Interpretation of the book of the prophet Baruch

1. Prophet Baruch and author of the book of Baruch. 2. Contents of the book of Baruch. 3. Time, place and purpose of writing the book of Baruch. 4. The original language of the book. 6. The ecclesiastical dignity of the book of Baruch. Baruch, Jeremiah's friend and helper, probably came from a noble family, as can be seen from the fact that his ancestors are numbered up to the fifth generation (Bar.1:1). His brother Seraiah was in charge of collecting taxes under King Zedekiah (Jer. 51:59). He had to endure many persecutions together with Jeremiah, and after the capture of Jerusalem and the murder of Gedaliah, he was forced, like Jeremiah, to move to Egypt. Some say that he died in Babylon, where he went after the death of Jeremiah, while others claim that he died, upon returning from Babylon, in Egypt. Whether the prophet Baruch was really the author of the book attributed to him is a question that has not yet been finally resolved. Our theologians almost all affirm the true origin of this book from the prophet Baruch, but they do not pay sufficient attention to the difficulties that arise in accepting this opinion. In fact, in the book of Baruch there is a lot of information that directly disagrees with the testimony of the book of the prophet Jeremiah and the 4th book of Kings (these difficulties will be indicated during the explanation of the book itself). No matter how hard our interpreters try to reconcile these contradictions of the book of Baruch with the canonical consolidated books, they fail, and the impartial reader of the book is left with the impression that it could not have been written by Baruch - a man who was well aware of all the circumstances of the life of the Jewish people shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem The book of the prophet Baruch consists of a preface (Bar.1:1–14) and four parts, of which the first (Bar.1:15–2:8) contains a prayer in which the captive Jews confess the sins of themselves and their ancestors, as having led to the fall of the Jewish state, and beg God for mercy; the second part (Bar.2:9–4:8) contains the doctrine of wisdom; in the third (Bar.4:9–29) the prophet convinces the captives on behalf of Jerusalem. so that they repent of their sins and pray to God for salvation and in the fourth (Bar.4:30–5:9) comforting promises are given to Jerusalem. From the inscription of the book it is clear that it was written in the fifth year from the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, around 538 BC. It was written in Babylon for the Jewish captives who lived there, in order to console them with the hope of liberation from captivity. But, of course, these readings from the book itself cannot be verified from other sources and therefore cannot be of decisive importance for researchers. Critics of the biblical text differ in their views on the question of the original language of the book of the prophet Baruch. Some consider the current Greek text of the book to be the original, others, one might say the majority, argue, on the basis of a philological analysis of the existing Greek text of the book, that it was originally written in Hebrew, but that its original, like the original of the book of Sirach, was soon lost. There is almost no external evidence of the existence of a Hebrew original of our book, except for the translation of the Syriac Peshito, which retains traces of the version made originally, or corrected from the Hebrew original. But the Hebraistic structure of speech, Greekized Hebrew words, free transmission of the original and much more can serve as sufficient grounds to assume that the book of the prophet Baruch was originally written in Hebrew, and specifically in the ancient biblical dialect. In addition, it can be assumed with probability that the Greek translator had at hand a manuscript of square font, written in continuous script, without separating words and having neither final letters nor vowels. Some critics believe that the book of Baruch is a combination of two different books, of which the first ended with the 8th verse of the third chapter (Bar.3:8), and the second with the 9th verse of the fifth chapter (Bar.5:9). But the reasons given in favor of such an assumption are very insufficient. On the contrary, if the second part of the book had been added to the first by another writer, then he, of course, would have tried to connect it with the first and from the outside, and not just the content. The book of the prophet Baruch is not found in the Hebrew Bible, and since the Christian Church accepted the canon of the Old Testament saints. books from Jews, it is natural that among us Christians this book should be considered non-canonical. If some of the Russian theologians seem inclined to attribute canonical significance to it, then this is undoubtedly a reflection of the Catholic view of the book of Baruch: it is known that the Catholic Church classifies the book of Baruch as the so-called Deutero-canonical books. If, however, during our worship we take passages from this book as parimia, then these parimia are designated as taken from the book of prophecy of Jeremiah, and not of Baruch. From the patristic interpretations of the book of the prophet Baruch, only what belongs to the blessed one is known. Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus. But later interpreters of Holy Scripture have repeatedly taken up the task of explaining this book, and in Catholic, as well as in Protestant literature, there are many studies about the book of Baruch. All this literature is indicated in an extensive study by Archimandrite. Antonina (Book of the Prophet Baruch. Reproduction. St. Petersburg, 1902). In his work, Archimandrite Antonin provides not only a detailed solution to all the questions that arise during the study of this book, but also a reproduction of its Hebrew text, as it should have been according to his considerations. He also appends to the Hebrew text a new translation from this text into Russian.