These are the words raises the question of just what this section is intended to be an introduction to; the answer will affect the translation of the book. The Greek word for book is used in Jer 29.1 (36.1 in Greek) to refer to a “letter.” If the content of Baruch’s writing, that which is read aloud in verse 3, consists only of 1.10–3.8, then “letter” becomes a logical translation, and appropriate to the context. Some scholars, however, consider the word book here to refer to the entire book from 1.15 onward; this is the approach adopted here. In any case, there is a problem with These are the words, since this phrase does not refer to this paragraph. Baruch’s words do not begin until later, at verse 15. A translator could helpfully clarify the situation for the reader by some introductory device such as “Below you will find the book [or, words/content of the book] that Baruch wrote.”

Which Baruch the son of Neraiah … wrote in Babylon: Baruch was a companion of the prophet Jeremiah. The name in Hebrew means “one who is blessed.” “A descendant of” (Good News Translation) or “his ancestors included” avoids the repetitious words the son of. Translators may wish to consider placing Baruch’s genealogy in parentheses (see the alternative model below). This will allow the discourse to proceed smoothly from which Baruch to wrote in Babylon without the problem of fitting the names of Baruch’s ancestors in grammatically. “This book was written by…” (Good News Translation) allows the genealogy to close the sentence, but it misleads the reader by giving the impression that this sentence and paragraph are part of Baruch’s writing (there is a similar problem with Contemporary English Version).

For wrote in Babylon, Good News Translation has “It was written in Babylon.” An alternate approach would be “He was in Babylon when he wrote it.” This would fit in well with the circumstances of the writing given in the next verse. Translators in a number of languages will need to indicate that Babylon was a city. In cultures where only villages exist, it will be necessary to say something like “a large village with high walls around it named Babylon.”

An alternative translation model for this verse is:

• Below you will find the words of the book that Baruch wrote. (He was the son of Neraiah, grandson of Mahseiah, and his other ancestors were Zedekiah, Hasadiah, and Hilkiah.) He wrote this book in the city of Babylon.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

In the fifth year, on the seventh day of the month …: It is odd that this does not go on to tell us what month is intended. That information has probably dropped out, but surely the fifth month is meant. See 2 Kgs 25.8, where the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is given as the seventh day of the fifth month. There is little reason for changing the text to include the number of the month, but a footnote such as Good News Translation gives might prove helpful for some careful readers. Contemporary English Version actually provides the name of the month as “Ab,” but translators should not put this in the text. What is pretty clearly meant is that Baruch wrote his book on the fifth anniversary, to the very day, of the Babylonians’ capture and destruction of Jerusalem. Translators may simply want to say this; for example, “ … He was in Babylon when he wrote it, and he did so on the fifth anniversary of the day [or, exactly five years] after the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and set fire to the city.” The gathering of large numbers of Jews together on the occasion noted here in Baruch (see verses 3-4) would suggest an observance of some kind, appropriate to an anniversary.

At the time surely means “the date” (so Moore). It certainly does not mean that Baruch wrote the book at the time the Babylonians were burning the city. Good News Translation “in the fifth year after the Babylonians…” and Contemporary English Version “exactly five years after…” interpret it correctly.

The Chaldeans were originally a separate people from the Babylonians, but lived nearby. By late Old Testament times, however, Chaldeans meant Babylonians. Good News Translation uses “Babylonians” to be consistent with such passages as 2 Kgs 24–25, and translators are urged to follow the example of Good News Translation.

Took Jerusalem and burned it with fire refers to the incidents described in 2 Kgs 25, those of the year 587/586 B.C. The Babylonians had captured Jerusalem for the first time some 11 years earlier, deposing King Jehoiachin and installing Zedekiah as their puppet king. When Zedekiah rebelled, the final siege, capture, and burning of the city took place. In this context took may also be expressed as “took hold of,” “seized,” or “captured” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

In a number of languages like English, it will sound strange to add the words with fire to burned it. Translators need to use an expression that is natural in their language.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Baruch read the words of this book in the hearing of Jeconiah …: Baruch not only wrote the book, but he read it aloud to a wide audience. He read it in the hearing of (literally “in the ears of”) the following people: (a) Jeconiah, (b) all the people who came to hear the book (literally “… came to the book”), (c) the mighty men and the princes, (d) the elders, and (e) all the people, small and great. Good News Translation breaks this long series up by placing (a) in one sentence, and placing (b), (c), (d), and (e) in a second sentence. In order for all these people to hear what Baruch was reading, he would have to use a very loud voice. This may need to be indicated in a number of languages; for example, “Baruch read the words of the book with a loud voice to let … hear [or, listen].”

Jeconiah was the king of Judah who was deposed and taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the first capture of Jerusalem. The exiled Jews considered him their legitimate king (see Ezek 1.2). Jeconiah is a variant form of “Jehoiachin,” which is favored by Good News Translation for consistency with its use elsewhere. In Hebrew and Revised Standard Version the form Jeconiah occurs in 1 Chr 3.16-17; Est 2.6; Jer 24.1; 27.20; 28.4; 29.2. The form “Jehoiachin” occurs in 2 Kgs 24.6, 8, 12, 15, 17; 25.27, 29; 2 Chr 36.8-9; Jer 52.31, 33; Ezek 1.2. Translators should be guided by their own practice in these books, particularly Jeremiah. If “Jehoiachin” has been favored for consistency (as in Good News Translation), it should be followed here. But if the two forms have been used in previous work, “Jeconiah” should be used here.

King in a number of languages will be expressed as “high [or, great] chief.” However, in some languages it will be more natural to use a verbal expression; for example, “Jeconiah … who [had] ruled Judah [or, the people of Judah].”

In the hearing of all the people who came to hear may be rendered “to everyone who came to listen” (Contemporary English Version).

Mighty men surely refers to “nobles,” as most recent translations agree. They were probably leaders with high political status, and in some languages this will be translated as “minor chiefs.”

Princes translates “sons of the kings.” The reference is to the males who were descended from David, not just to Jeconiah’s family. New English Bible has it right, saying “princes of the royal blood.” Good News Translation “children of royal families” is an attempt that fails on two points: “sons” are mentioned, not “children,” though the royal daughters might have been involved; and there was really only one royal family, that of King David. So better alternative translation models are “male children descended from King David” and “male children whose great ancestor was King David.” There is nothing wrong with the word “princes,” but for those translating into English it presents a peculiar problem, since the word sounds like “princess,” and Good News Translation may well have avoided it for that reason.

Elders in this context refers to respected elderly males. It is uncertain why Contemporary English Version refers to these as just “religious leaders.” Surely other elderly leaders beside priests were included!

People, small and great refers to people of whatever social status, as Good News Translation makes clear with “all the people, no matter what their status.”

All who dwelt in Babylon by the river Sud: The river Sud is otherwise unknown. It was probably actually an irrigation canal carrying water from the Euphrates River, like the “river Chebar” mentioned in Ezek 1.1.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

Then they wept, and fasted, and prayed before the Lord: “When the book was read” (Good News Translation; similarly Contemporary English Version) does not appear in the Greek text, but it is clearly what is intended by the connector Then and is helpful to the reader. It establishes that the weeping, fasting, and praying came about as a result of hearing the book being read; not that they had come together to hear a book being read, and weep, fast, and pray. In languages that do not have the passive voice, translators may say “When Baruch read the book” or “As Baruch was reading the book.”

In Greek the three actions of weeping, fasting, and praying are mentioned in the imperfect tense. This could be interpreted as the beginning of the action: “they began to weep, to fast, and to pray.” Fasting (that is, going without food) presents a problem in this series, since by its nature it requires hours, if not days. People can weep or pray briefly, but a fast of a few minutes’ duration is not very impressive. If we concentrate on the beginning of the action, a translation such as “they began to…” may help to avoid this problem. There is a further idea here: the people wept, fasted, and prayed before the Lord. This phrase appears to modify all three verbs, not simply the last one (as in Good News Translation and New English Bible “prayed to the Lord”). The intent is more like “they devoted [or, rededicated] themselves to the Lord in tears, with fasting and prayer.”

Lord (kurios in Greek) is the equivalent of the Hebrew word ʾadonay, which means “one who rules” or “master.” In some languages the word for Lord is also the word used to translate “chief,” and so the word “God” is added to make it clear who is being referred to; for example, “the chief God.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

And they collected money: The collection of funds is presented as another response to the reading of the book. Good News Translation presents it wrongly as an action that followed later by beginning with “Then” (meaning “After all this was over, then they….”) No connective is needed, not even and. They collected money is not a continuous action, but a one-time action.

Each giving what he could is literally “according as the hand of each was able,” which is a Hebrew idiom. It is very close to the Greek text of Deut 16.10.

Good News Translation combines the two clauses in this verse, but this is not appropriate here. The idea of making a collection should be expressed before people giving money is mentioned. The New Revised Standard Version (New Revised Standard Version) is helpful here: “they collected as much money as each could give” (similarly Contemporary English Version).

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

They sent it to Jerusalem: It refers to the money in the previous verse. So translators may say “they sent the money to Jerusalem.”

The money was sent to the priests as well as the other people in Jerusalem. Contemporary English Version has the preposition “for,” which seemingly indicates that the meaning is “for … to use.” In certain languages this will be a good translation. But it must be clear that the money was not for them to use for their own purposes (see verse 10).

Jehoiakim the high priest, the son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum: Priest may be difficult to translate in some languages, especially for translators who have not yet translated the New Testament. A Handbook on Leviticus has an excellent discussion on the Levitical priests:

The primary duty of the priest was to serve as an intermediary between the LORD and his people. The means by which this was done was sacrifice. Thus in some languages this word has been translated “sacrificer” or “intermediary.” But care should be taken to avoid negative connotations of a word like “sacrificer.” If it evokes ideas of pagan sacrifice quite different from those of the people of Israel, then another term should be sought….

A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark lists terms that a number of cultures have used; for example, “one who presents man’s sacrifice to God,” “one who takes the name of the sacrifice,” and “spokesman of the people before God.”

Jehoiakim the high priest may be alternatively translated as “Jehoiakim the chief sacrificer” or “Jehoiakim the chief [or, head] spokesman of the people before God.” The Greek text identifies Jehoiakim only as “the priest” (Revised Standard Version footnote), not as the high priest, but the author clearly intends to identify this man as the high priest. The son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum may be rendered “the son of Hilkiah and grandson of Shallum” (so Good News Translation). Contemporary English Version omits the information about Hilkiah and Shallum, but it should be retained by translators. Jehoiakim is otherwise unknown, though Hilkiah and Shallum are named in a list of priests in 1 Chr 6.13. There is a Joakim (or Joachim) mentioned as high priest in Judith (4.6), but he is also unknown. Possibly both Jehoiakim and Joakim refer to the same person as Joiakim in Neh 12.10, 26.

The priests refers to “the other priests” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version), in other words, those lower in rank than the high priest.

And to all the people who were present with him in Jerusalem may be rendered “as well as all the people living there in Jerusalem.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.

At the same time refers to the time when the money was sent to Jerusalem.

On the tenth day of Sivan: Sivan is the third month of the Jewish year (mid-May to mid-June), which would be ten months after the reading of the book, if we are right in assuming the reading took place in the fifth month (see the note on verse 2).

Baruch took the vessels of the house of the Lord … to return them to the land of Judah: For vessels of the house of the Lord, Good News Translation has “sacred utensils.” They were the valuable objects used in the worship at the temple. A list of them is given in 2 Kgs 25.14-15; for the most part they were objects that had functions in the liturgy, and were small enough to be handled. The Greek text does not actually say that Baruch took these vessels back to Jerusalem; it simply says “he” (Revised Standard Version footnote). However, there is agreement that Baruch is intended. So Good News Translation has “Baruch took the sacred utensils … and returned them to Judah” (similarly Contemporary English Version). The house of the Lord and the temple refer to the same place, so Good News Translation simply has “the Temple.” The Jews believed that God resided in this place, so in some languages translators may need to say “the Lord’s house” or even “the place where people worship the Lord.”

Which had been carried away from the temple may be rephrased in the active voice as “which the Babylonians had carried away by force from the temple” (see the model below).

What happened on the tenth day of the month of Sivan mentioned here is not clear. Both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version seem to mean that on that day Baruch took the sacred vessels and started out to Jerusalem to return them. The interpretation of New English Bible is more credible, that the tenth of Sivan is the day Baruch actually returned the objects: “This was the time when he took the vessels … which had been looted from the temple, and returned them to the land of Judah, on the tenth of the month Sivan.” The intended sequence seems to be as follows: (1) Baruch read his book. (2) As the people heard the reading, they wept, fasted, prayed, and took up a collection. (3) Baruch then took the collection along with the sacred vessels to Jerusalem, presenting them to the high priest on the tenth day of the month Sivan.

It is therefore possible to combine verse 7 and the first part of verse 8 as follows:

• On the tenth day of the month of Sivan, Baruch took the money to Jerusalem for Jehoiakim the high priest…, as well as the other priests … in Jerusalem. He also took the utensils belonging to the Lord’s [or, God’s] temple that they [or, the Babylonians] had forcibly taken from the temple, and returned them to Judah.

The silver vessels which Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, had made: There is no mention of this in the Hebrew Bible. Nebuchadnezzar took sacred objects from the temple during his invasion of 597 B.C. (2 Kgs 24.13; 2 Chr 36.10) as well as at the time of the final conquest of the city in 587/586 (2 Kgs 25.13-15; Jer 52.17-19). Nothing is ever said about Zedekiah replacing the first lot of looted vessels. For that matter, the Hebrew Bible never mentions these objects being returned until about 537 B.C., when Sheshbazzar brought several thousand vessels back from Babylonia to Judah (Ezra 1.7-11). Of course, this verse does not mean that Zedekiah himself fashioned these vessels, only that he, as king, ordered them made. So translators may say “These included the silver utensils that Zedekiah the son of King Josiah of Judah ordered his craftsmen to make.” King of Judah may refer to Zedekiah or Josiah, who were both kings of Judah. It is more natural to take it as referring to Josiah, but if a translator finds it easier to have it refer to Zedekiah, there is no reason not to do so.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Shorter Books of the Deuterocanon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2006. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.