Something is Bothering me

[DHK]

Here is what wikipedia says about Baruch:

"The Book of Baruch, occasionally referred to as 1 Baruch, is called a deuterocanonical book of the Bible. Although not in the Hebrew Bible, it is found in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate Bible, and also in Theodotion's version.[1] There it is found among the prophetical books which also include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets. It is named after Baruch ben Neriah, Jeremiah's scribe."

It doesn't sound like Baruch was Jeremiah. What am I missing?

Here is what you are missing.
Have you ever read carefully the book that is called Baruch?
From the internal evidence of the book it seems clearly evident that the book was written after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70, A.D.
That being the case this book was not only written after the close of the OT canon, it was written after 80% of the NT books were written. It shatters any thought that the Apocrypha should be included in the OT canon when you have a book that is written after most of the NT was written. How ludicrous! Here is the Septuagint written 250 B.C., and the Hebrew O.T. completed 400 B.C. and the Catholics claiming that a book written in 70 A.D. ought to be included along with the OT books???
What sense does this make?

 

[Zenas]

Here is what you are missing.
Have you ever read carefully the book that is called Baruch?
From the internal evidence of the book it seems clearly evident that the book was written after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70, A.D.
That being the case this book was not only written after the close of the OT canon, it was written after 80% of the NT books were written. It shatters any thought that the Apocrypha should be included in the OT canon when you have a book that is written after most of the NT was written. How ludicrous! Here is the Septuagint written 250 B.C., and the Hebrew O.T. completed 400 B.C. and the Catholics claiming that a book written in 70 A.D. ought to be included along with the OT books???
What sense does this make?

I don't know about Lori but yes, I have read the book of Baruch and I am not aware of any internal evidence that it was written after 70 A.D. Are you speaking of the writer's reference to cannibalism in the seiged city? If so, I think you need more than that because the troops of Nebuchadnezzar laid seige to Jerusalem for two years and Jeremiah states there was no food in the city. When food is absent to the point people are dying of starvation, you will usually find cannibalism.

 

[DHK]

I don't know about Lori but yes, I have read the book of Baruch and I am not aware of any internal evidence that it was written after 70 A.D. Are you speaking of the writer's reference to cannibalism in the seiged city? If so, I think you need more than that because the troops of Nebuchadnezzar laid seige to Jerusalem for two years and Jeremiah states there was no food in the city. When food is absent to the point people are dying of starvation, you will usually find cannibalism.

Bar.5
[1] Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment of mourning and affliction, and put on the comeliness of the glory that cometh from God for ever.
[2] Cast about thee a double garment of the righteousness which cometh from God; and set a diadem on thine head of the glory of the Everlasting.
[3] For God will shew thy brightness unto every country under heaven.
[4] For thy name shall be called of God for ever The peace of righteousness, and The glory of God's worship.
[5] Arise, O Jerusalem, and stand on high, and look about toward the east, and behold thy children gathered from the west unto the east by the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the remembrance of God.
[6] For they departed from thee on foot, and were led away of their enemies: but God bringeth them unto thee exalted with glory, as children of the kingdom.
[7] For God hath appointed that every high hill, and banks of long continuance, should be cast down, and valleys filled up, to make even the ground, that Israel may go safely in the glory of God,
[8] Moreover even the woods and every sweetsmelling tree shall overshadow Israel by the commandment of God.
[9] For God shall lead Israel with joy in the light of his glory with the mercy and righteousness that cometh from him.

This is the entire fifth or last chapter of the book.
Compare the first verse to the last verse. The first verse the author is mourning for the city of Jerusalem (or its destruction), as Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, mourned for the destruction of Jerusalem in his time. But this letter we all know is not that old.
In the last verse the writer reassures Israel that God will lead Israel with joy in the light of his glory. The nation will be restored. This looks forward to the Millennial Kingdom or the time after Christ comes for the Jews.
However, the destruction referred to in the first verse, that which is being mourned over, is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus. Remember that all the apocryphal books were written in Greek and in the intertestamental period: after the completion of the OT, and before the NT.

 

[Matt Black]

I believe it has always been settled, and one could strongly argue it was affirmed at the Synod of Jamnia ( 90 AD).

That presupposes that Jamnia-Yavneh was a council fixed in time; in reality it was more of a 'school' that reached such decisions more gradually. Nevertheless, its decision re the Jewish canon is noteworthy, but unfortunately it doesn't support your argument. You see, one needs to look at the reasoning behind Jamnia's decision re the canon, which is roughly as follows:

1. The Jews had been punished by Jehovah in the destruction of the Temple. Therefore they must have done something wrong to offend Him. The question was: what was that?

2. The Jamnia school gave the answer to question #1 above as being corruption by polluting goyim influences. Jamnia in particular identified two such influences:

a. The use of Greek in their sacred writings. The Jamnia Jews therefore resolved to ditch the LXX; by 200AD, in consequence, no Jewish Scriptures used by them appeared in Greek.

b. The presence of minim (=lit. 'sectaries', but they meant by this term the Christians, particularly Jewish Christians) in their midst. Therefore the Jamnia Jews expelled the minim from their synagogues (as prophesied by Jesus eg: in Mark 13:9 and reflected in some of the anti-Jewish polemic of the Johannine corpus eg: Jn 8:41-44; 9:22; Rev 3:9) and rejected their sacred literature, including the 7 deuterocanonical books. Therefore we have clear evidence that the early Christians did use the Apocrypha as part of their OT canon and that the Jamnia Jews rejected the Apocrypha partly because of that and also partly because it was in Greek (see # 2a above).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44

The five books of Moses

The thirteen books of the prophets: Joshua, Judges/Ruth, Samuel (1 & 2), Kings (1 &2), Chronicles (1&2), Ezra/Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah/Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, and Song of Solomon.

Four books of hymns/psalms: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job

Total 22

The Tanakh list them this way
Torah (1st 5 books):
1. Genesis - Bereshith
2. Exodus - Shemot
3. Leviticus - Vayikra
4. Numbers - Bamidbar
5. Deuteronomy - Devarim
Neviim :
6. Joshua (יהושע / Y'hoshua)
7. Judges (שופטים / Shophtim)
8. Samuel (I & II) (שמואל / Sh'muel)
9. Kings (I & II) (מלכים / M'lakhim)
10. Isaiah (ישעיה / Y'shayahu)
11. Jeremiah (ירמיה / Yir'mi'yahu)
12. Ezekiel (יחזקאל / Y'khezqel)
13. The Twelve Prophets (תרי עשר)
Ketuvim:
14. Psalms [תהלים / Tehillim]
15. Proverbs [משלי / Mishlei]
16. Job [איוב / Iyov]
The "Five Megilot" or "Five Scrolls":
17. Song of Songs [שיר השירים / Shir Hashirim]
18. Ruth [רות / Rut]
19. Lamentations [איכה / Eikhah]
20. Ecclesiastes [קהלת / Kohelet]
21. Esther [אסתר / Esther]
The rest of the "Writings":
22. Daniel [דניאל / Dani'el]
23. Ezra-Nehemiah [עזרא ונחמיה / Ezra v'Nechemia]
24. Chronicles (I & II) [דברי הימים / Divrei Hayamim

Or 24 books.

 

[Zenas]

This is the entire fifth or last chapter of the book.
Compare the first verse to the last verse. The first verse the author is mourning for the city of Jerusalem (or its destruction), as Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, mourned for the destruction of Jerusalem in his time. But this letter we all know is not that old.
In the last verse the writer reassures Israel that God will lead Israel with joy in the light of his glory. The nation will be restored. This looks forward to the Millennial Kingdom or the time after Christ comes for the Jews.
However, the destruction referred to in the first verse, that which is being mourned over, is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus. Remember that all the apocryphal books were written in Greek and in the intertestamental period: after the completion of the OT, and before the NT.

Maybe so, but you (or whoever you got this from) don't conclude that Baruch was written after 70 A.D. Instead you say, "that all the apocryphal books were written in Greek and in the intertestamental period." This is in fact the position taken by most people--Catholics, Jews and non-Catholic Christians. If the writher was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus it doesn't mean it was written after 70. It simply means the writer was prophetic. The exact same garbage has been offered by "scholars" who say Isaiah 40-66 had to have been written after the exile because it relates events that Isaiah coud not have known about because they occured after Isaiah's death.

There are a couple of other possibilities concerning Baruch, one that it was really written by Baruch in Hebrew and was translated into the Greek during the intertestemental period. The other possibility is that what Baruch wrote was soon lost but his words were passed down through oral tradition and finally reduced to Greek by someone in the intertestemental period. Either of these theories would naturally point to the Babylonian conquest and not to the Roman conquest.

 

[DHK]

There are a couple of other possibilities concerning Baruch, one that it was really written by Baruch in Hebrew and was translated into the Greek during the intertestemental period. The other possibility is that what Baruch wrote was soon lost but his words were passed down through oral tradition and finally reduced to Greek by someone in the intertestemental period. Either of these theories would naturally point to the Babylonian conquest and not to the Roman conquest.

And what evidence would you offer for either one of these?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Maybe so, but you (or whoever you got this from) don't conclude that Baruch was written after 70 A.D. Instead you say, "that all the apocryphal books were written in Greek and in the intertestamental period." This is in fact the position taken by most people--Catholics, Jews and non-Catholic Christians. If the writher was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus it doesn't mean it was written after 70. It simply means the writer was prophetic. The exact same garbage has been offered by "scholars" who say Isaiah 40-66 had to have been written after the exile because it relates events that Isaiah coud not have known about because they occured after Isaiah's death.

There are a couple of other possibilities concerning Baruch, one that it was really written by Baruch in Hebrew and was translated into the Greek during the intertestemental period. The other possibility is that what Baruch wrote was soon lost but his words were passed down through oral tradition and finally reduced to Greek by someone in the intertestemental period. Either of these theories would naturally point to the Babylonian conquest and not to the Roman conquest.

Most students of the LXX place the books during 300 to 100 BC. There are recensions that date afterwards such as the Hexpala by Origen but there is nothing to suggest that the books of the LXX were writen after Christ save people who want to push and agenda.
The LXX was most likey began with the OLD LXX made during the intertestimental period. Later we have 3 jewish recenssions Aquila, Theodotian, Symmachus. The Christian Lucian goes back to the Older text and updates aspects and Origen attempts to have the three Jewish recenssions listed side by side with a very literal translation from Hebrew sources as well as older greek in his translation thus creating the 6 side by side lines for the hexpala. Because new translations were being attempted after Christ does not mean the books were not there before christ. Thats like following the argument that the entire ot was writen during the captivity except for some passages from torah.

 

[Zenas]

And what evidence would you offer for either one of these?

Only that it would explain why we have such a work written in the second century B.C. There is also this entry in JewishEncyclopedia.com: "That the first part of the book was originally written in Hebrew is probable, both from the Hebraic character of the diction and from the fact that certain errors in the Greek are explicable as misunderstandings of Hebrew words."

I have gone back and reread Baruch and am even more convinced that it was not written after 70 A.D. 1:14 is a direction to read it in the temple on the days of the feasts (not possible after 70). 2:17 suggests a primative O.T. understanding of Sheol that would not have been prevalent in the Christian era.

By the way, in Post #41 you say internal evidence shows Baruch was written after 70, but in Post #43 you say all the apocryphal books were written during the intertestemental period. Which is really your position on this?

 

[DHK]

Only that it would explain why we have such a work written in the second century B.C. There is also this entry in JewishEncyclopedia.com: "That the first part of the book was originally written in Hebrew is probable, both from the Hebraic character of the diction and from the fact that certain errors in the Greek are explicable as misunderstandings of Hebrew words."

That source is simply an encyclopedia. It doesn't state that the book was included in the canon. It only comments on its views of the book. Your view "only that it would explain why we have a work written in the second century B.C." is your premise, and it is without evidence or foundation.

I have gone back and reread Baruch and am even more convinced that it was not written after 70 A.D. 1:14 is a direction to read it in the temple on the days of the feasts (not possible after 70). 2:17 suggests a primative O.T. understanding of Sheol that would not have been prevalent in the Christian era.

I would grant that the date of the book is not set in stone. There has been much debate about it. I believe there is more evidence that puts the book toward a later date than an earlier date after reading what others have to say on the subject.

By the way, in Post #41 you say internal evidence shows Baruch was written after 70, but in Post #43 you say all the apocryphal books were written during the intertestemental period. Which is really your position on this?

Not all the apocryphal books; but the Apocrypha in general was one of the things that were said to be accomplished in the intertestamental period. It is a general statement. Some of the books certainly carried over beyond the birth of Christ. The "Apocrypha" in general was written in that time period, just as the Pharisees and Sadducees arose during the same period of time.

BTW, all the books in the OT canon as we have it today date before 400 B.C. The OT canon was closed at 400 B.C. To be included in the OT a book had to extant 400 B.C. or before. They also had to be written in Hebrew. None of the Apocryphal books fit that bill. There is no possible way that the Hebrews would ever accept them into the OT. They were never a part of the Bible, never a part of the OT. The could not have been on that point alone.

 

[billwald]

>The OT canon was closed at 400 B.

Closed by whom?

 

[DHK]

>The OT canon was closed at 400 B.

Closed by whom?

By the Hebrews themselves. Did you think that the Catholics had anything to do with the nation of Israel, and the Scriptures that they used?

 

[Matt Black]

And where's your evidence for that?

 

[Revmitchell]

As I study history and critically look at the scriptures I've developed some consern. For instance How did we settle with the Canon of the protestant OT? It doesn't seem to make sence. I often hear that Jesus supported a "canon" in his day by saying something about prophets from Able to Zachariah and that Zachariah being the last book in the prophet section of the Tanakh supports the Jewish exclussion of other books. However, it is clear that Jewish cannon for the OT wasn't settled until 300 AD. The Massorites are dated to about 500 AD long after the establishment of Christianity.

Looking at the Tanakh we see in the Neviim that the last prophet mentioned is Malachi and using Jesus support would exclude books like Malachi and the entire Ketuvim. Also why so much attention to Tanakh when its clear that the organization of most protestant bibles are based on the LXX? So, we organize our bibles like the LXX which is inclusive of other books but only select books from the Tanakh? When looking at Cannon when was it decided that only the 39 books of the OT were inspired? Long before the reformation canon was already determined by 4 councils and note that each of these councils include "appocryphal works".

In fact the more I study these matters the more I have in mind a continuum of books that are inspired rather than a hard canon. It seems in Jesus day canon was very fluid nature. Torah was accepted beyond any reproach. Yet other communities accepted other writing than the 39 books such as the qumran community and the alexandrian community. Certainly we don't know to what level the writer of Hebrew took the book of 2 Macc. Nor how much Jude took inspiration the Assumption of Moses or 1 Enoch. Studing the early writings of the Church there was considerable inspiration derived from these other books. In my mind I see a continuum in which certian books like those of the Torah were of Most importance and the 27 books of the NT followed suite as entirely inspired however other works were reviewed at verying levels of accepted inspiration. Note the apocryphal works were so important that King James commissioned that they would be included in his 1611 version. So there is a level of acceptance of an importance in these books. Why is it now we protestants have become so dogmatic about just these 39 books of the OT? When did this occur and how is it validated?

You are a Catholic pretending to be Baptist.

 

[Matt Black]

Or a Baptist asking legitimate questions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are a Catholic pretending to be Baptist.

You are always free to confirm by calling my baptist church and speaking with my pastor. BTW most of the stuff I question with regard to scripture are based on my studies into church history and the statements of people involved in textual critism like Bruce Metzger. Or works I've read by Norman Geisler. And there is a recent book I've read with regard to the LXX entitled "Invitation to the Septuigint" by Karen Jobes and Moises Silva. Neither which are Catholic. And I haven't even got to the questions I garnered fromt the book by Metzger "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition)"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Also something else I find interesting or disturbing with regard to scriptures. Scriptures are the History and plan of Salvation to man by God's will. Yet there is no referrence to infants with regard to salvation? Why do you suppose that is?

 

[webdog]

Also something else I find interesting or disturbing with regard to scriptures. Scriptures are the History and plan of Salvation to man by God's will. Yet there is no referrence to infants with regard to salvation? Why do you suppose that is?

Because they do not need "saving". They are not guilty in God's eye and Christ's blood covers them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Because they do not need "saving". They are not guilty in God's eye and Christ's blood covers them.

Thats just supposition. I could also suppose that they all go to hell and Christ blood doesn't cover them because they have not believed and were not saved.

 

[Matt Black]

Because they do not need "saving". They are not guilty in God's eye and Christ's blood covers them.

What about children who sin?