NEW: Please subscribe to my Substack/newsletter at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Mirrored from www.pseudepigrapha.org/docs/intro/2Bar
Fair Use Notice: Under the provisions of 17USC107 (the 1976 Copyright Act), allowance is made for “fair use” of copyrighted materials for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. This article is reproduced here without the permission of the author only for the purpose of education (teaching/scholarship). If you are the copyright owner and want this article removed, please contact me and I will immediately remove it. [Inclusion of this content does not necessarily indicate that I agree with the content or the author.]
Introduction to 2 Baruch
Most scholars conclude the Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) is a Jewish composition from the regions in or around Judea, written around the end of the first century CE (see discussion below).
Provenance and Cultural Setting
Date
Second Baruch is a pseudepigraphal work written from the perspective of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, and set around the time of the destruction of Solomon's Temple in 586 BCE. However, it is clear that Second Baruch presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (cf. 32.2-4), and that the author was primarily concerned with the theological and pastoral implications of the destruction of the Second Temple. Nickelsburg rightly indicates that the author of 2 Baruch is still "deeply grieved by the events of the year 70" (Jewish Literature, 283).
It is more difficult to determine when, after 70 CE, 2 Baruch was written. The vague reference in 28.2 to the ‘calculation of time in two parts’ pertaining to ‘weeks of seven weeks’ is too vague to be of much value (see L. Gry, “Date de la fin des temps, scion les révélations ou les calcula du Pseudo-Philo et de Baruch [Apocalypse syriaque],” RB 48 [1939]: 337-56). There is also an affinity between 2 Baruch 61.7 and Barnabas 11.9 (written between 117 and 132 CE?), though this may be due to both authors' use of a common source.
Another factor relevant to the dating of 2 Baruch is the document's evidently close relationship with 4 Ezra. Unfortunately, the date of 4 Ezra is itself uncertain (see G. H. Box, “IV Ezra,” APOT 2.553-54). Moreover, while interdependence between the two documents is almost certain, the nature, extent, and order of this interdependence is disputed (Nickelsburg). Although 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra share significant overlaps in content, there are broad thematic differences in their treatment of this common material. Whereas 4 Ezra educes a careful theodicy in response to the tragedy of the temple's destruction, the concerns evident in 2 Baruch are more “pastoral and practical,” addressing matters of consolation and exhortations toward reconstruction (Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283). This ambiguous situation has produced four main suggestions over the past century as to the (inter)relationship of the two apocalypses:
1. 4 Ezra was dependent on 2 Baruch (see list on Bogaert, L'Apocalypse, 1.26);
2. 2 Baruch was dependent on 4 Ezra (see list on Bogaert, L'Apocalypse, 1.26; Box, APOT 2:553; Metzger, OTP 2:522);
3. both were dependent on a common source (Klijn, Arabic Text, 620);
4. we cannot determine the direction of the dependence (Charles, APOT 2:477; Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra [Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1990], 39).
For a complete, updated discussion, see Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283-85 and see the bibliography here for research between 1999 and 2006.
Some would see this cumulative, though tenuous, evidence to point to a date for 2 Baruch in the first or second decade of the second century CE (Klijn, Arabic Text, 617). Others argue that the document was written toward the end of the first century (Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283), perhaps in 96 CE specifically (Bogaert, L'Apocalypse, 1.294-95; cf. also Nicolae Roddy, “‘Two Parts: Weeks of Seven Weeks’: The End of the Age as Teminus ad Quem for 2 Baruch,” JSP 14 [1996] 3–14).
Locale
2 Baruch was probably written in Judea, Galilee, or a neighbouring region. The original language of the document was most likely Hebrew or Aramaic, and the work shows affinities with later rabbinic literature originating from the land of Israel (Klijn, Arabic Text, 617). The author of 2 Bar. also seems to identify himself with the inhabitants of Palestine who have survived the Roman onslaught, and it is from this standpoint that he exhorts the Jews of the Diaspora in the epistle (Klijn, Arabic Text, 617).
Cultural and Historical Context
According to J. E. Wright, “The overall goal of 2 Baruch is to promote obedience to God’s commandments as the way to survive in difficult times” (“Baruch, Books of,” DNTB, 148-151). The book, somewhat like 4 Ezra, is the author’s attempt both to make theological sense of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and to exhort Israel to remain faithful to her God in hope of restoration. It is widely agreed that 2 Bar. was originally composed in non-Christian Jewish circles, and the contention that it is instead a Christian composition (Nir, Destruction of Jerusalem, passim) has not found much support. Nonetheless, 2 Bar. is a "Christian text" in the sense that it was adopted and preserved within Christian circles for much of its transmission history.
Source: Gurtner, Daniel M., with David M. Miller and Ian W. Scott, eds. “2 Baruch.” Edition 2.0. No pages. In The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha. Edited by Ian W. Scott, Ken M. Penner, and David M. Miller. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Online: http://www.purl.org/net/ocp/2Bar, accessed 18 July 2025
|
ANXIOUSLY WATCHING FOR MASHIACH’S RETURN,
SPEEDILY AND IN OUR DAY. MARANA, TA!
