History of the Captivity in Babylon

The History of the Captivity in Babylon is a pseudepigraphical text of the Old Testament that supposedly provides omitted details concerning the prophet Jeremiah.

It was most likely originally written in Greek sometime between 70 and 132 CE by a Jewish author and then subsequently reworked into a second, Christian edition in the form of 4 Baruch.

[5] In his brief introductory comments, Amélineau argued that certain expressions in the tale (e.g. "the whole earth" [la terre entière]) offered "convincing evidence that this story has been composed in Egypt" in Coptic.

[6] However, this view was challenged early on by Émile Galtier, who quipped, "one thing is certain—the primitive core of the account is neither Coptic, nor popular.

"[7] In 1910, two more Frenchmen, Lucien Leroy and Pierre Dib, translated a Garshuni manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (Syr.

The Syrian version is characterized especially by the replacement of Astarte by Zeus in the text, a modification that Coquin sees as most likely of Palestinian origin.

In addition to providing an older copy (dated to 1474 CE), it offers a redaction of the work much closer to the Coptic form.

"[20] A century earlier, Zotenberg had noted in his catalog: "This copy differs by a great number of variants of words, and by whole passages, with the exemplar contained in MS no.

[24] That same year Walter E. Crum pointed out its relationship to the Arabic version translated by Amélineau and also revealed that another single folio, which directly preceded it in the original manuscript, may be found in Paris BN copte 1321, 16.

[26] The next year a Coptic manuscript was found (Pierpont Morgan Library M. 578)[27] that contained the complete text, though the existence of this version was not widely known until 1937.

It was Crum who again called attention to the manuscript and further announced that remnants of a Fayyumic version were preserved on papyrus in British Museum Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities 10578.

[30] In 1980 Jean-Marc Rosenstiehl submitted a dissertation to the University of Strasbourg on the Coptic version, with French translation and notes, which regrettably still remains unpublished.

The title of the Coptic version is, "Supplements to the Prophet Jeremiah" (Paralipomena Jeremiae prophetae), the same as the Greek work by that name, also known as 4 Baruch.

Among other things, it twice reproduces, rather awkwardly, the number 40 using the cursive Coptic character rather than the word, clearly indicating there was no understanding of the Egyptian model.

[46] "It is, therefore, very probable," writes Kuhn, "that the work originated in Jewish circles and then was adopted, after some Christian redactorial activity, by the church.

He writes: "It should be stressed that the text bears almost no trace of Christian influence, the only exception being a manifestly secondary interpolation inserted into the middle of Jeremiah's address to the cornerstone of the Temple (ch.

Piovanelli describes the work as "a narrative midrash of Psalm 126 ('When the Lord brought back the captive ones of Zion, we were like those who dream ...').

"[55] As for other possible sources the author of the work may have employed, Harris argues for the influence of the Arabic Diatessaron of Tatian;[56] Marmorstein points out numerous rabbinic parallels; and Gutmann and Kuhn mention 2 Maccabees 2.

[57] The work is clearly related to 4 Baruch, to the extent that, as has been mentioned, the Coptic version shares the same title, Supplements to the Prophet Jeremiah.

[61] The tale of an exceptionally long sleep is found in many cultures, with examples such as Epimenides of Crete, the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, and Rip Van Winkle.

[63] Piovanelli summarizes in tabular form the key elements of the narrative in 4 Baruch, Captivity, and the Talmuds and argues that there is "an almost perfect identity of scenery and subjects" between the narrative of the Captivity and the legend of the Jerusalem Talmud:[64] In both the Captivity and the Jerusalem Talmud, the hero escapes the destruction of Jerusalem and deportation by falling asleep under "a rocky overhang" or in a cave (a detail modified in 4 Baruch), his sleep has a duration of 70 years (not 66 years), and his awakening coincides with the return from exile and the rebuilding of the Temple.

"[65] The priority of the version in 4 Baruch has previously been argued for on the basis of its attention to geography and its odd selection of 66 years for the duration of Ebedmelech's slumber.

For example, Herzer writes that "the 'vineyard of Agrippa' becomes 'the garden of his master', probably because the connotations of the former were no longer comprehensible to the author of Apocryphon of Jeremiah.

[69] The change of the place of repose to the shade of a tree in 4 Baruch is unique among the ancient sleep narratives and reminiscent of the iconography of Jonah under the castor-oil plant (cf.

As Herzer explains, "Baruch understands the fresh figs from Abimelech's basket as a symbol of the reward of the pious, or the 'holy ones,' in the time of salvation, specifically the hope of resurrection.

Another parallel involves a miracle where the young Ezra carries water in his cloak, just as Jesus does in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

"It may be asked how we know that the priority belongs to the Gospel of the Infancy," writes Harris, "May not Jesus' miracle have copied Ezra's, since both are apocryphal?"

"[75] To that end, Harris sees it as a direct response to Proverbs 30, which speaks of "the Holy One": Who has gone up to heaven and come down?Whose hands have gathered up the wind?Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak?Who has established all the ends of the earth?What is his name, and what is the name of his son?Surely you know!Thus, in Harris' analysis the passage "was supposed to contain a reference to the Son of God; and by the simple expedient of a miraculous carrying of water in a garment, the argument for Divine Sonship became irresistible."

James Kugel discusses how the work twice alludes to Psalm 137 and how the modifications may be considered "an early form of biblical interpretation.

He concludes that this work "illustrates the technique of the commentary as it is practiced in the intertestamental period: the text, stripped from the Psalm is glossed, explained in the light of legendary data and amplified.