II. Revision And Completion Of Scripture Literature

II. REVISION AND COMPLETION OF SCRIPTURE LITERATURE
The work of Aquila and its favourable reception on the part of the Hellenistic Jews prove that from about the second century after Christ Hellenistic Judaism also kept strictly to the text and canon of the Palestinians. This is confirmed by the expressions of Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus. He here speaks of such component parts of the canon as are missing in the Hebrew especially of the additions to Daniel and Esther and the Books of Tobit and Judith as if they had never belonged to the Jewish canon. He regards them as the exclusive possession of Christians and says plainly that they are rejected by the Jews without making any distinction between Greek and Hebrew Jews (Epist. ad African. c. 2 3 and 13). Hence the canon of the Palestinians was at that time absolutely valid among the Jews of the Dispersion also. This was not the case in earlier times. The Jews of the Dispersion indeed always possessed on the whole the same Scriptures as those of Palestine. But in Palestine the canon attained a settled form about the second century before Christ. Later works even when they appeared under the name of sacred authorities and found approbation were no longer incorporated therein. Among the Hellenistic Jews on the contrary the boundaries still fluctuated for some centuries. A whole multitude of works originating in the last two centuries before or even in the first after Christ were united by them to the collection of the Holy Scriptures and among them some also which being originally written in Hebrew and originating in Palestine did not become the property of Hellenistic Judaism till they had been translated into Greek. We have certainly no direct evidence of this fact. But the fact that the Christian canon of the Old Testament was from the beginning of wider and more vacillating extent than the Hebrew can only be explained by the circumstance that the Christian Church received the canon in just this form from the hands of Hellenistic Judaism. Hence the latter at the time of the founding of the Christian Church had in its collection of Holy Scriptures those books which are in the Protestant Church designated according to the precedent of Jerome as “apocryphal” because they are absent from the Hebrew canon. One thing however must not be forgotten that on the whole no settled boundary existed.
It is in accordance with this long maintained freedom in dealing with the canon that the Hellenistic Jews allowed themselves a liberty of procedure with single works longer than the Palestinians did. In the same manner as Palestinian Judaism had formerly acted with respect to its literature did Hellenistic Judaism during our period also freely handle and enrich by additions works already canonical in Palestine. This treatment had as a rule the same motives and objects as the legendary embellishment of more ancient sacred history. The only difference was that in the case of books already canonical the legend was placed beside the Scripture text while in that of books not as yet received into the canon it was interpolated in the text itself.
The majority of those books which though admitted by the Hellenistic Jews into the collection of the Holy Scriptures originally made no claim to be esteemed as such has therefore been treated of by us elsewhere. We here group together only (1) the revisions and completions of such books as had in their more ancient forms become canonical in Palestine (Ezra Esther Daniel the Prayer of Manasseh [an addition to 2 Chronicles 33]) and (2) certain books which from the first aspired to be regarded as Scripture and which entered as such into the Hellenistic collection of the Scriptures (Baruch the Epistle of Jeremiah).
1. The Greek Ezra
Besides the Greek translation of the Hebrew canonical Book of Ezra there is also a free Greek revision differing from the canonical Ezra partly by transpositions partly by interpolations. The exact relation between the two will appear from the following survey of the composition of the Greek Ezra:—
Chap. 1 = 2 Chronicles 35-36 : Restoration of the temple worship under Josiah (639-609) and history of the successors of Josiah down to the destruction of the temple (588).
Chap. 2:1-14 = Ezra 1 : Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537) permits the return of the exiles and delivers up the sacred vessels.
Chap. 2:15-25 = Ezra 4:7-24 : In consequence of a complaint against the Jews Artaxerxes forbids (465-425) the continuance of the rebuilding of (the temple and) the walls of Jerusalem.
Chap. 3-5:66: independent: Zerubbabel obtains the favour of Darius (521-485) and receives from him permission for the return of the exiles.
Chap. 5:7-70 = Ezra 2:1 to Ezra 4:5 : A list of those who returned with Zerubbabel the operations of Zerubbabel and the interruption of the building of the temple in the time of Cyrus (536-529) till the second year of Darius (520).
Chap. 6-7 = Ezra 5-6 : Resumption and completion of the rebuilding of the temple in the sixth year of Darius (516).
Chap. 8-9:36 = Ezra 7-10 : Return of Ezra with a train of exiles in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458); commencement of Ezra’s operations.
Chap. 9:37-55 = Nehemiah 7:73 to Nehemiah 8:13 : Public reading of the law by Ezra
According to this survey the reviser of the canonical Ezra took in hand the following changes: 1. The portion chap. Ezra 4:7-24 of the canonical Ezra is removed to an earlier place. 2. The portion chaps. Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6 of the Greek Ezra is interpolated from an unknown source. 3. The book opens with 2 Chronicles 35:1 to 2 Chronicles 36:4. Nehemiah 7:73 to Nehemiah 8:13 is added at the close. By the two first-named operations the confusion partly begotten by the canonical Ezra is considerably increased. For in this latter the portion chap. Ezra 4:6-23 stands out of place. It belongs to a much later period and treats not of the interruption of the rebuilding of the temple but of an interruption in the building of the walls. The editor of the Greek Ezra has indeed rescued this passage from the connection in which it is incorrectly placed but only to transpose it to a position if possible still more erroneous taking at the same time the liberty of adding to it by way of completion the interruption of the building of the temple. Not however contented with this he has also interpolated the paragraph chaps. Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6 which transposes us to the times of Darius while subsequently (Ezra 5:7-17) the times of Cyrus are again spoken of. Thus then the history goes directly backwards; first we have (Ezra 2:15-25) Artaxerxes then (Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:6) Darius and lastly (Ezra 5:7-17) Cyrus. And in the last-named portion we are told in the most unembarrassed manner that Zerubbabel returned with the exiles in the time of Cyrus (comp. Ezra 5:8, 67-70) while previously it was expressly stated that Zerubbabel received permission for their return from the special favour of Darius. With respect to the documents which were in the hands of our compiler only two things remain to be noticed: 1. That he did not translate the canonical Ezra from the Hebrew (so Fritzsche and most others) but compiled from the Septuagint (so rightly Keil Einl. 3rd ed. p. 704 sq.). 2. That he certainly discovered beforehand the portion chaps. 3-5:6 since it stands in direct opposition to the rest of the narrative. It seems to be a Greek original and not a translation from the Hebrew. The object of the whole compilation has been on the whole correctly expressed by Bertholdt (Einl. iii. 1011): “He intended to compile from older works a history of the temple from the last epoch of the legal worship to its rebuilding and the restoration of the prescribed ritual therein.” Evidently however he meant to give also still more concerning Nehemiah for the abrupt conclusion could not possibly have been intentional. With respect to the date of the book all that can be said is that it was already used by Josephus (Antt. xi. 1-5).
Josephus in his account of the restoration of the theocracy (Antt. xi. 1-5) entirely conforms to the course of this Greek Ezra. For he brings what is contained in chaps. 2:15-25 and 3-5:6 of this book into the same position and the same order i.e. interpolates it between the first and second chapters of the canonical Ezra (Antt. xi. 2-3). In so doing however he does not proceed without historical criticism for he simply changes Artaxerxes who in the Greek Ezra is inserted in a quite impossible place into Cambyses so as to restore the correct order: Cyrus Cambyses Darius. He removes the further historical stumbling-block of the Greek Ezra of Cyrus reappearing after Darius by doing away with Cyrus in this place and making the return of the exiles first take place under Darius. This indeed restores the correct order of the Persian kings but a narrative is thus concocted which differs still more widely from actual history than that of the Greek Ezra itself.
Apparently this book was generally and from the first used in the Christian Church also. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 124: Ἐνταῦθα Ζοροβάβελ σοφίᾳ νικήσας τοὺς ἀνταγωνιστὰς τυγχάνει παρὰ Δαρείου ὠνησάμενος ἀνανέωσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ μετὰ Ἔσδρα εἰς τὴν πατρῴαν γῆν ἀναζεύγνυσι (can only refer to chaps. iii. iv. of the Greek Ezra). Origenes Comment. in Johann. vol. vi. c. 1 (Lommatzsch i. 174): Καὶ κατὰ τοὺς Ἔσδρα χρόνους ὅτε νικᾷ ἡ ἀλήθεια τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἀνοικοδομεῖται ὁ ναὸς τῷ θεῷ (comp. Esra graec. iv. 33 sqq.). Idem in Josuam homil. ix. 10 (Lommatzsch xi. 100): et nos dicamus sicut in Esdra scriptum est quia “a te domine est victoria et ego servus tuus benedictus es deus veritatis” (Esra graec. iv. 59-60). Cyprian epist. lxxiv. 9: Et apud Hesdram veritas vicit sicut scriptum est: “Veritas manet et invalescit in aeternum et vivit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum” etc. (Esra graec. iv. 38-40). For numerous passages from later Fathers see Pohlmann Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift 1859 p. 263 sqq. In the authorized editions of the Vulgate the book is placed in the Appendix to the Bible after the New Testament.
The book is sometimes entitled the first Book of Ezra (so the Greek MSS.: Ἔσδρας αʹ) sometimes the third Book of Ezra the canonical Books of Ezra and Nehemiah being reckoned the first and second (so Jerome [praef. in version. libr. Esrae ed. Vallarsi ix. 1524: nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur] and especially the authorized editions of the Vulgate).
Among the Greek manuscripts the Vaticanus (called No. 2 in Fritzsche’s edition as well as by Holmes and Parsons) and the Alexandrinus (No. 3) hold the first rank the book not being contained in the Sinaiticus. On the editions see above pp. 10 and 11.
Ancient translations: 1. The old Latin preserved in two recensions one of which is found in the manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate the other in the cod. Colbertinus 3703. Both texts in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. iii. (in the Appendix after the New Testament corresponding to the position in the Vulgate). On the relation of both to one another see Fritzsche Handb. i. 10. 2. The Syriac on which comp. p. 11. This book is not contained in the large Milan Peshito manuscripts.
On the exegesis in general see p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851.
Separate investigations: [Trendelenburg] “On the apocryphal Esras” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp. 178-232). Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd-alex. Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 116-125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael i. 320 sqq. iii. 72 sqq. Treuenfels “Ueber das apokryphische Buch Esra” (Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1850 Nos. 15-18 40-49). The same “Entstehung des Esra apocryphus” (Fürst’s Orient 1851 Nos. 7-10). Pohlmann “Ueber das Ansehen des apokryphischen dritten Buchs Esras” (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1859 pp. 257-275). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 163-167. Bissell “The First Book of Esdras” (Bibliotheca sacra 1877 pp. 209-228; reprinted in Bissell The Apocrypha of the Old Testament 1880 p. 62 sqq. Clark Edinburgh). The Introductions of Eichhorn Bertholdt De Wette-Schrader Keil Reuss (see above p. 12).
2. Additions to Esther
The canonical Book of Esther relates how a Jewish virgin a foster-daughter of Mordecai was chosen for his wife by the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes); how Haman the prime minister of the king published a decree in his name for the extirpation of all the Jews and was already making preparations to hang Mordecai; how Mordecai however who had formerly saved the king’s life was raised to great honour and Haman hanged on the gibbet destined for Mordecai whereupon Mordecai by an edict promulgated in the king’s name revoked the edict of Haman and gave permission to the Jews to destroy their enemies; and finally how the Jewish feast of Purim was instituted for the commemoration of this wonderful deliverance of the Jews. A multitude of passages are interpolated in the Greek revision of the book e.g. the edict of Haman a prayer of Mordecai and a prayer of Esther the edict of Mordecai and the like. In these portions the spirit of the narrative is maintained and they present nothing needing remark. There is no reason for adopting the view of a Hebrew model (so e.g. Langen). According to the superscription of the Greek edition it was the work of Lysimachus the son of Ptolemy of Jerusalem and was brought to Egypt in the fourth year of King Ptolemy and Cleopatra by the priest Dositheus and his son Ptolemy. Since no less than four Ptolemies had a Cleopatra to wife the information even if it be regarded as trustworthy is not of much chronological value. It is certain only that Josephus was already acquainted with the Greek revision with the additions.
Josephus in his reproduction of its contents (Antt. xi. 6) has admitted also all the additions of the Greek revision.
Origenes Epist. ad African. c. 3 mentions these additions and expressly names the most important; assuming as self-evident the canonicity of the book in this form (the additions included). He also mentions De oratione c. 13 (Lommatzsch xvii. 134) the prayers of Mordecai and Esther inserted between chaps. 4 and 5 and gives in the same work c. 14 (Lommatzsch xvii. 143) the first words of both prayers.
The Greek text is extant in two widely differing recensions: (1) the common which is supported by the best manuscripts the Vaticanus (No. 2) the Alexandrinus (No. 3) and the Sinaiticus (No. 10); and (2) a much retouched one in codd. 19 93 108 (or more precisely 19 93a and 108b the last two manuscripts containing both the common and the touched-up texts). Langen thought he could prove that Josephus already had access to the latter. But Josephus chiefly coincides with the common text (comp. e.g. the portion Esther 2:21-23 = Joseph. Antt. xi. 6.4 which is entirely expunged from the revised text the name of the eunuch Achrathaios Esther 4:5 = Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 4 which is also absent in the revised text and other matters). It has also been rendered very probable by recent investigations that the revised text is derived from Lucianus (see above p. 165). If then one or two instances of contact between Josephus and the revised text are really not accidental this would only prove that the words in question were formerly found in the common text also. Fritzsche published both texts at first separately (Ἐσθήρ duplicem libri textum ed. O. F. Fritzsche Zurich 1848) then in his edition of the Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (1871). Comp. on the editions 10 above.
Ancient translations. 1. The Latin (a) The old Latin scording to a cod. Corbeiensis with the various readings of two other manuscripts in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. The beginning of the book according to the same translation is also found in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i. (1873) Florileg. pp. 287-289. On the character of the translation see Fritzsche Exeget. Handb. i. 74 sq. (b) The translation of Jerome who in his translation of the book from the Hebrew gives also a free Latin version of the Greek additions but places them all at the end and marks them with the obelus (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1581: Quae habentur in Hebraeo plena fide expressi. Haec autem quae sequuntur scripta reperi in editione vulgata quae Graecorum lingua et teris continetur … quod juxta consuetudinem nostram obelo id est veru praenotavimus). 2. The Syriac translation see above p. 11.
For the exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851. The other literature: Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) pp. 120-122. Langen “Die beiden griechischen Texte des Buches Esther” (Theol. Quartalschr. 1860 pp. 244-272). The same Die deuterokanonischen Stücke des Buches Esther Freiburg 1862. The introductory works of von Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).
3. Additions to Daniel
The Greek text of the Book of Daniel contains the followig additions: (a) The Prayer of Azariah and the Thanksgiving of the Three Children in the Furnace. For when the three companions of Daniel were cast into the furnace (Daniel 3) one of them Azariah who was also called Abed-Nego first uttered a prayer for deliverance and when this was heard all three joined in a song of praise. The words of both are given. (b) The History of Susannah. A beautiful Jewess named Susannah the wife of Jehoiakim is while bathing surprised by two lustful Jewish elders and then when she cries for assistance slanderously accused by them of having committed adultery with a youth. Upon the false witness of the elders Susannah is condemned to death but saved by the wisdom of the youthful Daniel who procures a fresh investigation and by a skilful examination convicts the elders of perjury. (c) The History of Bel and the Dragon. Properly two independent narratives both of which are intended to expose the worthlessness and imposture of idolatrous worship. In the one we are told how King Cyrus (so Theodotion the king’s name not being mentioned in the Septuagint text) was convinced by a clever contrivance of Daniel that the image of Bel did not itself consume the food laid before it. In the other how Daniel having fed the Dragon to whom divine honours were paid by the Babylonians with cakes made of pitch fat and hair and so killed it was cast into the den of lions and there miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk and after seven days drawn out of the pit unhurt. Of these fragments only the first (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children) is properly speaking a completion of the canonical Book of Daniel the two others having no internal connection with it. In the text of Theodotion the History of Susannah stands at the commencement of that book the History of Bel and the Dragon at its close. This position is also evidenced by the Fathers (Hippolytus Julius Africanus and Origen). Neither of the fragments gives occasion for assuming a Hebrew original. The History of Susannah is even very certainly a Greek original as Julius Africanus and Porphyry already showed from the play upon the words σχῖνος and σχίζειν (vers. 54 55) πρῖνος and πρίειν (vers. 58 59) (African. epist. ad Origen Porphyr. quoted by Jerome praef. comment. in Daniel ed. Vallarsi 619).[2422]
[2422] The Catholic apologists from Origen (Epist. ad African. c. vi. and xii.) to Wiederholt (Theol. Quartalschr. 1869 pp. 290-321) have in vain endeavoured to do away with the proof furnished by this play upon words.
Specially copious material is in existence for the history of the use and canonical validity of these fragments in the Christian Church.
Justin Martyr mentions Apol. i. Ananias Azarias and Misael the three companions of Daniel. But it is not clear from his brief notice of them whether he was also acquainted with the additions.
Irenaeus and Tertullian quote both the History of Susannah and that of Bel and the Dragon. Irenaeus iv. 26. 3: audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces etc. (comp. Susanna vers. 56 and 52 53 according to Theodotion). Idem iv. 5. 2: Quem (Deum) et Daniel propheta cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum: “Quare non adoras Bel?” annuntiavit dicens: “Quoniam” etc. Tertullian De corona c. iv. (Susanna). Idem De idololatria c. xviii. (Bel and the Dragon); de jejunio c. vii. fin. (the same).
Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel deals also with the Greek additions. The explanation of the History of Susannah (Opp. ed. Lagarde pp. 145-151) and a few notes on the Song of the Three Children (Lagarde p. 186 fragm. 122 p. 201 fragm. 138) are extant. It is evident from the beginning of the notes on Susannah that Hippolytus read this portion as the commencement of the Book of Daniel. See in general Bardenhewer Des heiligen Hippolytus von Rom Commentar zum Buche Daniel Freiburg 1877; and Zahn Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 495 sqq.
Julius Africanus alone among the older Fathers disputes the canonicity of these fragments. In his Epistola ad Origenem (printed in the editions of Origen e.g. in Lommatzsch xvii. 17 sqq.) he calls Origen to account for appealing in a disputation to the History of Susannah which is but a spurious addition to Daniel: Θαυμάζω δὲ πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο κίβδηλον ὄν … ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῷ παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. The last remark refers as appears from the reply of Origen to the two pieces of Bel and of the Dragon. Hence Africanus read these at the close and the History of Susannah at the beginning of the book.
Origen in his reply (Epistola ad Africanum) seeks to defend the genuineness and canonicity of these pieces with a great amount of scholarship.[2423] In so doing he mentions not only the History of Susannah and those of Bel and the Dragon but also the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children and indeed speaks of them as standing in the midst of the text of Daniel remarking that all three were found both in the LXX. and in the text of Theodotion (Epist. ad African. c. ii.). In the tenth book of his Stromata he gives an exegesis of the History of Susannah and that of Bel from which Jerome makes extracts in his commentary on Daniel chaps. 13-14 (Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallarsi v. 730-736; also in Orig. Opp. ed. Lommatzsch xvii. 70-75). All the fragments are elsewhere frequently quoted by Origen and that according to the text of Theodotion. (1) Susannah Comm. in Joann. vol. xx. c. 5 (Lommatzsch ii. 204); ibid. vol. xxviii. c. 4 (Lommatzsch ii. 316); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 61 (Lommatzsch iv. 347); Comm. in Epist. ad. Rom. lib. iv. c. 2 (Lommatzsch vi. 249); Fragm. in Genes. vol. iii. c. iv. (Lommatzsch viii. 13); in Genes. homil. xv. 2 (Lommatzsch viii. 261); in Josuam homil. xxii. 6 (Lommatzsch xi. 190); Selecta in Psalmos Psalms 36 (37) homil. iv. 2 (Lommatzsch xii. 210); in Ezekiel homil. vi. 3 (Lommatzsch xiv. 82); Selecta in Ezek. c. 6 (Lommatzsch xiv. 196). Comp. especially with respect to canonicity in Levit. homil. i. 1 (Lommatzsch ix. 173) against those who adhere to the literal and historical sense of Scripture: sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae vocibus quas illi quidem repudiantes historiam Susannae de catalogo divinorum voluminum desecarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus et opportune contra ipsos proferimus dicentes “Angustiae mihi undique.” (2) Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children: Comm. in Matth. vol. xiii. c. 2 (Lommatzsch iii. 211); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 62 (Lommatzsch iv. 352); Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. i. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 37); ibid. lib. ii. c. 9 (Lommatzsch vi. 108); ibid. lib. vii. c. 1 (Lommatzsch vii. 87); De Oratione c. xiii. and xiv. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134 143). (3) Bel and the Dragon: Exhortatio ad martyrium c. 33 (Lommatzsch xx. 278).
[2423] Wetstein in his separate edition of the letters (Julii Africani de historia Susannae epistola ad Origenem et Origenis ad illum responsio ed. J. R Wetstenius Basil. 1674) incorrectly denies that Origen really desired to prove the canonicity of these fragments. See on the contrary the Monitum in de la Rue and Lommatzsch.
Cyprian de dominica oratione c. 8 adduces the Song of the Three Children as a standard example of publica et communis oratio. Comp. also De Lapsis c. 31. He quotes the story of Bel ad Fortunatum c. 11; and Epist. lviii. 5.
The Greek text used by the Fathers since Irenaeus was that of Theodotion which has also passed into the manuscripts and editions of the LXX. (see above p. 173). The genuine Septuagint text of Daniel is preserved to us in only one manuscript a cod. Chisianus; and after the previous labours of others (Bianchini and Vincentius de Regibus see Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 565) has been published for the first time by Simon de Magistris (Daniel secundum LXX. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulari Chisiano codice Rom. 1772). On this edition which is not free from errors are based the more recent ones and also that of Hahn (Δανιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα e cod. Chisiano ed. etc. H. A. Hahn Lips. 1845). Still more incorrect is the text in part formed from Holmes and Parsons’ Apparatus of Various Readings which Tischendorf has added to his edition of the Septuagint. It is to Cozza (Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta Graeca et Latina ed. Cozza pars iii. Romae 1877; comp. the notice of Gebhardt Theol. Litiztg. 1877 p. 565 sq.) that we are first indebted for a trustworthy impression of the MSS. The Syriac translation of the hexaplarian LXX. text of which Daniel and other books have been preserved in a Milan manuscript serves as a check and criticism of the cod. Chisianus. The Book of Daniel from this translation has already been published by Bugati (Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex Tetraplis desumtam ex codice Syro-Estranghelo Bibliothecac Ambrosianae Syriace edidit etc. Caj. Bugatus Mediol. 1788). A photo-lithographic copy of the whole manuscript has been published by Ceriani (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus Mediol. 1874 as vol. vii. of the Monum. sacra et prof.). Fritzsche in his edition of the Apocrypha gives both the Greek texts (LXX. and Theodotion) of Susannah Bel and the Dragon and the Septuagint only with the various readings of Theodotion of the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children in which Theodotion has made but few alterations. Comp. on the editions of the Greek text (i.e. of Theodotion) p. 10 above.
Ancient translations. A Vetus Latinus only fragmentary in Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Latinae versiones antiguae vol. ii. The Greek original is Theodotion. Jerome has likewise translated the Greek additions from Theodotion and admitted them marked with the obelus into his translation of Daniel from the Hebrew. See his remarks ed. Vallarsi ix. 1376 1399. On the editions of the Syriac common text see above p. 11. The Syriac translation of the Story of Bel and the Dragon from a collection of Midrashim is also found in Neubauer The Book of Tobit 1878 pp. 39-43.
For the exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851. The other literature: Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) p. 122 sq. Delitzsch De Habacuci prophetae vita atque aetate (Lips. 1842) pp. 23 sqq. 105 sqq. Frankel Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1868 pp. 440-449 (on Susannah). Wiederholt Theol. Quartalschr. 1869 pp. 287 sqq. 377 sqq. (History of Susannah); 1871 p. 373 sqq. (Prayer of Azarias and Song of the Three Children); 1872 p. 554 sqq. (Bel and the Dragon). Rohling Das Buch des Propheten Daniel 1876. Brüll “Das apokryphische Susannabuch” (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur Pt. iii. 1877 pp. 1-69; also separate). The Introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).
4. The Prayer of Manasseh
In like manner as the prayers of Mordecai and Esther were interpolated as supplements to the Book of Esther and the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children to that of Daniel so was a prayer of Manasseh in which the king in his captivity humbly confesses his sin before God and prays for pardon composed as a completion of 2 Chronicles 33:12-13. There was the more occasion for the composition of such a prayer since it is stated in 2 Chronicles 33:18-19 that the Prayer of Manasseh is written in the history of the kings of Israel and in the Chronicle of Hosai. The prayer stands in most manuscripts in the appendix to the Psalms where many other similar fragments are collected (so e.g. in the cod. Alexandrinus).
The Prayer is first quoted in the Constitut. apostol. ii. 22 where it is given in its literal entirety. For later Christian testimony to its canonicity see Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 732 sq. In the authorized Romish Vulgate it is in the appendix to the Bible after the New Testament (like 3 and 4 Ezra).
The Latin translation which has passed into the Vulgate is “of quite another kind from the usual old Latin and is certainly of more recent origin” (Fritzsche i. 159). Sabatier has compared three manuscripts for it (Biblior. sacror. Lat. vers. ant. iii. 1038 sq.).
The editions and the exegesis are the same as of the other Apocrypha. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851.
For other legends (Jewish and Christian) with respect to Manasseh see Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1100-1102. Id. Biblioth. gr. ed. Harl. iii. 732 sq. Fritzsche Handb. i. 158.
5. The Book of Baruch
The Greek Book of Baruch properly belongs to the class of Pseudepigraphic prophets and is distinguished among them by its very meritorious contents. We place it here as being at least according to its second half of Graeco-Jewish origin and as having been admitted into the Greek Bible as a canonical book.
The whole claims to be the composition of Baruch the confidential friend and companion of the prophet Jeremiah. Its contents are tolerably miscellaneous and are divided into two halves the second of which again comprises two sections. The first half (chaps. 1:1-3:8) begins with a superscription in which what follows is described as a Book of Baruch which he wrote in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (1:1 2). This book was read by Baruch before King Jeconiah and all the exiles in Babylon; and the reading produced such an impression that it was resolved to send money to Jerusalem that sacrifices and prayers might there be offered for King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. At the same time the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem were enjoined to read out in the temple on the feast days the writing therewith sent (1:3-14). This writing which is next given in full is evidently identical with that read by Baruch and therefore announced in the superscription.[2424] It is an ample confession of sin on the part of the exiles who recognise in the fearful fate which has overtaken themselves and the holy city the righteous chastisement of God for their sins and entreat Him again to show them favour. They confess especially that their disobedience to the King of Babylon was a rebellion against God Himself because it was His will that Israel should obey the King of Babylon (2:21-24). The second half of the book (chaps. 3:9-5:9) contains instruction and consolation for the humbled people: (a) Instruction—Israel is humbled because they have forsaken the source of wisdom. True wisdom is with God alone. To it must the people return (3:9-4:4). (b) Consolation—Jerusalem is not laid waste for ever nor are the people to be always in captivity. They must take courage for the scattered members shall again he assembled in the Holy Land (4:5-5:9).
[2424] The writing announced in the superscription and read by Baruch cannot as many critics suppose be chap. 3:7 sqq. For the effect of the reading is that a sacrifice for Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is resolved upon and this can only refer to chap. 2:21-24. The superscription 1:1 2 too is by no means in accordance with 3:9 sqq. this latter section giving no kind of hint of its having been written by Baruch. Comp. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments § 510.
The second half is joined to the first without any intervening matter at chap. 3:9. An internal connection only so far exists that both halves presuppose the same historical situation viz. the desolation of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the people into captivity. In other respects however they stand in no connection with each other and it is hardly conceivable that they formed from the first part of the same whole. To this must be added that the style and mode of expression widely differ being in the first half Hebraistic and in the second fluent and rhetorical Greek. Hence Fritzsche Hitzig Kneucker Hilgenfeld and Reuss have correctly inferred that the two halves are the works of different authors. Nay one might feel inclined with Hitzig Kneucker and Hilgenfeld to regard even the first half as no single work but to look upon chap. 1:3-14 as a later interpolation. For it cannot be denied that the narrative of the reading of the Book of Baruch and of the effect produced thereby comes in like an interruption between 1:1 2 and 1:15-3:8. After the superscription 1:1 2 the book itself is expected. A discrepancy of statement also ensues owing to the inserted narrative the destruction of the temple being assumed by the book itself (1:2 2:26) and; the continuance of the sacrificial service by the narrative (1:10-14). But lastly all these inconsistencies are possible in one and the same author; and other matters such especially as the like dependence on Daniel in 1:11 12 and 1:15-2:20 favour identity of authorship.
Most of the older critics adopt the view of a Hebrew original for the whole; and Kneucker in spite of his assumption of three different composers firmly maintains it nay tries with much care to reconstruct the Hebrew original. There are however sufficient points of contact for this in the first half only. The second half is evidently a Greek original. Hence we are constrained with Fritzsche Hilgenfeld and Reuss to admit concerning the origin of this book that its first half was originally composed in Hebrew then translated into Greek and completed by the addition of the second half.
In determining the date of its composition its close dependence on the Book of Daniel is decisive. There are in it correspondences with the latter which make the employment of it by the author of Baruch indubitable. Especially is there an almost verbal agreement between Daniel 9:7-10 and Bar_1:15-18. The juxtaposition too of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is common to both books (Daniel 5:2 sqq. = Bar_1:11-12). That so thoroughly original and creative a mind however as the author of the Book of Daniel should have copied from the Book of Baruch is certainly not to be admitted. Thus we have already arrived at the Maccabaean period and most Protestant critics stop there (so e.g. Fritzsche Schrader Keil). But the situation assumed in the Book of Baruch by no means agrees with the Maccabaean era. The Book of Baruch and especially its first half with which we are first of all concerned presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and the leading of the people into captivity (Bar_1:2; Bar_2:23-26). In this catastrophe the people recognise a judgment of God for their sins and particularly for their rebellion against the heathen authority which God Himself had set over Israel (Bar_2:21-24). The penitent people hasten therefore to order sacrifices and prayers for their heathen rulers (Bar_1:10-11). All this—as the destruction by the Chaldeans is out of question—only suits the time after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. This very catastrophe was moreover brought about by the rebellion of the people against the heathen authorities. And the special act of rebellion was as Josephus expressly states the doing away with the daily sacrifice for the Roman emperor (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2-4; comp. above sq.). In this political revolution our author saw a rebellion against the will of God and therefore in the fearful catastrophe the righteous judgment of God upon it. And he sought by all he relates of the exiles in the time of Baruch to bring this view to bear upon his fellow-countrymen. It must therefore certainly be admitted as by Hitzig and Kneucker that this book was written after the year A.D. 70. For the quite non-historical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar recalling the relation of Vespasian and Titus also agrees with that date. The narrative that in the straits of war parents ate the flesh of their children (Bar_2:3) frequently recurs indeed in the description of the horrors of war but is also found just in the description of the siege of A.D. 70 by Josephus (Bell. Jud. vi. 3. 4).
What has been said applies chiefly to only the first half of the book. But the second half also essentially assumes the same situation viz. the desolation of Jerusalem and the leading of the people into captivity (4:10-16). Its object is to give instruction and consolation in view of these events. Hence its composition cannot well be placed much later than that of the first half. At all events this second half is later than the Salomonian Psalter. For Baruch 5. agrees almost verbally with Psalt. Salom. 11.; and the dependence must by reason of the psalm-like character and the probably primitive Hebrew of the Salomonian Psalter be sought for on the side of the Book of Baruch.
The fact that it found acceptance in the Christian Church is not opposed to our conclusion as to the somewhat recent composition of the book. For exactly the same thing took place in the case of the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra.
The existence of a Hebrew text of this book is disputed by Jerome see praef. comment. in Jerem. (Vallarsi iv. 834): Libellum autem Baruch qui vulgo editioni Septuaginta copulatur nec habetur apud Hebraeos. Idem praef. in version. Jerem. (Vallarsi ix. 783): Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur. So too Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 5: τῶν θρήνων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Βαροὺχ εἰ καὶ οὐ κεῖνται ἐπιστολαὶ παρʼ Ἑβραίοις. But both Jerome and Epiphanius for the most part try only to prove that the book was not in the Hebrew canon. Certainly they seem to have known of no Hebrew text at all but that does not prove that none ever existed. For its existence may be cited the remark found three times in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus hexaplaris (on i. 17 and ii. 3) “this is not in the Hebrew” (see Ceriani’s notes to his edition in the Monum. sacra et prof. i. 1 1861).
Among the Jews (i.e. among the Hellenistic Jews?) this book together with the Lamentations of Jeremiah was according to the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions read at public worship on the 10th Gorpiaios (by which is certainly meant the 10th Ab the day of the destruction of Jerusalem) Const. apost. v. 20: καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦν δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Γορπιαίου συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς θρήνους Ἱερεμίου ἀναγινώσκουσιν … καὶ τὸν Βαρούχ. In the Syriac text of the Const. apost. the Book of Baruch it is true is not named. See Bunsen Analecta Ante-Nicaena ii. 187. On the date of the 10th Gorpiaios comp. also Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 147 sq.
On its use in the Christian Church see the copious proofs in Reusch Erklärung des Buch’s Baruch (1853) pp. 1-21 and 268 sqq. The book is very frequently quoted as a work of the prophet Jeremiah because it was from early times combined with his book. The passage concerning the appearance of God upon earth (Bar_3:37 : μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὤφθη καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη) which Kneucker rightly regards as a Christian gloss was a favourite one with the Fathers. The oldest quotation is in Athenagoras Suppl. c. 9 where Bar_3:35 is cited as the saying of a προφήτης. Irenaeus iv. 20 refers to Bar_3:37. He also quotes (v. 35. 1) Bar_4:36 to 5 fin. with the formula significavit Jeremias propheta dicens. Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. i. 10. 91 92 quotes various passages of this book as sayings of the prophet Jeremiah. In Paedag. ii. 3. 36 he quotes Bar_3:16-19 with the formula ἡ θεία που λέγει γραφή. Hippolytus mentions in his work Contra Noetum that Noetus and his followers appealed to Bar_3:35-37 among other passages in proof of their patripassian Christology (Hippol. ed. Lagarde p. 44). He then to help himself out of difficulty himself gives (ed. Lagarde p. 47) a very sophistical interpretation of the passage. Hence the book is for Hippolytus as well as Noetus a standard authority. Origenes in Jerem. homil. vii. 3 (Lommatzsch xv. 190): γέγραπται· “ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar_3:9-13. Idem. Selecta in Jerem. c. 31 (Lommatzsch xv. 456): γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Βαρούχ· “τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar_3:10. Commodian. Carmen apologet. (ed. Ludwig) vers. 367 368: Hieremias ait: Hic deus est etc. = Bar_3:35-37. Cyprian. Testim. ii. 6: Item apud Hieremiam prophetam: Hic deus noster etc. = Bar_3:35-37. Material from later Fathers will be found in Reusch as above quoted to which need only be added Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani ed. Harnack p. 17 (in Gebhardt and Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. No. 3 1883).
Among the Greek manuscripts the most important are: the Vaticanus (which however not having been collated for this book by Holmes and Parsons has also been paid no regard to in Fritzsche’s edition) the Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Holmes and Parsons) and the Marchalianus (No. xii.). The Sinaiticus does not contain the Book of Baruch. On the editions see above p. 10.
Ancient translations. 1. The Latin which is extant in two widely differing recensions: (a) that which has passed into the Vulgate and (b) one first published by Joseph Caro Rome 1688. The latter according to three MSS. in Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Latinae versiones antiquae vol. ii. p. 734 sqq. Also in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i. (1873) Florileg. pp. 284-287. On the relation of the two to each other see Fritzsche Handb. i. 175. Reusch Erklärung des Buchs Baruch p. 88 sq. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 157 sqq. 2. The two Syriac translations (a) the Peshito or the Syriac common text comp. above p. 11. (b) The Syrus hexaplaris contained for this book in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus hexaplaris. The Book of Baruch with the letter of Jeremiah of this MS. were first published by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. i. 1861). Also in the photo-lithographic copy of the entire manuscript see above p. 187. 3. A Coptic translation published by Brugsch (Zeitschr. für ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 10-12th year 1872-1874 comp. 1876 p. 148).
The exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokrypken Part i. Leipzig 1851. Reusch Erklarung des Buchs Baruch Freiburg 1853. Ewald Die Propheten des Alten Bundes vol. iii. (2nd ed. 1868) pp. 251-298. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch Geschichts und Kritik Uebersetzung und Erklärung Leipzig 1879. The other literature: Hävernick De libro Baruchi apocrypho comm. crit. Regim. 1843. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 262-273. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (1864) p. 265 sqq. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol. v. 1862 pp. 199-203; xxii. 1879 pp. 437-454; xxiii. 1880 pp. 412-422. Kneucker the same periodical 1880 pp. 309-323. The Introductions of Jahne Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).
6. The Letter of Jeremiah
The letter of Jeremiah which is said to have been written to the exiles destined to be led away to Babylon is a warning against idolatry turning upon the theme that images of wood silver and gold are the weak powerless and perishable creatures of man’s hand which can absolutely do neither good nor harm. The author seeks by these particulars to restrain his co-religionists in the Dispersion from all participation in heathen rites. This small fragment is certainly of Greek origin.
Many have seen in the passage 2Ma_1:1 sqq. a reference to this letter. But what is there said does not actually suit it. When Origen asserts that the Lamentations and “the letter” also were combined in the Hebrew canon with the Book of Jeremiah (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2: Ἱερεμίας σὺν θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί) this certainly rests upon an oversight. Origen only means to say that the writings of Jeremiah were reckoned by the Jews as one so that the number twenty-two is consequently that of the collected books of Holy Scripture. Christian quotations: Tertullian Scorpiace c. 8. Cyprian De dominica oratione c. 5 and later writers.
In the majority of editions and manuscripts the letter is appended to the Book of Baruch (in the Vulgate as its sixth chapter). Hence what has been said of manuscripts editions ancient translations and exegesis with respect to that book applies almost throughout in this case.