Baruch — Roman‑Era Pseudepigraph (Not From Yhwh’s Line)

Canaan/Aramaic truth maintained; Greek is a wrapper, Rome manufactured the package. No claims of “Hebrew original” here.

Executive Point

Claim: The work marketed as “Book of Baruch” circulates in Greek/Latin during the Roman period. It does not arise from Yhwh’s line, nor from Paleo‑Canaanite/early West‑Semitic (no‑vowel) writing, nor from authentic Aramaic community custody. It functions as a Roman‑era pseudepigraph leveraging a respected name.

What Stays / What Goes

Kept (Truth Track)

Origin in Greek/Latin transmission under Roman power.
Absent from Paleo‑Hebrew (no vowels) / early West‑Semitic script lines.
No binding custody among Aramaic communities loyal to Yhwh’s Word.
Not part of the five scrolls of Yhwh’s Word.

Removed (False Track)

“Hebrew original” assertions — no evidence.
Prophetic authority claims attached to a late text.
Canon weight borrowed from Rome’s institutions.

Authentic vs. Roman Product

Aspect	From Yhwh’s Line (Authentic)	Baruch (Roman/Greek Product)
Original Language	Paleo‑Canaanite / early West‑Semitic (no vowels) or Aramaic	Greek → Latin circulation
Manuscript Footprint	Community custody within Yhwh’s line	Church custody; absent from authentic lines
Time & Place	Pre‑imperial, land‑tied, local witness	Hellenistic/Roman context, imperial frame
Function	Obedience and teshuvah without priest‑systems	Supports temple/priest/imperial religion storylines
Acceptance	Aligned with the five scrolls of Yhwh’s Word	Later ecclesial lists; contested and regional

Role Confusion (Why the Name “Baruch” Was Used)

Attaching a revered scribe’s name to a later work is a classic pseudepigraphic tactic. The name confers borrowed authority while the content advances Roman‑era aims. The language, setting, and custody betray the product’s true origin.

Transmission Timeline (High Level)

Pre‑Exilic Era

Local scribal reality within Canaan/Aramaic milieu; no “Book of Baruch” circulating among Yhwh’s line.

Hellenistic → Roman

Appearance in Greek, later Latin; circulation via imperial religious structures, not by communities guarding Yhwh’s Word.

Late Antiquity

Ecclesial lists debate/absorb it. Absence in authentic lines remains.

Quick Tests You Can Apply Anywhere

Language & Script

Is there a Paleo‑Canaanite / early West‑Semitic (no‑vowel) or Aramaic base? If not → red flag.
Does the work surface first in Greek/Latin? If yes → imperial manufacture likely.

Custody & Community

Was it kept by communities walking with Yhwh’s Word (no priests, no kings)?
Or was it curated by temple/priest/imperial systems?

Function & Agenda

Does it press people into imperial religion stories?
Or does it align with obedience and teshuvah without intermediaries?

No “Hebrew original” claims Aramaic/Canaan line respected Greek as wrapper, Rome as maker

Conclusion: the text marketed as “Baruch” is a Roman‑era product in Greek/Latin circulation, outside Yhwh’s line and outside the five scrolls. Treat it as late religious literature, not covenant witness.