Junillus Africanus on the Biblical Canon

It seems that I have not mentioned Junillus Africanus on this blog before. He was a legal minister to Emperor Justinian during the 540s, so he lived a little later than the historical period to which I have devoted the majority of my attention. But Junillus wrote a treatise on biblical interpretation that has bearing on one of my major scholarly concerns because he included a biblical canon list. The date of the work disqualified it from inclusion in Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, which concentrates on the first four centuries of Christianity. But my forthcoming book on the reception of the deuterocanonicals tolerates no such arbitrary chronological limitations. 

And, by the way, that book is scheduled to be published in the UK in just a couple weeks! Apparently it's already available for Kindle, and at a greatly reduced price. It seems that amazon.com also has available now the Kindle version, though my book won't be available in print in America until July. But the British price for the Kindle version is much better than the American price. Is this a book that you would want to read on Kindle? I think it would work okay. It is basically a narrative account, much less of a reference book than Biblical Canon Lists. 

Back to Junillus. As I was saying, my forthcoming book on the deuterocanonicals does mention his canon list, very briefly. (Even more briefly I mention Junillus in my "Latin Canon" essay in THB 2.) Here's the paragraph from chapter 6 of my book: 

There were also other views expressed in medieval Latin sources that cannot be so clearly related to the earlier discussion. Junillus Africanus, under the influence of the Syriac tradition, published his Instituta regularia divinae legis in the 540s, in which he reported near its start a biblical canon with some distinctive features. Junillus excludes 1–2 Chronicles, Job, Tobit, Ezra-Nehemiah, Judith, Esther, and 1–2 Maccabees from the canonical books of history because, he says, the Hebrews also do, as Jerome attested (Instituta 1.3)—a misunderstanding of Jerome and the Hebrew tradition. Later (Instituta 1.5), he said that the only canonical wisdom books were Proverbs and Sirach, though he admitted that other people include the Wisdom of Solomon and Song of Songs. (Ecclesiastes appears as a book of “simple teaching” rather than a wisdom book; 1.6.) This striking arrangement seems to have had little influence on later Latin tradition.

The Latin text of Junillus is available in the old (1880) edition by Kihn (here), or in the reprint of Kihn's text, now with an English translation, in the study by Maas (2003). Or see this online text and translation. For a study of the biblical interpretation of Junillus, see also Martens and Bass (2016). Somehow I missed the study of the canon of Junillus by Haelewyck (mentioned here). 

I also have just now discovered Tarmo Toom's essay from 2023 on the canon list of Junillus (pre-published form here), which discovery provided the immediate occasion for this post. I wish I had noticed this essay earlier; it is filled with erudition. This article arises from Toom's longstanding interest in ancient manuals on biblical interpretation (see his academia.edu page).

What Toom's article especially drives home to me is that I should have paid more attention to the paragraph immediately after Junillus finishes listing the books. Here's that paragraph from the online version. 

7. De auctoritate scripturarum.

[Delta] Quomodo diuinorum librorum consideratur auctoritas? [Mu] Quia quaedam perfectae auctoritatis sunt, quaedam mediae, quaedam nullius. [Delta] Quae sunt perfectae auctoritatis? [Mu] Quae canonica in singulis speciebus absolute numerauimus. [Delta] Quae mediae? [Mu] Quae adiungi a pluribus diximus. [Delta] Quae nullius auctoritatis sunt? [Mu] Reliqua omnia.

2. [Delta] In omnibus speciebus dictionis hae differentiae inueniuntur? [Mu] In historia et simplici doctrina omnes; nam in prophetia mediae auctoritatis libri praeter apocalypsin non reperiuntur nec in prouerbiali specie omnino cassata.

7. Concerning the authority of the Scriptures.

D. How is the authority of the divine books viewed? M. That certain ones are of complete authority, certain of moderate, certain of none. D. Which are of complete authority? M. Those canonical works which in their several kinds we have completely enumerated. D. Which of moderate? M. The ones which we have said are added by many. D. Which are of no authority? M. All the rest.

[2] D. Are these distinctions found in all the kinds of discourse? M. All these distinctions are found in history and plain teaching; but in prophecy, books of moderate authority are not found, except for Revelation, nor in the proverbial kind are there works altogether devoid of authority.

There are writings with perfect authority and there are writings with moderate authority. This sounds something like the Greek Orthodox distinction between canonized writings and anaginoskomena, a distinction deriving from Athanasius. Which writings belong to which group? Junillus says that the writings that he named in each of his categories (history, prophecy, proverbs, simple teaching; see the previous paragraphs of his work) have perfect authority, and the writings that he said were "added by some people" have only moderate authority.

Now let's list out the books of complete authority and the books of moderate authority, and I'll use Toom's chart on pp. 269–70. I'm not going to preserve Junillus' weird sequence of books (just look at the online text if you want that), and I have also destroyed his categories (history, prophecy, proverbs, simple teaching) so that I can present the books in a sequence more familiar to us so that we can the more easily see to which category the books belong. 

Perfect authority:

Old Testament: Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Psalms (150 psalms, specified), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets

Sirach

New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Pauline Epistles (14, including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John

Moderate Authority:

Old Testament: Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Job, Song of Songs

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, 1–2 Maccabees

New Testament: James, 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, Apocalypse of John

What does all this mean? As Toom notes, there is some relationship here with the New Testament canon list from Eusebius of Caesarea. The way Junillus has distinguished between the New Testament writings of perfect authority from those of moderate authority is very reminiscent of Eusebius. First of all, the New Testament writings of moderate authority for Junillus are precisely the same as the New Testament writings that Eusebius says are disputed, not universally accepted by the churches. (The Greek text of Eusebius puts Revelation in an awkward position, but the Latin translation by Rufinus simplifies the matter, and I assume this Latin translation of Eusebius has influenced Junillus, because he has resolved the difficulty of Eusebius' comments on Revelation in the same way.) For Junillus as for Eusebius, it is the reception among the churches that determines to which category a writing belongs. 

Things are more complicated with regard to the Old Testament writings. Eusebius is not the model here. (Eusebius did not include his own Old Testament canon list in his Ecclesiastical History, but he did include three such lists from others: Josephus, Melito, and Origen. All three of these lists more-or-less reproduce the Jewish canon in 22 books.) 

The books that became known as deuterocanonical were already more-or-less recognized as a unit, especially in Latin-speaking circles. (See my article here.) Junillus lists most of them as having moderate authority, which agrees with Jerome and Rufinus and others. Baruch is not listed anywhere, but that's presumably because it was considered a(n inauthentic?) part of Jeremiah. (See my essay on Latin Baruch in THB 2, or my notes here on an article by Bogaert.) 

But what makes Junillus think that Sirach—alone among the deuterocanonicals—a place among the books of perfect authority? Nothing is coming to mind right now that similarly sets Sirach apart from the rest in the ancient period—in the Christian tradition. In the Jewish tradition, Sirach (i.e., the book of Ben Sira) was the only "apocryphal" book that continued to carry some level of authority into the rabbinic period and beyond. In the church, also, Sirach was probably more useful than most deuterocanonical (or protocanonical) books, in the sense that it provided more prooftexts for doctrines. So, my very tentative guess is that Junillus' positioning of Sirach among the books of perfect authority is based not on a tradition but on his own experience of seeing Christians use Sirach. 

More peculiar to me is Junillus' statement questioning the reception of certain protocanonical books. For example, in his discussion of the books of history, he says: 

Many people add two books of Paraleipomena, Job, Tobit, Ezra<-Nehemiah>, Judith, Esther, two books of Maccabees. ... Because among the Hebrews, too, they used to be excluded with regard to this distinction, just as Jerome and the others testify. (1.3)

He says something similar about Song of Songs in his discussion of the proverbial books. This is difficult to understand. I mean, I think I know what Junillus is saying, but he's wrong, and I find it difficult to understand how he got it wrong. Okay, definitely he's right that among Jews there was/is doubt about Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, and Jerome testifies to as much. I could maybe see how Ezra and Esther got lumped in here with this category of books doubted among Jews, though I'm not sure Jerome gave any testimony in this regard. But what about Chronicles (Paraleipomena) and Job? Do we have any Jewish evidence of doubt regarding these books? I'm pretty sure Jerome does not provide such testimony. 

By the way, what is "Ezra" in Junillus? In a footnote, Toom says: "In Junillus, Inst. 1.3, Maas translates Esdras legitimately as Ezra, and Collins as Ezra(-Nehemiah), but in the company of Tobit and Judith, perhaps it should be the Greek Esdras A (=3 Esdras in Vulgate)" (p. 267 n. 27). 

The question is: would Junillus have been referring to Ezra-Nehemiah or to the LXX 1 Esdras? It's hard to know for sure, of course, but my guess is that he would have been referring to Ezra-Nehemaih. That's because he is writing 150 years after Jerome's translation of Ezra-Nehemiah, and, as we have seen, there is other evidence of influence from Jerome on Junillus. (On the reception of Ezra in Latin, Bogaert has written the most helpful studies; see, e.g., notes here.)

At any rate, Toom helpfully summarizes the big picture. 

Junillus, however, distinguishes between the perfect authority of the canonical books, and the lesser authority of the books that not everyone considers canonical. At least, these books have no authority at all in the matters of faith. This, in turn, means that the sacred books demand a different kind of reading than non-sacred books. (Toom, p. 273)

This categorization of books with differing levels of authority based on reception in the churches was common in ancient Christianity, as Toom lays out and as I further argue in my article on the Shepherd of Hermas (here). 

The Book of Baruch in the Manuscripts of the Latin Bible: Disappearance and Reinstatement, Part 3

This post continues the series on Bogaert's article on Baruch (see part 1 and part 2). Here we will just look at the final major section of the paper. I won't summarize as much of this section because, frankly, I don't find it as interesting. You'll find summary below for the parts I thought were interesting.

IV. Les bibles latines à partir de 800

A. La réintégration: quatre types de textes

1. Théodulfe: type Θ

Theodulf's Bibles have the order Jer-Bar-EpJer-Lam. Baruch is without prologue. 

2. Le Cavensis: type C

This single manuscript attests the text of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah--after the 16 prophets--preceded by the prologue Liber iste (see the second post on this) and a title attributing the work to Baruch. 

3. En Espagne, le texte recomposé: type L

Some Spanish manuscripts attest a different text: Baruch begins with Incipit (liber) Baruch, then an unusual order for the book (1:1–4; 3:9–5:9; 1:5–3:8). These manuscripts have the order Jer-Baruch-Lam-EpJer, though some do switch the last two books.

4. En France, le type G 

This type of text has an incipit and explicit attributing the book to Baruch. It begins its text at Jer 52:12 (on which see the first posting in this series). There are 3 types of these witnesses, and Bogaert lists quite a number of them. Both this type of text, and L above, want the book that Baruch writes and reads to be Baruch itself, rather than looking back to Jeremiah as that book (with the LXX; on this idea, see the first post in this series). 

5. Les quatre formes conservées du texte de Baruch 

B. La diffusion du type Θ

The Theodoulfian text finally prevailed. 

1. Première diffusion du type de Théodulfe (Θ)
2. Copies ultérieures de bibles de Théodulfe
3. Baruch de deuxième main ou à diverses places
4. En Angleterre et en Catalogne
5. En Italie: a. Le Mont-Cassin; b. Les bibles 'atlantiques' 
6. L'Ysagoge in theologiam
7. Rareté des commentaires de Baruch

C. Baruch dans les bibles à partir due XIIIe siècle (aperçu)

1. Les Biblia Parisiensia

The Paris Bibles standardize the order Jer-Lam-Bar-EpJer. Bogaert notes that it is in these Bibles that the EpJer tends to become a part of Baruch rather than its own Bible, though this practice preceded the Paris Bibles by a few decades (325n166). 

2. Baruch cité de façon éclectique
3. Contaminations
4. Hésitations théoriques
5. Bibles imprimées

a. Les bibles de Gutenberg

Here Lamentations is its own book (of four chapters, and the fifth chapter is now the Prayer of Jeremiah, almost a book unto itself; some earlier mss had done the same, such as the Paris Bibles), Baruch is its own book, and the EpJer is treated like the last chapter of Baruch. 

b. La bible de Louvain de 1547

Here the Prayer of Jeremiah is more clearly a part of Lamentations, and Baruch is labeled a prophet.

c. La Bible Sixto-(Clémentine) de 1593 

Lamentations numbers 4 chapters, then the Prayer of Jeremiah, and then the prophecy of Baruch, from which the EpJer is hardly distinguished. 

Conclusion 

Bogaert concludes with a table illustrating the transmission of the text, and several points summarizing the important results of his research. This conclusion is followed by these useful appendices. 

Appendix I: Citations patristiques attribuées à Jérémie
Appendix II: Les bibles sans Baruch
Appendix III: Les mss utilisés par Sabatier
Appendix IV: Liste de bibles dans lesquelles Baruch est ajouté de deuxième main ou copié à une place anormale
Appendix V: Baruch (type Θ) avant ou après Lamentations dans les bibles antérieures à 1100 (sans les bibles italiennes)
Appendix VI: Ba/EpJr (Θ) avant ou après Lm dans les bibles atlantiques italiennes
Appendix VII: Échantillons du ms. Madrid, BN 12906
Appendix VIII: Ba 4,20-30 dans le ms. Escurial b.II.17 (notes de D. De Bruyne)

The Book of Baruch in the Manuscripts of the Latin Bible: Disappearance and Reinstatement, Part 2

This post continues the summary of Bogaert's article on Baruch that I began in the previous post. The current post covers only the third section of the article, on Latin Bibles before the year 800. A final post will survey the rest of the article.

III. Les bibles latines avant 800

A. 'Baruch' dans le vetus latina 

No VL manuscript is sufficiently preserved to know for sure whether Baruch was included as a part of Jeremiah. But the Liber de divinis scripturis cites passages from Jer-Bar-Lam all under the heading Hieremia propheta. But Bogaert considers the best evidence for understanding the book of Jeremiah in the VL to be the way Baruch was reintegrated in different forms after its long absence. The forms are the following: C (= Cavensis, in a single Spanish ms); Θ (= Theodulfe); L (= Spanish tradition); G (= French tradition, text of Sabatier). He discusses some of these. 

1. Le témoignage du type G 

G begins Baruch at Jer 52:12. Bogaert thinks the scribe wanted to include Baruch, but was not sure where it began, because his VL exemplar did not indicate the end of Jer and the start of Baruch, so he made an error in dividing the books. At the head of Jer 52:12, he says Incipit liber Baruch. 

2. L'explicit Hieremias dans les bibles de Théodulfe

In the most ancient manuscript of Theodulfe's text (Θ-s), the text of Baruch is continuous with Jeremiah, and after Baruch 5:9 there is the note: Explicit hieremiae prophetae. No explicit in any manuscript names Baruch until some Bibles of the thirteenth century. There is another explicit in Theodulf's Bibles after Lamentations. The one (after Baruch) he got from the VL tradition, the other (after Lamentations) he got from Jerome. This is evidence that in the VL tradition Baruch was not distinguished from Jeremiah. 

3. Les rubriques dans Θ 

The Theodulfian text of Baruch has some rubricated titles in the text, thus: 

1:1, De oratione et sacrificio pro vita Nebuchodonosor
3:9, De doctrina ecclesiastica initiat
3:36, Hic de Christo dicit Deus
4:12, Vox ecclesiae in persequutione de paenitentibus et martyribus
5:1, De gloria ecclesiae et de resurrectione sanctorum

B. Diffusion de la version de Jr par Jérôme; disparition de Ba et de l'EpJr

1. Le regroupement des traductions de Jérôme 

The most ancient witnesses to the grouping of Jerome's translations are a palimpsest from León (VL 67) and the Amiatinus (mentioned earlier). Neither of these contains Baruch. There are several manuscripts--though fragmentary--that date before 800 and contain Jerome's Jeremiah. Bogaert lists 11. 

2. Le colophon d'Esther et le premier 'pandecte' 

This colophon appears in two manuscripts: ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 11553 (VL 7, 9th cent.); and ms. Paris, BNF, lat. 6 (VL 62, 11th cent.). The colophon reads: 

Here ends the Old Testament, all the 24 canonical scriptures, which the presbyter Jerome translated from the hebraica veritas and turned into Latin speech. With the greatest zeal and care, wandering through various codices, I have searched out editions, and I have collected and, by writing, poured into one corpus and I have made a pandect. But there are other scriptures that are not canonical but are called ecclesiastical, that is, the book of Judith, Tobit, two books of Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and the book of the Shepherd. 

That last bit is borrowed from Rufinus, who lists the same ecclesiastical books (though Rufinus also has the Two Ways and/or the Judgement of Peter), and uses the same terminology. But Rufinus had assumed the presence of Baruch within Jeremiah, while this colophon comes in a manuscript containing Jerome's version of Jeremiah, without Baruch. The colophon dates to maybe the fifth century. 

3. Cassiodore 

Cassiodorus includes in his Institutes three canon lists, those of Jerome, Augustine, and the LXX. None of them mention Baruch outright. 

4. Isidore 

There's not enough evidence to say, but Bogaert is confident that Isidore's Bible did not include Baruch. 

5. Un prologue pseudo-isidorien 

No Baruch. 

C. Absence et réintégration: les prologues

Thus, one Jeremiah containing Jer-Bar-Lam-EpJr has been banished by another Jeremiah containing only Jer-Lam. 

1. Le prologue à Jérémie Haec interpretatio 

This preface was noted by Donatien De Bruyne (see now here). Bogaert presents the text from two manuscripts, one from the tenth century (VL 209) and one from the twelfth century (Brussels ms BR II 2524), though there are other witnesses. Rough translation: 

This translation is by Jerome. If anything in it is found to be moved according to the Hebrew codices. There is another of the Seventy translators used in the churches. Although several things are found to be different from the Hebrew codices, yet both--that is, according to the Septuagint and according tot he Hebrew--are confirmed by apostolic authority. For it is not an error or reprehension of something higher, but by sure counsel the Seventy are understood to have said or composed some things differently. But I warn that no one should want to emend one from the other, because the truth is observed in each kind individually. 

Bogaert notes that the preface is reminiscent of Augustine (City of God 18.42–44; for analysis see here) or Dominique Barthélemy. The preface does not mention Baruch but Bogaert says that we must assume its presence in the VL Jeremiah.

2. Le petit prologue à Baruch Liber iste

Another preface is found in the Cavensis, the later Theodulfian Bibles, and in Paris, BNF, lat. 6. Rough translation: 

Here ends the corpus of books of the 16 prophets, to whose jar we have pressed Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah. That book which is prefixed with the name of Baruch is not contained in the Hebrew canon, but rather in the vulgate (common) edition [= LXX / VL]. Likewise the Epistle of Jeremiah. But they are written here for the information of readers, because they signal many things concern Christ and modern times. 

This preface must precede 800 CE.

3. Le petit prologue aux Lamentations 

The LXX has a brief prologue to Lamentations situating it within the lifetime of Jeremiah: after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the prophet was weeping over the ruins. This prologue made its way into the VL, but not Jerome's translation, until much later when a scribe did insert it. This action signals the break between Jeremiah and Lamentations that Jerome had wanted to establish. The prologue is found in many later manuscripts and became a part of the Paris Bibles. 

The Book of Baruch in the Manuscripts of the Latin Bible: Disappearance and Reinstatement, Part 1

The place of Baruch in ancient Bibles can be a confusing topic. In modern times, Baruch is considered a separate book of 5 or 6 chapters, with the sixth chapter actually being the Epistle of Jeremiah, originally a distinct work. But often in antiquity Baruch was considered a part of the book of Jeremiah, as was Lamentations (sometimes) and the Epistle of Jeremiah. So an ancient Christian might list the books of the Bible, and simply mention Jeremiah, but this title might include Lamentations, Baruch, and the EpJer, or it might not. 

For the Latin tradition, thankfully we have the work of Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. Any article by Bogaert is worth reading. He's one of those scholars who actually deals with evidence, cites that evidence, and thinks carefully about it. In 2005 he published a long article dealing with the Latin evidence for the transmission of Baruch. 

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration,” Revue bénédictine 115 (2005): 286–342. 

This post surveys the first two sections of Bogaert's article. I include below all of his section headings, in French, followed by my comments in English in blue type, almost always simply a summary of Bogaert's argument and evidence. In a future post I plan to conclude summarizing Bogaert's article. 

I. Les Antécédents en grec: Baruch comme deutero-Jérémie

A. Les livres 'jérémiens' dans la Bible hébraïque

In Jewish tradition (as we know it from the Rabbis and the Masoretic codices), although Jeremiah is considered the author of Lamentations, the two books are distinct, in fact located in different divisions of the Tanak. Jerome brings them together, thus against the hebraica veritas. 

B. Les livres 'jérémiens' dans la Septante

LXX mss usually maintain the order Jermeiah-Baruch-Lamentations-EpJer. Examples: Vaticanus (check it here: Baruch starts at image 1127, Lam at image 1133, Ep.Jer. at image 1140); Alexandrinus, Theodoret's commentary (PG 81), and the majority of manuscripts. Exceptions: Sinaiticus, which follows Jeremiah with Lamentations, and then there's a lacuna so that we can't be certain what came next (check it here); 106 has the order Jer-Lam-Bar-EpJer; 538 has Jer-Lam-EpJer-Bar. According to Bogaert, these exceptions point to the desire to group together the books available in Hebrew. All witnesses attest the original independence of EpJer (which now forms Baruch ch. 6). Bogaert also notes some Coptic evidence for the sequence Jer-Bar. 

C. Baruch supplément à Jérémie sans titre propre (critique interne)

"Just as Baruch, in the place of imprisoned Jeremiah, read before the king Jehoiakim the scroll that he had written by the dictation of Jeremiah, with negative results--the king burned the scroll (Jer 36 = Jer 43 LXX)--so now Baruch reads before the king Jehoiachin in Babylonian exile all or part of the book which precedes--and not the book which follows--, this time with positive results: the people repent. The οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι at the beginning of the book of Baruch naturally point back to what precedes, as Theodoret already affirmed [PG 81.760c]." So, what Bogaert means, is that with Jeremiah ending and the book of Baruch immediately following it, he thinks readers would have taken the very beginning of Baruch as simply the next episode of the book of Jeremiah. He further says that Baruch 1:1–15 looks like the conclusion of a narrative and not its beginning, and he points out that in the LXX sequence of Jeremiah, the salvific oracle to Baruch (Jer 45 = Jer 51:31–35 LXX) appears near the end of Jeremiah (thus right before Baruch). Thackerary and Tov have shown that the Greek vocabulary demonstrates the close relation between the second part of LXX Jeremiah and the Greek of Bar 1:1–3:8. All of this leads Bogaert to believe that Baruch was originally a Greek supplement to Jeremiah without a proper title of its own. That is, in this scenario, Baruch would have been composed in Greek as a supplement to Greek Jeremiah, and there would never have been a Hebrew of Baruch. The idea that Baruch originated in Greek and not Hebrew has gained some popularity in recent scholarship (see Adams, for instance), though the opposite has been the traditional view. 

D. Baruch cité sous le nom de Jérémie chez les Pères grecs les plus anciens 

Greek Fathers from the fourth century and later tend to cite Baruch under the name of Baruch (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Apostolic Constitutions, the Asceticon of Isaiah, Severus of Antioch, and earlier Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria), whereas earlier Fathers had cited Baruch under the name of Jeremiah (e.g. Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius of Olympus), a practice that is also sometimes found in later Fathers (e.g. Eusebius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria). Bogaert briefly suggests that Origen is the one who recognized that the supplement in the Greek version was not found in the Hebrew text of Jeremiah, so he separated it and gave it the name Baruch, since he found that name at the beginning of the work. 

E. Quand Baruch devient-il auteur? 

If Origen is the first one to separate Baruch from Jeremiah and to make Baruch its author, then the first datable text that is attributed to Baruch becomes the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, which Bogaert dates to 95 CE. 

II. Les Pères latins et les liturgies latines

A. Le nom de Baruch ne renvoie qu'à des pseudépigraphes 

Among Latin Fathers, the name Baruch does not refer to our book of Baruch but to other pseudepigrapha (examples in Cyprian, Evagrius, Sedulius Scottus). 

B. Ba 1–5 est toujours cité sous le nom de Jérémie 

Whenever Baruch is cited in Latin patristic literature, it is cited under the name of Jeremiah. The first appendix gives the details. The big example is Augustine, who remarks at City of God 18.33 (citing Bar 3:36–38) that some attribute the quotation to Baruch, but it is more likely from Jeremiah. 

C. Jérôme récuse Baruch; Isidore, Grégoire le Grand, Bède 

In the preface to his Vulgate translation of Jeremiah and in the preface to his commentary on Jeremiah, Jerome rejected Baruch as authentic, accepting only Lamentations as a supplement to Jeremiah. Some Vulgate manuscripts contain no title at the end of Jeremiah or beginning of Lamentations. Bogaert lists a few examples (p. 295), one of which is Amiatinus, the images for which are available online here. Lamentations starts at fol. 586r, and you can see that there is no title, not even a break after Jeremiah: the text is continuous within the same column. [You can contrast this practice with that of the Greek Codex Vaticanus, online here. The text of Baruch starts at image 1127, and you'll notice that Jeremiah has a closing title, and Baruch starts on a new column.] The first line of Lamentations in Amiatinus is in red, but this technique does not necessarily signal the start of a new book, since we have red lines sometimes within a book, such as within Jeremiah (e.g., fol. 580v, 584v). Bogaert guesses that this practice of not distinguishing Lamentations from Jeremiah goes back to Jerome, who wanted to preserve the number 22 as the proper number for the OT and therefore needed Lamentations to not be its own book. 

Eventually Jerome's translation overtook the Old Latin Jeremiah, which had included Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah, so that these latter two works virtually disappear in Latin literature for a while. Gregory the Great, Isidore, and Bede never--or hardly ever--cite or mention Baruch. Jerome's omission of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah became a more decisive rejection of these works than, for example, his rejection of the Additions to Daniel and Esther, which he condemned in his prefaces but included in his translations. 

D. Les liturgies latines (type K) utilisent Baruch sous le nom de Jérémie 

The Roman liturgy features Bar 3:9–38 in the Easter Vigil, while other traditions read the same passage on the Saturday before Pentecost. According to Bogaert, "all ancient books cite this reading under the name of Jeremiah," and he then lists 16 examples, up to the fifteenth century. This liturgical use will contribute toward the reintegration of Baruch into Latin Bibles, though it had disappeared from many (due to Jerome's influence), such as the Amiatinus. 

E. Les listes latines de livres canoniques 

Some lists mention only Jeremiah: Melito (in Rufinus' translation of Eusebius), Mommsen catalogue, Rufinus' own list, Augustine, Breviarium hipponense, Innocent I, the Latin version of the Council of Laodicea, the Apostolic Constitutions book 8, Claromontanus, Ordo 14 (see here), and the list of the Bobbio Missal. Also Cassiodorus, Isidore. Hilary of Poitiers has Hieremias cum Lamentatione et Epistula, just like Origen's list in Greek (and Bogaert thinks both Hilary and Origen in this instance must assume Baruch as a part of Jeremiah, since the Epistle is listed). But Rufinus' Latin translation of Origen's list has only Hieremias, just as in Rufinus' own canon list. The Decretum Gelasianum has Hieremias cum Cinoth, in dependence on Jerome. Bogaert suspects that the original text of the decree had merely Hieremias (as in some witnesses) and that this short reference included Bar-Lam-EpJr. The Council of Trent said Ieremias cum Baruch, and the title Ieremias would have included Lam, and since the 13th cent. the EpJr had counted as Baruch ch. 6. 

F. Témoignages épigraphiques

Bogaert surveys four inscriptions (from centuries XI to XIV), each citing Bar 3:36 under the name of Jeremiah. 



That's all for now. Hopefully I will soon be able to finish summarizing Bogaert's article. The last two sections (before his eight appendices) have the following titles: "III. Les bibles latines avant 800" and "IV. Les bibles latines à partir de 800."