present and future destiny on earth, there is written nothing save “lamentation, and mourning, and woe.” The world is a scene of corruption, its evils are irremediable, its end is nigh, and the advent of the new and spiritual world at hand. The first to draw attention to the composite elements in this book was Kabisch (Jahrbücher f. protest. Theol., 1891, pp. 66-107). This critic regarded xxiv. 3–xxix., xxxvi.–xl. and liii.–lxxiv. as independent sources written before the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, and his groundwork, which consists of the rest of his book, with the exception of a few verses, as composed after that date. All these elements were put together by a Christian contemporary of Papias. Many of these conclusions were arrived at independently by a French scholar, De Faye (Les Apocalypses juives, 1892, pp. 25-28, 76-103, 192-204). The present writer (Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. liii.–lxvii.), after submitting the book to a fresh study, has come to the following conclusions:—The book is of Pharisaic authorship and composed of six independent writings—A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3. The first three were composed when Jerusalem was still standing and the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom were expected: A1, a mutilated apocalypse＝xxvii.–xxx. 1; A2, the Cedar and Vine Vision＝xxxvi.–xl.; A3, the Cloud Vision＝liii.–lxxiv. The last three were written after A.D. 70, and probably before 90. Thus B3＝lxxxv. was written by a Jew in exile, who, despairing of a national restoration, looked only for a spiritual recompense in heaven. The rest of the book is derived from B1 and B2, written in Palestine after A.D. 70. These writings belong to very different types of thought. In B1 the earthly Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, but not so in B2; in the former the exiles are to be restored, but not in the latter; in the former a Messianic kingdom without a Messiah is expected, but no earthly blessedness of any kind in the latter, &c. B1＝i.-ix. 1, xxxii. 2-4, xliii.–xliv. 7, xlv.–xlvi., lxxvii.–lxxxii., lxxxiv., lxxxvi.–lxxxvii. B2＝ix.–xxv., xxx. 2–xxxv., xli.–xlii., xliv. 8-15, xlvii.–lii., lxxv.–lxxvi., lxxxiii. The final editor of the work wrote in the name of Baruch the son of Neriah.
The above critical analyses were attacked and rejected by Clemen (Stud. und Krit., 1898, 211 sqq.). He fails, however, in many cases to recognize the difficulties at issue, and those which cannot be ignored he sets down to the conflicting apocalyptic traditions, on which the author was obliged to draw for his subject-matter. Though Ryssel (Kautzsch, Apok. u. Pseud. des A. T. ii. 409) has followed Clemen, neither has given any real explanation of the disorder of the book as it stands at present. Beer (op. cit.) agrees that xxxvi.–xl. and liii.–lxx. are of different authorship from the rest of the book and belong to the earlier date.
Relation to 4 Ezra.—The affinities of this book and 4 Ezra are so numerous (see Charles, op. cit. 170-171) that Ewald and Ryle assumed identity of authorship. But their points of divergence are so weighty (see op. cit. pp. lxix.–lxxi.) that this view cannot be sustained. Three courses still remain open. If we assume that both works are composite, we shall perforce admit that some of the constituents of 4 Ezra are older than the latest of Baruch, and that other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than the remaining ones of 4 Ezra. On the other hand, if we assume unity of authorship, it seems impossible to arrive at finality on the chronological relations of these two works. Langen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Stähelin, Renan, Hausrath, Drummond, Dillmann, Rosenthal, Gunkel, have maintained on various grounds the priority of 4 Ezra; and Schürer, Bissell, Thomson, Deane, Kabisch, De Faye, Wellhausen, and Ryssel the priority of Baruch on grounds no less convincing.
Relation to Rabbinical Literature.—A very close relation subsists between our book and rabbinical literature. Indeed in some instances the parallels are so close that they are almost word for word. The description of the destruction of Jerusalem by angels in vi.-viii. is found also in the Pesikta Rabbati 26 (ed. Friedmann 131a). By means of this passage we are, as Ginzberg has shown, able to correct the corrupt reading “the holy Ephod” (vi. 7), אפוד הקודש into “the holy Ark,” i.e. ארון הקודש. What might be taken as poetic fancies in our text are recounted as historical facts in rabbinical literature. Thus the words (x. 18):
| “And ye priests, take ye the keys of the sanctuary, And cast them into the height of heaven, And give them to the Lord and say: ‘Guard Thine own house; for lo we are found unfaithful stewards,’ ” |
are given in various accounts of the fall of Jerusalem. (See Ta’anith, 29a; Pesiḳt. R., loc. cit.; Yalquṭ Shim ʽoni on Is. xxi; Aboth of Rabbi Nathan vii.). Even the statement that the bodies of Sennacherib’s soldiers were burned while their garments and armour remained unconsumed has its parallel in Sanh. 94a.
Integrity of the Book.—In lxxvii. 19 it is said that Baruch wrote two epistles, one to the nine and a half tribes and the other to the two and a half at Babylon. The former is found in lxxviii.–lxxxvi.; the latter is lost, but is probably preserved either wholly or in part in the Book of Baruch, iii. 9–iv. 29 (see Charles, op. cit. pp. lxv.–lxvii). On the other hand, it is not necessary to infer from lxxv. that an account of Baruch’s assumption was to be looked for in the book.
Authorities.—The literature is fully cited in Schürer, Gesch. iii. 223-232, and R. H. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. xxx.-xliii. Ginzberg’s article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, ii. 551-556, is a fresh and valuable contribution.
Rest of the Words of Baruch. This book was undoubtedly written originally by a Jew but was subsequently revised by a Christian, as has been shown by Kohler in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1893), pp. 407–409. It passed under a double name in the Abyssinian Church, where it was known both as “the Rest of the Words of Baruch” and “the Rest of the Words of Jeremiah.” Its Greek name is the latter—τὰ παραλειπόμενα Ἱερεμου προφήτου. It has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic. The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, next by Ceriani in 1868 in his Mon. Sacra, v. 11-18; by Harris, The Rest of the Words of Baruch, in 1889; and Bassiliev, Anec. Graeco-Byzantina, i. 308 sqq. (1893). The book begins like the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch with an account of the removal of the sacred vessels of the Temple before its capture by the Chaldees. Baruch remains in Jerusalem and Jeremiah accompanies the Exiles to Babylon. After 66 years’ exile Jeremiah brings back the Jews to Jerusalem, but refuses to admit such as had brought with them heathen wives. Then follows a vision of Jeremiah which is Christian.
Harris regards the book in its present form as an eirenicon addressed to the Jews by a Christian after the rebellion of Bar Cochba (Barcochebas) and written about 136. Though the original work was dependent on the Apocalypse of Baruch it cannot have been written much before the close of the 1st cent. A.D. Its terminus ad quem is at present indeterminable. (R. H. C.)
BARUGO, a town on the north coast of the province of Leyte, island of Leyte, Philippine Islands, on Carigara Bay. Pop. (1903) 12,360. It exports large quantities of hemp and copra, and imports rice, petroleum, and cotton-goods.
BARWANI, a native state of India, in the Bhopawar agency in central India. It lies in the Satpura mountains, south of the Nerbudda. Area, 1178 sq. m.; pop. (1901) 76,136. Many of the inhabitants are Bhils. The chief, whose title is Rana, is a Rajput of the Sisodhyia clan, connected with the Udaipur family. Though the family lost most of its possessions during the Mahratta invasion in the 14th century, it never became tributary to any Malwa chief. The forests are under an English official. The town of Barwani is situated near the left bank of the Nerbudda. The population in 1901 was 6277.
BARYATINSKY, ALEXANDER IVANOVICH, Prince (1814–1879), Russian soldier and governor of the Caucasus, was privately educated, entered the school of the ensigns of the Guard in his seventeenth year and, on the 8th of November 1833, received his commission of cornet in the Life Guards of the cesarevich Alexander. In 1835 he served with great gallantry in the Caucasus, and on his return to St Petersburg was rewarded with a gold sword “for valour.” On the first of January 1836 he was attached to the suite of Alexander, and in 1845 was again ordered off to the Caucasus and again most brilliantly distinguished himself, especially in the attack on Shamyl’s stronghold, for which he received the order of St George. In 1846 he assisted
