Book of Baruch

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

This article explores the paratexts of the epistles attributed to Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, in Syriac, Peshitta Old Testament manuscripts. In early manuscripts, the epistles ascribed to the figure Baruch are, most commonly, either included in the Jeremiah corpus or embedded in the work known as 2 Baruch. This article argues that 2 Baruch has had a larger influence on the Syriac Christian corpus‑building and literary imagination than has been hitherto acknowledged. This hypothesis
would explain both the inclusion of two epistles of Baruch in the Peshitta Jeremiah corpus and the appearance of unprecedented readings in the titles and introductory addresses of the epistles attributed to Baruch in this corpus.

Initially written in Greek and published in the Greek monthly ‘Trito Mati’ – ‘Third Eye’ (February 1992), before my adhesion to Islam, under author’s name ‘Cosmas Megalommatis’, successively translated by me in French and published in France, and more recently translated in 1999 in English and published in various media.

At this point, I want to thank the translator for this excellent English translation. My adhesion to Islam did not make me change my approach and opinion in anything related to this subject as developed in this text.

Published in the Origin of Nations magazine, vol.3, no.3. (1999): pages 2-3, 12-20 and online:
http://www.originofnations.org/books,%20papers/Elizabeth%20II.pdf

The original Greek text can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/49102838/Απόγονοι_των_Ισραηλιτών_οι_Βρεταννοί_

This paper examines two particular aspects of poems in Proverbs, Job, Sirach, Baruch and the Book of Wisdom which present personified wisdom in the context of the wisdom quest. I analyse these passages through a twofold lens: spatial and sensory. For the first, I track the localities from where Sophia speaks and also where she is sought or found. Is she in the public or domestic sphere, inside or outside, in heaven or on earth, present or absent? The sensory aspect revolves around how humans are imagined as getting wisdom and the answer given in each text is analysed in terms of the senses invoked-sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Highlighting these particular aspects of the literary presentation of Sophia illuminates subtle continuities and discontinuities in the conceptualisation of this figure across the canonical and deuterocanonical wisdom books.

In this chapter I reinvestigate the claim of the author of Baruch’s dependence on Isaiah. Although I recognise that certain phrases and themes in Baruch 4:5–5:9 show Isaianic
character and parallels, I identify a number of distinctive features, such as the amount of material spoken by the character of Jerusalem and the way that Jerusalem’s innocence is emphasised. As a result of these and other differences
I argue that it is better to say that the author of Baruch 4:5–5:9 made creative use of Isaiah. This phrasing not only highlights the unique features of Baruch, it also emphasises the role of the author to shape a unique narrative with its own distinctive message.

‘Jerusalem’s Lament and Consolation: Baruch 4:5-5:9 and Its Relationship with Jewish Scripture,’ in S.A. Adams (ed.) Studies on Baruch (DCLS 23; de Gruyter, 2016), 61-77.

Baruch uses emotion in two interrelated ways that highlight the teleological aim of the book, which moves generally from mourning to joy, an affective pattern that is well attested in the Second Temple period.  The first way that emotion functions is in the retelling of foundational narratives associated with Moses in the wilderness, key among them being the Exodus, the wilderness rebellions, and, of course, the giving of the Law. Here emotion serves a pedagogical purpose to create strong and palpable memories of these foundational stories within its readers and hearers. Emotion can also be said to function in a second, related way in the book of Baruch: to cultivate a desired ritual predisposition in its readers and hearers. The emotional remembering of God’s presence in the foundational stories of the past can generate an experience of presence in the ritual moment, thus re-creating the emotional effects of the encounter with the deity that commemorates the giving of the Law in the wilderness. These two effects of emotion in Bar 1:15–3:8 work in a propaedeutic way to heighten receptivity to the hymnic discourse on Wisdom (Torah) in Bar 3:9–4:4.

The character and book of Jeremiah have a minor but intriguing role in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. In this essay we will begin by looking at the instances where the character of Jeremiah is referenced, highlighting aspects of the narratives that explain or expand the existing biblical text. Following this we will look at how certain characters from Jeremiah, namely the Rechabites and Baruch, have been used by subsequent authors and how these characters have developed from the Jeremianic text. Finally, we will look at some of the instances where passages of the book of Jeremiah are cited. The goal of this essay is to provide insight into the variety of ways that the character and book of Jeremiah were employed by later apocryphal and pseudepigraphal authors. What we see is a willingness by later authors to expand and fill in missing aspects of the narrative, crafting new stories around existing characters.

The amalgamation between Wisdom and Torah in Bar 3:9-4:4 alongside Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon has been claimed due to emphasis on the force of the Torah in Hellenistic Judaism. However, the wisdom discourse of Baruch affirms no more than the traditional concerns of the Israelite instruction genre (Proverbs 8, Job 28, and Sirach 24), rather than the Deuteronomi(sti)c ideology; although Baruch designates the particularism of Jacob-Israel. In this essay, by reexamining specific texts of Baruch (Bar 3:9-14, 15-38; 4:1-4), I will show why the hypothesis of the confluence of Wisdom and Torah is problematic.

The piety of the Book of Baruch leaves virtually no place for the cultic relationship with God or cultic mediation. The religion of Baruch focuses on relation to God, revelation, moral life, community and salvation. In the New Testament we can find similar thoughts. The rabbinic tradition after the fall of the temple developed in the same direction.

Архимандрит Тихон (Беллавин) и иеромонах Антонин (Грановский) в 1897 г. / Публикация, вступительная статья и примечания: И. В. Семененко-Басин // Вестник Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета. 2014. Серия II: «История. История Русской Православной Церкви». Выпуск 3 (58). С. 109 – 113.

Bar 3:24-28 correlates in a most creative way the downfall of the giants with the wisdom thematic: the giants perished because they were refused the gift of divine wisdom. Their depiction echoes both the offspring of the "sons of God" in Gen 6 and the mighty Canaanites, to indicate two erroneous paths towards wisdom. The thorough rewriting of Gen 6 is especially interesting: contrary to the Genesis account, the birth of the giants is located in the "house of God", a place that seems to outreach human understanding. The purpose of the author may be to distance himself from texts that describe the mysteries of the universe, such as the Book of Watchers. On the author hand, the military competence of the giants associates them with the nations and therefore excludes them from election. Since the text was presumably written in the Hellenistic era, it is not unlikely that this gentile wisdom might be identified with Greek culture. In opposition to these countermodels, the true wisdom, also outlined in the rest of the section, is a divine gift to the whole people of Israel.

The volume researches Baruch chapters 4–5 in the following successive steps. The first step is a structural analysis of the three different units of the chapters, 4:5–29; 4:30–5:6; 5:7–9, during which the structure of the greater units (strophes, cantos) will be investigated, together with the structural relationship of these units with each other. After this, the biblical background of the passages is explored. The Scriptural passages that prove to be authoritative or influential for the author(s) of the Baruch passages give clues as to the particular interest and intention of the author(s). This step is supplemented by an inquiry into the tradition historical background of the prophetic psalms. Finally, I close this short monograph with some basic comments on several formative issues of Baruch 4:5–5:9.

Sharp criticisms of polytheistic idolatry, which can be found in the Bible, are read in the context of its monotheistic faith. Nevertheless these texts, if taken out of their present context and approached form-critically, seem to reflect a polemical attitude to religion in general. They are satiric and attack weak points of the religions. They can be compared to Greek texts as the tradition on Diagoras, some Aesopic fables, Lucian’s story on the false serpent god (Alexander the false prophet) etc. Dan 14 can be also a reaction to the Asclepios cult. These satires could even be borrowed (with modifications) from Greek sources. Making use of such sources, biblical authors probably disregarded their antireligious stance, considering biblical faith as something else than ‘religion’ in the ancient sense of this term.