Some characteristics of the book of Baruch

The book of Baruch (also known as 1 Baruch) is presented as a message that Baruch, the companion of the prophet Jeremiah, sent from Babylon to the religious authorities in Jerusalem. There are three distinct parts to this message: prayers (1.15–3.8), a poem in praise of Wisdom (3.9–4.4), and a series of poems offering comfort to the Jews living in Babylonian exile and to those remaining in Jerusalem. There is a cover letter from the exiled community that is placed before Baruch’s message (1.10-14). And before this is a narrator’s introduction to the reader (1.1-9). See “Discourse structure of Baruch” below.

It is disputed whether, in the current form of the book, the two poetic sections (3.9–4.4 and 4.5–5.9) are to be considered part of Baruch’s message, or whether they are completely separate blocks of material that have been added to Baruch’s prayers. From a scholarly point of view, they probably are separate, with different authors and times of writing. But in the present form of the book, as it has been received as Scripture, it seems best to assume that the whole of 1.15–5.9 is part of Baruch’s message. For more discussion on this complex matter, see the sections below on “Circumstances of writing Baruch” and “Discourse structure of Baruch.”

The matter is complicated further by the fact that often the separate writing known as “The Letter of Jeremiah” is attached to Baruch as chapter 6. This Handbook will treat The Letter of Jeremiah as a separate book, but translators wishing to include it as part of Baruch must add it as chapter 6.

Even though the three main sections of Baruch’s message are of different natures, the book hangs together reasonably well. We begin with a prayer of confession of sins, to be recited by those in Jerusalem (1.15–2.10), and then we move to a prayer for salvation, to be said by the Jews in exile (2.11–3.8). The central section concentrates on Wisdom, but in particular, Wisdom as she has been granted to Israel in the form of the Torah, God’s Law (3.9–4.4). The final section offers comfort and hope, first to the exiles, and then to the people of Jerusalem, who are told to prepare for the homecoming of the exiles (4.5–5.9).

The book lacks something in originality. Most of it reflects the obvious influence of other parts of Scripture, sometimes with word-for-word correspondence. There are many parallels to passages in Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah chapters 40–66. The poem on Wisdom has close parallels to Job 28 and Sir 24.

Although scholars sometimes refer to this book as 1 Baruch, it has no relation to the Syriac book known as 2 Baruch, or the Greek writing known as 3 Baruch.

Circumstances of writing Baruch

Tradition, as well as the first verse of the book itself, attributes authorship to Baruch, the man who was a close associate of the prophet Jeremiah. He appears in chapters 32, 36, 43, and 45 of Jeremiah, and is especially important in chapter 36. But scholars are virtually unanimous in their opinion that the historical Baruch had nothing to do with the writing of this book. The main reason for this is that our book has Baruch among the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, whereas according to Jer 43.1-7, Baruch went with the prophet to Egypt. No other biblical tradition places him in Babylonia. Further, stylistic factors as well as matters of content suggest multiple authorship. For instance, Bar 1.10-14 reveals an attitude of acceptance toward Babylonian authority, while Bar 4.30-35 is bitterly hostile.

There is no scholarly consensus regarding the date of the book, but given the probability of multiple authorship, we must deal with separate dates for at least the three main sections of Baruch’s message, and a date for the final editing. We know only that the book uses the Greek version of Jeremiah, Dan 9, and The Psalms of Solomon. This would appear to make the latest part of the book (4.5–5.9) no earlier than the first century B.C., but other parts could well go back to the early second century B.C. The material in the book suggests that it may have been brought together for the purpose of giving encouragement to a Jewish community under some considerable stress. Some scholars locate this in the pre-Maccabean period of the early second century B.C., but others bring it down as late as the Roman period, after 70 A.D.

The text of Baruch

The accepted text of Baruch is that of the ancient Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The text of this book is reasonably well preserved, and does not present many severe textual problems. There is some scholarly dispute about the original language. All agree that the first part, 1.1–3.8, was written in Hebrew. Most scholars think the rest of the book also was composed in Hebrew, but some argue for Greek. No Hebrew fragments of the book exist, though there have been ingenious attempts at reconstructing it (see Burke and Tov in the bibliography). Sometimes these reconstructions give useful guidance to translation.

Special problems in translating Baruch

Dating: Ordinarily, the date of writing does not present a special problem for the translator, but in the case of Baruch it does, since the first sentence of the book (1.1-2) gives a date for the writing, but unfortunately it is not clear. It may be, as most scholars would point out, that the actual time of the writing and composition of the book of Baruch has nothing to do with the date given in this passage, which may be a creation of the author. The translator may agree or disagree with that, but the problematic date still has to be translated.

The text of 1.1-2 is unclear at two points. In the Revised Standard Version the first half of verse 2 reads “in the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month.” We are left with two questions: Five years after what? The seventh day of which month? This Handbook takes the widely-accepted position that the reference is to the fifth year after the burning of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/586 B.C., and that the fifth month is intended (see 2 Kgs 25.8 and Jer 52.12; these two passages disagree on the day of the month when Jerusalem was burned but agree that it was during the fifth month).

There are some difficulties with this position, and it is fair to point that out at the beginning. The principal problem is that 1.5-14 assumes that the priesthood is still functioning at the temple. After the disaster of 587/586, this could hardly have been the case. Some scholars believe that the reference in 1.2 is to five years after the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 598, which is described in 2 Kgs 24. On that occasion King Jehoiachin was deposed and exiled, and Zedekiah was placed on the throne. The final destruction of the temple and the city happened about 12 years later when Zedekiah rebelled against his Babylonian overlord. Placing the time of the book of Baruch in or about 593, five years after the first conquest, solves one problem, but it raises still others. First, 1.2 mentions the burning of Jerusalem, which happened in 587/586, not 598. Second, the high priest during Jerusalem’s last days was Seraiah (2 Kgs 25.18), not Jehoiakim (Bar 1.7). Third, according to Jer 43, Baruch was still with Jeremiah in Jerusalem some time after the fall of the city. (In fact, the last we hear of Baruch there, he was going with Jeremiah into exile in Egypt, and never set foot in Babylon.)

Any solution we adopt can be objected to, and part of ur problem may be that we are dealing with an author who is not very careful about the historical record. Along with the problem of discourse structure (see below), the translator must deal with this problem as soon as work on the book begins.

Poetic form: It is widely agreed that 1.1–3.8 is prose, but that the rest of the book reflects a poetic structure. The translator must decide in advance which way to proceed. Those who have worked with poetic structure in the Old Testament will certainly want to consider the possibility of poetic form in 3.9–5.9. Most recent translations use indented lines to show that this was originally poetry. The Good News Translation and the Contemporary English Version do not. The New English Bible did not, although its successor, the Revised English Bible, has rethought the matter and has cast everything from 3.9 forward as poetry. The lines of the text in these translations follow the formal patterns of Hebrew poetry, although the Greek, of course, has no way of indicating this.

Terms for Wisdom: The poem in praise of Wisdom (3.9–4.4), like all the Old Testament wisdom literature, uses a variety of terms for wisdom, which are nearly the same in meaning. Since the Greek text is a translation, and since we are dealing with Hebrew poetry here, the translator should not feel an obligation to make nice distinctions among terms variously translated as “wisdom,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” and so forth. There will be opportunities for combining terms without losing meaning. “Wisdom” is the central term, and would be reasonably rendered by whatever term has been chosen to represent the personified figure of Wisdom in Pro 8–9 and Sir 24. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge or intelligence or information. It is all of these, but it is also good sense, the ability to use knowledge or intelligence in the right way. Choices of other terms meaning “understanding,” “knowledge,” and so on can be made on the basis of sensitivity to context and what sounds appropriate in reading aloud.

The Psalms of Solomon: This book is not really a problem for the translator, since the translator can deal with Baruch quite well with no reference to or even knowledge of this document. The scholarly literature will refer to it, however, and we will make reference to it in the Handbook. This book, which never achieved the status of Scripture, is a collection of eighteen psalms, originally in Hebrew but preserved only in Greek and Syriac. There is general agreement that it dates from the first century B.C. in Judea. There is no historical connection with Solomon. Psalm 11 in this collection has an undeniable relationship to Bar 4.36–5.9, particularly to chapter 5. The wording is strikingly similar at points. Most scholars believe the Baruch passage is dependent on the psalm, but a few think the psalm is dependent on Baruch.

The connector “For”: In Baruch and the other books in this Handbook there are numerous instances of the connector “For” (gar in Greek). In some cases this connector serves no clear grammatical purpose and may be omitted. In other cases it may be rendered “Because,” “Therefore,” “So,” or even “Yes” to indicate a stress. In each case we will try to help translators understand the linguistic purpose of the connector.

Discourse structure of Baruch

There are several voices in this book, as indicated in the boxed outline below. A narrator introduces the book in 1.1-9, speaking of Baruch in the third person, telling of his writing a book, and reading it to the people gathered with him in exile. The people send this writing to Jerusalem, introduced by a cover letter (1.10-14). The book itself then follows. Within the section 1.15–3.8, there appear two other voices. The prophets are referred to in 1.21 and quoted in 2.21-23, and in that material the prophets quote God, while at another point (2.29-35) God is quoted directly. Within the section 4.5–5.9, there is a passage in which the personified Jerusalem speaks; then at 4.34 God speaks directly. We thus have voices embedded within voices.

Scholars disagree about the extent of the material sent to Jerusalem. By setting apart 1.10–3.8, the letter is limited to only that much. Others believe the rest of the book should also be considered part of the book composed by Baruch (1.1), read to the people (1.3), and sent to Jerusalem (1.14). This is the approach we have adopted in the outline above and in this Handbook. To be sure, Baruch is probably a composite piece of writing, as scholars point out. Yet the three main sections (the prayers in 1.15–3.8, the poem in praise of Wisdom in 3.9–4.4, and the prophetic words in 4.5–5.9) do hang together, even though loosely. The person or persons compiling the material into this book surely considered all three sections to be the “book” mentioned in 1.1, 3, and 14. This approach has two other advantages. One is that it does not require complicated tricks of punctuation or typographical layout. A problem arises with the clauses “And they said…” in 1.10 and “And you shall say…” in 1.15, but there are ways of handling these clauses without forcing a series of quotes within quotes for the rest of the book. A second advantage is that this arrangement allows for other interpretations. A reader disagreeing with this outline will not be hindered by punctuation or typography from understanding the book in his or her own way.

This is a problem that translators really need to solve to their own satisfaction before starting work, since it will affect the translation of the very first verse of the book. This is a short book, and reading it carefully with an eye to its organization before beginning the actual work of translation may save a lot of time later on. (It is perhaps worth noting that the structure and occasion of this book recall the structure and occasion of Jer 29, another passage where the discourse structure is difficult to make clear.)

Translators who include The Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6 of Baruch must see that in the outline it is parallel to the “Narrator’s introduction” here, not to any part of Baruch’s book. Indeed, The Letter of Jeremiah has its own introduction by the writer.

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.