in Baruch

4.3 Verbs in Baruch

in which future tense-forms are assigned to the sphere of mood (Schwyzer

table 2 Finite tense-form verbs in Baruch

Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total

table 3 Imperatives in Baruch

Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total

table 4 Infinitives in Baruch

Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total

Non-finite verbs also display interesting patterns of dispersal. For example, a

table 5 Participles in Baruch

Tense-form 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total

Aorist 1 (1 Art) 0 2 (1 Art) 10 (9 Art) 13

4.4 Prepositions in Baruch

table 6 Prepositions in Baruch

Preposition 1.1–13 1.14–3.8 3.9–4.4 4.5–5.9 Total

5 Baruch’s Literary Influence

5.1 Baruch in the New Testament

Gentile Christians (Gal 4.21–31). It is clear that a direct association between

5.2 Baruch in Early Church Writings

(e.g., Ambrose, Basil, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hilary of

5.3 Baruch in Jewish Writings

5.4 Baruch in Modern Church Traditions

6 Baruch’s Sense-Unit Delineations in Greek and Coptic Codices

Although scholarship has traditionally focused solely on manuscript differ-

6.1 Codex Vaticanus (B)

6.2 Codex Alexandrinus (A)

6.3 Codex Marchalianus (Q)