What is the book of Baruch?

BARUCH, BOOK OF. This forms part of the O.T. Apocrypha, though its professed author is Baruch, the friend and secretary of Jeremiah. It relates that the Jews in Babylon sent a deputation to Jerusalem with money for sacrifices, and requested that prayers might be offered for Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. It confesses that their sufferings were in consequence of their sins. It points to the sin of neglecting the source of wisdom, and exhorts to a return. It laments over Jerusalem; but exults in its future blessing. It ends with an Epistle of Jeremiah to those who were to be led captive into Babylon, warning them against the idols they would find there. It is generally agreed that the book was not written by its assumed author, but there is great diversity of opinion as to its probable date: some placing it B.C. 160, and others not till B.C. 79-69.

With the Synod of Laodicea (363), we meet with a better appreciation on the part of Greek-speaking Christians of the difference between the two classes of Books. Amongst the proceedings of this Synod is a specification of the 'Canonical Books of the New and of the Old Covenant.' This extends to all the Books that compose our present Bible, with slight difference of names, but takes in Baruch (Greek), which no Protestants accept, notwithstanding that Coverdale included this book in the first edition of his English Bible. If Oehler be right, Baruch was omitted in the old Latin translation of the Laodicean Canon. Westcott, however, supports the view of some German critics, that the list of Books given was a later addition. Although this assembly seems to have been composed of Arians, its decree was ratified by a council held at Constantinople in 692. Athanasius, who was living at the time of the Synod, held similar language; Cyril of Jerusalem, his contemporary, in offering advice to catechumens (cf. Greek of Luke 1:4), recommended the reading of Canonical Books alone. The language employed by Cyril is most precise.

On the other hand, the most flagrant errors are discernible in the Apocrypha. Take only Baruch 1:2, compared with Jer. 43:6-7. Of Tobit we may say that it carries its own condemnation upon almost every page.

After the Book of Nehemiah come Tobit and Judith, then Esther, &c.; after the Canticles, Wisdom, followed by Ecclesiasticus; next Isaiah; Baruch follows Lamentations; and after Malachi come the books of the Maccabees; finally, at the end of the New Testament, the Prayer of Manasseh, with 2 and 3 Esdras, as a supplement, reference being made to their exclusion from the Tridentine Canon. — The Preface to the Clementine edition was written by the celebrated Bellarmine.

The Council of Trent in A.D. 1546, professing to be guided by the Holy Spirit, declared the Apocrypha to be a part of the Holy Scripture. The above fourteen books formed part of the English Authorised Version of 1611, but are now seldom attached to the canonical books. Besides the above there are a few others, as the III., IV., and V. Maccabees, book of Enoch, etc., not regarded by any one as a part of scripture. It may be noticed

That the canonical books of the O.T. were written in Hebrew (except parts of Ezra and Daniel which were in Chaldee); whereas the Apocrypha has reached us only in Greek or Latin, though Jerome says some of it had been seen in Hebrew.

The following statements are important to remember: No portion of the Apocrypha was written in Hebrew, but all in Greek, although by Jews, and never formed part of the Hebrew canon. It was written more than a century after the completion of the Old Testament. It was never regarded by the Jews or their writers as possessing the slightest claim to inspiration. Neither the Lord nor Apostles ever cited from, or referred to, the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha.

The Hebrew Bible or Old Testament was completed with Malachi. Then about 284 B.C. the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Sacred Hebrew Books was begun, and finished about 130 years before Christ. But long after the Old Testament was complete in Hebrew, certain books were written by Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere — dates and names of authors being uncertain — which were bound up with the Septuagint. These books are termed The Apocrypha. They are useful as connecting links of history between the Testaments, but are utterly destitute of Divine authority, nor do the books themselves claim to be inspired. The difference between the Apocrypha and the Hebrew Bible as to character, style, and subjects are patent even to a child.

Though the Apocrypha is supposed to have been written not later than B.C. 30, the Lord never in any way alludes to any part of it; nor do any of the writers of the N.T., though both the Lord and the apostles constantly quote the canonical books.

The Jews did not receive the Apocrypha as any part of scripture, and to 'them were committed the oracles of God.'

As some of the spurious books were added to the LXX Version (the O.T. in the Greek) and to the Latin translation of the LXX, some of the early Christian writers were in doubt as to whether they should be received or not, and this uncertainty existed more or less until the before mentioned Council of Trent decided that the greater part of the Apocrypha was to be regarded as canonical. Happily at that time the Reformation had opened the eyes of many Christians to the extreme corruption of the church of Rome, and in rejecting the claims of that church they were also freed from its judgement as to the Apocryphal books.

The Roman Catholic Church receives as canonical, certain books which are rejected by the Reformers, and called by them The Apocrypha. This word signifies what is concealed, and seems originally to have been applied to those books which were not published and universally known as canonical Scriptures; but were confined to some few heretical congregations, known only to them, and concealed except from the initiated. And then it came to mean, as with us, specially those books sometimes classed as belonging to the Old Testament, but never received by the Jews as such. These books were appended to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, and thence transferred to the Vulgate or Latin translation made from the Septuagint. Some of these books, as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are in every way to be recommended, as containing wise and pious precepts, though not directly sanctioned by Divine authority. The books of Maccabees are good and reliable history. While others are mere extravagant romances, of no value whatever.

Let it be observed that the Roman Church does not deny the fact upon which the Reformers proceeded — viz., that these Apocryphal books were never received as canonical by the Jews. It will be seen, on reference to the preface of the Douay Bible — i.e., the English version of the Bible sanctioned by the Roman Church — that the canonicity of the Apocrypha is made to rest, solely on the dogmatic authority of the Church.

There is one circumstance connected with the Septuagint that must not be passed over. It was here that first appeared the books called Apocrypha; and from it were transferred to the Vulgate, where the church of Rome decided that they are to remain. The reformers rejected them from the Canon, because they had never been in the Hebrew; and did not therefore form part of the Jewish Bible, when our Saviour fixed the seal of his authority upon it.