I’m about to start working on Baruch and I had one heck of a time finding any resources. It’s a deuterocanonical book named after Jeremiah’s disciple, Baruch. You can find it in any Catholic Bible but not in a Protestant Bible. It’s also really short, only 5 chapters. So these two factors have combined to prevent much publication on the book. As far as I can see, there isn’t a single full-length commentary on Baruch anywhere. But I dug up the resources I could find that had a chapter or section on Baruch. Emmanuel Tov’s book appears to be a Greek-Hebrew edition of Baruch, not a commentary. Baruch was originally written in Hebrew, so most think, but only the Greek is extant. I suppose translating it back into Hebrew could be a useful exercise. So I’ve gathered a resource list of everything I could find on Baruch in English. Some of these pieces are very short. I bet if you read some of them, they will lead you to other books as well. If you find anything worth reading on Baruch that’s not on my list, please comment on this post and I’ll add it to the list!

Update: This bibliography gets complicated because Baruch 6 is often commented on as a separate work, The Letter of Jeremiah. Both Saldarini and Harrington comment on it in the same volume as their Baruch comments. Also, I added a section that lists the re-constructed Hebrew translations of Baruch by themselves. There are three: Kneucker, Tov and Burke. Kneucker translates 1:1-5:9 (Warning!–This is a guess. I haven’t been able to get my hands on this volume), Tov translates 1:1-3:8 and Burke translates 3:9-5:9. I have seen both Tov and Burke. Burke’s introductory comments and analysis are very helpful.

Bibliography of Commentaries on Baruch

Brown, Raymond E., Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy, eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Burke, David G. Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9-5:9. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982.

Crowley, Edward J. The Books of Lamentations, Baruch, Sophonia, Nahum and Habacuc: With Commentary. New York: Paulist Press, 1962.

Dancy, John, Wesley J. Fuerst, R.J. Hammer. The Shorter Books of the Apocrypha. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Ellis, Peter F. Jeremiah, Baruch. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986.

Farmer, William R. The International Bible Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

Harrington, Daniel J. in Harper’s Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.

Kodell, Jerome. Lamentations, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Obadiah, Joel, Second Zechariah, Baruch. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982.

Moore, Carey. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions. Anchor Bible, vol. 44. New York: Doubleday, 1977.

Navarre Bible, v.6. Princeton, NJ: Scepter, 2005.

Saldarini, Anthony J. New Interpreter’s Bible, v.6. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.

Stuhlmueller, Carroll. The Books of Jeremiah and Baruch. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1971.

Tov, Emmanuel. The Book of Baruch. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975.

—Special: Reconstructed Hebrew Translations of Greek Baruch—
Burke, David G. Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9-5:9. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982.

Kneucker, J.J. Das Buch Baruch. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1879.

Tov, Emmanuel. The Book of Baruch. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975.

—Online Resources on Baruch—
“Baruch – Introduction” in Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859.

“Book of Baruch” in Catholic Encyclopedia. 1907.

“Book of Baruch” on jewishencyclopedia.com.

“Book of Baruch” on mb-soft.com, Believe network.

Gigot, Francis. Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, Part II. New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1906.

Wikipedia. Book of Baruch.

There’s a Hebrew word (kaphar) in Ezek 16:63 which the ESV translates as “atone.” The word can also be translated as “cover over, pacify, propitiate.” (BDB) I found it very interesting that the same word is used in Gen 6:14 when the Lord commands Noah to cover the ark with pitch. Strangely enough, the same root is used for the word which means “pitch.” Unfortunately, Gen 6:14 is the only occurrence of the word. But the image of God covering over sins with pitch is a powerful one, not that Gen or Ezek actually says that. The Ezek passage is referring to a future time when God will kaphar Judah’s sins. I suppose it also has theological implications, but I don’t want to take this too far. The point is that we can compare Ezek 16:63’s use of kaphar with Gen 6:14 and come up with the image of God covering our sins with pitch. Cool.

(Check out the picture of the guy with pitch in Trinidad.)

So I came across a word in James 5:9 (stenazo, “complain, groan”) and I was intrigued, so I looked it up in BDAG. BDAG lists a few meanings: sigh, groan because of an undesirable circumstance. Then it cites Mk 7:34 where Jesus sighs before healing a deaf man. BDAG says this meaning is “in connection w. a healing, prob. as an expr. of power ready to act Mk 7:34.” What?!

Since when does Jesus groan “as an expression of power ready to act”? BDAG, to its credit, does cite a couple older grammars, that I don’t have ready access to in my personal library. But I think the word goes a lot deeper in the NT than an isolated instance of Jesus doing some pre-healing groans.

Check out Romans 8:26 where the Spirit intercedes for us with unutterable groanings (stenagmos, a noun form of stenazo). Then look at Heb 13:17 where we ought to help our leaders do their jobs without groaning (stenazo). Now compare that to Jesus praying with loud cries in Heb 5:7 (krauges ischuras) and being heard because of his reverence.

I think the groaning he does in Mk 7:34 is more like the loud cries of Heb 5:7 than a preparatory grunt before healing.

The Bible must be read differently than any other book. Most non-fiction books we read with an attitude of total skepticism. We want the author to prove his point to us and if we are not convinced of his position by the end, we leave the book behind looking for better books with which we can agree.

But we should not read the Bible with an attitude of skepticism. Rather, we must read it with an attitude of humble submission. Since it really is God’s word to man, we are not free to disagree and leave it behind. Instead when we confront something in the Bible that we don’t like or don’t understand or can’t accept, we must pray and ask God for the grace to understand and accept it. But even before we receive that grace, we must submit our minds and hearts to the Bible, trusting that God’s Word is better than our own.

This paradigm shift in the way we read is not easy, but it is necessary. We will never understand the Bible if we do not submit to it. We will never learn from it if we do not love it.

I added a few new links to the side-bar. Check out “Online Bible Translations” for a wonderful list of links to almost every online Bible website. It’s a super helpful quick glance at every web Bible out there. Then take a look at the “Better Bibles Blog.” This is a young blog with a great future. It gives you a place to post poor translations in whatever version you happen to be reading. If you find an error or a badly translated verse, just post it there. Hopefully future English Bible translators can use this website as a resource. Finally, go to “iTanakh.” This site is amazing. It has grouped together gazillions of Bible resources, articles, fonts, versions, software, etc. It goes on and on. I don’t agree with everything posted there (obviously), but it is an invaluable resource of information.

I decided to take Hannah Hurnard off of My Inspirations on the sidebar of this blog. I was inspired by her popular book “Hind’s Feet on High Places.” But I came to discover today that later in life she fell into some very strange doctrines like reincarnation, etc.

I found this very helpful quote from Pope Benedict XVI here. He emphasizes interpreting Scripture as a unity, not just cherry-picking our favorite things or reading it as a random collection of books. Check it out:

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, stated: “I would very much like to see theologians learn to interpret and love Scripture as the Council desired, in accordance with Dei Verbum: may they experience the inner unity of Scripture—something that today is helped by ‘canonical exegesis’ (still to be found, of course, in its timid first stages)—and then make a spiritual interpretation of it that is not externally edifying but rather an inner immersion into the presence of the Word. It seems to me a very important task to do something in this regard, to contribute to providing an introduction to living Scripture as an up-to-date Word of God, beside, with and in historical-critical exegesis.”

I just linked to the blog Singing in the Reign, which is written by Brant Pitre and Michael Barber. I met both of them about a week and a half ago at the Society for Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA. I had met Dr. Pitre briefly about a year ago in Denver. Check out their blog if you get a chance!

I came across a curious comment in Moshe Greenburg’s Anchor Bible Ezekiel Commentary recently. He mentioned the fact that a full scroll of Ezekiel was found at Qumran, but it could not be opened. He referenced a particular article and left it at that. I thought “Yikes!” I mean if we found a whole scroll of Ezekiel, it seems like we ought to x-raying it and CAT-scanning it and whatver else we can do to recover its text. So, I’ve been hunting for the article. Here’s the reference: Brownlee, William H. “The Scroll of Ezekiel from the Eleventh Qumran Cave.” Revue de Qumran 13 (1963): 11-28.

Unfortunately, not very many libraries keep this journal and it’s not in any electronic databases I’ve used. But I did find this book: Brownlee, William H. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. This book in general looks very helpful although I have not endeavored to read it. I searched for its comments on the Ezekiel scroll since it is by the same author as the article. He cites his own article in reference to the scroll but in the book he does state this: “An attempt to open this scroll was largely a failure, since the document had almost completely disintegrated into an unstratified mass of desiccated gelatin. A few small fragments (or scales) of text were recoverable from the outside and seem to indicate a general agreement with the familiar Masoretic text.”

So it appears this Qumran scroll is not as important as I initially thought, nor as recoverable. Undoubtedly more work has been done on it and as I find it, I’ll update this post. And if I do get my hands on the Brownlee article, I’ll tell you anything important it says.

As I have been working slowly through the Lectionary to write Lectio Divina meditations on it, I have noticed many times where the Lectionary omits verses right in the middle of a reading. This can be very distracting if you are trying to study the Bible based on the readings for the week or the day because you have to keep switching back and forth from your Bible to your missal. And sometimes, the verses omitted are vital to understand what is going on in the text.

After encountering this the umpteenth time, I resorted to some Googling to find an answer as to why these stray verses got omitted by the Lectionary. I found the official introduction to the Lectionary which explains the problem thus:

• 77. The omission of verses in readings from Scripture has at times been the tradition of many liturgies, including the Roman liturgy. Admittedly such omissions may not be made lightly, for fear of distorting the meaning of the text or the intent and style of Scripture. Yet on pastoral grounds it was decided to continue the traditional practice in the present Order of Readings, but at the same time to ensure that the essential meaning of the text remained intact. One reason for the decision is that otherwise some texts would have been unduly long. It would also have been necessary to omit completely certain readings of high spiritual value for the faithful because those readings include some verse that is pastorally less useful or that involves truly difficult questions. (see catholicliturgy.com)

I don’t quite understand how “pastoral grounds” apply all the time. I think the omission of certain verses is often quite jarring and unhelpful to someone trying to understand the text. For example, I’m working on the 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C which has 2 Macc 7:1-2,9-14 for the First Reading. It the story of the seven sons getting executed before their mother by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But by cutting out verses 3-8, the pronoun “he” in verse 9 is stripped of its antecedent which was the second brother. As the reading is presented it seems as though the first brother is being mentioned by “he” in verse 9. It also makes very little sense that there is a “third” brother since we never met the second one–although we do here his voice, it seems like the first is speaking because of the “he” problem. And it makes even less sense that he holds out his hands and says he disdains them because without vv. 3-7 we are not told that the first and second brothers got their hands and feet cut off.

I suppose that these particular things are minor points, but they illustrate a greater difficulty with omitting verses. And the main thing that I think was probably the “pastoral ground” for omitting the verses has to do with the graphic violence associated with the torture of these men (e.g. cutting off the hands and tongue, frying, etc.) Yet I think the violence is what makes their martyrdom such a powerful story, such an astounding witness, such a great example of courage.