# Baruch Final Study

## Study orientation

Baruch is canonical Old Testament Scripture for the Catholic Church. The Catholic form studied here comprises Baruch 1:1–6:72, with the Letter of Jeremiah as chapter 6. The [Catechism of the Catholic Church §120](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_one/chapter_two/article_3/iv_the_canon_of_scripture.html) names Baruch in the Old Testament canon, and the Council of Trent receives “Jeremiah with Baruch” among the sacred and canonical books ([Session IV, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_appendix_decretum-can-script_lt.html)). These Catholic judgments govern the study.

The method follows *Dei Verbum* 11–16: the book is read as inspired Scripture expressed through human authors, literary forms, historical circumstances, and inherited textual traditions; it is also read in the unity of Scripture and the living Tradition of the Church. A Christological reading therefore belongs within Catholic interpretation, but it does not erase the Old Testament passage’s own literary sense or Israelite setting ([*Dei Verbum* 11–16](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html); [CCC 121–130](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_one/chapter_two/article_3/iv_the_canon_of_scripture.html)).

## Thesis and whole-book movement

Baruch joins four distinguishable compositions into one Catholic canonical book: an exilic frame with confession and prayer (1:1–3:8), a poem in which Wisdom is given to Israel and identified with the Law (3:9–4:4), a consolation poem spoken through and to personified Jerusalem (4:5–5:9), and the Letter of Jeremiah’s satire against idols (6:1–72). Together they move from exile and repentance to mercy, revealed wisdom, restoration, and freedom from idolatrous fear.

This unity is canonical and theological, not evidence that every section was written at one time by one historical author. The opening speaks in Baruch son of Neriah’s name and places the action in Babylon, but the Catholic introduction describes the setting as literary, calls the book a collection of four different compositions, states that no certain date can be given, and offers final editing in the last two centuries BCE only as a possibility ([USCCB, Introduction to Baruch](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/0)). The best historical formulation is therefore: the book speaks through an exilic Baruch frame, preserves several literary voices, and reached its present form at an uncertain date.

## Canonical form, language, and textual witnesses

### Greek working text

The oldest complete recoverable textual form is Greek. The Rahlfs–Hanhart printed text is the working base for the language decisions in this study ([Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Rahlfs–Hanhart LXX, Baruch 3](https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/LXX%2CVUL/BAR.3); [Baruch 4](https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LXX/BAR.4)). The USCCB introduction cautiously says that an original language “may have been Hebrew,” while only Greek and other versions have been preserved. That permits discussion of possible Semitic sources; it does not permit a reconstructed Hebrew or Aramaic text to be treated as an extant original.

At Baruch 3:4 the printed Greek reads *tōn tethnēkotōn Israēl*, “the dead of Israel.” The phrase is difficult in context. This study retains the Greek reading and does not adopt the uncited conjecture “the men of Israel.” The precise force of “dead” may be literal, rhetorical, or shaped by an unknown earlier source, but the evidence now available does not settle which.

### Baruch 3:37–4:1

The Greek syntax should be described exactly. Baruch 3:38 contains no explicit pronoun, and its finite verbs do not mark gender. English must supply a subject from the context. In 3:37 God gives “her” (*autēn*)—Wisdom—to Jacob and Israel; 3:38 continues, “After this [she] was seen upon the earth and lived among human beings”; 4:1 begins with the feminine demonstrative *hautē*, “She/this [feminine] is the book of God’s commandments and the law that endures forever.” The feminine English “she” is therefore grounded in the antecedent and continuation, not in a gendered verb at 3:38.

The [NABRE at Baruch 3:37–4:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/3) follows this sequence: Wisdom is given to Israel, appears on earth, and is identified with the Law. The official [Nova Vulgata](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_baruch_lt.html) likewise uses feminine forms at 3:38—*visa est … conversata est*—and continues *ipsa est liber* at 4:1.

An important older Latin witness differs. The Weber–Gryson fifth edition of the *Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem* prints the masculine *post haec in terris visus est et cum hominibus conversatus est* at 3:38 ([Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Vulgate Baruch 3:38](https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/LXX%2CVUL/BAR.3)). That wording belongs in the history of Christian reception; it does not replace the Greek-controlled feminine rendering in the main translation.

### The Letter of Jeremiah and book arrangement

The Rahlfs–Hanhart LXX prints the Letter separately as *Epistula Ieremiae*, a one-chapter work of seventy-two verses ([LXX Epistula Ieremiae 1](https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LXX/LJE.1)). The Catholic NABRE prints the same work as Baruch 6, also in seventy-two verses ([USCCB, Baruch 6](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/6)). Separate Greek presentation and Catholic chapter-6 presentation are therefore matters of book topology and numbering, not evidence that the Letter is noncanonical for Catholics.

The Israel Antiquities Authority catalogue identifies 7Q2 as *papEpistle of Jeremiah* ([Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, 7Q2](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/7Q2-1?locale=en_US)). This tiny Greek papyrus is an ancient textual witness to the Letter. It is not a separate Catholic canonical book, proof of a Hebrew original, or evidence for a single “Dead Sea Scrolls canon.”

## Historical and literary setting

### Exile remembered as a theological horizon

The opening depicts Baruch reading a scroll before Jehoiachin and the exiles in Babylon. They fast, pray, collect funds, and send them to Jerusalem for offerings and intercession. The scene joins diaspora life to Jerusalem worship and asks prayer for imperial rulers. Its theological world is recognizably exilic, but its chronology cannot be synchronized confidently.

The [USCCB notes to Baruch 1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/1) preserve the difficulties rather than hiding them:

- “the fifth year” may reflect a textual problem or an anniversary of Jerusalem’s fall;
- the river Sud is probably a Babylonian canal but is otherwise unidentified, and “Ahava” is only a possible correction;
- the silver vessels are not simply the same vessels mentioned in 2 Kings 25 or Ezra 1;
- sacrifice at the Temple may be an anachronism, although Jeremiah 41:5 shows continuing worship at the site after the destruction; and
- Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar’s son, despite the book’s wording.

These tensions favor a literary-historical exilic frame rather than a fully harmonized archival report. They do not prevent the book from bearing inspired theological witness to repentance, solidarity, worship, and hope.

### Corporate confession without indiscriminate blame

Baruch 1:15–3:8 gathers rulers, priests, prophets, ancestors, and the living community into a communal “we.” The prayer echoes Deuteronomy 28–30, Jeremiah, Daniel 9, Nehemiah 9, and Lamentations. It interprets public catastrophe through covenant disobedience, yet repeatedly appeals to God’s name, power, mercy, and promise of restoration.

The corporate voice is liturgical solidarity, not a declaration that every sufferer bears identical personal guilt. Catholic pastoral use must distinguish personal culpability, shared historical consequences, intercessory repentance, and God’s mercy. The siege imagery in 2:2–5 is an ancient covenant-curse description of horror, not a general rule that suffering proves an individual’s sin.

Baruch 2:17–18 speaks of the dead in Hades or the realm of the dead as unable to give public praise in the manner of the living community. The passage should not be made into a complete Catholic map of judgment, purgatory, hell, or the state of every dead person. Those doctrines require the whole canon and Tradition, not this line in isolation.

### Wisdom as God’s gift in the Law

Baruch 3:9–4:4 asks where Wisdom can be found. Rulers, warriors, merchants, and explorers cannot seize or buy her; God alone knows her way and gives her to Jacob and Israel. The poem culminates by identifying Wisdom with “the book of God’s commandments” and “the law that endures forever.” Its immediate claim is a Jewish Wisdom–Torah synthesis: wisdom is divine gift and covenant instruction, not secret knowledge or autonomous mastery.

The poem’s giants at 3:26 recall Genesis 6; the NABRE note observes that this tradition was developed in the noncanonical Book of Enoch ([USCCB, Baruch 3:26 note](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/3)). That is a limited literary-history comparison. It establishes neither dependence on 1 Enoch nor a date for Baruch, and 1 Enoch remains noncanonical for the Catholic Scripture corpus.

### Jerusalem’s lament and restoration

Baruch 4:5–5:9 changes voice and genre. Jerusalem appears as a bereaved mother; Baruch addresses the diaspora and then the city; the children return amid garments, light, elevation, glory, mercy, and justice. Isaiah 40–66 supplies the closest broad scriptural horizon.

The poem says Israel was handed over because of sin, but also says “not for destruction” (4:6), calls the exiles to courage, and promises restoration. Responsible Catholic reading keeps judgment and mercy together. It must not turn the exile theology into contempt for Jews, a theory that every victim deserves suffering, or a denial of the Old Testament’s permanent revelatory value.

### The Letter of Jeremiah: satire and freedom from fear

Baruch 6 is an extended anti-idolatry satire. Its gods are made, plated, clothed, carried, guarded, fed, and unable to speak, see, move, judge, bless, rescue, or defend themselves. The USCCB introduction describes ten warnings but lists nine refrain endpoints (vv. 14, 22, 28, 39, 44, 51, 56, 64, 68). A 2025 peer-reviewed study treats vv. 7-72 as ten strophes; the final strophe (vv. 69-72) closes with a distinct concluding statement rather than the refrain form used by the earlier strophes ([Paul Cizek, “Do not fear them: Reconsidering the objective of the Epistle of Jeremiah,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 34, no. 3 (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1177/09518207251321111)). The positive center is exclusive worship of the living God and liberation from fear.

The satire is not neutral ethnography of Babylonian religion; it compresses deity and image into a single rhetorical target. Its language should therefore be taught as ancient polemic rather than repeated as a caricature of living neighbors. Catholic application includes every created reality treated as ultimate—power, wealth, race, state, pleasure, technology, or self—as the [Catechism’s account of idolatry](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_one/article_1/iii_you_shall_have_no_other_gods_before_me.html) makes clear. The passage does not condemn Catholic veneration of sacred images: the Church distinguishes respectful veneration from the adoration owed to God alone ([CCC 2129–2132, summarized at 2141](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_one/article_1/in_brief.html)).

## Translation and explanation units

Each unit below keeps a restrained literal rendering and its explanation together. These are passage-level study renderings, not a replacement critical edition.

1. **Baruch 1:1–14 — “These are the words of the scroll that Baruch wrote in Babylon … they sent funds to Jerusalem and asked for offerings and prayer for the king.”** The exilic scroll and Temple-facing solidarity frame a dispersed people as still joined in worship, while the chronology, vessels, rulers, and offering references keep the scene from being treated as a fully harmonized record.

2. **Baruch 1:15–2:10 — “To the Lord our God belongs righteousness, but to us shame of face.”** The confession gathers offices, ancestors, and people into a covenantal “we,” expressing corporate repentance without assigning identical personal guilt to every afflicted person.

3. **Baruch 2:11–35 — “Hear, Lord, and have mercy … bring us back from captivity.”** The prayer appeals to God’s name and mercy rather than Israel’s merit, so the Deuteronomic movement from curse through repentance toward return remains hopeful rather than fatalistic.

4. **Baruch 3:1–8 — “The soul in distress and the fainting spirit cry to you … hear the prayer of the dead of Israel.”** The rendering preserves the difficult printed Greek instead of silently emending it, while the surrounding plea belongs to the living exilic community and does not by itself establish a doctrine that the dead are speaking here.

5. **Baruch 3:9–23 — “Hear, Israel, the commandments of life; listen, to know prudence.”** Wisdom is received as covenantal instruction rather than private esoteric knowledge, and the poem’s contrast with renowned foreign learning must not become contempt for the peoples named in its ancient rhetoric.

6. **Baruch 3:24–36 — “Who has gone up to heaven and taken her? … The One who knows all things knows her.”** Kings, giants, merchants, sea-crossers, and cosmic images dramatize the limits of human mastery, because Wisdom is God’s gift rather than an achievement bought, conquered, or seized.

7. **Baruch 3:37–4:4 — “He gave her to Jacob … after this, she was seen upon the earth and lived among human beings; she is the book of God’s commandments.”** The antecedent and continuation identify personified Wisdom with Torah, while Catholic typology may confess Christ as divine Wisdom and the incarnate Word without converting the first literary sense into a masculine Greek subject.

8. **Baruch 4:5–16 — “Take courage, my people; you were sold to the nations, not for destruction.”** Personified Jerusalem voices grief and exile, while “not for destruction” and the promise of mercy prevent the discipline language from becoming a theology of divine abandonment.

9. **Baruch 4:17–29 — “Take courage, my children, and cry to God; the one who brought this upon you will remember you.”** The maternal Zion speech holds responsibility, lament, prayer, and mercy together, so it cannot be reduced to victim-blaming or inherited personal culpability.

10. **Baruch 4:30–5:9 — “Take off the garment of mourning … put on the beauty of God’s glory.”** Clothing, light, height, and returning children form restoration poetry for Jerusalem and the exiles, with later ecclesial or eschatological resonance remaining an extension rather than a replacement of that horizon.

11. **Baruch 6:1–14 — “When you enter Babylon … do not become like the foreigners, and do not let fear seize you before their gods.”** The warning protects exclusive worship under cultural pressure, while its ancient insider language gives no warrant for ethnic contempt or blanket descriptions of later religions.

12. **Baruch 6:15–39 — “They cannot save themselves from rust, worms, thieves, or fire; therefore they are not gods.”** The repeated physical helplessness of manufactured images drives the satire, but its rhetorical compression should not be mistaken for a complete account of every ancient rite or for a condemnation of Christian sacred art.

13. **Baruch 6:40–64 — “They do not set up kings, give rain, judge, or rescue from war; do not fear them.”** The Letter denies political, cosmic, judicial, and military sovereignty to idols in order to confess the living God, and the same moral test exposes modern false ultimates.

14. **Baruch 6:65–72 — “It is in no way evident that they are gods; therefore do not fear them.”** The conclusion condenses the Letter’s pastoral purpose—faithful worship freed from fear—while its satirical genre limits any attempt to reuse its mockery against contemporary persons or communities.

## Catholic theological and ecclesial reception

### Historical sense and Christological fulfillment

The immediate literary subject at Baruch 3:37–4:1 is Wisdom given to Israel and identified with the Law. Catholic interpretation may also read the passage in Christ because the Old Testament retains its intrinsic value and is read in the unity of God’s plan, in which the Word becomes flesh. These are complementary levels of reading when properly distinguished, not rival claims.

The historical Christian reception is demonstrable. Augustine quotes the masculine Latin form as a prophecy concerning Christ and notes that some attributed the passage to Baruch while others ascribed it to Jeremiah (*City of God* XVIII.33, [English translation](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm)). John of Damascus cites Baruch 3:38 while speaking of God dwelling in the flesh among human beings (*Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* I.13, [English translation](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm)). Gregory of Nyssa similarly invokes the line in an Incarnation argument (*Against Eunomius* II, [English translation](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm)). These witnesses establish a patristic Christological reception; they do not alter the syntax of the Greek poem.

### Roman liturgy

The USCCB page for the Easter Vigil on April 4, 2026 identifies Baruch 3:9–15, 32–4:4 as Reading VI and renders the transition with feminine Wisdom: “she has appeared on earth,” followed by “She is the book of the precepts of God” ([USCCB, Easter Vigil, Lectionary 41](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/040426.cfm)). The liturgical setting receives Wisdom, Law, life, light, and Israel’s blessing within the Paschal proclamation. It is ecclesial reception, not a substitute for the passage’s historical-literary analysis.

Baruch is not an institution narrative for any sacrament. Its confession, return, light, life, and public reading may illuminate conversion, Baptism, Penance, and worship by analogy, but 1:15–3:8 is not a formula for sacramental absolution and 3:9–4:4 is not an institution of Baptism.

### Moral and pastoral synthesis

Baruch teaches humility, communal responsibility, repentance, trust in mercy, fidelity amid displacement, reception of divine Wisdom, hope for restoration, worship of God alone, and freedom from fear. Its pastoral discipline is twofold: neither deny the text’s judgment language nor weaponize it against victims, Jews, non-Christians, or Christians whose sacred-image theology the Letter does not address.

The book’s movement can be summarized as follows: exile calls forth confession; confession appeals to mercy; mercy makes renewed hearing possible; Wisdom directs Israel to God’s Law; Jerusalem’s lament opens toward restoration; and the exposure of idols frees the faithful to worship the living God.

## Bounded canon and reception comparisons

| Community or witness | Status and authority | Relevance to this study |
|---|---|---|
| Catholic Church | Baruch is inspired Old Testament Scripture; Trent and the Catechism are normative for this study. | Governs canon, doctrine, and the inclusion of the Letter as Baruch 6. |
| Jewish canon and interpretation | Baruch is not included in the Hebrew canon; Jewish texts and history remain primary evidence for the book’s Israelite, Wisdom, Torah, exile, and anti-idolatry setting. | The canon difference is a historical fact, not a claim that Jews rejected a universally fixed Second Temple list or that Baruch may be used against Judaism ([USCCB, Prophetic Books](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/propheticbooks/0)). |
| Orthodox Church in America | An Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction outside communion with Rome; its statements are authoritative for its own published reception, not automatically for every Orthodox church. | The OCA names Baruch in its longer canon and publishes Baruch 3:35–4:4 as a Nativity-eve reading headed “Jeremiah (Baruch),” verifying a specific Orthodox canonical and liturgical comparison ([canon statement](https://www.oca.org/questions/scripture/canon-of-scripture); [reading](https://www.oca.org/readings/daily/2032/12/24/17)). |
| Protestant examples | Confession- and edition-specific; no single Protestant treatment should be generalized to all communities. | The Church of England’s Article VI names Baruch among books read for life and manners but not used to establish doctrine, while the Westminster tradition excludes the Apocrypha from its canon; these are bounded examples, not a universal Protestant rule ([Church of England, Article VI](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion); [Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Westminster Confession I.3](https://opc.org/WCF-WIP.html)). |
| Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church | Oriental Orthodox and outside communion with Rome; its official page is authority for the claim it makes about its own Ethiopic collection. | The official page says the Ethiopic Old Testament includes Baruch, but it does not settle the exact internal relation of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and other Jeremiah/Baruch works; no further topology or book-count claim is made ([official canon page](https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html)). |
| 7Q2 | Ancient Jewish-era Greek manuscript witness catalogued by the Israel Antiquities Authority; not an ecclesial canon ruling. | Shows early transmission of material identified as the Letter of Jeremiah, but proves neither a Qumran canon nor the language or authorship of the whole Catholic book. |
| 1 Enoch | Jewish Second Temple literature; noncanonical in the Catholic canon. | Relevant only to the later development of giant traditions noted at Baruch 3:26; it does not establish direct dependence or Baruch’s date. |

No material question in this study requires LDS, Jehovah’s Witness, Islamic, Gnostic, Jubilees, or other pseudepigraphal comparison. No claim about those communities or corpora is drawn from their omission.

## Scholarly limits

1. **Critical apparatus.** The Rahlfs–Hanhart digital base text was checked at Baruch 3:4, 3:37–4:1, and the Letter’s refrain points. The publisher identifies the 2006 Hanhart revision as the *Editio altera* and reports that it corrected and supplemented the biblical text and apparatus at more than one thousand places ([Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, history of the Septuagint edition](https://www.die-bibel.de/wissenschaftliche-ausgaben/septuaginta/zur-geschichte-der-septuaginta)). This study has not exhaustively collated that apparatus or the Göttingen edition and makes no claim that a reading is universal across all manuscripts.

2. **Semitic source.** No complete Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage survives for the book. Possible Semitic influence may be discussed, but no retroversion is treated as recovered source text and the “men of Israel” proposal at 3:4 is not adopted without a named critical source.

3. **Authorship and date.** The historical Baruch is part of the book’s frame and canonical identity, but direct authorship of the present composite cannot be demonstrated. Final editing in the last two centuries BCE is a reasonable Catholic scholarly proposal, not a certain date; narrower source layers and provenance remain unsettled.

4. **Opening chronology and geography.** The fifth year, river Sud, silver vessels, sacrifices, Temple condition, and Belshazzar notice remain historically difficult. Available evidence supports identifying the problems, not a single reconstruction.

5. **Patristic coverage.** Augustine, John of Damascus, and Gregory of Nyssa verify a real Christological reception of Baruch 3:38. They are representative witnesses, not an exhaustive patristic catena.

6. **Liturgical scope.** The 2026 USCCB page directly verifies the current U.S. Roman lectionary selection and wording. It does not establish identical vernacular wording in every country or every Catholic rite.

7. **Eastern Catholic distinctives.** The common Catholic canonical and doctrinal judgment is secure, but no approved Byzantine, Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, Armenian, Alexandrian, Ge’ez, or Syro-Malankara Catholic Baruch edition or lectionary was needed or verified for a distinctive claim. No rite-specific wording or use is asserted.

8. **Ethiopian and other local topology.** The Ethiopian Orthodox source verifies inclusion of Baruch but not the precise placement of the Letter or related works. Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Eritrean, and other local arrangements likewise require named church editions before any detailed statement.

## Principal sources

- [Catechism of the Catholic Church §§120–130](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_one/chapter_two/article_3/iv_the_canon_of_scripture.html)
- [Second Vatican Council, *Dei Verbum* 11–16](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)
- [Council of Trent, Session IV, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_appendix_decretum-can-script_lt.html)
- [USCCB/NABRE, Introduction to Baruch](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/0), [chapter 1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/1), [chapter 3](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/3), and [chapter 6](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/baruch/6)
- [USCCB, Easter Vigil, April 4, 2026, Lectionary 41](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/040426.cfm)
- [Rahlfs–Hanhart LXX, Baruch 3–4](https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/LXX%2CVUL/BAR.3) and [Epistula Ieremiae](https://www.die-bibel.de/bibel/LXX/LJE.1), Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
- [Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, history of the Rahlfs–Hanhart Septuagint edition](https://www.die-bibel.de/wissenschaftliche-ausgaben/septuaginta/zur-geschichte-der-septuaginta)
- [Weber–Gryson Vulgate, Baruch 3](https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/LXX%2CVUL/BAR.3), fifth revised edition, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007
- [Nova Vulgata, Baruch](https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_baruch_lt.html)
- [Augustine, *City of God* XVIII.33](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm); [John of Damascus, *Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* I.13](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm); [Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius* II](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/290102.htm)
- [Orthodox Church in America, canon statement](https://www.oca.org/questions/scripture/canon-of-scripture) and [Jeremiah (Baruch 3:35–4:4) reading](https://www.oca.org/readings/daily/2032/12/24/17)
- [Israel Antiquities Authority, 7Q2 catalogue record](https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/7Q2-1?locale=en_US)
- [Paul Cizek, “Do not fear them: Reconsidering the objective of the Epistle of Jeremiah,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 34, no. 3 (2025)](https://doi.org/10.1177/09518207251321111)