And they said: The subject they is nothing but an indefinite plural in Greek, but it clearly refers to the Jewish exiles in Babylonia. Further, they are actually writing, not speaking. Therefore the Good News Translation introductory clause, “The people wrote,” is better. Even the longer sentence in Contemporary English Version is better: “The Jews living in Babylon wrote the following letter for Baruch to take with him to Judah.” Another possibility would be “The people living in Babylon sent this [or, the] following message with Baruch.”

It will prove helpful and convenient if the transition from this introductory statement to the content of the letter can be made without quotation marks or any such punctuation calling for repetition. The reason will be apparent in verse 15, where the whole of Baruch’s book is introduced as part of this letter (in effect, embedded within it). Quotes within quotes are only going to be confusing, and will raise unnecessary questions about the actual extent of Baruch’s work: does it cover the rest of the book or go only through 3.8? Both Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version have models using a colon () to introduce the text that follows, thus doing away with quotation marks.

Herewith or “Please” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version) are attempts to find an appropriate beginning for the letter as much as they are translations of a simple Greek word, which is literally “Behold.” “Please” is not out of place here, and in a number of languages this will be appropriate style, but there is no indication in the Greek text that the writers are observing any rules of politeness. They are certainly not pleading or begging, but offering a gift that will be happily accepted.

“Use the money we are sending you to buy…” (Good News Translation) effectively combines the two clauses we send you money and so buy with the money ….

Burnt offerings and sin offerings and incense: Burnt offerings were sacrifices in which the animals were killed and completely burned, as opposed to the other sacrifices where only a portion of the animal was burned (see Lev 1.2-17). In some languages it will be necessary to say something like “animals burned completely as offerings to God.” Sin offerings were made to atone for moral wrong or contact with impurity, and may also be expressed as “offerings to seek God’s forgiveness for sin.” See Lev 4. Incense was made from aromatic spices, resins, and gums. It was burned as an accompaniment to sacrifice (see Exo 30.34-38). In cultures where incense does not exist, translators may say “sweet-smelling things for burning [on the altar].”

Prepare a cereal offering: The cereal offering (Good News Translation “grain offerings”) was a sacrifice involving grain or bread rather than animal flesh (Lev 2.1-16; 6.14-23). For cereal offering, the Greek text actually has “manna,” but this is obviously a misreading of the Hebrew word for cereal offering, which is similar. This is so obvious that few translations think a textual note is needed. The list of offerings in this verse sounds very much like Jer 17.26, and translators may well want to consult what they did at that point, for the sake of consistency.

Offer them upon the altar of the Lord our God: The simple word offer followed by upon the altar includes the sense of “burn as an offering,” and translators may want to include this information. “Burn them on the altar as an offering to the Lord our God” would not be too great a shift of focus. The altar here probably refers to a metal one. Many modern cultures have similar elevated structures for sacrificing animals and offering gifts to a god or spirit. Sometimes this is a stone or wood platform or table. Translators may use such terms here if it is clear that this altar is dedicated to God. However, translators in cultures where altars are unknown may say “place [or, platform] for sacrificing animals.”

For Lord see verse 5. The Lord our God may be rendered “the Lord, the God we [inclusive] worship.” In some languages the Lord our God can become a cumbersome expression; for example, “the one who rules, our God.” In such cases it may be more appropriate to say something like “God, the one who rules over us.” Or it may be rendered more simply as “the God we worship,” with a footnote indicating that the Lord is in the text.

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• The people living in Babylon wrote the following letter for Baruch to take with him to Judah: Please use the money we are sending you to buy some animals to burn completely as offerings, and other animals to use as special offerings to seek God’s forgiveness for sins, and buy incense to burn on the altar, and prepare grain offerings. We want you to burn all these things on the altar as offerings to the Lord our God.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

The point of view changes with verses 21-23. The whole section from 2.11 to 3.8 is a prayer from the point of view of the Jewish exiles in Babylonia. But these verses are spoken from the point of view of a prophet in Jerusalem before the exile. These words are contained in no single section in the books of the prophets. They are a blend of several passages from Jeremiah in the following order: 27.12; 27.9; 7.34; 48.9. There are also other passages in Jeremiah that are similar, such as 33.10-11.

Thus says the Lord: This is of course the formula used many times in the books of the prophets, often translated by Good News Translation as “The Lord says.” Here Good News Translation omits the formula, and other translators should give serious consideration to doing the same. It adds no new information—verse 20 has already told us that the Lord will be speaking—and it creates a structural problem. What we have is a quotation (the Lord speaking, 2.21b-23) within a quotation (the prophets speaking, 2.21-23) within a quotation (Baruch’s book, 1.15–5.9) within a quotation (the people’s cover letter, 1.10-14), following the narrator’s introduction (1.1-9).

This is all too complicated for anyone to follow. If the translator does not put the whole prayer in quotes (as recommended above; see the comments on Bar 1.15-18), then quotes may be used here helpfully, as long as single quotes immediately following Thus says the Lord can be avoided. There are two ways to avoid them. One is to omit the clause Thus says the Lord, as Good News Translation does. If, however, the translator wishes to preserve it, a simple colon after it with no single quotes would be satisfactory. But the best solution is to omit the clause as redundant. Notice that in verses 21 and 23 the Lord speaks, but in verse 22 the Lord is referred to in the third person.

Bend your shoulders and serve …: For Bend your shoulders, “Bend your backs” (Good News Translation) is probably more appropriate in English. The image is one of meekly submitting to a yoke (Jer 27.11-12) or carrying a heavy load on the back, as a laborer would. In languages where this expression will sound strange and unnatural, we may say “Obey and serve….”

The king of Babylon: Since Nebuchadnezzar ruled over the whole country of Babylonia and not just Babylon, its capital city, Good News Translation prefers to refer to “the king of Babylonia” (see the comments on Bar 1.9).

You will remain in the land: This is spoken from the point of view of a prophet in Jerusalem; see the comments above. “You can remain in the land” (Good News Translation) is an alternative rendering, with the meaning “I will allow you to remain….”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Where are … the princes … those who rule over the beasts … those who have sport … who hoard up silver … those who scheme to get silver…?: Here is a third rhetorical question, but a long one. Good News Translation introduces the various groups of people mentioned here with the first clause from verse 19, saying “those who have tried have vanished.” However, there is a serious problem with the interpretation Good News Translation gives to this passage. The text does not actually say that all these people “have tried” to find wisdom. Further, saying that “those who have tried have vanished” comes dangerously close to saying that no one should try to get wisdom. It is not that no one should try to become wise. It is rather that ultimate wisdom, wisdom’s source, cannot be found by mortals, and princes and such have certainly not found it. (Note that the Greek word for princes in this context does not refer to the sons of kings, but to “rulers” [Good News Translation] in general.) Whether they were trying to find it or not is not said. A better approach, if the translator has structured verse 15 in some such form as suggested above (“Has anyone ever found where Wisdom lives…”), is to frame verses 16-18 as a series of questions asking whether these people have found where Wisdom lives. We will come to this. But first, there are several problems of interpretation within these lines.

Those who rule over the beasts on the earth; those who have sport with the birds of the air: Some scholars see in this a reference to Nebuchadnezzar (see Jer 27.6; Dan 2.38; Jdt 11.7). More likely, however, the writer is saying that those who for sport or whatever reason have close contact with wildlife have not learned the lessons wild creatures have to teach. See particularly Job 12.7-9 and 35.11. This agrees with the interpretation given to the lines by Good News Translation and New English Bible, except that the text does not really say anything about hunting birds or animals, or even taming wild animals or raising birds (Contemporary English Version), though this is not unreasonable. The two lines together need mean nothing more than “those who are familiar with the ways of wild animals and birds.” Job 41.5 speaks of people who play with birds, so Moore thinks these lines refer to people who have the money and time to keep birds as pets, but this is no more evident than a reference to hunting. Translators are free to follow any of the above interpretations, except identifying the ruler as Nebuchadnezzar.

Who hoard up silver and gold, in which men trust, and there is no end to their getting: One question here is the meaning of the Greek noun rendered getting. It may mean “possessions,” in which case there is no end to their getting may be rendered “whose possessions were unlimited” (Moore; similarly New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). If, however, the word is taken to mean “obtaining” (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New English Bible), another question has to do with the pronoun their. Does it refer back to men (that is, people in general) or to silver and gold? If it refers to men, Good News Translation correctly interprets the whole clause as “will do anything to get.” If it refers to silver and gold, it would be better stated “there is always more to get.” Any of these approaches can be defended, but opinion seems to favor “possessions” as the meaning of the noun, in which case their clearly refers to the people who accumulate wealth. (The same word is clearly used in the sense of “possessions” in verse 24, where Revised Standard Version renders it “possesses.”) If this interpretation is adopted, these lines can be translated (so as to fit in with the restructuring suggested above) “What about people with unlimited possessions, who hoard silver and gold, which people put so much trust in?”

Those who scheme to get silver, and are anxious, whose labors are beyond measure: This verse is quite obscure. Scheme to get silver can mean “work with silver,” that is, work as a silversmith. Whose labors are beyond measure is literally “and there is no searching out of their works/deeds.” There are three possible interpretations for this verse: (a) those who anxiously scheme to gain silver, but whose works amount to nothing (Good News Translation, New American Bible); (b) those who carefully work with silver, but whose works amount to nothing (New Jerusalem Bible); (c) those who work silver with care and unbelievable skill (New English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Any of these approaches can be defended, but the last one seems more convincing. Silversmiths, along with any metal workers, were counted as men of “wisdom” (see 1 Chr 22.15-16).

If the interpretations arrived at above are adopted, the following restructuring for verses 15-19a may be suggested. Those who adopt other interpretations of the points discussed can still fit them to this pattern:

• Has anyone ever found where Wisdom lives, or entered her [or, its] treasure house? Have the rulers of the nations found Wisdom’s home? Have those who hunt wild animals and birds, and know their ways, discovered Wisdom? What about people with unlimited possessions, who hoard silver and gold, which some people put so much trust in? Have silversmiths, with all their care and unbelievable skill, found Wisdom’s home? No—they have all disappeared….

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

They had no regard for his statutes is literally “they did not know his statutes.” New English Bible says “They would not learn his statutes.” It was presumably, however, not a matter of refusing to learn God’s laws, but simply of ignoring what they already knew, paying no attention to it, having no regard (or, respect) for it (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). This is the interpretation that Contemporary English Version follows with “They ignored … his teachings.”

They did not walk in the ways of God’s commandments: Walk is the familiar metaphor for “live your life” (see Bar 1.18). Good News Translation has combined this line with the previous one: “They had no respect for his commandments and would not live by them.” No essential idea is missing. Translators who wish to keep two lines here will need to find terms for statutes and commandments that are synonymous (compare Psa 119.4-8).

Nor tread the paths of discipline in his righteousness: This is a third line, parallel with the two previous lines. Discipline generally involves a rigorous learning, involving a teacher who is in a position to reward or punish (compare Pro 3.11). God would be the teacher here. “They refused to let him guide them” is the Good News Translation equivalent for nor tread the paths of discipline. What is learned would be his righteousness, that is, what God says is the right way to live your life. Good News Translation could have chosen to expand this in some manner; for example, “the way he wanted them to live.” New Jerusalem Bible interprets this line a bit differently: “or tread the paths of discipline as his justice directed” (similarly Moore). This would mean that God’s justice demands that people submit themselves to discipline, but Jerusalem’s children refused to do this. This is possible, but the interpretation of Good News Translation is the better choice. Contemporary English Version reorders the line as follows: “His laws would have helped them live right, yet my children simply refused to obey.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

The woods and every fragrant tree …: Since groups of fragrant or sweet smelling trees make a forest just as much as a group of any other kind of tree, Good News Translation quite sensibly expresses this as “forests of fragrant trees.” The text does not say that these trees “will spring up” (Good News Translation), but it is not unreasonable to assume this, since it is said that they will provide shade at God’s command. If the trees were already there, the shade would already be there, and God would not have to issue a command.

Have shaded Israel: There is a puzzle here. In the midst of this passage describing the return of the exiles as either present or future, this one verse is expressed as happening in past time. The simplest explanation for this is that the author is relying on The Psalms of Solomon 11.5 (see this passage quoted above in the comments on verse 5). The corresponding line there is past tense, and the author of Baruch failed to make an appropriate change. The translator may take either of two approaches. One approach (Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible) is to assume that the author is using the past tense in a way familiar in the Old Testament prophets, to refer to a future event. In that case, the future tense may be used in translation, consistent with the context. Another approach (Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New American Bible) available to translators into English, at least, is to use a form of past tense which does not identify the act involved—trees shading Israel—as having happened at a particular time. By saying have shaded Israel, the translator states that this has been God’s way in the past, and it presumably will continue as the exiles return. If translators follow this approach, the addition of “always” may make the rendering smoother: “have always shaded Israel.” Translators will probably find following Good News Translation simpler, however.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.