Baruch
Prophetia BaruchIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
First part: after a historical proem (1:1-15a), a moving prayer (similar to that of Dan. 9:4-20) in which are acknowledged the sins of the fathers and of their children, now exiles by the deserved chastisement of God, whose mercy that pardons and power that saves are invoked, and whose supreme and unique wisdom, far different from human wisdom, is praised (1:15b-4:4).
In the second part (4:5-5:6) the prophet first has Jerusalem speak to her children enslaved among the Chaldeans, and finally he himself addresses words of comfort to the desolate city, extolling her future glory and foretelling the redemption of her children.
Haydock
Baruch was a man of noble extraction, and learned in the law, secretary and disciple to the prophet Jeremias, and a sharer in his labours and persecutions; which is the reason why the ancient Fathers have considered this book as a part of the prophecy of Jeremias, and have usually quoted it under his name. (Challoner) --- The frequent Hebrew idioms shew it to have been originally in that language. Baruch wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost the letter comprising the five first chapters, which he carried to the Jews from their brethren at Babylon. The martyrologies place his death, December 28. The sixth chapter contains a letter of Jeremias, to which allusion is clearly made in 2 Machabees 2:2. The Church still recites the works of Baruch under the name of Jeremias. (Sab. Pent. proph. 6.) (Calmet) --- Many Fathers did so formerly, though they doubted not but Baruch was the author. See St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V. 35.; St. Augustine, City of God XVIII. 33., etc. Others, with Origen (Prin. II. 3.) specify the writer; and the Councils of Laodicea, Florence, and Trent, decide that it is canonical. St. Jerome alleged it not against the Jews, as they denied its authority. (Worthington) --- See Jeremias 32:44. (Haydock) --- In his preface on Jeremias he testifies that "it contains many things relating to Christ and the latter times." (Worthington) --- Grotius in vain attempts to represent some parts as interpolated (chap. 3:38., etc.; Calmet) and L. Cappellus has left some posthumous notes, which would represent the author as a stupid impostor, though he acknowledges his great learning. (Houbigant)
[Title] A copy. Septuagint place this after the Lamentations, which follow Baruch. (Haydock) --- Jeremias wrote it before the captives departed. Baruch read it to them at Babylon, and it was sent back to Jerusalem. (Worthington) --- It might be delivered to the captives at Reblatha. We have it not entire, as another circumstance respecting the ark is mentioned, 2 Machabees 2:5. (Calmet)
Douay 1582/1609
MANIE ancient Fathers supposed this Prophecie to be Ieremies: though none doubted but Baruch his scribe was the writer This prophecie is supposed by many to be Ieremies. therof. So S. Xistus Epist. ad omnes fideles. S. Ireneus, li. 5. c. 35. S. Clement of Alexandria, li. 1. c. 10. & li. 2. c. 3. Pedag. S. Cyprian, li. 2. c. 5. & 6. contra Iudaeos. Eusebius Coesariensis, li. de Propheticorum libor. appellationibus, Cap. de Ieromia. & li. 6. c. 19. Demonst. Euangel. Lactantius, li. 4. c. 13. Diuin. Instit. The first Councel of Nice, li. 2. fol. 105. & 109. S. Hilarie, li. 5. de Trinit. sub finem. S. Cyril of Ierusalem, Catechesi. 4. & 11. & de Concursu Domini. S. Basil. li. 4. cont. Eunomium. S. Ambrose, li. de fide. c. 7. cont. Arianos. li. de Paenit. c. 8. & li. 3. Examer. c. 14. S. Gregorie Nazianzen, Orat. 49. deside. & Epist. 2. ad Cled•nium. S. Epiphanius, cont. Nazaraeos. & cont. Ebionaeos. S. Chrysostom, Ser. de Trinit. & aduers. Gentiles. S. Augustin, li. 18. c. 33. de Ciuit. & Quest. Vet. & Noui Testat. q. 102. S. Prosper. par. 2. c. 9. & p. 3. c. 3. de promiss. & predict. S. Theodoretus, Dialogo. 1. Eranistes. (who also writeth Comentaries vpon this booke, as vpon diuine Scripture) c. 2. v. 9. These and others alleage this Prophecie, as Ieremies. By others accounted Baruchs. Some also vnder the name of Baruch. As Origen, li. 2. c. 3. Periarch. S. Cyril of Alexandria, li. 10. in Iulianum, S. Gregorie Nyssen, Orat. 1. de pauperibus amandis. S. Athanasius, Orat. 2. cont. Arianos. Though in his Synopsi he mentioneth not Baruch, yet he, as also S. Augustin, l. 2. c. 8. Doct. Christ. S. Gelacius, dist. 15. and others in their Catalogues of Canonical Scriptures, comprehend this booke vnder the name of Ieremie. But whether Baruch was the immediate Auctor vnder God, or the writer therof By al holden to be Canonical Scripture. as of an other mans Prophecie (as the Euangelistes writte the wordes of Christ, and others, in the Gospels, and in the Actes of the Apostles) alwayes it is certaine, the Holie Ghost directed him, that he could not erre in writing it. And the ancient Fathers, and Councels euer accepted this booke as Diuine Scripture. The Councel also of Laodicea, in the last Canon, expresly nameth Baruch, Lamentations, and Ieremies Epistle. And lastly The Councels of Florence, de Vnione Armenorum; and of Trent. Sess. 4. expresly define that Baruch is Canonical Scripture. In the Greke VVhy S. Ierom vrgeth it not against the Iewes. The contents. this booke is placed before the Lamentations. which S. Ierom not finding in Hebrew, nor in the Canon of the Iewes, vrgeth it not against them. Yet testifieth that he found it in the vulgate Latin Edition, and that it conteineth Pr•fat. Ierem. manie thinges of Christ, and the later times. According to the historical sense, the auctor in fiue chapters exhorteth the Iewes to repentance, and patience, prophecying that they should be brought into more distresse and captiuitie, then as yet they were; but should afterwards be released. The sixt chapter is Ieremies Epistle.
Cornely
8 11. — De Prophetia Baruch et de Epistola Ieremiae.
Licet Prophetia Baruch et Epistola Ieremiae neque argumento inter se cohaereant neque eiusdem sint auctoris, duos tamen hos libellos coniungimus , non tantum quia in Vulgata, in qua epistola est cap. 6.
Continue reading 35 paragraphs
11. 2 Mach. 2,2. « Ieremias... dedit illis legem, ne obliviscerentur praecepta et ut non exerrarent mentibus videntes simulacra aurea cl argentea et ornamenta eorum »,
211. — Baruch (Benedictus) , cui libellus noster inscribitur, filius fuit Neriae filii Maasiae atque proin frater Saraiae, qui cum rege Sedecia Babylonem profecturus secum deferre iussus est vaticinium Ieremiae contra Chaldaeos, ut eo in Euphratem deiecto certum fore Babylonis interitum significaret (erem. 51,59 sqq.). Intimiore autem , quam frater eius, vinculo Baruch prophetae erat coniunctus, cuius individuus et fidelis erat minister. lam a. &. loakim leremias vaticinia sua minacia de Iuda et Israel colligere et scribere iussus illa discipulo suo Baruch dictavit ; qui nullo periculo perterritus ea publice coram toto populo in templo atque privatim principibus praelegit, eadem quoque, postquam rex prius volumen combussit, altera vice ex ore Ieremiae conscripsit erem. 36.). Una cum magistro irae regis fuga sese eripere coactus tantam calamitatem et laborem suum, quem irritum esse putavit, aegre tulisse videtur, sed speciali vaticinio eum consolatus est Deus (lerem. 55.) ; atque ab eo tempore semper eum cum propheta invenimus. Quando propheta tempore obsidionis urbis in carcerem iniectus agrum emit, ut symbolica actione futurum populi reditum ex captivitate significaret , adfuit Baruch atque tabulas emtionis custodiendas accepit (Jerem. 32,6 sqq.)!. Post ultimum urbis excidium cum leremia a Chaldaeis liber dimissus in Palaestina remansit ; tanta autem eius erat cum propheta familiaritas, ut Iudaei a propheta moniti, ne in Aegyptum fugerent, consilium illud Barucho attribuerent atque utrumque secum in Aegyptum abducerent (Jer. 43,1 -'1). Haec de Baruchi vita ex Ieremiae vaticiniis haurimus; ex nostro libello pauca addere licet. Anno 5. post urbis destructionem Baruch fuit in Babylonia (Bar. 1,1 sqq.) probabiliter à leremia missus, quem etiam absentem exsulum in captivitate degentium semper memorem fuisse eosque consolari et exhortari non cessasse, vaticinia eius docent (cfr Jerem. 99.). In Babylonia librum nostrum captivo regi lechoniae magnaeque exsulum congregationi praelegit, quibus tantopere placuit, ut illum fratribus in lerusalem relictis transmittendum censerent. Collectis igitur pecuniis vasisque nonnullis argenteis, quae in templi usum Sedecias fecerat, redemtis iniserunt Baruch ipsum, ut haec omnia lerosolyma deferret atque librum suum in templi destructi ruinis diébus sollemnibus praelegendum euraret (Bar. 1,3-15). Alia certa de eius vita non sunt tradita; verisimilitudine tamen non caret traditio rabbinica, eum ex hoc itinere babylonico in Aegyptum ad magistrum suum esse reversum, sed postea una cum eodem a Nabuchodonosor (a. 578.) in Chaldaeam esse reductum ibique mortuum?.
ARGUMENTUM libelli est consolatorium. Deum quidem peccata Israelis gravissimis calamitatibus punivisse docet, at eundem poenitentia populi et fidelitate in Lege observanda placatum iri pristinasque suas promissiones esse impleturum. Duplici autem parte argumentum hoc ita explicatur, ut post introductionem (1,1-15) populus humili confessione peccata sua velut iustam calamitatum causam detestatus spem restitutionis exprimat eamque ardenti precatione accelerare studeat (1,15-3,8), in altera propheta veram sapientiam, quae in Lege contineatur, tamquam viam salutis celebret eamque ingredientibus salutem promittat (3,9-5,9)3. Accuratiorem idearum nexum brevi ANALYSI exponemus.
InrRopucTIO (1,1-14) praeter inscriptionem (1,1. 2) duo continet :
1. narrationem, qua auctor refert libro Baruch praelecto Iechoniam reliquosque exsules pecunias sacrificiis in domo Dei offerendis destinatas collegisse easque cum vasis nonnullis sacris per Baruch Iudaeis palaestinensibus transmisisse (1,3- 8);
9. epistolam exsulum, qua donorum suorum fine explicato rogant, ut pro Nabuchodonosor eiusque filio Baltassar oretur atque liber, quem transmittunt, publice in domo Dei statis diebus praelegatur (1,9 -14).
Pans PRIOR (1,5 -3,8) populi poenitentis precatwnem exhibet. |
1. Quae inchoatur confessione peccatorum inde a mosaico tempore non obstantibus prophetarum monitis commissorum (1,15-22), quibus Deus terribilem poenam a Moyse praedictam de populo non emendato sumere coactus sit (2,1-10);
2. transit ad divinae misericordiae implorationem pro motivis adducens peccati agnitionem (2,11 - 13), divini nominis honorem (2,14- 16), do lorem de peccatis conceptum (2,17-20).
3. Iustitiam quoque poenae profitentur (2,21 - 20), at si ita impletae sunt minae a Moyse iam annuntiatae (2,27-29), sperant quoque fore, ut impleantur promissiones, quae poenitentibus sunt propositae (2,20- 35).
4. Qua spe nixus populus ferventer orat, ut pristinorum peccatorum oblitus Deus praesentem poenitentiam respiciat (3,1 - 8).
Pans ALTERA (3,9 - 3,9) prophetae exhortationem continet.
1. Celebrata vera sapientia, quae in Lege continetur, veram viam salulis monstrat (3,9 - 4,4).
a.) Velut exordium praemittit, filios Israel in calamitatein irruisse, quia fontem verae sapientiae reliquerint (3,9-13), unde monet discendum esse, ubi inveniatur sapientia, quae bona omnia affert (3,14).
b.) Non invenitur autem apud divites terrae ac proin thesauris non obtinetur (3,13- 21), nec apud sagacissimos populos, ac proin sagacitate non acquiritur (3,92. 23), nec apud gigantes, ac proin potentia ius ad illam recipiendam non praebet (3,24-28) ; humanis igitur adiumentis non invenitur (3,29- 31).
c.) Deus solus omniscius eam cognoscit eamque dedit filiis Israel, ut ipse deinde in terra appareret et cum hominibus conversaretur (3.32.38).
d.) Sapientia autem haec in Lege continetur, quae igitur utpote via ad salutem amplectenda et diligenter retinenda est (4,1-4).
2. Qua via monstrata exsules ad fiduciam exhortatur ; Israel enim , sicut a sapientia recedens in calamitatem irruit, ita ad Legem, i. e. ad sapientiam, revertens salutem inveniet (4,5 - 5,9).
a.) Post. brevem praefationem, qua calamitatem, licet sit peccatorum poena, ad interitum et perditionem non esse monet (4,5- 8), b.) introducit lersusalem ipsam civitates vicinas et filios suos in captivitatem abituros alloquentem. Atque civitatibus quidem luctum suum manifestat de filiis suis ob eorum culpam in captivitatem abductis (4,9 - 16), filios autem suos consolatur; se quidem eos adiuvare non posse, sed a Deo, ad quem clamare debeant, venturum esse auxilium et captivitatis finem (4,17-29).
c.) Quae confirmans propheta ipsam lerusalem consolatur promittens punitionem hostium (4,30-35), reditum filiorum (4,36. 37), novam civitatis gloriam priore maiorem (5,1 - 9).
Ex analysi tradita uxiTAs operis satis opinor elucet; licet utriusque partis forma omnino differat, idem tamen argumentum in utraque tractatur, ut nulla prorsus sit ratio, cur duo diversa scripta in unum volumen coagmentata dicamus*. Atque profecto argumenta, quibus duobus diversis auctoribus libellum deberi demonstratur, satis sunt levia?. Primum et praecipuum ex linguae dictionisque diversitate desumitur; longe puriorem esse linguam graecam in altera, quam priore in parte, longe sublimiorem vehementioremque alterius partis dictionem. Quae omnia libenter concedimus, sed inepte afferri arbitramur. De lingua statim (272.1) dicemus; hoc loco adnotasse sufficit, pro diversa utriusque partis forma diversam esse dictionem; nam quis in humili viri poenitentis precatione eandem dictionis stylique sublimitatem et vehementiam exspectat, quam in prophetica exhortatione? At in altera parte minus, quam in priore, ad antiquiores libros respici aiunt; se ipsi tamen refutant adversarii nostri, quum in altera Isaiae , in priore leremiae vaticinia adhiberi concedant$. Tertio demum loco de alexandrina eruditione loquuntur, quae alteram partem alexandrino cuidam auctori deberi demonstret; at alexandrinae eruditionis nullum adest vestigium?
t. Num Baruch, id quod asserit Fl. Iosephus (Antiqu. X. 9,1), cum Ieremía captivus in carcere sit retentus, ex prophetae narratione non elucet; Iosephum autem ex alio fonte narrationem suam hausisse, vix crediderim.
1. Argumenta omnia recitavimus a Fríitzsche 1l. c. allata, quem Schürer 1. c. caecus sequitur. Ad eruditionem alexandrinam quod attinet, Fritzsche ipse fatetur, modum, quo sapientia describatur, non esse alexandrinum, ideoque ad tres expressiones recurrit, quibus alexandrina eruditio demonstretur : 3,23, 1700X0y0:; 3,24 6 ol«oc toi 6:00 ( — mundus); 4,7 baupóvia (—5. idola, quibus sacrificatur). Sed quid, si eas expressiones graeco interpreti attribuimus? Num forte Ps. 95 (96) alexandrino philosopho debetur, quia in alexandrina versione legimus : závreg oí. 0:01 i0 Gatuóvta (aou)? Num etiam Paulum ab Alexandrinis didicisse dicemus, quae 1 Cor. 10,20 scribit? In 3,24 ofxoc toU 0coU est coelum, quatenus in eo Deus inhabitat ; o1xog toU ro autem (coelum) et terra (róxog tf xvístwe 23:00) simul constituunt mundum. Restat ergo vox u»065Xoyot, quae cui hebr. voci responderit ignoramus quidem, sed non magis auctoris scientiam alexandrinam probat, quam similes S. Hier. locutiones (Is. 13, 22 sirenes; ler. 50,39 fauni; Ezech. 8,14 Adonis) probant, prophetis latinam vel graecam mythologiam notam fuisse.
9772. — A quo AUCTORE et quo Zempore opus nostrum sit conscriptum, inscriptio disertis verbis docet : « Haec sunt verba libelli, quae scripsit Baruch, filius Neriae .. in a. 5... postquam ceperant Chaldaei Ierusalem eamque combusserant igne » (1,1.2). Cur enim Barucho scribae tantum partes attribuamus eumque dictante leremia haec literis mandasse cum antiquioribus interpretibus nonnullis dicamus, nulla prorsus adest ratio!; quin vero annus 5. ab ultimo civitatis excidio sit numerandus, non potest esse dubium, siquidem nec in prima expugnatione, quando a. &. loakim Daniel cum primis captivis abductus est, nec in secunda, quando lechonias cum omuibus magnatibus et thesauris templi regiique palatii transportatus est , civitas sancta incendio est. deleta. Multo minus autem in prioribus illis expugnationibus factum est, quod refert Bar. 9,9 sq. Dominum super Ierusalem adduxisse mala, quae non sunt facta sub coelo, « ut manducaret homo carnes filii sui et carnes filiae suae »; at similia de tertia expugnatione conqueritur Ieremias in Thren. 9,90; &,10?. . ' Attamen omni auctoritate testimonium inscriptionis destitui asserunt tantum non omnes acatholici?, ex quibus nonnulli libellum nostrum iniquissimo modo diiudicant*. Si vero interrogaveris, cui tandem auctori vel cui tempori adscribendus sit, de auctore nihil definiri posse tibi respondebunt, nisi Barucho opusculum immerito adscribi ; de tempore autem adversarii inter se dissentiunt; alii enim de ultima regni persici periodo, alii de primorum Ptolemaeorum acetate, alii de machabaico tempore loquuntur, alii demum definiunt exeunte 1. saec. p. Chr., postquam Titus lerusalem et templum delevit, libellum esse conscriptum ; Pseudo Baruch enim contribulibus suis persuadere voluisse, urbis destructionem esse iustam poenam, quia Iudaei Vespasiano et Tito (Nabuchodonosori filioque eius Baltassar) obedientiam praestare noluerint. Pro variis, quas defendunt, sententiis varia quidem argumenta afferunt adversarii, sed ad tres classes omnes reducimus : alia enim desumuntur ex graeca lingua, quam primigeniam libelli esse nonnulli asserunt ; alia ex erroribus historicis, quos in eo inveniunt omnes; alia ex nonnullis textibus, qui aut ex graeca leremiae versione aut ex libris Nehemiae et Danielis transcripti dicuntur. De singulis pauca.
1. Mirum est, quanta sit adversariorum discordia, si de lingua primigenia libelli nostri quaestio agitatur; alii integrum librum hebraice esse conscriptum defendunt (Ewald, De Wette, Davidson, Kneucker etc.), alii saltem prioris partis (4,1-3,8) hebraicam originem agnoscunt (Fritzsche , Schürer), alii integri libri primigeniam linguam esse graecam mordicus tenent ( Hávernick, Keil). Res tamen satis clara est. Licet enim S. Zieronymus librum Baruch hebraice reperiri neget? atque hodie textus eius hebraicus revera desideretur, olim eum exstitisse et a Iudaeis esse adhibitum certum est. Urgere nolumus Origenis et S. Epiphanii testimonia, qui quum librum nostrum inter Iudaeorum palaestinensium libros canonicos viginti duos recenseant, certe eius textum hebraicum cognoverunt, neque testimonium Constit. Ápost., quae Iudaeos quotannis die 40. mensis Gorpiaei vastitatem a Nabuchodonosor inductam Threnis Ieremiae et libello Baruch plangere asserunt? ; nam certius nobis praesto est argumentum. Origenes enim in suis Hexaplis integrum libellum Baruch obelis et asteriscis suis distinxit, quibus quae abundabant quaeve deficiebant in recensione graeca cum hebraico textu comparata indicaret. Cuius roi testes sunt codices superstites, inter quos syrohexaplaris Mediolanensis ter adnotat : « hoc positum non est in hebraeo » atque alicubi etiam Theodotionis versionem diversam adscribit*. Cui testimonio, quo res extra omne prudens dubium ponitur, confirmationis gratia addi oportet innumeros hebraismos nonnullaque menda, quae interpreti graeco hebraicum textum aut non satis intelligenti aut perverse legenti attribuenda sunt?.
Longe frequentiores in priore (1,1-3,8), quam in altera parte durioresque esse hebraismos ultro fatemur, immerito autem inde concludi censemus, alteram graece esse conscriptam; alia enim ratione differentia haec facilius et rectius explicatur. Etenim prior pars integra fere populi poenitentis precatione constat, qua teste auctore Constit. Apost. in synagogis quotannis excidium urbis plangebatur; in usum igitur liturgicum transiit; quare fleri facile potuit, ut interpres in liturgica hac oratione vertenda a textu hebraico "'ongius recedere religioni sibi duceret, in altera autem parte stylo et ingenio indulgeret? Praeterea probabile est, in synagogis aegyptiacis iam primitus precationem illam graece esse recitatam, atque translationem illam primitivam, quae antea ore erat tradita, ab interprete integri libri partim esse receptam. Adde duas partes, id quod iam adnotavimus, toto argumento suo intime inter se cohaerere unumque opus constituere; quare si prior pars hebraice conscripta esse conceditur, alterius partis hebraica origo negari nequit. Ceterum signis diacriticis Originis, quibus integer libellus in codicibus hexaplaribus distinguitur, quaestio est definita.
3. Excipiendi sunt Anglicanus G. Whiston (A dissertation to prove the apocryphal book of Baruch canonical. London 1727.), Calvinista C. F. Moulinié (Notice sur les livres apocryphes de l'A. T. Genéve 1828. p. 78 sqq.), Iudaeus L. Herzfeld (Geschichte Jisrael's. Braunschweig 1847. I. p. 317 sqq.), qui etsi Barucho auctori librum neget, salis prope tamen ad veram sententiam accedit. Optimis enim libris in exsilio scriptis libellum nostrum adnumerat, censet autem ab anonymo exsule tres particulas (1, 15- 3,8; 3,9- 4,36; 5,1-9) esse compositas easque exsilio finito ab alio anonymo addita praefatione (1,1215) in unum volumen esse compactas. Quae sententia unitate libri iam refulatur, at satis demonstrat nihil in libello inveniri, quod ab adversariis recentiori aetali iure attribuatur.
3J, operari et servire; — xata6áAXousv rov Dcov $uGw xat& npósunóv cov (2,19), ubi
Daó; respondet hebr. n3nn, quae vox "misericordiam et precationem significat. : « proiicimus precationem nostrani coram te » etc. Ex altera parte 4,20 oáxxoq tfc bsrjotox , ubi óizoi; — PM, afflictio (cfe Ps. 21. [22], 5); — 4, 15 x pro et non recte translato hebr. "UN; 3,23 usibáv videtur exortum ex vocabulo 17D vel 1' TO. non recto lecto; cfr etiam 3,11. 30. 31. 33. 35; 4,5. 9. 14 ete.
2. Non defuerunt neque desunt acatholici interpretes, qui ad libri authentiam impugnandam Baruchum a. 5. post urbis destructionem in Babyloniam venire aut coram lechonia captivo librum suum legere potuisse negant; at prudentiores has difficultates merito omittunt, quum evidens sit nihil obstare, quominus Baruch a. 4. vel 2. post destructionem urbis cum lIeremia in Aegyptum profectus a magistro suo quatuor vel tribus annis postea ad consolandos et exhortandos exsules in Babyloniam sit missus ibique etiam coram lechonia, cuius captivitas, quum se ipse in manus Chaldaeorum dedisset, non admodum erat dura, librum suum legerit.
« At, inquit Keil, etsi haec demus, tota tamen narratio contra historicam veritatem peccat : etenim Ioakim summus pontifex fuisse dicitur (1,7), vasa sacra argentea, quae Sedecias fecerat et Nabuchodonosor asportaverat, Iu- :daeis asseruntur esse restituta (4,8), Baltassar vocatur filius Nabuchodonosor (4,44 sq.) » '?. — Tanti viritamen pace «summum pontificem » (Hoherpriester) vocari loakim negaverim; vocatur enim 6 fepeóc, quatenus nimirum eo tempore, quo losedec, qui iure haereditatis summum sacerdotium tenuit, in captivitate erat, parvae Iudaeorum communitati, quae in Ierusalem iterum sese formaverat, praeerat et inter alios sacerdotes vices summi sacerdotis videtur gessisse; ex eius genealogia scilicet non immerito colligitur, eum ex summi sacerdotis familia fuisse '*. — Porro quam difficultatem creent vasa sacra argentea in Iudaeam reportata (1,8), non videmus, nisi quis Sedeciam eiusmodi vasa fecisse cum effrenatis rationalistis negaverit !*. Res enim satis clara videtur esse. Primis duabus civitatis expugnationibus Nabuchodonosor pretiosiora vasa aurea templi abstulerat et idolis suis consecraverat (Dan. 1,2; 2 Paral. 36,1; 4 Reg. 24,11 sqq.); quare Sedecias, ne cultus templi interrumperetur, pro aureis argentea vasa conficienda curavit. Quae in tertia expugnatione etiam ablata quidem sunt, sed ob vilitatem suam in idolorum templis non collocata, ita ut Iudaei in Babylonia degentes ea redimere et lerosolyma remittere potuerint; a Cyro demum restituta sunt vasa aurea, « quae posuerat Nabuchodonosor in templo dei sui » (1. Esdr. 4,7). Optime igitur omnia conciliantur nec difficultati est locus. — Tertiam obiectionem de Baltassar fllio Nabuchodonosor saltem Keil afferre non debuit, quippe qui, ut Dan. 5. contra rationalistarum difficultates defendat, fuse ostendere conatur, Evilmerodach, filium et successorem Pado dongsoR, alio nomine vocatum esse Baltassar !*.
« Sed auctor, inquit, sibi ipse contradicit, quia josooigmis destructis templum, altare, cultum perdurasse supponit (4,10. 14), et vix 5. anno post urbem deletam iam populum dicit maAawo07voi dv y, djo:p(n » (3,10)!*. — Prior difficultas facile solvitur allatis Jer. 41,5 et 1 Esdr. 2,68, quibusex textibus apparet a.) etiam ruinas templi destructi vocatas esse « domum
Domini » eadem ratione, qua Bar. 1,10. 14; b.) etiam post destructum templum in eius ruinis sacrificia non plane cessasse, ac proin ibi altare adfuisse. Nam viri Sichemitae venerunt « munera (nm325, sacrificia incruenta) et thus habentes in manu, ut offerrent in domo Domini » (Jer. 44,5). Quod si Kcil (1. c.) monet, aliud esse « dona afferre ad domum Domini » et aliud « dvag£pttv irl 15 Qucaatipiov », id nequaquam negamus, sed in memoriam illi revocamus ea, quae ipse ad Zerem. 41,5 adnotavit, saltem incruenta sacrificia etiam post templi destructionem in eius ruinis oblata esse, illumque interrogamus, quo argumento demonstrare velit, cruenta non esse oblata, quoniam ipse dubitet, an voluntaria sacrificia incruenta sine cruentis unquam offerre licuerit '*. — Altera obiectio adversario nostro parum videtur esse digna, quum ignorare nequeat, in alexandrina versione verbum maAXoo0002: hebraico na (emarcuit) respondere neque proin longum temporis spatium supponere; leremias brevi post destructionem iam conqueritur : énaAaioot (53) tác adpxac uoo (Tren. 3,4) !*.
(Introd. III. p. 429), De Wette Schrader (Einl. p. 602) aliisque acatholicis interpretibus. . . 11. Ctr genealogiam Ioakim Bar. 1,7 cum I Paral. 6,13 (5,39).
13, Keil Einl. p. 422 sq.; eiusdem Comm. ü. d. Proph. Daniel p. 135-148. — Alii censent, Baltassarem Bar. 1,11 et Dan. 5. non filium, sed nepotem Nabuchodonosori ex ciusdem filia fuisse, nimirum Nabonidi, ultimi regis Babyloniae, filium, cuius nomen Baltassar in inscriptionibus cuneiformibus legitur (cfr Vigourouxz L& Bible et les découvertes modernes IV. p. 453-481; Schrader Keilinschr. u. A. T. p. 433 sq. etc.). Nihil obstare censemus , quominus Dan. 5. ille Nabonidi filius intelligatur, quin etiam si id admiltitur, relatio prophetae monumentis profanis haud parum confirmatur ; at Bar. 1,11 Baltassar filius Nabuchodonosor stricto sensu intelligatur oportet. Quomodo enim Baruch (« orate pro Nabuchodonosor regc et pro Baltassar filio eius ») Evilmerodach, qui patri in throno successurus erat, nomen omiltere eiusque in locum nomen nepotis substituere potuit, qui quum per matrem dumtaxat a Nabuchodonosor descenderet, ius ad thronum non habuit? Praeterea a. 5. post destructionem Ierusalem (a. 581) Baltassar, filius Nabonidi, nondum erat natus; iuvenis enim erat, quando Cyrus Babyloniam expugnavit. Cfr infra 284. p. 469 sq.
QuaAEsriO III. — De Prophetiae Baruch et de Epistolae Ieremiae canonicitate 7 paragraphs
273. — Quoniam nec Baruchilibellus nec Epistola leremiae in hodierno canone Iudaeorum habentur, Protestantes quoque eos inter apocrypha scripta amandarunt, hac in re aeque parum cum antiqua synagoga atque cum antiqua Ecclesia consentientes. Quemadmodum diximus, Daniel in sua oratione ita sequitur priorem libelli Bar. partem, ut eius verba omnino sua faciat (Dan. 9); Iudas Mach. autem et synedrium
8 19. — De praecipuis commentariis catholicis in Ieremiae libros et Prophetiam Baruch.
975. — Inter PATRES ORIENTALES , qui leremiae libris interpretandis operam suam impenderunt , primus iterum est Origenes , quem vaticinia quadraginta quinque homiliis, Threnos quinque voluminibus (ó- pow) illustrasse referunt Eusebius et Cassiodorus!. Quatuordecim ex homiliis origenianis S. Hieronymus latine reddiderat; quae omnes nobis letine sunt conservatae atque duodecim ex iis etiam graece cum septem aliis, quas Hieronymus non verterat. Ex catenis praeterea excerpta sunt satis multa fragmenta Scholiorum et Commentariorum, quibus Origenes Vaticinia et Lamentationes explicaverat?. Eusebius Caes. in suis Eclogis propheticis pauca admodum ex leremiae Vaticiniis , pauciora ex Threnis et Baruch attigit; S. CArysostomi autem una dumtaxat exstat homilia in leremiae textum quendam (10,23), qua liberi arbitrii adversarios perstringit; paucissima quoque nobis supersunt S. Cyrilli Alex. frag-. menta?. S. Ephraem pro more suo breviter sensum literalem maxime sectatus est in Vaticiniis leremiae commentandis; scholia eius in Threnos in Severi Edesseni catena nuper inventa et edita sunt. Integrum demum commentarium eumque egregium, in quo etiam solus sensus literalis exhibetur, nobis transmisit Theodoretus duodecim tomis, quorum decem priores Vaticinia, undecimus Baruch, duodecimus Threnos complectuntur; orationem tamen leremiae (TÀren. 5) eiusque Epistolam (Bar. 6.) praetermisit*. Proxime eum secutus est Olymprodorus omnia scripta, etiam illa à praedecessore omissa, commentariis instruens, quorum non supersunt nisi fragmenta in catenis conservata, quae concinnavit I. M. Caryophilus Cret5. en
Pauca de leremia nobis reliquerunt orientales, pauciora LATINI PATRES. Inter quos primus, ne dicam solus, nominandus est S. Hieronymus, qui
MEDIA AETATE leremiae Threni Vaticiniis frequentius videntur esse explicati. Longam Lamentationum expositionem quinque integris libris ita dedit Paschasius Radbertus, u& « non minus ad civitatis ruinam, quam ad Ecclesiae damna et animarum discrimen » eas referret; Guibertus Abb. solam tropologiam in iis interpretandis secutus est, Rupertus Tuit. vero in suis commentariis in lerem. proph., in quibus paucissima de Vaticiniis, plurima de Threnis exhibet, ad sensum literalem maiorem attentionem convertit, at Hugo a S. Vict., etsilibrum suum inscribat « adnotatiunculas elucidatorias in Threnos secundum multiplicem sensum et primo secundum literalem », allegoriis iterum integrum fere locum attribuit duoque sola capita absolvit?. Inter scAolasticos interpretes quoque S. Bonaventura et Ioannes Latheburius , O. Miu., mysticam et tropologicam Threnorum explicationem praetulerunt!6, literalem autem, mystico non plane relicto, B. Albertus M., Card. Hugo, S. Thomas, Nicol. Lyranus. B. Albertus M. etiam libellum Baruch, S. Thomas vaticinia Ieremiae bonis commentariis illustrarunt; consueto suo more leremiae et Baruch libros interpretati sunt Card. Hugo, Lyranus, Dionysius Carth.
SaEcuLo 16. sola Ieremiae Vaticinia explicaverunt Silv. Meuc?us et Andr. Capella, sola capp. 2-4 leremiae Andr. Masius, Vaticinia et Threnos Nat. Taillepied, omnes tres libros Ioan. Maidonatus, solos Threnos Petr. Nunn. Delgado , Hect. Pintus, Ant. Agellius!?. Praecedentia lamen tempora fertilitate sua longe superavit prima pars sakcuLi 17., sive numerum sive praestantiam commentariorum spectas. Omissis totius Scripturae aut multorum V. T. librorum expositoribus, ex quibus tamen hoc loco mentione speciali dignus est 7AÀom. Malvenda, quinquaginta illis annis omnia nostra scripta (Vatic. Thren. Bar.) explicata sunt a CAréstophoro de Castro, Petr. de Figueiro, Christ. Costero, Casp. Sanctio, quibus addendus M?ch. GAislertus , licet non integrum Vaticiniorum librum absolverit!3. Vaticiniis solis curam suam impendit Thom. de Beira, soli cp. 1. vaticiniorum Ben. Mandina^; solis Threnis J. B. Navarette, Mart. Del Rio, Ioannes a Iesu, Seb. Costa de Andrada , Bald. Iunius, Franc. de Lemos'5; soli prophetiae Baruch Laelius Bisciola et Petr. Lansellius!9. Interroganti, quinam ex his sint praeferendi, respondebimus, copia rerum Mich. Ghislerium omnes superasse nec posse eius opus facile negligi; accurata tamen et diligenti explicatione praestare Sanctium, in Threnis interpretandis Martinum Del Rio et in Baruch Lansellium videri praeferendos. Altera pars saec. 17. et SAECULUM 18., si Aug. Calmeti commentarium exceperis, ni-
Com. in eiusdem Lanrent. Lugduni 1615. (Opp. I.); — Christ. Costeri In Ierem. Proph. et Bar. Comment. Moguntiae 1616.; — Casp. Sanctii 8. I. Comm. in Ierem. (Vatic. Thren. Ps. 136) Lugduni 1618.; in Bar. 1621.; — Mich. Ghislerii, Clor. Reg., In Ieremiam (i. e. in cpp. 1-5) comment. iuxta sensum liter., myst., moràl., et iuxta lectiones Vulg., Hebr., Chald., Graec. cum catena graec. Patrum gr. et lat. a I. M. Caryophilo Cret., recognita & L. Allatio. Item in Lament. et Bar. cum iisdem catenis graecis et latinis ex versione Allatii. Lugd. 1623. 3. voll. fol.
Cornelius a Lapide
Preface 5 paragraphs
It is asked, first, whether the Book of Baruch is a canonical book? Calvin, Kemnitius, and among Catholics John Driedo, book I On Scripture, final chapter, deny it. St. Jerome also seems to deny it in the Preface to Jeremiah, as do Lyra, Dionysius and some others. First, because it is not in the canon of the Hebrews, nor does it exist in Hebrew. Second, because St. Gregory of Nazianzus in his Poem, St. Jerome in the Helmeted Prologue, Damascenus, book IV On Faith, chapter XVIII, when they enumerate the canonical books, omit Baruch. Third finally, because it seems false that after the devastation of the temple and altar, it says in chapter I, 10, that holocausts were offered in Jerusalem and feasts were celebrated.
But now it is a matter of faith that the Book of Baruch is canonical, and in this all the orthodox now agree. Thus the Councils of Florence and Trent define it in the decree on canonical books. The same is evident from St. Cyril, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and of Nyssa, from Eusebius, Athanasius, Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose, who cite it as canonical. See Bellarmine, book I, On the Word of God, chapter VIII. To the first I respond that many books are in the canon of Christians which were not in the canon of the Hebrews, such as the books of the Maccabees, Tobias, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom. To the second I respond that the ancients who omit Baruch comprehend it under the name of Jeremiah, whose scribe he was, as will soon be evident. To the third I will respond at chapter I, 10.
That Baruch once existed in Hebrew and was written in that language is beyond doubt: our Latin edition also hebraizes; whence it appears to be translated from Hebrew, not from Greek; for the Greek is sometimes more abundant than ours; and ours often differs from the Greek.
It is asked, second, what is the argument of this book? I respond: The first chapter contains: an epistle of the Jews in Babylonian captivity, which they themselves write and send to the Jews who were in Jerusalem with money collected by themselves, and the book of Baruch, which book begins at chapter I, 15. Chapter II, Baruch delivers a pious prayer to be used by the Jews in captivity, by which confessing their sins, they obtain remission from God. Chapter III, he exhorts the captives to return to God and to God's law, and thus reconcile God to themselves. Chapter IV, he introduces Jerusalem as it were as a mother, weeping over the captivity of her children. Chapter V, he consoles them with hope of a swift and joyful return to their homeland. Chapter VI, is the epistle of Jeremiah, by which he admonishes the Jews, when they were already being led away into Babylon, how they ought to conduct themselves there regarding idols.
Note: The book is called the Book of Baruch, either because Baruch is the author, as Lyra and Dionysius wish, or rather because Baruch wrote it, as he himself testifies in chapter I, 1, with Jeremiah dictating, namely: whence the Fathers throughout cite and call this book the Book of Jeremiah: see them in Maldonatus in the Preface, and in Christopher of Castro in chapter I, 1. For when Jeremiah had persuaded King Jeconiah to obey God and surrender himself and his people to Nebuchadnezzar, and to migrate to Babylon, he composed this paraenetic and consolatory book, which he gave to Baruch, so that he might carry it to Babylon for the consolation of the exiles and to raise up their hope: he gave it, I say, not so much in writing as by word; but Baruch, after the death of Jeremiah, wrote this book and published it.
Argument 2 paragraphs
For, Jerusalem having been laid waste, Baruch with Jeremiah was carried away into Egypt by the fleeing Jews, as Josephus testifies, indeed as Jeremiah testifies in chapter XLIV; and when Jeremiah had been stoned there by the Jews, and soon Nebuchadnezzar was about to lay waste Egypt, Baruch departed thence to Babylon, so that he might console the Jews, and there in the fifth year after Jerusalem was laid waste, which was the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, he wrote this book, as is evident from chapter I, 2. This book was therefore written after Jerusalem was destroyed, not before, concerning which more at chapter I, 2.
It is asked, third, who and what manner of person was Baruch? I respond: He was of a noble family, thus Josephus in Antiquities X, XI; for he had a brother Seraiah, a prince: both indeed were the son of Neriah, son of Maaseiah, as is evident from chapter LI of Jeremiah, chapter LIX, compared with chapter I, 1 here. Again, Baruch was a disciple, follower and scribe of Jeremiah, and a sharer and companion in his labors and tribulations. Wherefore from the wisdom, patience, zeal and sanctity of Jeremiah it is easy to conjecture how wise, patient, zealous and holy Baruch was. Whence Baruch in Hebrew means blessed. Third, the Hebrews relate that not only was Baruch a prophet, but also his father Neriah, his grandfather Maaseiah, his great-grandfather Sedecias, his great-great-grandfather Sedei: for he names them in chapter I, 1. For it is a rule of the Hebrews that all those were prophets whom some prophet commemorates at the beginning of his book as it were as his progenitors: whether this is true will be examined elsewhere. This book is thought (and this is gathered from its history) to have been written at the same time as the Book of Tobias: whence by some it is placed after that one.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.