ar, 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--A^1, A^2, A^3, B^1, B^2, B^3. The first three were
composed when Jerusalem was still standing and the Messiah and the
Messianic kingdom were expected: A^1, a mutilated apocalypse = xxvii.-xxx.
1; A^2, the Cedar and Vine Vision = xxxvi.-xl.; A^3, the Cloud Vision =
liii.-lxxiv. The last three were written after A.D. 70, and probably before
90. Thus B^3 = 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 B^1 and B^2, written in Palestine after
A.D. 70. These writings belong to very different types of thought. In B^1
the earthly Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, but not so in B^2; 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. B^1 = i.-ix. 1, xxxii. 2-4, xliii.-xliv. 7,
xlv.-xlvi., lxxvii.-lxxxii., lxxxiv., lxxxvi.-lxxxvii. B^2 = 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