Talk:Book of Baruch

message: If Baruch is not in the Tanakh, it is odd to read in this entry that "Baruch is found among the prophetical books which include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, (Baruch), Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets." "Found?" Found by Catholics one supposes.... Wetman 02:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Found by anyone who looks in the Vulgate, the Septuagint, or one of their daughter versions. Perhaps the article should make that clear. Rwflammang 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked the lead, and this (hopefully) will address these concerns. It is now clear to anyone who reads the first paragraph that the book is canonical for some Christian groups, and not canonical for Jews and some other Christian groups. Alephb (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I oppose the merge. Although in modern bibles the Epistle of Jeremy is effectively part of Baruch, in old manuscripts it was not always so. The two works have separate histories. Rwflammang 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think its not right to use a picture of a Torah scroll in context with the words Old Testament here. Thats not NPOV I think. If I should say this somewhere else, can someone point me to the right place?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.4.250 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sidebar on the right is misleading. Because no one has disagreed with you in the last eight years about this, I'm going to delete the right sidebar. If someone restores it, I won't argue with them.Alephb (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Well, it got restored. No argument here. Alephb (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Wrong

message: Are all those external links within the text OK? I thought external links should only be in the External Links section.--Mycomp (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Apparently Baruch 6:21 contains the only biblical mention of cats.  Notable or trivia? --Rumping (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cats 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Book of Baruch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040405123147/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/saints/saintp41.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintp41.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040606213433/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/saints/saintc4q.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc4q.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040406104924/http://www.catholic-forum.com:80/saints/sainth02.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainth02.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Book of Baruch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Prjkilh0?url=http%3A%2F%2Fanglicansonline.org%2Fbasics%2Fthirty-nine_articles.html to http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040409075326/http://www.newadvent.org:80/summa/400404.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/400404.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040610202947/http://www.newadvent.org:80/summa/400400.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/400400.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603130019/http://www.newadvent.org:80/summa/404001.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/404001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040416112342/http://www.newadvent.org:80/summa/404000.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/404000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: #In what language did the composition originate?  (Google Translate claims that the Hebrew Wikipedia claims that "researchers are convinced that the book was originally written in Hebrew," but provides no sources.)
#In what language is the oldest surviving fragments of the composition?
allixpeeke (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns are now partially addressed in the lead. Alephb (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Just something to keep in mind, looking forward, if you pull Wikipedia articles off Hebrew or European languages. The US, Europe, and Israel have (to some extent) gone in three different directions when it comes to hypotheses about the back-stories of ancient texts. I couldn't tell you much about European or Israeli positions in detail, but for obvious reasons the English Wikipedia is going to lean in the direction of publications in English. Alephb (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Book of Baruch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801214700/http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html to http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906041916/http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040409075326/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/400404.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/400404.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040610202947/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/400400.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/400400.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603130019/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/404001.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/404001.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040416112342/http://www.newadvent.org/summa/404000.htm to http://newadvent.org/summa/404000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most of the section on canonicity looks to be tendentious and question-begging. 
: "Athanasius (367 AD), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350 AD), Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 385 AD) and Pope Innocent I (405 AD) listed the Book of Baruch as canonical.
:The Synod of Laodicea (in 364) declared Baruch canonical. The same happened with the Synod of Hippo (in 393), followed by the Council of Carthage (397) and the Council of Carthage (419).Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) Canon 24 Later, Augustine of Hippo (C. 397 AD) would confirm in his book On Christian Doctrine (Book II, Chapter 8) the canonicity of the book of Baruch.
:The Decretum Gelasianum which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553 contains a list of books of Scripture presented as having been declared canonical by the Council of Rome (382 AD). This list mentions the book of Baruch as a part of the Old Testament Canon.http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
Apart from the first sentence - relating to the witness of Greek Fathers - the substance of this section is almost entirely unsupported by the text of the works referenced. So there is no mention of Baruch in Augustine "On Christian Doctrine" at the points mentioned. There is a mention in Augustine's "City of God", but that is negative; in that a quotation taken from "The Book of Baruch" is proposed by Augustine as likely not by Baruch, but by Jeremiah. Furthermore, in all the supposed supporting citations from Synods (in the best manuscripts), it is Jeremiah that is being stated as canonical, not Baruch.  Boagaert ( “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration,” Revue bénédictine 115 (2005): 286–342) has studied this whole matter in detail, and proposes that in the Latin West, Baruch (and the Letter of Jeremiah) are never recognised as distinct from the Book of Jeremiah until the 9th/10th century.  Hence, when a Latin Father cites a text from Baruch as inspired, it cannot be inferred that they are citing the 'Book of Baruch' as canonical, only that they are citing Jeremiah as canonical (which no Christian tradition has ever disputed).  In simple terms; the Old Latin text of the bible included three sets of additions to the book of Jeremiah - Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah and Lamentations; but only Lamentations is included as canonical in the early Vulgate tradition. 
Bogaert proposes that the first fifteen verses of Baruch originated as an extended final section of LXX Jeremiah - which is radically different from Hebrew Jeremiah, and which ended with Chapter 45. TomHennell (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  canonicty 

message: also 2nd Sunday of Advent, year C: Baruch 5:1-9 --142.163.194.149 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of Baruch Cath church