1

fast of seven days. In the twenty-fifth year of Jechoniah, king of Judah, it was revealed to Baruch that Jerusalem and her people should be destroyed, and the inhabitants of the land should be carried away captive. Upon his asking whether the end of the world should come then, he is told that the prophecies which spoke of the everlasting covenant referred to a new world and a new Jerusalem which should be eternal. On the next day the Chaldæans took the city; but first, that the enemy might not be able to vaunt their power, the angels destroy the walls and hide in the earth the precious things of the Temple. Zedekiah the king is taken captive to Babylon, while Baruch and Jeremiah are left in Jerusalem, and weep and fast seven days (i.—ix.). Then Jeremiah by Divine command is sent to Babylon, but Baruch stays amid the ruins of the city to receive a revelation, which comes to him after another seven days' fast (x.-xii.). As he stands on Mount Sion, a voice falls from heaven, telling him that his people are chastised in mercy in order to lead them to repentance he complains that good men are no better off than sinners and the heathen, though this world was made for God's people; and the Lord answers, that this life is short and full of trouble, but the life to come shall set right all present anomalies, And He bids Baruch prepare himself for a new revelation (xiii.-xx.). At the end of seven days the seer comes to the appointed place, and asks impatiently to know the meaning and the issue of God's dealings with men. He is told that he is ignorant, but is comforted with the hope that the end is near, when good and evil shall meet their reward; and the signs that shall precede this final time are

3

1 So 2 Esdr. v. 13, vi. 31. In other works of this kind the fast is usually of "three days' duration (three weeks in Dan. x. 2). Comp. Assumpt. Mos. ix. 6; 2 Macc. xiii. 12; Test. xii. Patr. Test. Jos. 3.

2 Historical truth is here violated. Jeremiah was compelled to go to Egypt, while Baruch in the course of time, according to Jewish tradition, made his way to Babylon. The seer has manipulated facts to suit the requirements of his Apocalypse. Comp. Jer. xliii. and Bar. i.

3 This notion is found, 2 Esdr. vi. 55, ix. 13; Assumpt. Mos. i. 12.

enumerated under twelve divisions, concluding with the days of Messiah and His two advents-the first to establish an earthly kingdom, the second to manifest His eternal reign, when He shall raise up those who have slept in hope, and reward them with heavenly glory (xxi.-xxx.). Then the prophet, as he sleeps amid the ruins of the Holy Place, sees in a vision on one side a mighty forest girt by mountains, and on the other a vine from whose roots issued a placid streamlet. Anon this streamlet became a great river, and it overthrew the mountain, and tore up the forest, leaving of it nothing but one cedar, which also at length it destroyed. And the vine and the stream exulted over the fallen cedar, and the vine grew more and more, and all the plain was filled with flowers that fade not. The seer is told that hereby is signified the fate of four kingdoms which have afflicted Sion, the last of which, the most powerful and most evil of them all, is to perish before the arms of Messiah (xxxi.-xliii.). After another seven days' fast Baruch tells the people of his approaching departure, and urges them to continue faithful to the law, explaining to them the retribution of the world to come (xliv.-xlvii.). Another seven days' fast intervenes, and then Baruch in answer to his prayer is told of the tribulations that are to come upon the earth, and of the manner of the resurrection both of the evil and the good, and their punishment and reward. After this, he sees a vision of alternate dark and bright waters, which is explained as a record of Israel's history from Adam to Messiah (xlviii.-lxxi.). The glories of Messiah's eternal kingdom are then unfolded. Baruch is informed that shortly he will be taken from earth, though not by death; he again announces his departure to his friends, prays for their welfare, and writes two letters, one to the exiles in Babylon, which he sends by the hands of men, and one to the nine-and-a-half tribes beyond the river, which he entrusts to an eagle (lxxii.-lxxvii.). The latter epistle is

1 Comp. 2 Esdr. xiv. 9, 49. Fr.

given in full and concludes the book. In it he comforts his distant brethren under their trials with the remembrance that God has not cast off His love for them, but is only temporarily chastening them for their disobedience. Nebuchadnezzar indeed has been permitted to afflict them grievously, but it was the Lord who destroyed the forts and walls; and He also hid the sacred vessels that the heathen should not rejoice over them. All shall be changed ere long; the day is soon coming when the Gentiles shall be punished for their iniquity, and Israel shall be rewarded; only let them prepare for the life to come by virtue and obedience, and all shall be well with them (lxxviii.-lxxxvii.). The other epistle is not given, and some, as I mentioned above, have considered the Septuagintal "Baruch" to be the missing document. But as this theory is inadmissible, we must deem either that the writing is wholly lost, or that the two epistles were identical. There is nothing improbable in the latter supposition. Their tenor would naturally be similar, and it is difficult to see what more the seer could have said than he had already expressed in the extant letter.

WILLIAM J. DEANE.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE

HEBREWS.

Be it observed, in the first place, that the Epistle is itself anonymous. The writer never mentions his own name, or intimates who he is. Hence the questions of authorship and of canonicity may in this case be kept distinct. This could not be in the case of any of St. Paul's undoubted Epistles, in all of which he gives his own name and designation, and often alludes in detail to his circumstances at the time of writing, and his relations to the persons addressed. In such cases denial of the alleged authorship would involve denial of the writing being what it professes to be, and hence of its claim to be included in the Canon as genuine and authoritative. But it is not so in the case before us. Nor does deference to the judgment or consentient tradition of the Church require us to conclude St. Paul to have been the author. The very title, "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews," is not ancient: the earlier title was simply Πρὸς Εβραίους. So in all the most ancient MSS., and so referred to by Origen, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25); and, though the tradition of St. Paul's authorship was undoubtedly a very early one, yet it was not in primitive times, any more than in our own, considered conclusive by those who were competent to judge, including Fathers of the highest repute from the second century downwards.

The earliest known allusion to the authorship of the Epistle is that of Clement of Alexandria, who often quoted it in his extant works, spoke of it himself, and recorded something that Pantænus before him had said of it. We are indebted to Eusebius for the following interesting references to the Hypotyposes of Clement :-" In the Hypotyposes,

to speak briefly, he (i.e. Clemens Alexandrinus) has given a compressed account of the whole testamentary Scripture, not omitting even the disputed books, I mean the Epistle of Jude and the rest of the catholic Epistles, and that of Barnabas, and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. And as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says that it is Paul's, but that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, and that Luke translated it carefully and published it to the Greeks; that consequently there is found the same colour, with regard to style, in this Epistle and in the Acts; but that it is not prefaced by Paul the Apostle' with good reason: for (says he) as he was sending it to the Hebrews, who had conceived a prejudice against him and suspected him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by appending his name.' Then he goes on to say, 'But, as the blessed presbyter before now used to say, since the Lord was sent to the Hebrews as being the apostle of the Almighty, Paul, out of modesty, as having been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself apostle of the Hebrews, both because of the honour due to the Lord, and because of its being a work of supererogation that he wrote also to the Hebrews, being herald and apostle of the Gentiles'" (Euseb. H. E. vi. 14). "The blessed presbyter" referred to may be concluded to have been Pantanus, to whose teaching Clement acknowledged himself to have been especially indebted :-" Who also in the Hypotyposes which he composed makes mention by name of Pantenus as his master (Euseb. H. E. v. ii.; cf. vi. 13). Also in his Stromata (i. § 11), Clement, speaking of his various teachers in various places, says that he found at last in Egypt the true master for whom he had before sought in vain, meaning undoubtedly this same Pantanus, whom Eusebius, speaking of the time of Commodus (180-192),

The later Greek Fathers, after St. Paul had come to be accepted as the writer, give generally this reason for the absence of his name. (See Catena, ed. Cramer.)