{"id":8821,"date":"2023-09-07T11:41:30","date_gmt":"2023-09-07T16:41:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8821"},"modified":"2023-09-07T11:41:31","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T16:41:31","slug":"baruch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/07\/baruch\/","title":{"rendered":"Baruch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It has also been suggested that the exclusion of the Books of the Maccabees can be traced to the political rivalry that existed during the late Second Temple Period between the Sadducees and the Pharisees<\/a>. The Sadducees, a priestly class in charge of the Temple, openly rejected the oral interpretations that the Pharisees, the proto-rabbinic class, openly promoted. The Maccabees were a priestly family, while the rabbis who may have determined the final form of the biblical canon at Jamnia were descended from the Pharisees. Is it possible that the exclusion of the Books of Maccabees was one of the last salvos in the battle between the Pharisees and Sadducees?  Would the rabbis at Jamnia have been inclined to canonize a document that so clearly praised the priestly Hasmonean family?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pragmatism and Politics<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps the answer lies more within the realm of pragmatism and politics. The Books of Maccabees describe the revolt led by the Maccabean family against the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes<\/a>. A couple of centuries later, Jewish scholars found themselves in Jamnia with the Temple destroyed and Jerusalem lost. Their circumstances were the result of their own failed revolt against the Romans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps they felt it unwise to promote a text that heralded the successful outcome of a Jewish revolt. It may have posed a threat both internally and externally. The Romans would certainly not look kindly upon the popularization of such a text, since it might very well reintroduce the concept of revolt to a population desperately trying to survive the devastating outcome of its own failed attempts. Ironically, this very internal\/external struggle lies at the core of the Hanukkah story, and perhaps it was this very struggle playing out again in history that prevented the basic texts about Hanukkah from being included within the biblical canon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Books of Maccabees were not included within the Hebrew Bible, they are still of value. Yet even this is difficult within a traditional Jewish context, due to another historical layer. First and Second Maccabees were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible originally prepared for the Jewish community of Alexandria. However, the Septuagint became the official version of the Bible for the nascent Christian Church. When this happened, its authoritative nature was rejected by the Jewish community. Ironically, the Books of Maccabees survived because they became part of the Christian canon, for otherwise they most certainly would have been lost during the centuries. But once this Christian canonization occurred, these books  became lost to the Jewish world for many centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today there is a renewed interest in these books within the Jewish community. Students of Jewish history and Jewish literature recognize the value of these documents that took such pains to record details, events and personalities of a major period in Jewish history. While not considered as part of the canon in any Jewish community, the books are again being read and studied to help enrich our understanding and our celebration of  Hanukkah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.myjewishlearning.com\/article\/omitting-the-maccabees\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Los asmoneos<\/strong> o hasmoneos<\/strong> (en hebreo<\/a> \u05d7\u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd, \u1e24a\u0161m\u014dna<\/em>\u0294<\/sup>im<\/em>) fueron los sucesores directos de los macabeos<\/a>,[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u200bquienes lograron establecer un poderoso reino en lo que hoy es Israel<\/a> y Palestina<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup> En I Macabeos<\/a> y II Macabeos<\/a> se narran las historias de esta primera dinast\u00eda, pero lo que se conoce de los Asmoneos nos viene principalmente por Flavio Josefo en sus Guerras de los jud\u00edos<\/em> I.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Los saduceos (\u05e6\u05d3\u05d5\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd – Tsdoqim<\/em> ‘hijos del Sumo Sacerdote Tzadoq’<\/em>), si se hiciera un se\u00f1alamiento moderno, eran el partido liberal del tiempo, en favor del helenismo y abiertos a las innovaciones occidentales, por lo que eran aristocr\u00e1ticos y dominaban el sacerdocio y el Templo. Estuvieron siempre a favor de la dinast\u00eda Asmonea y resistieron valientemente el asedio de Pompeyo el Grande. Son ampliamente mencionados en el Nuevo Testamento<\/a><\/em> y solo se extinguieron con la destrucci\u00f3n definitiva del Templo por parte de los romanos<\/a> en el a\u00f1o 70<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parece ser que hab\u00eda dos tipos de Saduceos: los sacerdotes descendientes de Sadoq, de tiempos del Rey David, y un partido religioso, disc\u00edpulos de Sadoq que fue alumno de Ant\u00edgonos de Sojo. Eso crea grandes dificultades en el momento de discernir entre ellos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Los fariseos (\u05e4\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05dd – prushim) eran en cambio en t\u00e9rminos modernos, el partido conservador, celosos defensores de la religi\u00f3n y las tradiciones ancestrales, observantes estrictos de la Ley de Mois\u00e9s<\/a> (Tor\u00e1<\/a>), hostiles a cualquier elemento helenista que consideraban pagano hasta el punto que tener una relaci\u00f3n con lo que no era jud\u00edo era visto por ellos como un acto de idolatr\u00eda. Los fariseos eran por naturaleza patriotas y si en principio apoyaron las aspiraciones de Juan Hircano I, pronto se opusieron a sus pol\u00edticas para nada religiosas. S\u00f3lo con la Reina Alexandra Salom\u00e9 tuvieron una gran prosperidad, lo que les permiti\u00f3 trabajar en el moldeamiento de la religi\u00f3n, lo que subsistir\u00eda por generaciones futuras. Tambi\u00e9n son mencionados ampliamente en el Nuevo Testamento<\/a> y contrariamente a lo que se piensa, algunos de ellos se hicieron cristianos<\/a>, entre ellos el m\u00e1s c\u00e9lebre fue Pablo de Tarso<\/a>. Pero la mayor\u00eda de ellos, despu\u00e9s de la destrucci\u00f3n del Templo y con el traslado del centro religioso a la ciudad costera de Yavne (Jabne), ayudaron a sentar las ra\u00edces del Rabinismo<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Los grandes silenciosos de la historia, los esenios, tambi\u00e9n surgen en este periodo de la dinast\u00eda asmonea y fueron incluso m\u00e1s radicales que los fariseos. Despu\u00e9s de que los asmoneos dejan como establecido su derecho al t\u00edtulo de Sumo Sacerdote<\/em> y Rey de Israel<\/em>, ambos reglamentados en las Escrituras y los Profetas como prerrogativa absoluta de un descendiente del Sumo Sacerdote Sadoq[18]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b y del rey David,[19]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b un grupo de jud\u00edos estrictamente observantes abandonan Jerusal\u00e9n y se establecen en las cuevas del Valle del mar Muerto<\/a> en donde se dedican a una vida asc\u00e9tica a la espera del Mes\u00edas<\/a>. Gracias a ellos, se conservaron papiros b\u00edblicos en lo que se conoce como Rollos del Mar Muerto. Tambi\u00e9n ellos desaparecieron con la destrucci\u00f3n que los romanos hicieron en Israel en el 70 y su nombre fue olvidado por siglos hasta el descubrimiento de las grutas de Qumr\u00e1n<\/a> en 1947<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. El Sumo Sacerdote Sadoq, hijo de Ajitub, fue confirmado como tal por David<\/a> (cfr. II Samuel 8, 17). El Profeta Ezequiel<\/a> en Ez. 44, 15 ss, regulando la normatividad sacerdotal, dice: \u00abPero los sacerdotes levitas, hijos de Sadoq, que cumplieron mi ministerio en el santuario<\/em> (…) estar\u00e1n en mi presencia para ofrecerme la grasa y la sangre<\/em> (…)\u00bb. Por lo tanto, los Asmoneos no eran saduceos (hijos de Sadoq) y por lo tanto no ten\u00edan derecho a ser Sumos Sacerdotes<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. \u2191<\/a> En innumerables pasajes b\u00edblicos David<\/a> recibe por revelaci\u00f3n la promesa de que su descendencia reinar\u00e1 por siempre. Por medio del Profeta Nat\u00e1n dice: \u00abY cuando tus d\u00edas se hayan cumplido y te acuestes con tus padres, afirmar\u00e9 despu\u00e9s de ti la descendencia que saldr\u00e1 de tus entra\u00f1as y consolidar\u00e9 el trono de tu realeza<\/em>\u00bb (I Samuel 7, 12) y al Rey Salom\u00f3n<\/a> dice por medio del Profeta Aj\u00edas \u00ab(…) para que quede siempre a David mi siervo una l\u00e1mpara en mi presencia delante de m\u00ed en Jerusal\u00e9n, la ciudad que me eleg\u00ed para poner all\u00ed mi Nombre<\/em>\u00bb (I Reyes 11, 36), por esta raz\u00f3n, los Asmoneos no ten\u00edan derecho teol\u00f3gico a ser el Rey de Israel<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    All of the Islamic evidence shows there are different canonical versions of the Qur’an used around the world today<\/strong>. They differ in their words, basic letters, diacritical dots, vowels, and the Basmalah; and these change the meaning of words and sentences.30 ene 2019 https:\/\/www.ugr.es \u203a materiales \u203a Gr… The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur’an – Are all Qur’ans the same?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    CONCLUSION.<\/strong> We began this article by considering this common Islamic claim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    No other book in the world can match the Qur’an … The astonishing fact about this book of ALLAH is that it has remained unchanged, even to a dot, over the last fourteen hundred years. … No variation of text can be found in it. You can check this for yourself by listening to the recitation of Muslims from different parts of the world. (Basic Principles of Islam<\/em>, p. 4)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    This claim is wrong. All of the Islamic evidence shows there are different Qur’ans used around the world today. They differ in their words, basic letters, diacritical dots, vowels, and the Basmalah; and these change the meaning of words and sentences, and the number of words in the Qur’an. Not all Qur’ans are identical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Islamic leaders should stop exaggerating about the Qur’an. If you are a Muslim, please do not believe or make these claims. If you are a Christian, do not believe these exaggerated claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This article only considers the different Qur’ans used in the world today<\/em>. If you wish to learn about the different Qur’ans in Islam’s early history then read The Preservation of the Qur’an<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/answering-islam.org\/Green\/seven.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Chapter 3: Did Muhammad only have one version of the Qur\u2019an?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Again the answer is no. The Hadith records that Muhammad taught different versions of the Qur’an to his companions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?” He replied, “Allah’s Apostle taught it to me”. I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours”. So I dragged him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way”, and added, “Recite, O Umar”, I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Apostle then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari<\/em>: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    https:\/\/answering-islam.org\/Green\/uthman.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REVIEW Secta mas\u00f3nica de los Rosa-Cruces, cuyos c\u00edrculos pululaban en Alemania<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REVIEW Masoner\u00eda Hebraica de los B’nai B’rith 1936 Par\u00eds<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    READ jews protestants reformation<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Logia Conciliar, Novus Ordo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    B’nai B’rith<\/strong>, literalmente Hijos de la Alianza<\/strong>, Hijos del Pacto o Hijos de la Luz<\/strong> (en hebreo<\/a> \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea), es una organizaci\u00f3n<\/a>jud\u00eda<\/a> con un sistema de filiales, con una sede mundial en Washington D. C.<\/a>, una sede en Bruselas<\/a> y varias sedes en distintos pa\u00edses de Am\u00e9rica Latina y Europa.[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. \u00abQuienes somos\u00bb<\/a>. B\u2019nai B\u2019rith Barcelona. Consultado el 31 de agosto de 2016.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. \u2191 Saltar a:a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> Francis J. Turner (2005). Encyclopedia of Canadian Social Work<\/em><\/a>. Waterloo, ON : Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN<\/a> 9780889204362<\/a><\/small>. Consultado el 31 de agosto de 2016.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      READ The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch<\/em> emmanuel tov<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      El libro de Baruc existi\u00f3 primeramente como tres partes separadas e independientes que m\u00e1s tarde fueron reunidas y resultaron en el libro actual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      La Septuaginta<\/a> muestra separado el cap\u00edtulo 6 de Baruc, que se llama “Carta de Jerem\u00edas<\/a>” y en las biblias de ciertas religiones se encuentra como libro separado. La Vulgata<\/a>, desde el siglo ix, la junta con el libro de Baruc y la numera como un cap\u00edtulo m\u00e1s.[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b La Carta de Jerem\u00edas es un discurso apolog\u00e9tico contra la idolatr\u00eda, y desarrolla a\u00fan m\u00e1s los conceptos estudiados por Jerem\u00edas<\/a> e Isa\u00edas<\/a>.[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Canellis, Aline; Weber, Robert; Gryson, Roger (2017). Pr\u00e9faces aux livres de la Bible<\/em><\/a>. p. 217. ISBN<\/a> 978-2-204-12618-2<\/a><\/small>. OCLC<\/a> 1013963114<\/a><\/small>. Consultado el 17 de octubre de 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. \u2191<\/a> Jeremias<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. \u2191<\/a> Isaias<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Jerem\u00edas<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Como se han encontrado fragmentos hebreos en los Rollos del Mar Muerto<\/a> correspondientes tanto a la LXX como al masor\u00e9tico, se acepta com\u00fanmente que las dos versiones derivan de dos tradiciones hebreas distintas, y que la forma del texto de la Septuaginta es probablemente la m\u00e1s antigua.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b El erudito benedictino<\/a> Pierre-Maurice Bogaert sugiere que, si el Libro de Baruc se adjunta a la versi\u00f3n de la Septuaginta de Jerem\u00edas, sigue como una continuaci\u00f3n natural de la narrativa de la Septuaginta (cap\u00edtulo 51:31-35 de la LXX, correspondiente al cap\u00edtulo 45 truncado en el texto masor\u00e9tico).[5]<\/a><\/sup>\u200b Emanuel Tov propone una conclusi\u00f3n similar, se\u00f1alando las caracter\u00edsticas de una revisi\u00f3n redaccional consistente del texto de la Septuaginta de Jerem\u00edas desde el Cap\u00edtulo 29 en adelante (corrigiendo las lecturas hacia el hebreo), una revisi\u00f3n que luego se traslada al texto griego de Baruc 1:1 a 3:8, lo que sugiere que estos una vez formaron un texto continuo.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Barton, John; Muddiman, John (25 de enero de 2007). The Oxford Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a> (en ingl\u00e9s). Oxford University Press. pp. 699-700. ISBN<\/a> 978-0-19-927718-6<\/a><\/small>. Consultado el 17 de octubre de 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. \u2191 Saltar a:a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> c<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2005-12). \u00abLe livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et r\u00e9int\u00e9gration\u00bb<\/a>. Revue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine<\/em> (en franc\u00e9s) 115<\/strong> (2): 286-342. ISSN<\/a> 0035-0893<\/a><\/small>. doi<\/a>:10.1484\/J.RB.5.100598<\/a><\/small>. Consultado el 17 de octubre de 2021.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. \u2191<\/a> Tov, Emmanuel (1976). The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29\u201352 and Baruch 1:1\u20133:8<\/em>. Scholars Press.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          The Book of Baruch is sometimes referred to as 1 Baruch<\/strong>[4]<\/a><\/sup> to distinguish it from 2 Baruch<\/a>, 3 Baruch<\/a> and 4 Baruch<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Although the earliest known manuscripts of Baruch are in Greek, linguistic features of the first parts of Baruch (1:1\u20133:8) have been proposed as indicating a translation from a Semitic language<\/a>.[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Although not in the Hebrew Bible<\/a>, it is found in the Septuagint<\/a>, in the Eritrean\/Ethiopian Orthodox Bible<\/a>, and also in Theodotion<\/a>‘s Greek version.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Bible Society, Baruch<\/a>, Bible Book Club, accessed 22 July 2019<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. ^ Jump up to:a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> c<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> d<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> e<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> f<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> g<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> h<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> i<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> j<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> John Barton; John Muddiman (25 January 2007). The Oxford Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a>. Oxford University Press. p. 699. ISBN<\/a> 978-0-19-927718-6<\/bdi><\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3. ^<\/a><\/strong> “Baruch” by P. P. Saydon, revised by T. Hanlon, in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture<\/em>, ed. Reginald C. Fuller<\/a>, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publishers, 1953, 1975, \u00a7504j. The same source states that “[t]here is also evidence that Baruch was read in Jewish synagogues on certain festivals during the early centuries of the Christian era (Thackeray, 107-11)”, i.e. Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship<\/em>, 1923.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            The Letter of Jeremiah<\/strong>, also known as the Epistle of Jeremiah<\/strong>, is a deuterocanonical<\/a> book of the Old Testament<\/a>; this letter is attributed to Jeremiah<\/a>[1]<\/a><\/sup> to the Jews who were about to be carried away as captives to Babylon<\/a> by Nebuchadnezzar<\/a>. It is included in Roman Catholic<\/a> Bibles as the final chapter of the Book of Baruch<\/a> (Baruch 6<\/strong>). It is also included in Orthodox<\/a> Bibles as a separate book, as well as in the Apocrypha of the Authorized Version<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            [1]<\/sup>Charles, Robert Henry<\/a> (1911). “Jeremy, Epistle of” <\/a>. In Chisholm, Hugh<\/a> (ed.). Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica<\/a><\/em>. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 325.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The earliest evidence for the text of the Book of Baruch is in quotations in the works of early Christian Church Fathers<\/a>; the earliest citation being in the Legatio pro Christianis: 9<\/em> of Athenagoras of Athens<\/a>, dated 177.[5]<\/a><\/sup> Much the most extensive use of the Book of Baruch in patristic literature is in the Adversus Haereses<\/a>: 5.35.1<\/em> (c. 180) of Irenaeus of Lyons<\/a>; which draws extensively on Baruch 4:36 to 5:9.[12]<\/a><\/sup> Both Athenagorus and Irenaeus cite these readings as being from the Book of Jeremiah<\/a>. A brief quotation appears also in the Paedagogus<\/a> by Clement of Alexandria<\/a>.[13]<\/a><\/sup> Increasingly from the 4th century onwards, however, Greek Fathers tend to cite such readings as from a ‘Book of Baruch’, although Latin Fathers consistently maintain the former practice of citing these texts as from Jeremiah, and where they do refer to a ‘Book of Baruch’ are to be understood as denoting the apocalyptic work, 2 Baruch<\/a>.[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            John Barton; John Muddiman (25 January 2007). The Oxford Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a>. Oxford University Press. p. 699. ISBN<\/a> 978-0-19-927718-6<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. Adams, Sean A. (2014). Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah<\/em>. Brill. p. 17.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. ^<\/a><\/strong> Paedagogus<\/em>, Book II, Ch. 3<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. ^ Jump up to:a<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> b<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> c<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> d<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> e<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> f<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> g<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> h<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> i<\/strong><\/em><\/sup><\/a> Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2005). “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et r\u00e9int\u00e9gration”. Revue B\u00e9n\u00e9dictine<\/em>. 115<\/strong> (2): 286\u2013342. doi<\/a>:10.1484\/J.RB.5.100598<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              The earliest Greek<\/a> fragment (1st century BC) was discovered in Qumran<\/a>.[7]<\/a><\/sup> Gifford reports that in his time “the great majority of competent and impartial critics” considered Greek<\/a> to be the original language.[8]<\/a><\/sup> As one of these critics O. F. Fritzsche<\/a> put it, “If any one of the Apocryphal books was composed in Greek, this certainly was.”[9]<\/a><\/sup> The strongest dissenter from this majority view was C. J. Ball, who marshalled the most compelling argument for a Hebrew<\/a> original.[10]<\/a><\/sup> However, Yale<\/a> Semitic<\/a> scholar C. C. Torrey<\/a> was not persuaded: “If the examination by a scholar of Ball’s thoroughness and wide learning can produce nothing better than this, it can be said with little hesitation that the language was probably not Hebrew.”[11]<\/a><\/sup> Torrey’s own conclusion was that the work was originally composed in Aramaic<\/a>.[12]<\/a><\/sup> In recent years the tide of opinion has shifted and now the consensus is that the “letter” was originally composed in Hebrew<\/a> (or Aramaic<\/a>).[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. Baillet 1962, 143.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              2. ^<\/a><\/strong> Gifford 1888, 288; cf. Torrey 1945, 65.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              3. ^<\/a><\/strong> Fritzsche 1851, 206 as translated by Gifford 1888, 288.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              4. ^<\/a><\/strong> Ball 1913, 597\u201398, and throughout the commentary; cf. Gifford 1888, 289.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              5. ^<\/a><\/strong> Torrey 1945, 65; cf. Oesterley 1914, 508.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              6. ^<\/a><\/strong> Torrey 1945, 66\u201367. Pfeiffer 1949, 430, supports Torrey’s Aramaic proposal, though noting that “its Hellenistic Greek style is fairly good.”<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              7. ^<\/a><\/strong> Metzger 1957, 96; Moore 1977, 327\u201327; Nickelsburg 1984, 148; Sch\u00fcrer 1987, 744 (opinion of revisers, Sch\u00fcrer himself thought it was “certainly of Greek origin” [Sch\u00fcrer 1896, 195]); Moore 1992, 704; Kaiser 2004, 62.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                It has also been suggested that the exclusion of the Books of the Maccabees can be traced to the political rivalry that existed during the late Second Temple Period between the Sadducees and … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n