Skip to navigation | Skip to main content | Skip to footer
Search by multiple inventory points or book comparison
Full Inventory point list:
 
45 books found
 
     
4 Baruch (= Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (Researcher: Philip Alexander):
Selected Inventory point(s):
1.1 The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).

Full profile (Bibliography at the bottom):
1.1 The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries).

1.1.5 Important text witnesses attest to a heading which is not integrated with the body of the text or with any introductory frame, implying one or more of the kinds of information under 1.1.1–4: Greek mss give the title as Ta Paraleipomena Ieremiou tou Prophetou (lit. Matters Omitted from Jeremiah the Prophet). In the Ethiopic translation it is known as "The Rest of the Words of Baruch" [CHECK ETHIOPIC]. Neither title is specific as to form or boundedness, but does imply the existence of other texts attributed to Jeremiah/Baruch, which this text supplements and completes. The reference is probably not just to Bible, where Jeremiah and Baruch figure (though note that, in the Greek title, "Jeremiah the Prophet" is strictly-speaking not the person, but the biblical book, and so this title explicitly presents 4Bar as a supplement to the Bible), but to extensive post-biblical pseudepigrapha attributed to them (e.g., EpJer, 1-3Bar). The Greek term paraleipomena, which probably underlies the Ethiopic title as well (though possibly interpreted in the direction of authorship), suggests that the nature of this relationship broadly parallels that which pertains between the biblical Chronicles (Greek Paraleipomena) and the earlier historical books of the Bible. See further 7.1 below. Note that the titles do not necessarily imply authorship by Jeremiah/Baruch (not even the Ethiopic): they can be taken simply as indicating the main actor in the story. See further 2.1 below.

1.2 The text presents its internal sequence of sentences (or larger parts) as mirroring the objective relationships of components in the projected world (an objective order), or projects its subject matter as self-limiting (5.3.). See further under 4, 5.2–5 or 6.

1.6 The approximate word count or other indication of comparative size is:

1.7 The text’s Inventory profile should be seen in the light of the following further information on completeness, thematic progression, aesthetic effects, etc.: The text has neither a strong opening, nor a strong close. The egeneto with which it opens clearly echoes the opening of several biblical books (e.g. Joshua, Judges, Ruth), but is precisely intended to suggest that it slots into an ongoing narrative (see 7.1.4 below). The close has undergone Christian reworking: a Christian ending was added (4Bar 9:10-32). It has simply been tacked on, and its connection with the body of the text is managed by the rather crude transitional device, "and after these things (kai meta tauta)". In it Jeremiah is resurrected after three days and proceeds to prophesy the coming of "the Son of God, Jesus Christ", and is martyred by the Jewish people for his pains. This story, by the way, creates a striking "niche" (cf. 7.1.2.3 and 7.2.2.1) at 4Bar 9:28, where Jeremiah shares with Baruch and Abimelech "all the mysteries which he had seen" (presumably during the three days that his soul was out of his body: 4Bar 9:13) -- a revelation the content of which is nowhere disclosed in this text. The interpolated Christian ending, and so the whole book as it now stands, concludes with Baruch and Abimelech burying Jeremiah and raising an epitaph on his tomb. This provides a reasonably satisfactory narrative closure. If the book originally ended at 9:9, then it equally ended with the death of Jeremiah, though in this case he is mourned by the Jewish people: "And all the people heard their [Baruch and Abimelech's] lamentation, and they all ran to them, and saw Jeremiah lying dead on the ground. And they tore their garments, and put dust on their heads, and wept bitterly." No attempt is made, however, for example by a concluding benediction, to signal by any non-narrative means the end of the book. Overall, the overall shape of the text is narrative (4.1) through and through, in a way that 3Bar is not.

Top of the Page

2.1 The information conveyed in the text defines the perspective of the governing voice in the following way:

2.1.1 The text does not thematize how the governing voice comes to know the text’s contents (or its right to command obedience from the addressee), but suggests that its knowledge (or authority) is unlimited.

2.1.1.1 In narrative, the governing voice’s perspective tacitly is that of someone “present” at all events equally, regardless of their time, place, or nature (e.g. thoughts or private utterances of characters): Given that the narrative of 4Bar includes a wide variety of settings, and places (Jerusalem, Babylonia etc), as well as the thoughts of some of the characters, the "omniscience" of the governing voice is projected as extensive.

2.1.7 The governing voice (whether first or third person) is anonymous, that is, is not presented as tied to a specific personal identity (or to personhood in general): Note that even the ms titles of 4Bar, which stand outside the frame of the text, do not necessarily suggest that Jeremiah or Baruch are the authors (see 1.1.5 above). And, indeed, from a narrative perspective, this would be difficult to imagine. How could Jeremiah in Babylon have had such detailed knowledge of what was happening in Jerusalem to Baruch and Abimelech, or what they were thinking? Moreover, Jeremiah could hardly have reported his own death (9:31). This latter fact makes Baruch the more plausible "author", if author be sought. One could, perhaps, imagine Jeremiah and Abimelech providing Baruch with the information about themselves needed to write the book, but the text nowhere states that this is what happened, and so it seems content to present the perspective of the governing voice as "omniscent", like that of biblical narrative such as Ruth.

2.1.8 The governing voice speaks at no point in the first person (except for any 2.2.4.3) and all persons/objects are mentioned from a third-person perspective.

2.4 The governing voice defines a horizon of knowledge as shared with the projected addressee by taking for granted the following linguistic usages or references (in selection):

2.4.1 Persons or unique objects referred to by proper name or by technical expression: As for objects, note the reference to "the holy things, the holy vessels of your temple service" at 4Bar 3:6. For persons see 2.4.1.1 below.

2.4.1.1 for persons mentioned or presented in narrative usage; as characters; or topics, for example: Jeremiah (1:1; 2:2,6; 3:4; 4:3 etc); Baruch (1:1; 2:2 etc); the Chaldeans (1:5; 4:1); Abimelech (3:9; 5:1,17,18 etc); Agrippa (3:10); Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (4:9; 6:18); King Nebuchadnezzar (5:21; 7:14; 7:25); the raven of Noah (7:10); the Babylonians (7:23); [Jesus Christ (9:13)]; [the 12 Apostles (9:18)]; [Isaiah son of Amoz (9:20)]. Note the tendency of the author to delay identifying key elements in the story by name. For example, he does not explicitly name the city that has been destroyed as Jerusalem until 4:6, nor the king who destroyed it as Nebuchadnezzar until 5:21. He simply assumes that the readers will have no problem supplying this information from their own knowledge.

2.4.1.3 for Gods/mythical figures/supernatural beings, etc., for example: God is mentioned a number of times in the narrative, and plays a role as an actor in it. Note also: the God Zar (7:25)- the god on whom some of the Jews in Babylon call to save them. The name here is most obviously taken as a transliteration of the Heb. zar, "foreign, strange", and reflects the use of this adjective in the contect of alien, forbidden worship (cf. avodah zarah). It is not explicitly explained, but note the reference in the immediate context to theon allotrion. Angels (3;1,4; 6:1,18); two seraphim (8:3); Michael (9:5).

2.4.1.4 for locations, for example: Babylon (3:6; 4:5; 5:21 etc); the vineyard of Agrippa (3:10); the estate of Agrippa (3:15); Jerusalem (4:6,10; 5:7,17 etc); the Jerusalem above (5:34, unless this is code-word for heaven: cf. 2.4.2 below); the market of the Gentiles (6:16); the waters of the Jordan (6:23; 8:2,4); songs of Zion (7:29); Samaria (8:8); [Paradise (9:14)]; [the Mount of Olives (9:18)].

2.4.1.5 for times or calendar dates (specific to a language or culture), for example: Nisan (5:33).

2.4.2 circumlocutions, names or descriptions employed as “code” names: Possibly "the Jerusalem above" as a "code" word for heaven. See 2.4.1.4 above.

2.4.3 The text as a whole routinely employs the following language(s), knowledge of which is taken for granted: 4Bar was composed in Greek. Its "semitic" style is to be explained as due to the influence of the LXX, which constituted the Bible for the author.

2.4.3.1 Additional language(s) taken for granted in quoted speech or certain parts of the text are: Hebrew. This might be argued with regard to the word zar at 7:25, which is most obviously interpreted as the Hebrew "zar" meaning "strange or foreign" (see 2.4.1.3). But it is not at all clear that the author of 4Bar expected the reader to know this, or even that he knew it himself, though he seems implicitly to give the Greek translation of the term as allotrios.

2.4.4 Special linguistic usages occur pervasively or prominently: Note the cluster of unexplained allusions at 4Bar 3:8, "Hear, O earth, the voice of him who created you in the abundance of the waters, who sealed you with seven seals, with seven epochs; and thereafter you will receive your beauty." Some of the prayers quoted employ a liturgical style and linguistic usages which are hard to parallel elsewhere, but which is not mediated or explained. For example, Baruch's prayer at 3:9, "Our Power, our God, Lord, Elect Light that comes forth from his mouth, I entreat and beg of your goodness, Great Name that no-one can know, etc.". Or Jeremiah's prayer at 9:3-6, "Holy, holy, holy, incense of the living trees, true light that enlightens me until I be lifted up to you. For the sweet voice of the two seraphim I beg you for another fragrance of incense; I meditate on Michael, the archangel of righteousness, until he leads me into the righteous. I beg you, Lord Almighty of all creation, unbegotten and incomprehensible, in whom all creation was hidden before these things came into existence." Some have though the language is "Gnostic", but the theology is not Gnostic.

2.4.4.4 Biblicizing language, such that the text may be assumed to project itself as having a link to texts today known as biblical (see 7.1.4.1): 4Bar attempts to copy the narrative style of the narrative books of the Bible - a ploy intended to give it authenticity and help slot it into Biblical history, a ploy which will not work unless the reader recognizes the language as biblical. See further 7.1.4.1 below.

2.4.5 [The meaning of some linguistic usage or reference is addressed explicitly, marking it as not being part of the shared horizon of knowledge: One distinctive stylistic trait of 4Bar is the use of epithets: Jeremiah is called "father" (by Baruch: 2:2,4,6,8; and by Abimelech: 5:4), "chosen one" (1:4; 3:4,5; 7:15), "the priest" (5:18); Baruch is called "the reader" (anagnostes) and "the steward of the faith" (7:2); Abimelech, "the Ethiopian" (3:9); Michael, "the archangel of righteousness" (9:5). Jerusalem is referred to as "the city", "the chosen city", "God's holy city"; Israel as "the beloved people" (4:6) and "the chosen people of God" -- sometimes without the proper name, the epithet alone serving to identify the referent to the reader. In no case, however, does the addition of these epithets address the presumed ignorance of the reader. Quite the reverse, especially when the epithet is used on its own, without a proper name. The same can be said of 4Bar 8:8, "And upon hearing this, they [sc. the returnees who refused to repudiate their Babylonian wives] turned back and came to a deserted place far from Jerusalem, and they built a city for themselves, and called its name Samaria". The irony here should not be missed: the force of this statement depends, despite appearances to the contrary, on the reader knowing precisely what Samaria is, and what it stands for in Jewish perception. 4Bar is addressed exclusively to a particular in-group, with whom it shares a very specific epistemic horizon.]

2.6.1 [The governing voice uses apostrophe, second-person grammatical forms or first-person exclusive or inclusive “we”: Though characters within the narrative (Jeremiah and Baruch) use the inclusive "we" to identify themselves with the people of Israel (4:4,7,9; 6:18; 7:21), the governing voice never adopts this device or express identity or solidarity with its readers, or apostrophizes them. The governing voice remains on the surface a detached, neutral narrator.]

2.6.2 [The projected addressee is characterized as having a certain moral or epistemic stance, or as standing in contrast to another group’s moral or epistemic stance: The reader assumes that they are meant to identify with Jeremiah, Baruch and Abimelech, the three heroes of 4Bar, but this is nowhere made explicit in the text. In the Christian ending Baruch and Abimelech are set over against the Jews who martyr Jeremiah because he predicts the coming of Christ.]

2.6.5 [The governing voice employs exclamatory or declamatory modes of speech (cf. 8.1.13): Only indirectly through his characters.]

2.7 The epistemic stance, knowledge horizon, moral stance and identity of the governing voice, and of the projected addressee, do not become thematic in the text: The governing voice of 4Bar is remarkably detached and neutral.

Top of the Page

4.1 The text narrates events which are strongly emplotted, making reference to interlocking happenings, characters, motivations, causes, times or locations: 4Bar is a skilfully told tale, which manages well plot, causation, characterization, and location. The 66-year sleep of Abimelech, with his basket of figs that did not decay, symbolic of the preservation of Israel in exile, is particularly well handled, and with humour.

4.1.2 All subordinate events are presented as preparing one crisis and its solution, or as addressing one unified timespan/location, or as telling the fate of one character or a group of characters.

4.1.2.1 The narrative builds up one central narrative tension as having special intrinsic interest, or unites in some other way a number of narrative strands: The central crisis of 4Bar is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and the exile of the people to Babylon; the resolution is their return from Babylon to restore the city. The events take place in three main locations: Jerusalem, Agrippa's estate, and Babylon. The locations are linked by the movement of agents between them: Abimelech from Jerusalem to Agrippa's estate and back again, after his long sleep. Jeremiah from Jerusalem to Babylon, leading the people into exile, and then leading them back again on their return, a round-trip also undertaken, in the interim, by the eagle to communicate between Baruch and Jeremiah. The action starts and ends in Jerusalem, which is the primary locus of the story. The time-span is precisely defined as 66 years.

4.1.2.2 The action pivots around one character or a small set of inter-connected characters: The hero of 4Bar is Jeremiah: it begins and ends with him (though he can hardly be the author since it records his death: see 1.1.5 above). Baruch and Abimelech are subordinate to him (the former his disciple, the latter a slave), but are nonetheless important dramatis personae. More minor roles are played by God, the angels (acting as God's agents), the eagle, and the two "choruses" of the Israelites and the Babylonians.

4.1.3 The narrative provides a clear closure, or dwells on the closure: 4Bar closes with the death of Jeremiah, its hero, having achieved his life's purpose of leading the people back from exile to Jerusalem. There are two accounts of his death: the "original" ending at 9:9, and the "Christian" ending at 9:10-32 (see above 1.7).

4.1.4 The narrative foregrounds apparently exact information on the absolute and relative timing of events: 4Bar dates the beginning of its narrative to the destruction of Jerusalem by "the Chaldeans" and the taking of the people into captivity (4Bar 1:1), an event which it assumes the reader will have heard of, and can, at least roughly, place historically, and it states that the events it describes took place during the following 66 years (5:1,30). 4Bar. 8:1 ("and the day came") might be read as indicating the elapse of an unspecified, possibly long, period of time after the end of the 66 years, but the angel at 6:12 has already carefully limited this period to "fifteen days".

4.2 The event sequence is projected as related to the sequence of text parts as follows:

4.2.1 The report sequence mirrors the projected chronological sequence of events mostly or wholly, not precluding 4.2.2–5: Events are narrated in 4Bar in chronological order, though they form two separate clusters at the beginning and end of the time-span explicitly covered, with a gap in between (see 4.15 below). There is some implict analepsis at 7:14, and 7:24-27, where events in Babylon are mentioned which preceded the eagle's arrival there bearing Baruch's letter. In the second instance the mention takes the form of Jeremiah recalling in a letter things that had happened earlier, which had not been recorded by the governing voice. (There may be here an implicit limitation of the omniscience of the governing voice: see 2.1.1.1 above.) This backtracking is necessitated by the development of the plot which at this point divides the action between two locations. The action opens and closes with all the actors in one place, Jerusalem, interacting with one another, and so it can be presented in strictly chronological sequence, but in the middle section of the narrative it is split between Jerusalem and Babylon. The narrative in the middle section starts in Jerusalem, but once it reaches Babylon it was deemed necessary to allude to events that had happened there earlier.

4.2.2 There is use of prolepsis or analepsis: There is some weak flashback once the narrative reaches Babylon: see 4.2.1.

4.2.4 There are chronological gaps which are merely implied, or indicated but left vague: There is a 66-year gap in the narrative of 4Bar, implicitly managed by the device of Abimelech's long sleep: see 4.15 below.

4.8 [The text provides scene-setting information, other than the introduction of an I-narration: There is little or no scene-setting in 4Bar, though there are occasional topographical references (1:10; 3:1,10; 5:1,9,25,26; 6:1; 7:1,13, etc), nor, despite the author's penchant for epithets (see 2.4.5 above), is there any explicit introduction of the main characters.]

4.9 There is prominent or sustained characterization of key figures in the narrative.

4.9.2 All characterization is achieved only through reporting the actions, speech or thoughts of the characters ("dramatic"): In 4Bar the characterization is most effective in the case of Abimelech the Ethiopian: the account of his awaking from his long sleep is laced with comedy (see 8.3.8 below), and he comes across as a good but rather simple-minded person. Note his anxiety (at 5:4-5) to obey Jeremiah's instructions, though he still feels sleepy, despite his 66-year nap (5:4-5)!

4.9.3 A figure is characterized by her or his moral or religious traits: The epithets assigned to some of the main characters in 4Bar assign to them moral or religious traits: e.g. "chosen one" (Jeremiah), and "steward of the faith" (Baruch): see 2.4.5 above.

4.9.3.1 Moral/religious traits are manifestly linked to the ethnicity and/or gender of the figure: Jeremiah and Baruch, who are represented as good, clearly identify themselves with the people of Israel (see 2.6.1 above). But the people of Israel are not themselves straightforwardly good, because they are explicitly said to have sinned against God (1:1), but they repent (7:20) and are restored. See 4.10.1.

4.10 A character’s relations to her/his community are foregrounded, including any two-fold social environment (e.g. a diaspora setting): In 4Bar the people of Israel are depicted in two settings - in their homeland of Jerusalem, and in exile in Babylon. Jeremiah, the main protagonist of the story functions in both settings.

4.10.1 A main character is portrayed as being integrated in one societal environment but as in conflict with a second environment: In 4Bar there are three main groups: (1) the hero (Jeremiah) and his friends (Baruch and Abimelech; (2) the people of Israel; and (3) the Babylonians. The first is depicted as unwaveringly good, but the other two are more ambiguously portrayed. Israel sins, but repents and receives God's forgiveness and restoration. In the Christian ending, however, she is shown again behaving badly, putting herself in opposition to the protagonists, and killing the hero Jeremiah, who prophesies to them God's truth. The negative depiction of Israel stongly moderates, if we remove the Christian ending, but it does not entirely disappear. The account of the origin of the Samaritans in 8:1-8 shows that even among the people redeemed from Babylon were some who had forfeited their right to re-enter Jerusalem, because they had married foreign wives, and would not give them up. It was a mixed multitude which went back to the Land: the people had to be purified. One might expect the Babylonians to be depicted as unrelievedly bad, but they are not. Even when they destroyed Jerusalem and took the people captive, they were acting as God's agents to punish Israel (see 4Bar 1:8). Jeremiah, the main charcater, is shown at times as integrated, and at times in opposition to his people, but always as in opposition to the Babylonians (note especially 7:23, "till we [the Israelites] get out of the jurisdiction of this lawless king [Nebuchadnezzar]").

4.10.4 [A main character is portrayed as in conflict with his/her environment (or as being an “Other”), whether the environment is single or doubled: if we accept the Christian ending then Jeremiah is depicted as in violent conflict with his people. See 4.10.1 above.]

4.11 Supernatural characters appear in the narrative, whether introduced casually, or accounted for elaborately: God appears at a number of key points in the narrative, and enters into dialogue with Jeremiah (4Bar 1:1-13). An angel speaks to Baruch (6:11-15). Note God does not speak directly to Baruch: though Baruch at 6:8-10 prays to God, he is answered by an angel. The distinction here is probably not accidental, but reflects Jeremiah's higher status as a prophet. Angels act as God's agents in the destruction of Jerusalem (3:2; 4:1). The eagle is not a supernatural being, though he acts as a divine agent (6:12), but simply an eagle who talks: he is needed as a plausible, quick, letter-carrier between Jerusalem and Babylon. Obviously a noble beast ("king of birds": 7:9) was chosen for such an important mission.

4.13 The narrative pace is slowed down or changed by frequent or prominent quotation of speech, thought or text: There is a lot of oratio recta in 4Bar. It introduces liveliness and stylistic diversity into the narrative.

4.13.1 The quotation constitutes a plot-driving event in its own right: Common in 4Bar. Note, for example, how the exchanges between the dramatis personae in the opening chapters serve to drive the plot.

4.13.3 Quoted wording is presented as a message (written or oral) sent from one character to another: 4Bar contains two substantial letters, the first sent by Baruch in Jerusalem to Jeremiah in Babylon, announcing to him the imminent restoration of Israel, and sending the figs that did not decay as a sign and token (6:17-23); and the second, Jeremiah's reply (7:23-29). While the first opens in vaguely epistolary style (6:17, "Baruch, the servant of God, writes to Jeremiah, who is of the captivity of Babylon, rejoice [chaire]..."), the other does not.

4.15 There are imbalances in the level of detail provided between adjacent parts of a continuous narrative, in the absence of narrative developments or conventions that obviously account for them: Though 4Bar states that its story covers a span of 66 years, the events it describes are clustered at the beginning and end of this period. Though the gap in the middle is not explicitly managed, it is subtly moderated by the device of Abimelech's long sleep.

Top of the Page

7.1 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between a non-biblical text and one or more biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive: [NB "Bible" in context of 4Bar is ambiguous. 4Bar was composed in Greek, and for its author(s) the Bible would have been the Greek Bible, which may have included also 1Bar and the Epistle of Jeremiah. This problematizes the normal distinction between 7.1 and 7.2 in the Inventory profile. For the sake of consistency the profile offered here treats 4Bar's relationship to the books of the Hebrew canon (Tanakh) under 7.1 (though it is the Greek text of the relevant books that is quoted, using Rahlfs chapter and verse numbering), and its relationship to the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha under 7.2. By the same token, 4Bar's intertextuality with the New Testament is considered selectively under 7.2, since the emphasis in the profile is on it as a Jewish text.]

7.1.1 Characters correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts.

7.1.1.1 Some or all main characters of the text correspond to main characters in a biblical partner text: Jeremiah is the hero of the biblical Book of Jeremiah, and Baruch is mentioned there as his scribe (LXX Jer 39:12; 51:31 = MT Jer 32:12; 45:1). Abimelech is a variant of the name Abdemelech (LXX Jer 45:7-13 = MT Ebed-melech, Jer 38:7-13). The Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar, and God also feature in the action of the biblical Book of Jeremiah.

7.1.1.2 [The text’s main character is a minor character in Scripture: Though Jeremiah is the hero of 4Bar, as he is of the biblical Book of Jeremiah, it is worth noting that Baruch and Abimelech, the two other major protagonists of 4Bar, feature more prominently in 4Bar than in the Bible.]

7.1.2 Chronology, physical setting or emplotment correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts:

7.1.2.1 The narrative’s chronological and spatial framework, as well as certain events, are co-extensive with that of a biblical partner text, or with some extended part of it: The time span of 4Bar covers from the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem to the restoration at the end of the exile - a period which 4Bar reckons at 66 years. This period is not covered continuously in any one biblical book. The fall of Jerusalem is chronicled in 2Kgs 24-25, 2Chron 36, Jer 52, and passim, and the restoration in 2Chron 36 and Ezra, but there is no single continuous narrative of these events, still less of the history of the community in exile in Babylon. What 4Bar matches is a biblical history pieced together from a variety of biblical sources rather than a continuous stretch of biblical narrative. The discrepancies with the biblical evidence, such as it is, are startling, and may in part be explained by the interference of post-biblical tradition: see 7.1.2.3 and 7.2 below.

7.1.2.1.3 The text tends to narrate the story through events described in less detail or through fewer events than a biblical partner text: The latter applies. 4Bar is highly selective of the range of events available to it from the Bible to tell the story of the destruction and return, and focuses exclusively on Jeremiah's role in these events. Episodes of Jeremiah's story are told in much greater detail than in their biblical counterparts. Some have no biblical match, or even, on the face of it, may contradict the Bible (see 7.1.2.3 below). The narrative is slow-paced with the copious addition of dialogue and speech nowhere found in the Bible. Note, for example, the exchange of letters between Baruch and Jeremiah in 4Bar 7.

7.1.2.3 The narrative is located at a particular point (“niche”) in a chronological-spatial framework also known from a biblical text, but there is no overlap in the narrative substance: 4Bar obviously slots itself in a general way into biblical history, but its use of niches in the biblical text to do so is limited and problematic. Perhaps the clearest case is the niching of the Abimelech story into Jer 46:4-18 (LXX = MT Jer 39:15-18), where God promises that he will save Abdemelech/Abimelech: "And the word of the Lord came to Jeremias in the court of the prison, saying, 'Go and say to Abdemelech the Ethiopian, Thus said the Lord God of Israel: Behold I will bring my words on this city, for evil and not for good. But I will save you in that day, and I will by no means deliver you into the hands of the men before whom you are afraid. For I will surely save you, and you shall by no means fall by the sword; and you shall find your life, because you trusted in me, says the Lord.'" Jer does not say exactly how Abdemeleck/Abimelech is to be saved, and so potentially creates a niche into which 4Bar can insert its narrative (cf. 4Bar 3:9-10). However, the lack of wording-overlap between 4Bar and the biblical narrative is more significant than the occasional correspondences. At most the biblical narrative furnishes motifs which are imaginatively exploited by the author of 4Bar. For example, Jeremiah as a letter-writer in 4 Bar has probably been inspired by his famous letter to the exiles in Babylon quoted in Jer (LXX Jer 36:1ff = MT Jer 29:1ff). And the figs that Abimelech brings from Agrippa's estate (4Bar 3:15; 5:1 etc) must be linked in some way with Jeremiah's vision of the two baskets of figs, one of good figs, the other of bad, the good figs symbolizing the Babylonian exiles, who will be restored to their land, in Jer 24:4-6. Indeed the old man's (4Bar 5:29-31), Baruch's (4Bar 6:2; 7:8), and Jeremiah's (7:32) apparently immediate recognition of the meaning of the symbolism of Abimelech's figs may presuppose that they know this vision, though it is nowhere recounted in 4Bar. While it is not easy to niche 4Bar's account of the destruction of Jerusalem into the biblical narratives, it is virtually impossible in the case of its account of the restoration. Jeremiah's role in the restoration, so prominent in 4Bar, is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Indeed, the Bible implies that he went to Egypt rather than Babylon (LXX Jer 50-51 = MT Jer 43-44). Conversely the role of Cyrus in the return and other elements of 2Chron 36 and the opening chapters of Ezra find no echo in 4Bar. This discrepancy seems to be have been noted in antiquity, and an alternative ending divised which follows the Bible more closely: see Ms C (Bibliography above), which "leaves the story at 8:5 and concludes with an account of the return from exile that follows the Old Testament accounts" (Herzer, 4Baruch, p. xxxvii). 4Bar's account of the hiding of the Temple vessels (4Bar 3:7-8) is hard to reconcile with 2Kgs 24:13 and 2Chron 36:10,18, which imply that they were destroyed or carried off to Babylon. In short, while 4Bar clearly presents itself as an expansion of biblical history, its lack of specific correlation with Bible suggests that we should look to parabiblical tradition (see 7.2) for the significant parallels, rather than to the Bible itself. See 7.2 below.

7.1.4 The text shares features of language with the Hebrew Bible, or exhibits tacit overlap with specific biblical wording, whether narrative or not.

7.1.4.1 There are pervasive biblical linguistic features (vocabulary, morphology or syntax) or a pervasive use of unspecific biblical language, such as generic biblical phrases or single words: The author of 4Bar tries to mimic biblical narrative style, but not always successfully. His opening sentence, egeneto henika e(i)chmaloteuthesan hoi huioi Israel ... elalesen ho theos ktl, is modelled on LXX style as found, for example, in the opening of Ruth, kai egeneto en to(i) krinein tous kritous, kai egeneto limos en te(i) ge(i) ktl (Ruth 1:1), but his failure to reproduce the conjunction kai before each of the main verbs, as well as the use of a subordinate clause instead of the articular infinitive, and his frequent use elsewhere of enclitic de rather than kai in parataxis, suggests his grasp of this style is not assured.

7.1.4.2 [The text contains prominently, but not necessarily frequently, the wording of specific biblical passages such as whole sentences or unique biblical phrases, used in a tacit manner. See also 8.1.4.1: For the absence of wording-overlaps with the Bible see 7.1.2.3 above.]

7.1.5 The projected persona of the governing voice of the text, whether a narrative or not, is also known from a biblical text, or the governing voice assumes an epistemic stance similar to that of a biblical text: 4Bar does not identify either Baruch or Jeremiah as the speaker of the text, and this may not even be suggested by the book's traditional titles (see 1.1.5 and 2.1.7 above), so the first part of this Inventory point does not apply. For the second see 7.1.5.3 below.

7.1.5.3 The epistemic stance of the governing voice (narrative or not, first person or not) can be interpreted as falling into the same generic category as one of the following stances also adopted in biblical texts:

7.1.5.3.2 The omniscient narration, as in Genesis-Joshua; or unrestricted knowledge of a described reality, similar to Genesis 1: 4Bar is told from the standpoint of an omniscient narrator, as in Genesis-Joshua, or, more appositely, Kings and Chronicles.

7.2 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between the non-biblical text under discussion and other non-biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive: There is extensive and significant overlap in structure, wording and narrative between 4Bar and 2 Bar. [NB there are also some weak verbal overlaps with the New Testament in the Christian "additions" to 4Bar, for example: 4Bar 5:35 = Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22, but cf. 2Bar 4:2-7. 4Bar 9:2 = Jn 1:9. 4Bar 9:14 = Rom 15:6. 4Bar 9:20 = Matt 5:6; 14:19f. See 7.1 above.]

7.2.1 There is a correspondence of characters (which may include the persona projected as the governing voice of the current text).

7.2.1.1 This also constitutes a correspondence with a biblical text (7.1.1): Jeremiah and Baruch also play a significant role in biblical Jeremiah, but note that 4Bar and 2Bar are closer to each other in their depiction of these characters than they are to the biblical text.

7.2.2 The overall chronological and spatial framework of the narrative, as well as certain events, are substantially or prominently co-extensive with that of a non-biblical narrative or with some extended part of it: 4Bar and 2Bar share more or less the same chronological and spatial framework, and narrate some of the same events.

7.2.2.1 [The narrative is located at a particular point (“niche”) in a chronological-spatial framework also known from another non-biblical text, but there is no overlap in the narrative substance: It does not seem possible to construe 4Bar's narrative as niched on 2Bar's, or vice versa.]

7.2.6 There is extensive tacit overlap with the wording of a non-biblical partner text, whether in narrative or in non-narrative texts: The verbal overlaps between 4Bar and 2Bar are as follows (after Herzer): 4Bar 1:1,3,7; 4:6 = 2Bar 1:1-2:1; 77:10. 4Bar 1:1 = 2Bar 2:2. 4Bar 1:5; 4:7 = 2Bar 5:1; 7:1-2; 80:3. 4Bar 2:3 = 2Bar 85:1-2. 4Bar 2:4 = 2Bar 35:2. 4Bar 3:1-8,14 = 2Bar 6:3-10; see 80:2. 4Bar 3:11-12; 4:5 = 2Bar 10:1-5; see 33:2. 4Bar 4:1-2 = 2Bar 6:1,5; 8:1-5. 4Bar 4:3-4 = 2Bar 10:18. 4Bar 4:9 = 2Bar 11:4-5. 4Bar 4:11 = 2Bar 21:1. 4Bar 5:21; 7:32 = 2Bar 44:3-45:2. 4Bar 6:7 = 2Bar 13:3; 25:1; 76:2. 4Bar 6:8-23 = 2Bar 77:12-19. 4Bar 7:1-12 = 2Bar 77:20-26. 4Bar 7:8,30 = 2Bar 87:1.

7.2.6.4 [The extensive wording overlap takes place across language boundaries: This does not apply: both 4Bar and 2Bar were composed in Greek, and used the Greek Bible.]

Top of the Page

8.1 Standard forms or contents formulated in set phrases, set sentence formats, or clauses in a standard syntactic connection.

8.1.4 Unit of a biblical quotation together with a hermeneutically dependent formulation; midrashic unit:

8.1.4.1 The expressive use of unmarked biblical wording whose function in the text’s discourse is enhanced or achieved by it being recognized as coming from a Scripture: There is a clear allusion to Ps 137:3 at 4Bar 7:29. 4Bar 7:18 contains an allusion to "the God who appeared to our fathers in the desert through Moses". The reference is probably to the Sinai theophany, but the language is hardly exact enough to be sure. Note also the allusion to the raven and the dove at 7:10 (cf. Gen 8:7-12). But these are the exceptions that prove the rule: 4Bar is notable for the absence of biblical wording. At 4Bar 9:20, part of the Christian ending, the Israelites refer to "the words that were spoken by Isaiah, son of Amoz, saying, 'I saw God and the Son of God'". The allusion is ultimately to Isaiah 6, but the author more likely has in mind Ascension of Isaiah 3:9 and 4:13 (cf. 5:11) than the biblical text.

8.1.6 Speech report: A very high proportion of 4Bar is in oratio recta, the author never puting into oratio obliqua what he can report as direct speech. The text can be characterized as a string of reported speeches minimally linked by third person narrative. Dialogue is particularly prominent and often drives forward the plot: 1:1-10 (God and Jeremiah); 2:2-9 (Baruch and Jeremiah); 3:5-12 (Jeremiah and God); 5:17-34 (Abimelech and the old man); 7:2-12 (Baruch and the eagle). Other significant passages of direct speech: 4:6-9 (Baruch); 5:2-16 (Abimelech: internal monologue); 6:2-7, 9-10 (Baruch: prayer); 6:12-14 (an angel); 6:17-23 (Baruch: a letter); 7:23-29 (Jeremiah: a letter); 8:2-3 (God); 8:5-9 (Jeremiah, the mixed-marriage Jews, the Babylonians); 9:3-6 (Jeremiah: prayer); [9:13-18 (Jeremiah: prophecy)].

8.1.13 Declamatory sentence, confession, proclamation or affirmation: Occasional, e.g. 4Bar 2:5; 7:1.

8.1.14 Prayer, doxology, valediction or blessing: Occasional. Prayer: for example 4Bar 6:2-7, 9-10; 9:3-6 - but the liturgical forms are unusual. Valediction: for example 7:30. Blessing: for example 4Bar 4:9; 5:14 (but mildly humorous: "Well bless my soul! I've fallen into a trance!"); 5:32.

8.1.15 Wish sentence: Occasional, e.g. 4Bar 3:4; 4:3; 5:34; 7:12.

8.1.17 Report sentence of a singular event in the past which is not part of a narrative unit, nor of a mashal: Flashbacks occur at 4Bar 7:14, and 7:25-26. For the narrative reason for these see 4.2.1 above.

8.1.18 [Sentence making a prediction of a future event: 4Bar 9:13-18 (Jeremiah's prophecy) - part of the Christian redaction of the work.]

8.2 Non-narrative small literary forms that impose on their components a standard functional relationship to each other, while grammar and syntax may vary:

8.2.2 Self-contained question-answer unit in anonymous discourse: Occasional: for example 4Bar 2:2-7 (the repetition of the question here, serves to heighten the dramatic tension).

8.2.5 The summary exposition, in a number of sentences, of theological ideas: The text is laced with statements expressing the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the sins of the people (4Bar 1:7; 2:3; 4:6) and that the enemy entered it only with God's permission (4Bar 2:6; 3:6; 4:1). These, and similar statements commenting on the meaning of what is happening, are always put in the mouths of actors in the drama. The governing voice confines itself simply to reporting events.

8.3 Forms with internal emplotment relationships, or character-centred small literary forms or motifs:

8.3.2 A mashal or other minimal (two-stage) narrative employed to model the emplotment of a biblical or other event: One example at 4Bar 7:24 ("It is like [hosper] ... Thus [houtos]"). There is a straightforward simile at 7:10-11, where the eagle is exhorted to emulate the dove, rather than the raven, in the story of the Flood.

8.3.6 The narrative motif of humanized animals or animals as agents: The one striking case of this in 4Bar is the eagle who serves to carry Baruch's letter to Jeremiah in Babylon and bring back Jeremiah's reply. The eagle speaks, and revives a corpse (as a sign of his veracity), but otherwise does not appear to be a supernatural being, though the people wonder if he might be a theophany (4Bar 7:18): see 4Bar 6:12; 7:1-18, 30-31. He is a vital agent in the development of the plot. There is also a faint personification of the Sun at 4Bar 4:3.

8.3.8 A narrative motif that can be interpreted as humorous or ironic: The Abimelech episode is treated with considerable humour, and provides light relief in an otherwise sombre narrative. The humour revolves around the fact that Abimelech does not know, but the audience does (see 8.3.9), that he has been asleep for 66 years. He complains that he hasn't had enough sleep: "I would gladly have slept a little longer; my head is heavy because I did not get enough sleep" (4Bar 5:2). The joke is "milked": note the repetition of it at 5:4, and the further allusion to the "shortness" of Abimelech's sleep at 5:22-28 ("Had the heavenly torrents descended on them, there would not yet have been time to go to Babylon"). Comedy is expressed in the mutual incomprehension that exists between him and the old man, and in the way the truth is worked out. Abimelech's attempt to prove from the freshness of the dates that he could only have had a short nap, and the old man's refutation from the current state of the crops, are humorous, because the audience knows that a miracle has happened, but neither party in the story does. However, it is the old man who works it out first, not Abimelech. Though the portrait is generally affectionate, and he is explicitly represented as good, there may, nevertheless, be some comical stereotyping of Abimelech. He is feckless and maybe a bit lazy. He sleeps on the job (5:26). He is always looking for the easy life: see 5:6, though the text here is problematic. Herzer sees an eschatological allusion, which might be consonant with the reference to "the Jerusalem above" at 5:34, but this does not rule out humour; rather it may intensify it (there may be bathos): that Abimelech is always longing for his heavenly rest is of a piece with his basic laziness. Abimelech is a bit simple-minded, in contrast to the wise old man. This is conveyed through his naive internal monologue; he doesn't recognize his own city, but thinks he has got lost; he needs the old man to tell him what day it is. All these are character traits which the audience may have stereotypically associated with slaves.

8.3.9 Use of a gap of knowledge between what a character knows and what the governing voice has already told, including one character telling a lie to another, which is transparent to the reader: This mechanism is used for comic effect in the Abimelech episode: see 8.3.8 above.

8.3.10 Narrative use of humour by way of a character’s speech: Abimelech's internal monologue at 4Bar 5:2-16 is unconsciously humorous: see 8.3.8 above.

Top of the Page

11.2 The text is dominated by the reporting of emplotted events, whether or not in an overarching narrative format (4).

11.2.1 The reported events are those of a biblical past, or of a biblically foretold future: The events of 4Bar are clearly intended to slot into the biblical history, but they are so little linked to the biblical narrative, or reflect biblical wording, that it is possible that 11.2.2 should be ticked. There is prediction of the future in 4Bar 9:13-18, in the Christian ending of the work, explicitly linked to an unidentified prophecy of Isaiah 9:20. See 8.1.4.1.

11.2.2 The reported events are not biblical, but are related to a biblical past/future: see 11.2.1.

Top of the Page

12.1 Sampling of genre labels applied to the text in secondary literature: Pre-Talmudic Haggadah; Expansion of Old Testament; Legend; Narrative.

Top of the Page

Bibliography:

Editions: The profile is based on the text printed in Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (Writings fom the Greco-Roman World;  Atlanta: SBL, 2005), and follows his chapter and verse numbering. There are many mss of 4Bar, as well as translations into Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic. Textual variants are numerous and substantial. Both long and short recensions are attested, and even the long recension is not unified, but found in two different forms, one in Ms Milan Braidensis, AF IX 31, fols. 1-10 (15th cent.) (siglum A) and Ms Jerusalem Taphos 34, fols 251-267 (10th cent.) (siglum B), the other in Ms Jerusalem Taphos 6, fols 242-247 (10th cent.) (siglum C).  Herzer offers an eclectic text, but basically follows mss A and B. It is unlikely that the profile would differ significantly if other mss had been chosen as the basis for the profile, though some of the entries might have to be modified. See, for example, 7.1.2.3 below. The text was composed originally in Greek by a Jewish author, but it was subsequently modified by Christian additions. How these are treated in the profile is explained at 1.7 and 7.1. Other editions: A.M. Ceriani, Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae quae in Aethiopca Versione dicuntur Reliqua Verborum Baruchi (Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1868); J. Rendell Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch; A Christian Apocalypse of the Year 136 AD: A Text Revised with an Introduction (London: Clay, 1889); Robert A. Kraft and Ann-Elizabeth Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (SBL Texts and Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha 1; Missoula, Montana: SBL, 1972; also available through the Online Critical Pseudepigrapha, http://www.purl.org/net/ocp); J. Riaud, Les Paralipomenes du Prophete Jeremie: Presentation, texte original, traduction et commentaires (Angers: Association Saint-Yves, 1994).

Translations: English: R. Thornhill, "The Paraleipomena of Jeremiah", in: H.D.F. Sparks  (ed), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 813-833 ; S.E. Robinson, "4 Baruch", in: J.H. Charlesworth (ed), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1985), Vol. 2, pp. 413-426; Herzer, 4 Baruch; P. Torijano, "4 Baruch", in L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), Outside the Bible. Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society/University of Nebraska Press, 2013), pp. 2662–2680. German: P. Riessler, Altjuedisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel (Freiburg: Kerle, 1975), pp. 903-919. Spanish: L. Vegas-Montaner, "Paralipomenos de Jeremias", in: A. Diez Macho et al (eds), Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento (Madrid: Ed. Cristiandad, 1983), Vol. 2, pp. 353-383. French: Jean Riaud, "Paralipomenes de Jeremie", in: A. Dupont-Sommer and M. Philonenko (eds.), La Bible: Ecrits intertestamentaires (Bibliotheque de la Pleiade 337; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), pp. 1733-1763; also in Riaud, Les Paralipomenes du Prophete Jeremie.

Selected Studies: G. Delling, Juedische Lehre und Froemmigkeit in der Paralipomena Jeremiae (BZAW 110; Berlin: Toepelmann, 1967); J. Herzer, "Altestamentliche Traditionen in den Paralipomena Jeremiae als Beispiel fuer den Umgang fruehjuedischer Schriftsteller mit 'Heiliger Schrift', in: M. Hengel and H. Loehr (eds), Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (WUNT 73; Tiebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Herzer, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggadah des fruehen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Herzer, 4 Baruch; M. Philonenko, "Les Paralipomenes de Jeremie et la Traduction de Symmaque", RHPR 64 (1984), pp. 143-145; J. Riaud, "The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae Prophetae: His Originality and his Christianisation by the Christian Author of the Conclusion", JSP 22 (2000), pp. 31-44; Riaud, Les Paralipomenes du Prophete Jeremie; B. Schaller, "Is the Greek Version of the Paralipomena Jeremiou Original or a Translation", JSP 22 (2000), pp. 51-89; C. Wolff, Jeremia in Fruehjudentum und Urchristentum (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 118;Berlin:  Akademie Verlag, 1976).



Top of the Page