International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Bear; Born — Ben-hanan
Bear; Born
Bear; Born - bar, born (vb.), (yaladh): Occurs frequently in its literal sense, alluding to motherhood (Genesis 16:11; 17, 19, 21; 18:13; 22:23; 30:3; Leviticus 12:5; Judges 13:3; 5:7; Ruth 1:12; 1 Kings 3:21; Jeremiah 29:6); in the New Testament gennao, in the same sense (Luke 1:13).
Figurative: It is often used with reference to the beginning of the spiritual life or regeneration (John 1:13; John 3:3-8; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 1, 4, 18 the King James Version).
See REGENERATION.
Bear; Borne
Bear; Borne - bar, born (nasa'; lambano, anaphero, bastazo): In English Versions of the Bible the physical sense is familiar, of supporting or carrying any weight or burden. The translation of the Revised Version (British and American) is to be preferred in Psalms 75:3 ("have set up"); Lamentations 3:28 ("hath laid it upon him"); Zephaniah 1:11 ("were laden with silver"); Luke 18:7 ("he is longsuffering over them"); John 12:6 ("took away what was put therein"); Acts 27:15 ("could not face the wind").
Figurative: The words are used in the figurative sense of enduring or taking the consequences of, be it for oneself or as representative for others: one's own iniquity (Leviticus 5:17 and often); chastisement (Job 34:31); reproach (Psalms 69:7; 89:50); or the sins of others (Isaiah 53:4, 11-12; Matthew 8:17; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24). In Isaiah 46:1-7 a striking contrast is presented between the idols of Babylon whom their worshippers had carried (borne) about and which would be borne away by the conquerors, and Yahweh who had ca rried (borne) Israel from the beginning. "Jacob and Israel .... borne by me from their birth .... and I will bear; yea, I will carry." "They bear it upon the shoulder," etc.
M. O. Evans
Beard
Beard - berd:
(1) Western Semites in general, according to the monuments, wore full round beards, to which they evidently devoted great care. The nomads of the desert, in distinction from the settled Semites, wore a clipped and pointed beard (see Jeremiah 9:26: "all that have the corners of their hair cut off, that dwell in the wilderness"; and compare Jeremiah 25:23; 49:32, etc.).
(2) Long beards are found on Assyrian and Babylonian monuments and sculptures as a mark of the highest aristocracy (compare Egyptian monuments, especially representations by W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, 140). It is not clear that it was ever so with the Jews. Yet it is significant that the Hebrew "elder" (zaqen) seems to have received his name from his long beard (compare bene barbatus).
(3) The view of some that it was customary among the Hebrews to shave the upper lip is considered by the best authorities as without foundation. The mustache (Hebrew sapham, "beard"), according to 2 Samuel 19:24, received regular "trimming" (thus English Versions of the Bible after the Vulgate, but the Hebrew is generic, not specific: "He had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard").
(4) In one case (1 Samuel 21:13-14) the neglect of the beard is set down as a sign of madness: "(He) let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish, .... Lo, ye see the man is mad."
(5) It was common. Semitic custom to cut both hair and beard as a token of grief or distress. Isaiah 15:2, describing the heathen who have "gone up to the high places to weep," says "Moab waileth over Nebo, and over Medeba; on all their heads is baldness, every beard is cut off." Jeremiah (41:5), describing the grief of the men of Samaria for their slain governor, Gedaliah, says, "There came men from .... Samaria (his sorrowing subjects) even four score men, having their beards shaven and their clothes rent," etc. And Amos, in his prophecy of the vision of the "basket of summer fruit" (8:1 ff), makes Yahweh say to His people: "I will turn your feasts into mourning; .... I will bring sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head" (8:10). On the other hand it was even more significant of great distress or fear to leave the beard untrimmed, as did Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, when he went to meet King David, in the crisis of his guilty failure to go up with the king according to his expectation: "He had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace." (Compare 1 Samuel 21:13, 14; 2 Samuel 19:24.)
(6) Absalom's hair was cut only once a year, it would seem (2 Samuel 14:26; compare rules for priests, Levites, etc., Ezekiel 44:20). But men then generally wore their hair longer than is customary or seemly with us (of Song of Solomon 5:2, 11, "His locks are bushy, and black as a raven"). Later, in New Testament times, it was a disgrace for a man to wear long hair (1 Corinthians 11:6-15). To mutilate the beard of another was considered a great indignity (see 2 Samuel 10:4; compare Isaiah 50:6, "plucked off the hair"). The shaving of the head of a captive slave-girl who was to be married to her captor marked her change of condition and prospects (Deuteronomy 21:12; W. R. Smith, Kinship, 209).
LITERATURE.
Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, II, 324, 349; Herod. i.195; ii.36; iii.12; Josephus, Antiquities, VIII, viii, 3; XVI, viii, 1; W. R. Smith, Kinship, 209; RS, 324; Wellhausen, Skizzen, III, 167,
George B. Eager
Beast
Beast - best: This word occurs often in both Old and New Testaments and denotes generally a mammal (though sometimes a reptile) in distinction to a man, a bird, or a fish. In this distinction the English is fairly in accord with the Hebrew and Greek originals. The commonest Hebrew words behemah and chai have their counterpart in the Arabic as do three others less often used, be`ir (Genesis 45:17; Exodus 22:5; Numbers 20:8 the King James Version), nephesh (Leviticus 24:18), and Tebhach (Proverbs 9:2). Behemah and A rabic bahimah are from a root signifying vagueness or dumbness and so denote primarily a dumb beast. Chai and Arabic chaiwan are from the root chayah (Arabic chaya), "to live," and denote primarily living creatures. Be`ir, "cattle," and its root-verb, ba`ar, "to graze," are identical with the Arabic ba`ir and ba`ara, but with a curious difference in meaning. Ba`ir is a common word for camel among the Bedouin and the root-verb, ba`ara, means "to drop dung," ba`rah being a common word for the dung of camels, goats, and sheep. Nephesh corresponds in every way with the Arabic nephs, "breath," "soul" or "self" Tebhach from Tabhach, "to slaughter," is equivalent to the Arabic dhibch from dhabacha, with the same meaning. Both therion ("wild beast"), and zoon ("living thing"), occur often in the Apocalypse. They are found also in a few other places, as mammals (Hebrews 13:11) or figuratively (Titus 1:12). Therion is used also of the viper which fastened on Paul's hand, and this has parallels in classic al Greek. Beasts of burden and beasts used for food were and are an important form of property, hence, ktenos ("possession"), the word used for the good Samaritan's beast (Luke 10:34) and for the beasts with which Lysias provided Paul for his journey to Caesarea (Acts 23:24).
For "swift beast," kirkaroth, "dromedary" (Isaiah 66:20 the King James Version), see CAMEL. For "swift beast," rekhesh, see HORSE(Micah 1:13 the King James Version; 1 Kings 4:28 the King James Version, margin; compare Esther 8:10, 14).
See also WILD BEAST.
Alfred Ely Day
Beast-fight
Beast-fight - best'-fit.
See GAMES.
Beaten Gold
Beaten Gold - See GOLD ( BEATEN).
Beaten Oil
Beaten Oil - See OIL( BEATEN).
Beating
Beating - bet'-ing.
See PUNISHMENTS.
Beatitudes
Beatitudes - be-at'-i-tudes:
1. The Name: The word "beatitude" is not found in the English Bible, but the Latin beatitudo, from which it is derived, occurs in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) version of Romans 4:6 where, with reference to Psalms 32:1-2, David is said to pronounce the "beatitude" of the man whose transgressions are forgiven. In the Latin church beatitudo was used not only as an abstract term denoting blessedness, but in the secondary, concrete sense of a particular declaration of blessedness and especially of such a declaration coming from the lips of Jesus Christ. Beatitudes in this derivative meaning of the word occur frequently in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms (Psalms 32:1-2; 41:1; 65:4, etc.), and Jesus on various occasions threw His utterances into this form (Matthew 11:6; 13:16; 16:17; 24:46, with the Lukan parallels; John 13:17; 20:29). But apart from individual sayings of this type the name Beatitudes, ever since the days of Ambrose, has been attached specifically to those words of blessing with which, according to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus began that great discourse which is known as the Sermon on the Mount.
2. The Two Groups: When we compare these Beatitudes as we find them in Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23 (24-26), we are immediately struck by the resemblances and differences between them. To the ordinary reader, most familiar with Matthew's version, it is the differences that first present themselves; and he will be apt to account for the discrepancy of the two reports, as Augustine did, by assigning them to two distinct occasions in the Lord's ministry. A careful comparative study of the two narratives, however, with some attention to the introductory circumstances in each case, to the whole progress of the discourses themselves, and to the parabolic sayings with which they conclude, makes this view improbable, and points rather to the conclusion that what we have to do with is two varying versions given by the Evangelists of the material drawn from an underlying source consisting of Logia of Jesus. The differences, it must be admitted, are very marked. (a) Matthew has 8 Beatitudes; Luke has 4, with 4 following Woes. (b) In Matthew the sayings, except the last, are in the 3rd person; in Luke they are in the 2nd. (c) In Matthew the blessings, except the last, are attached to spiritual qualities; in Luke to external conditions of poverty and suffering. Assuming that both Evangelists derived their reports from some common Logian source, the question arises as to which of them has adhered more closely to the original. The question is difficult, and still gives rise to quite contrary opinions. One set of scholars decides in favor of Matt hew, and accounts for Luke's deviation from the Matthean version by ascribing to him, on very insufficient grounds, an ascetic bias by which he was led to impart a materialistic tone to the utterances of Jesus. Another set inclines to theory that Luke's version is the more literal of the two, while Matthew's partakes of the nature of a paraphrase. In support of this second view it may be pointed out that Luke is usually more careful than Matthew to place the sayings of Jesus in their original setting and to preserve them in their primitive form, and further that owing to the natural tendency of the sacred writers to expand and interpret rather than to abbreviate an inspired utterance, the shorter form of a saying is more likely to be the original one. It may be noted, further, that in Matthew 5:11-12 the Beatitude takes the direct form, which suggests that this may have been the form Matthew found in his source in the case of the others also. On the whole, then, probabilities appear to favor the view that Luke's version is the more literal one. It does not follow, however, that the difference between the two reports amounts to any real inconsistency. In Luke emphasis is laid on the fact that Jesus is addressing His disciples (Matthew 6:20), so that it was not the poor as such whom He blessed, but His own disciples although they were poor. It was not poverty, hunger, sorrow or suffering in themselves to which He promised great rewards, but those experiences as coming to spiritual men and thus transformed into springs of spiritual blessing. And so when Matthew, setting down the Lord's words with a view to their universal application rather than with reference to the particular circumstances in which they were uttered, changes "the poor" into "the poor in spirit," and those that "hunger" into those that "hunger and thirst after righteousness," he is giving the real purport of the words of Jesus and recording them in the form in which by all men and through all coming time they may be read without any chance of misunderstanding.
As regards the Beatitudes of the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, which are given by Matthew only, they may have been spoken by Jesus at the same time as the rest and have been intended by Him in their association with the other four to fill out a conception of the ideal character of the members of the Kingdom of God. In view, however, of their omission from Luke's list, it is impossible to affirm this with certainty. That they are all authentic utterances of Jesus Himself there is no reason to doubt. But they may have been originally scattered through the discourse itself, each in its own proper place. Thus the Beatitude of the meek would go fitly with Luke 6:38 ff, that of the merciful with Luke 6:43 ff, that of the pure in heart with Luke 6:27 ff, that of the peacemakers with Luke 6:23 ff. Or they may even have been uttered on other occasions than that of the Sermon on the Mount and have been gathered together by Matthew and placed at the head of the Sermon as forming along with the other four a suitable introduction to our Lord's great discourse on the laws and principles of the Kingdom of God.
3. Number, Arrangement, Structure: With regard to the number of the Beatitudes in Matthew's fuller version, some have counted 7 only, making the list end with Matthew 5:9. But though the blessing pronounced on the persecuted in Matthew 5:10-12 differs from the preceding Beatitudes, both in departing from the aphoristic form and in attaching the blessing to an outward condition and not to a disposition of the heart, the parallel in Lk (Matthew 6:22 f) justifies the view that this also is to be added to the list, thus making 8 Beatitudes in all. On the arrangement of the group much has been written, most of it fanciful and unconvincing. The first four have been described as negative and passive, the second four as positive and active. The first four, again, have been represented as pertaining to the desire for salvation, the second four as relating to its actual possession. Some writers have endeavored to trace in the group as a whole the steadily ascending stages in the development of the Christian character. The truth in this last suggestion lies in the reminder it brings that the Beatitudes are not to be thought of as setting forth separate types of Christian character, but as enumerating qualities and experiences that are combined in the ideal character as conceived by Christ--and as exemplified, it may be added, in His own life and person.
In respect of their structure, the Beatitudes are all alike in associating the blessing with a promise--a promise which is sometimes represented as having an immediate realization (Matthew 5:3, 10), but in most cases has a future or even (compare Matthew 5:12) an eschatological outlook. The declaration of blessedness, therefore, is based not only on the possession of the quality or experience described, but on the present or future rewards in which it issues. The poor in spirit are called blessed not merely because they are poor in spirit, but because the kingdom of heaven is theirs; the mourners because they shall be comforted; those that hunger and thirst after righteousness because they shall be filled; those who are persecuted because a great reward is laid up for them in heaven. The Beatitudes have often been criticized as holding up an ideal of which limitation, privation and self-renunciation are the essence, and which lacks those positive elements that are indispensable to any complete conception of blessedness. But when it is recognized that the blessing in every case rests on the associated promise, the criticism falls to the ground. Christ does demand of His followers a renunciation of many things that seem desirable to the natural heart, and a readiness to endure many other things from which men naturally shrink. But just as in His own case the great self-emptying was followed by the glorious exaltation (Philippians 2:6 ff), so in the case of His disciples spiritual poverty and the bearing of the cross carry with them the inheritance of the earth and a great reward in heaven.
LITERATURE.
Votaw in HDB, V, 14 ff; Adeney in Expositor, 5th series, II, 365 ff; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 106 ff, 327 f; Gore, Sermon on the Mount, 15 ff; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, 25-200.
J. C. Lambert
Beautiful Gate
Beautiful Gate - bu'-ti-fool, gat.
See TEMPLE.
Beauty
Beauty - bu'-ti: The space allotted to this topic allows liberty only for the statement of two problems to students of the Bible. They should give distinct attention to the interblending of aesthetics with ethics in the Scripture. They should observe the extent and meaning of aesthetics in Nature.
1. Aesthetics in Scripture: That the Bible is an ethical book is evident. Righteousness in all the relations of man as a moral being is the key to its inspiration, the guiding light to correct understanding of its utterance. But it is everywhere inspired and writ in an atmosphere of aesthetics. Study will bring out this fact from Genesis to Revelation. The first pair make their appearance in a garden where grew "every tree that is pleasant to the sight" (Genesis 2:9), and the last vision for the race is an abode in a city whose gates are of pearl and streets of gold (Revelation 21:21). Such is the imagery that from beginning to end is pictured as the home of ethics--at first in its untried innocence and at last in its stalwart righteousness. The problem will be to observe the intermingling of these two elements--the beautiful and the good--in the whole Scripture range. A few texts will set before us this kinship and then the Bible student can detect it as he reads.
"One thing have I asked of Yahweh, that will I seek after:
That I may dwell in the house of Yahweh all the days of my life,
To behold the beauty of Yahweh,
And to inquire in his temple" (Psalms 27:4).
"For all the gods of the peoples are idols;
But Yahweh made the heavens.
Honor and majesty are before him:
Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary" (Psalms 96:5-6).
If we catch the spirit set forth in such and similar Psalms, we can use it as a magnetic needle to detect its like wherever we shall read: and we shall find that like in abundance. It is only necessary to turn to the directions given for making the Ark of the Covenant and its encircling tabernacle, and the decorations of the priests that were to minister in the worship of Yahweh in the ceremonies described, as given in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, to see that every resource of Israel was brought to bear to render ark and tabernacle and their service beautiful. One will find in a concordance half a column of references under the word "Ark" and a column and a half under the word "Tabernacle." By looking up these references one can realize how much care was spent to give and preserve to these aids to worship the attractiveness of beauty.
In 1 Chronicles 15 and 16 we have an account of David's bringing in the Ark of the Covenant into his own city to rest in a tent he had provided for it. On this occasion a demonstration was made with all the aesthetics of which the music of that day was capable. "And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren the singers, with instruments of music, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding aloud and lifting up the voice with joy." And David himself gave to the celebration the aesthetics of one of the noblest of his psalms (1 Chronicles 16:8-36).
It is almost idle to refer to Solomon and his temple (1 Kings 6:1-38 ff; 2 Chronicles 3:1-17 ff). It is a common understanding that the civilization of Solomon's day was drawn upon to its utmost in every department of aesthetics, in the building of that house for Yahweh and in the appointments for the worship there to be conducted. Beauty of form and color and harmony of sound were then and there integrated--made one--with worship in holiness. The propriety of that association has been seen and felt through the ages.
There is beauty in speech. It is a fact that the supreme classics in the literature of the tongues of two of the dominant nations of the earth, the English and the German, are translations of the Bible. There is no explanation of such fact except that the original justified the translations. You can read indifferently from one translation to the other and catch the same aesthetic gleam. Nobility and poetry of thought lay in what was to be translated. Here is proof that cannot be gainsaid that the Scripture authors sought the aid of aesthetics as garb for the ethics they taught. So they wrote in poetry. So they used allegory, illustration, figure, metaphor that would charm and hold. The parables of Jesus are examples of this method of clothing thought. They do their ethical work because they have swept into it figure and imagery from familiar aesthetic perceptions. "The sower went forth to sow" (Matthew 13:3). That is a glad sight--always has been and always will be. That is why a picture of "The Sower" hangs on the walls of a Christian home. Just the painting--and every beholder remembers the parable and cannot forget its ethics. The intensity of thought concentrated upon ethics in the New Testament has drawn away attention from the partnership between these two principles in religion. But it is there, and we shall see it when once we look for it.
It is something to which we do not wake up till late in life--to wit, the measurelessness of the provision in Nature for beauty. Common consent awards beauty to the rainbow.
2. Aesthetics in Nature: Reflect that every drop of water in the ocean, or in the hydrated rocks, or in the vapor floating over Saturn, has in it the possibility of rainbow coloring. In fact all matter has color of which the rainbow is only specimen. Any element incandescent has a spectrum partially coincident with that of water and ranging above and below it in the infinite capacity it has to start ether undulations. As apparently the larger part of the matter of the universe is incandescent, we can see that the field for expression in color is infinite. No one but the infinite God can see it all.
If we come down to this plain, plodding earth, cultivation of aesthetic sense will bring out beauty everywhere, from the grandeur of mountain scenery to aesthetic curves and colors revealed only by the microscope. We say the butterfly is beautiful. But the larva from which it is derived often carries as much beauty in mottling of color and of the fineness of finish of spine and mandible. Looking across the scale in this way the evidence of theism from beauty itself becomes convincing. Beauty becomes a messenger of and from God--as Iris was to the Greek and the rainbow to the Hebrew (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
This from Amiel's Journal Intime, I, 233, sets forth the radical, inexpugnable position of beauty in Nature and in philosophy thereof correctly interpretative: "To the materialist philosopher the beautiful is a mere accident, and therefore rare. To the spiritualist philosopher the beautiful is the rule, the law, the universal foundation of things, to which every form returns as soon as the force of accident is withdrawn."
As we accustom ourselves to make larger and larger synthesis in the department of aesthetics, what diapason of theistic message may we not hear? Beauty wherever and however expressed is a medium of revelation. It is a bush ever burning, never consumed. Before it "put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." That beauty should be--to that intent, for that end, from everlasting hath wrought the Ancient of Days.
C. Caverno
Beauty and Bands
Beauty and Bands - bu'-ti, bandz (no`am, and chobhelim): The names given in Zechariah 11:7, 14 to two symbolical staves, the first signifying Yahweh's covenant of grace with the peoples, and the second representing the brotherhood of Judah and Israel. The breaking of the two staves is symbolic of the breaking of Yahweh's covenant and of the union between Judah and Israel.
Bebai
Bebai - be'-ba-i, beb'-a-i (bebhay; Septuagint Bebai, "fatherly"):
(1) Descendants of B: returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezra 8:11 called Babi; 1 Esdras 8:37); one of these is Zechariah, the son of Bebai (Ezra 8:11, Zaeharias; 1 Esdras 8:37). 623 returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:11; 1 Esdras 5:13; Nehemiah 7:16 gives the number 628); some of these had married "strange wives" (Ezra 10:28; 1 Esdras 9:29).
(2) A chief of the people who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:15).
(3) An unknown town (Judith 15:4). Omitted in Codex Vaticanus and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
Because
Because - be-kos' (hina, "in order that"): "The multitude rebuked them, because (AV; the Revised Version (British and American) "that") they should hold their peace" (Matthew 20:31).
Becher
Becher - be'-ker (bekher, "the firstborn"; compare HPN , 88):
(1) Son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21; 1 Chronicles 7:6, 8).
(2) Son of Ephraim whose family is called Becherites (the King James Version "Bachrites"), Numbers 26:35 (1 Chronicles 7:20 called Bered). Compare BERED.
Bechorath
Bechorath - be-kor'-ath.
See BECORATH.
Beck; Beckon
Beck; Beckon - bek, bek'-'-n (neuma): This word from neuo, "to nod," "beckon," "make a sign" by moving the head or eyes (Luke 5:7; John 13:24; Acts 21:40; 24:10), occurs only in 2 Maccabees 8:18, "Almighty God who at a beck can cast down both them that come against us, and also all the world," the Revised Version (British and American), "able at a beck." So Shak, "troops of soldiers at their beck"; "nod" is now generally used.
Become
Become - be-kum':
(1) Greek ginomai, used in New Testament for a change of state, corresponding to Hebrew hayah of Old Testament. Compare Matthew 18:3 with Deuteronomy 27:9.
(2) For what is fitting, suitable, proper, in New Testament: "prepei" (Matthew 3:15; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Timothy 2:10); in Old Testament, na'awah, na'ah, Psalms 93:5: "Holiness becometh thy house." in this sense, the adverb "becomingly" must be interpreted: "Walk becomingly toward them that are without" (1 Thessalonians 4:12), i.e. in a way that is consistent with your profession.
Becorath
Becorath - be-ko'-rath (bekhorath, "the first birth"; the King James Version Bechorath): A forefather of Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:1).
Bectileth
Bectileth - bek'-ti-leth (to pedion Baikteilaith): A plain which is defined as "near the mountain which is at the left hand of the upper Cilicia" (Judith 2:21). The name in Syriac is Beth QeTilath, "house of slaughter." So far there is no clue to its identification.
Bed; Bedchamber; Bedstead
Bed; Bedchamber; Bedstead - For the very poor of the East, in ancient times as now, the "bed" was and is, as a rule, the bare ground; and the bedclothes, the gown, simlah, or "outer garment," worn during the day ("For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep?" (Exodus 22:27); compare Deuteronomy 24:13, "Thou shalt surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his garment").
When one was on a journey, or watching his flock by night as a shepherd, such a "bed" was the most natural, and often a stone would serve as a pillow. (See Genesis 28:11, where Jacob "took one of the stones of the place, and put it under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep.")
An advance on this custom, which came in due course of time, or under change of circumstances, was the use of a mat on the floor as a bed, with or without covering. At first it was literally laid on the floor, which was generally of one common level, in some convenient place near the wall; but later it was put on an elevation, either a raised part of the floor on one side, or a bedstead, which gave rise to the expression "going up to the bed" (compare Genesis 49:33 English Versions of the Bible, "He gathered up his feet into the bed," and Psalms 132:3, "go up into my bed").
1. Old Testament Terms for Bed, and Sleeping Customs of the Hebrews:
With a later development and civilization, "beds" came to be built upon supports and constructed in different forms, which fact is reflected in the variety of names given the "bed" in the Hebrew and related languages.
(1) The following Hebrew words are used in the Bible for "bed," and, though it is impossible at this remove of time and place and custom to differentiate them sharply, they will repay study: miTTah (Genesis 48:2, "And Israel strengthened himself and sat upon the bed"; Exodus 8:3, "frogs .... shall come into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed"); mishkabh, compare (Genesis 49:4, Jacob to Reuben: "Because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it"); `eres (Proverbs 7:16, the "strange woman" says: " I have spread my couch with carpets of tapestry"; compare Psalms 41:3, "Thou makest all his bed in his sickness"); matstsa` (once only, Isaiah 28:20, "For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it; and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it"); and yetsua` (Job 17:13, "I have spread my couch in the darkness"; 1 Chronicles 5:1, "He defiled his father's couch"; compare Genesis 49:4 where the same "father's bed" is mishkabh; Psalms 63:6, "when I remember thee upon my bed"; Psalms 132:3, "nor go up into my bed").
(2) It is a far cry from the simple sleeping customs of Deuteronomy 24:13 to the luxurious arts and customs of the post-exilic days, when beds of fine wood and ivory are found in use among the Hebrews, as well as pillows of the most costly materials elaborately embroidered (see Judith 10:21; Esther 1:6; compare Song of Solomon 3:10); but it all came about as a natural, as well as artificial development, with changed conditions and contacts and increasing civilization and luxury. As marking the several stages of that development, we find pictures of the poor, first sleeping upon the ground without mat or mattress, then in a single sleeping-room for the whole family, often without a separate bed, then with "beds" that were simply wadded quilts, or thin mattresses, and mats for keeping them off the ground; then with still better "beds" laid upon light portable, wooden frames, or upon more elevated bedsteads (compare Psalms 132:3 and Mark 4:21 the Revised Version (British and American) "under the bed"). The degree of richness depended, of course, upon time and place, in a measure, but more upon the wealth and station of the family and the style of the house or tent in which they lived, as it does even with the Bedouin of today. The prophet Amos gives a vivid and significant picture of the luxury of certain children of Israel, "that sit in Samaria in the corner of a couch, and on the silken cushions of a bed" (Amos 3:12); and of certain children of luxury "that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock .... that drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief oils; but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph" (Amos 6:4-6; compare Revelation 18:10-13).
(3) We find that the poor, while sleeping for the most part in their ordinary clothing, often, in cold weather, made their beds of the skins of animals, old cloaks, or rugs, as they do still in the East. The "beds" and "bedding" now in ordinary use among Orientals are much the same, we may be sure, as they were in olden times. "Bedsteads" of any pretention were and are rare among the common people; but the richness of "beds" and "bedsteads" among Asiatics of wealth and rank was quite equal to that of the Greeks and Romans (compare Proverbs 7:16-17, "I have spread my couch with carpets of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon"); Song of Solomon 1:16-17: "The beams of our house are cedars, and our rafters are firs .... also our couch is green." Compare the "palanquin" of Solomon, "of the wood of Lebanon," "the pillars thereof of silver," "the bottom of gold," and "the seat of purple" (Song of Solomon 3:9-10).
(4) As soon as any family could afford it, a special bedroom would be set apart, and the whole family would sleep in it (see Luke 11:5-8, "My children are with me in bed"). When the house had two stories the upper story was used for sleeping, or, during very hot weather, preferably the roof, or the room on the roof. See HOUSE. When morning came the "bed," a wadded quilt or mattress, used with or without covering according to the season, was rolled up, aired and sunned, and then put aside on the raised platform, or packed away in a chest or closet.
The words mishkabh and miTTah came to have a figurative meaning signifying the final resting-place; and `eres used of the "bedstead" of the King of Og (Deuteronomy 3:11) is thought by some to mean his sarcophagus (Benzinger, Hebrew Arch., 123; Nowack, I, 143). Genesis 47:31, "And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head" is not rightly rendered (see STAFF, and Crit. Commentary in the place cited.).
2. New Testament Terms for Bed, Their Meaning, etc.:
(1) We find several Greek words, kline, krabbatos, and koitte, used in the New Testament somewhat indiscriminately and rendered English Versions of the Bible by "bed," "couch," etc.; but, as with the Hebrew words noted, there is little to indicate just exactly what they severally stand for, or how they are related to the Hebrew terms rendered "bed" or "couch" in the Old Testament. Of one thing we can be sure, reasoning from what we know of "the unchanging East," the "beds" and sleeping customs of the Hebrews in Christ's time were in the main about what they were in later Old Testament times.
(2) An interesting case for study is that of the man "sick of the palsy" whom they brought to Jesus "lying on a bed," and who when healed "took up the bed, and went forth before them all" (Matthew 9:2, 6; Mark 2:4, 12; Luke 5:18-19; compare John 5:8-12). Here the "bed" on which the sick of the palsy lay was let down from the housetop "through the tiles with his couch into the midst before Jesus" (Luke 5:18-19); and when the man was healed Jesus commanded him, as Luke says, to "take up (his) couch and go unto (his) house ," and he "took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his house, glorifying God" (Luke 5:24-25). It seems, therefore, that this "bed" was a "pallet" and "couch" combined, a thin mattress upon a light portable frame, such as we have already seen was in use among the ancients. Another kindred case was that of the sick man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2 ff) whom Jesus healed and commanded to "take up his bed and walk," and he "took up his bed and walked"; only in this case the "bed" is a "pallet" without the frame, it would seem.
(3) Jesus in His teaching (Mark 4:21; compare Luke 8:16) asks, in language which is significant in this connection: "Is the lamp brought to be put under .... the bed?" (Luke 8:16: "No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bell"). Here, clearly, "the bed" is the "bedstead," bedclothes, draperies and all, under which "the lamp" would be obscured and hindered in its function of "giving light to all in the room." Again (Luke 17:34) Jesus says, "In that night there shall be two men on one bed," which is incidental evidence that the "beds" of that day were not all "pallets" or "couches" for one only (compare Luke 11:7, "My children are with me in bed"; Song of Solomon 1:16; 3:10; Proverbs 7:16, 18).
(4) For figurative use in the prophets (e.g. Ezekiel 23:17) and in the New Testament (e.g. "Let the bed be undefiled," Hebrews 13:4), see commentaries in the place cited
George B. Eager
Bedad
Bedad - be'-dad (bedhadh, "alone"): Father of Hadad, king of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" (Genesis 36:35; 1 Chronicles 1:46).
Bedan
Bedan - be'-dan (bedhan, "son of judgment" (?)):
(1) One of the leaders in Israel who with Jerubbaal, Jephthah and Samuel is mentioned as a deliverer of the nation (1 Samuel 12:11). The text is questioned because the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic read "Barak" instead.
(2) A son of Ulam of the house of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 7:17).
Bedchamber
Bedchamber - bed'-cham-ber.
See BED.
Bedeiah
Bedeiah - be-de'-ya (bedheydh, "servant of Yah"): A son of Bani who had married a "strange wife" (Ezra 10:35).
Bedstead
Bedstead - bed'-stead.
See BED.
Bee
Bee - be (debhorah; compare Arabic dabr, "a swarm of bees," also Arabic debbur, "a wasp," said to be a corruption of zunbur, "a wasp"; all are apparently from the Hebrew dabhar, "to speak," "arrange," "lead," "follow," or from Arabic dabara, "follow" (compare Arabic dabbara, "arrange"), though the connection in meaning is not apparent): Honey is mentioned many times in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, but the word "bee" occurs only four times, and only one of the four times in connection with honey in the story of Samson (Judges 14:8). Both wild and domesticated bees are found today in Palestine, but it is not clear that bees were kept in Bible times, although it would seem very probable. The frequently recurring phrase, "a land flowing with milk and honey," certainly suggests that the honey as well as the milk is a domestic product. The hives now in use are very primitive and wasteful as compared with hives that are made in Europe and America. Sometimes a large water jar is used. More frequently a cylinder about 3 or 4 ft. long and 6 inches in diameter is constructed of mulberry withes plaited together and plastered with mud or cow dung. A number of these cylinders are placed horizontally, being piled up together under some rude structure which serves as a protection from the direct rays of the sun. In the passage already cited it is related that Samson found a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion which he had killed on his previous visit. We are not told how much time had intervened, but it does not take long in the dry climate of Palestine for scavenging beasts and insects to strip the flesh from the bones and make the skeleton a possible home for a swarm of bees. The other three passages refer to the offensive power of bees. In Deuteronomy 1:44, in the speech of Moses he says, "The Amorites chased you, as bees do"; in Psalms 118:12, the psalmist says, "They compassed me about like bees"; in Isaiah 7:18, the bee is the type of the chastisement that the Lord will bring from the land of Assyria.
Alfred Ely Day
Beef
Beef - bef.
See CATTLE.
Beeliada
Beeliada - be-e-li'-a-da (be`elyadha`, "the Lord knows"; ELIADA, which see; compare HPN , 144, 192, note 1, 202):A son of David (1 Chronicles 14:7).
Beelsarus
Beelsarus - be-el'-sa-rus, be-el-sa'-rus (Beelsaros): One who accompanied Zerubbabel in the return from the captivity (1 Esdras 5:8), called Bilshan in Ezra 2:2 and Nehemiah 7:7.
Beeltethmus
Beeltethmus - be-el-teth'-mus (Beeltethmos; Balthemus): One of the officers of King Artaxerxes in Palestine (1 Esdras 2:16, 25). According to Professor Sayce, the name by etymology means "lord of official intelligence" or "postmaster." Rendered "chancellor" in Ezra 4:8 and "story-writer" in 1 Esdras 2:17.
Beelzebub
Beelzebub - be-el'-ze-bub (in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) is an error (after the Vulgate) for Beelzebul (Revised Version margin) Beelzeboul; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Beezeboul): In the time of Christ this was the current name for the chief or prince of demons, and was identified with SATAN (which see) and the DEVIL (which see). The Jews committed the unpardonable sin of ascribing Christ's work of casting out demons to Beelzebul, thus ascribing to the worst source the supreme manifestation of goodness (Matthew 10:25; 24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18-19). There can be little doubt that it is the same name as BAALZEBUB (which see). It is a well-known phenomenon in the history of religions that the gods of one nation become the devils of its neighbors and enemies. When the Aryans divided into Indians and Iranians, the Devas remained gods for the Indians, but became devils (daevas) for the Iranians, while the Ahuras remained gods for the Iranians and became devils (asuras) for the Indians. Why Baalzebub became Beelzebul, why the b changed into l, is a matter of conjecture. It may have been an accident of popular pronunciation, or a conscious perversion (Beelzebul in Syriac = "lord of dung"), or Old Testament zebhubh may have been a perversion, accidental or intentional of zebhul (= "house"), so that Baalzebul meant "lord of the house." These are the chief theories offered (Cheyne in EB; Barton in Hastings, ERE).
T. Rees
Beer
Beer - be'-er (be'er; phrear; Latin puteus = "well"):
(1) A station on the march of the Israelites to the North of the Arnon (Numbers 21:16). Here it was that they sang round the well this song:
`Spring up O well; greet it with song,
Well, that the princes have dug,
The nobles of the people have bored,
With the scepter--with their staves' (Numbers 21:16 ff).
The place is not identified.
(2) The town to which Jotham fled from his brother Abimelech after declaring his parable from Mt. Gerizim (Judges 9:21). This may be identical with BEEROTH, which see.
Beera
Beera - be-e'-ra, be'-er-a (be'era', "expounder"): A descendant of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:37).
Beerah
Beerah - be-e'-ra, be'-er-a (be'erah; "expounder"): A prince of the house of Reuben whom Tiglath-pileser carried away captive (1 Chronicles 5:6). Compare 2 Kings 15:29; 16:7.
Beer-elim
Beer-elim - be-er-e'-lim (be'er 'elim; phrear tou Aileim, literally "well of Elim"): Probably lay to the North of Moab, answering to Eglaim in the South (Isaiah 15:8). It may possibly be identical with BEER (1); but there is no certainty.
Beeri
Beeri - be-e'-ri (be'eri, "expounder"):
(1) Father of Judith, one of Esau's wives (Genesis 26:34).
(2) The father of the prophet Hosea (Hosea 1:1).
Beer-lahai-roi
Beer-lahai-roi - be-er-la-hi'-roi, be-er-la-hi-ro'-i (be'er lachai ro'i, "well of the Living One that seeth me"): "A fountain of water in the wilderness," "the fountain in the way to Shur" (Genesis 16:7-14). It was the scene of Hagar's theophany, and here Isaac dwelt for some time (Genesis 16:7 f; Genesis 24:62; 25:11). The site is in The Negeb between Kadesh and Bered (Genesis 16:14). Rowland identifies the well with the modern `Ain Moilaihhi, circa 50 miles South of Beersheba and 12 miles West of `Ain Kadis. Cheyne thinks that Hagar's native country, to which she was fleeing and from which she took a wife for Ishmael, was not Egypt (mitsrayim), but a north Arabian district called by the Assyrians Mucri (Encyclopedia Biblica).
S. F. Hunter
Beeroth
Beeroth - be-e'-roth, be'-er-oth (be'eroth; Beroth): One of the cities of the Canaanites whose inhabitants succeeded in deceiving Israel, and in making a covenant with them (Joshua 9:3 ff). Apparently they were Hivites (Joshua 9:7). The occasion on which the Beerothites fled to Gittaim where they preserved their communal identity is not indicated. The town was reckoned to Benjamin (2 Samuel 4:2 f). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it under Gibeon, 7 Roman miles from Jerusalem on the way to Nicopolis (Amwas). If we follow the old road by way of Gibeon (el-Jib) and Bethhoron, Beeroth would lie probably to the Northwest of el-Jib. The traditional identification is with el-Bireh, about 8 miles from Jerusalem on the great north road. If the order in which the towns are mentioned (Joshua 9:17; 18:25) is any guide as to position, el-Bireh is too far to the Northwest. The identification is precarious. To Beeroth belonged the murderers of Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4:2), and Naharai, Joab's armor-bearer (2 Samuel 23:37; 1 Chronicles 11:39). It was reoccupied after the Exile (Ezra 2:25; Nehemiah 7:29).
W. Ewing
Beeroth Bene-jaakan
Beeroth Bene-jaakan - ben'-e-ja'-a-kan (be'eroth bene ya`aqan; the Revised Version, margin "the wells of the children of Jaakan"): A desert camp of the Israelites mentioned before Moserah (Deuteronomy 10:6). In Numbers 33:31-32 the name is given simply "Bene-jaakan," and the situation after Moseroth.
See WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL.
Beerothite; Berothite
Beerothite; Berothite - be-e'-roth-it, be'-er-oth-it (be'erothi; 2 Samuel 4:5, 9; 23:37; shortened form, 1 Chronicles 11:39).
See BEEROTH.
Beersheba
Beersheba - be-er-she'-ba (be'er shebha`; Bersabee): Allotted originally to Simeon (Joshua 19:2), one of "the uttermost cities of the tribe of the children of Judah" (Joshua 15:28).
1. The Meaning of the Name: The most probable meaning of Beersheba is the "well of seven." "Seven wells" is improbable on etymological grounds; the numeral should in that case be first. In Genesis 21:31 Abraham and Abimelech took an oath of witness that the former had dug the well and seven ewe lambs were offered in sacrifice, "Wherefore he called that place Beer-sheba; because there they sware both of them." Here the name is ascribed to the Hebrew root shabha`, "to swear," but this same root is connected with the idea of seven, seven victims being offered and to take an oath, meaning "to come under the influence of seven."
Another account is given (Genesis 26:23-33), where Isaac takes an oath and just afterward, "the same day Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged (dug), and said unto him, We have found water. And he called it Shibah: therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba unto this day."
2. A Sacred Shrine: Beersheba was a sacred shrine. "Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of Yahweh, the Everlasting God" Gen (21:33). Theophanies occurred there to Hagar (21:17), to Isaac (26:24), to Jacob (46:2), and to Elijah (1 Kings 19:5). By Amos (1 Kings 5:5) it is classed with Bethel and Gilgal as one of the rival shrines to the pure worship of Yahweh, and in another place (1 Kings 8:14) he writes "They shall fall, and never rise up again," who sware, "As the way (i.e. cult) of Beersheba liveth." The two unworthy sons of Samuel were Judges in Beersheba (1 Samuel 8:2) and Zibiah, mother of King Jehoash, was born there (2 Kings 12:1; 2 Chronicles 24:1).
3. Its Position: Geographically Beersheba marked the southern limit of Judah, though theoretically this extended to the "river of Egypt" (Genesis 15:18)--the modern Wady el`Avish--60 miles farther south. It was the extreme border of the cultivated land. From Dan to Beersheba (2 Samuel 17:11, etc.) or from Beersheba to Dan (1 Chronicles 21:2; 2 Chronicles 30:5) were the proverbial expressions, though necessarily altered through the changed conditions in later years to "from Geba to Beer-sheba" (2 Kings 23:8) or "from Beer-sheba to the hill-country of Ephraim" (2 Chronicles 19:4).
4. Modern Beersheba: Today Beersheba is Bir es-Seba` in the Wady es Seba`, 28 miles Southwest of Hebron on "the southern border of a vast rolling plain broken by the torrent beds of Wady Khalil and Wady Seba" (Robinson). The plain is treeless but is covered by verdure in the spring; it is dry and monotonous most of the year. Within the last few years this long-deserted spot--a wide stretch of shapeless ruins, the haunt of the lawless Bedouin--has been re-occupied; the Turks have stationed there an enlightened Kaimerkhan (subgovernor); government offices and shops have been built; wells have been cleared, and there is now an abundant water supply pumped even to the separate houses. Robinson (BW, XVII, 247 ff) has described how he found seven ancient wells there--probably still more will yet be found. The whole neighborhood is strewn with the ruins of the Byzantine city which once flourished there; it was an episcopal see. It is probable that the city of Old Testament times stood where Tell es Seba' now is, some 2 1/2 miles to the East; from the summit a commanding view can be obtained (PEF, III, 394, Sheet XXIV).
E. W. G. Masterman
Beeshterah
Beeshterah - be-esh'-te-ra (Joshua 21:27).
See ASHTAROTH.
Beetle
Beetle - be'-t'-l (the Revised Version (British and American) CRICKET; chargol; See LOCUST): This name occurs only in Leviticus 11:22 as one of four winged Jumping insects (sherets ha-`oph) which may be eaten. It certainly is not a beetle and is probably not a cricket. Probably all four are names of locusts, of which more than 30 species have been described from Syria and Palestine, and for which there are at least 8 Arabic names in use, though with little distinction of species. Closely allied to chargol are the Arabic charjalet, a troop of horses or a flight of locusts, from charjal, "to gallop," and harjawan, "a wingless locust."
Alfred Ely Day
Beeves
Beeves - bevs (Leviticus 22:21 the King James Version).
See CATTLE.
Before
Before - be-for': The translation of a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words. "Haran died before (the English Revised Version "in the presence of," literally "before the face of") his father Terah" (Genesis 11:28). To be "before" God is to enjoy His favor (Psalms 31:22). "The Syrians before" (Isaiah 9:12 the Revised Version, margin "on the east," as "behind," owing to the position of Canaan, relative to Syria, implies the west).
Beg; Beggar; Begging
Beg; Beggar; Begging - 1. No Law Concerning Beggars or Begging in Israel:
It is significant that the Mosaic law contains no enactment concerning beggars, or begging, though it makes ample provision for the relief and care of "the poor in the land." Biblical Hebrew seems to have no term for professional begging, the nearest approach to it being the expressions "to ask (or seek) bread" and "to wander." This omission certainly is not accidental; it comports with the very nature of the Mosaic law, the spirit of which is breathed in this, among other kindred provisions, that a poor Hebrew who even sold himself for debt to his wealthy brother was allowed to serve him only until the Jubilee (See JUBILEE), and his master was forbidden to treat him as a sl ave (Leviticus 25:39). These laws, as far as actually practiced, have always virtually done away with beggars and begging among the Jews.
2. Begging Not Unknown to the Ancient Jews: Begging, however, came to be known to the Jews in the course of time with the development of the larger cities, either as occurring among themselves, or among neighboring or intermingling peoples, as may be inferred from Psalms 59:15; compare Psalms 109:10, where Yahweh is besought that the children of the wicked may be cursed with beggary, in contra-distinction to the children of the righteous, who have never had to ask bread (Psalms 37:25, "I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed asking (English Versions, "begging") bread." For the Hebrew expression corresponding to "begging" see Psalms 59:15, "They shall wander up and down for food"; and compare Psalms 119:10, "Let me not wander," etc.
3. Begging and Alms-taking Denounced in Jewish Literature:
The first clear denunciation of beggary and almstaking in Jewish literature is found in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 40:28-30, where the Hebrew for "begging" is to "wander," ete, as in Psalms 59:15, according to the edition of Cowley and Neubauer; Oxford, 1897. There as well as in Tobit, and in the New Testament, where beggars are specifically mentioned, the word eleemosune has assumed the special sense of alms given to the begging poor (compare Tobit 4:7, 16, 17; Tobit 12:8-11; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 3:14,30; 7:10; 16:14; Matthew 6:2-4; Matthew 20:30-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 11:41; 12:33; John 9:1-41; Acts 9:36; 2, 4, 31; 24:17).
4. Professional Beggars a Despised Class: As to professional beggars, originally, certainly, and for a long time, they were a despised class among the Hebrews; and the Jewish communities are forbidden to support them from the general charity fund (BB, 9a; Yoreh De`ah, 250, 3). But the spirit of the law is evinced again in that it is likewise forbidden to drive a beggar away without an alms (ha-Yadh ha-Chazaqah, in the place cited 7 7).
5. In the Gospel Age: Begging was well known and beggars formed a considerable class in the gospel age. Proof of this is found in the references to almsgiving in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-48 through 7 and parallels), and in the accounts of beggars in connection with public places, e.g. the entrance to Jericho. (Matthew 20:30 and parallels), which was a gateway to pilgrims going up to Jerusalem to the great festivals and in the neighborhood of rich men's houses (Luke 16:20), and especially the gates of the Temple at Jerusalem (Acts 3:2). This prevalence of begging was due largely to the want of any adequate system of ministering relief, to the lack of any true medical science and the resulting ignorance of remedies for common diseases like ophthalmia, for instance, and to the impoverishment of the land under the excessive taxation of the Roman government (Hausrath, History of New Testament Times, I, 188 (Eng. translation Williams and Norgate), compare Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus,II , 178). That begging was looked down upon is incidentally evidenced by the remark of the unjust steward, "To beg I am ashamed" (Luke 16:3); and that, when associated with indolence, it was strongly condemned by public opinion appears from Sirach (40:28-30).
The words used for "beg," "beggar" of English Versions of the Bible in the New Testament differ radically in idea: in those formed from aiteo (Mark 10:46; Luke 16:3; 18:35; John 9:8 the Revised Version (British and American)) the root idea is that of "asking," while ptochos (Luke 16:20, 22) suggests the cringing or crouching of a beggar. But see Matthew 5:3 where the word for "humble" is ptochos.
6. A Change in Modern Times: A marked change has come over Jewish life in modern times, in this as well as in other respect. Since the 17th century the Jewish poor in many parts of the world have made it a practice, especially on Fridays and on the eves of certain festivals, to go systematically from house to house asking alms. In parts of Europe today it is a full-grown abuse: crowds of Jewish beggars push their way and ply their trade about the synagogue doors (Abrahams, EB, article "Alms," 310). So the Jewish beggar, in spite of the spirit of the law and ancient Jewish custom, has, under modern conditions too well known to require explanation here, become a troublesome figure and problem in modern Jewish society. For such beggars and begging, see Jew Encyclopedia, articles "Schnorrers," "Alms," etc., and for another kind of begging among modern Jews, and collections for poverty-stricken Jewish settlers in Palestine, see the articles "Chalukah," "Charity," etc.
LITERATURE.
Saalschiutz, Arch. der Hebraer, II, chapter xviii (Konigsberg, 1855-56); Riehm Handworterbuch zu den Buchern des A T, under the word "Almosen "; compare Jew Encyclopedia,HDB , and Encyclopedia B, arts, "Alms"; and Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, chapters xvii, xviii (Philadelphia, 1896); Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs; Day, The Social Life of the Hebrews.
George B. Eager
Beggarly
Beggarly - beg'-er-li (ptochos): The word has the thought of "to crouch" or "cringe," such as is common with professional beggars. It is used in Matthew 5:3 and Galatians 4:9, and in both cases means complete spiritual destitution. As used in Galatians it expresses the contrast between their present condition and the former estate, toward which he says they are again tending. Paul has in mind both the Jewish and heathen systems of religion with all their outward show. He therefore here emphasizes the immeasurable superiority of the riches and liberty in Christ. He further expresses this same thought of the law in Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 7:18. In view of the wretchedness of the condition indicated by the word "beggarly," he states his astonishment that they should so little appreciate the liberty and riches which they now enjoy as even to think of going back to the former condition.
Jacob W. Kapp
Begin
Begin - be-gin': To make the first movement toward a given end (chalal; archomai). Those who interpret it in many passages pleonastically mean by this, that in such passages as "began to teach" or "began to speak," nothing more is intended than to express vividly and graphically the thought of the dependent infinitive. Matthew 4:17; Luke 3:23; Acts 1:1 are so understood. For contrary opinion, see Thayer's Lexicon and Winer's Grammar of New Testament Greek.
The noun, arche, "beginning," in the writings of John, is used sometimes in an abstract sense, to designate a previous stage (John 1:1-2; 8:25; 1 John 1:1; 3:8) and, sometimes, the Source or First Cause (Revelation 3:14; 21:6; 22:13). Often used also, not for the absolute beginning, but, relatively, for the starting-point of some important movement (1 John 2:7, 24; Acts 11:15; Philippians 4:15).
H.E. Jacobs
Beginning
Beginning - be-gin'-ing (re'-shith; arche): The natural meaning of the word is with reference to time. The primitive Greek root means "to be long," "to draw out." Thus, it is used to refer to some point of time long drawn out, or long past (Genesis 1:1). It is used also to express the inauguration of a particular event (Exodus 12:2). The principal interest in the word centers in the use of it in John 1:1. It must be interpreted here by that which follows in the statement as to the relation of the Logos to the Eternal God and the use of the word "was." It is true that the word arche cannot be separated from the idea of time, but when time began He already was, and therefore He was from eternity.
Figurative: in a figurative sense it is used of that which is most excellent, the chief part (Proverbs 1:7); of the most eminent person (Colossians 1:18); the author (Revelation 3:14).
Jacob W. Kapp
Begotten
Begotten - be-got'-'-n (yaladh; "to bear," "bring forth," "beget"; denotes the physical relation of either parent to a child, Genesis 3:16; 4:18): Used metaphorically of God's relation to Israel (Deuteronomy 32:18) and to the Messianic king (Psalms 2:7); (gennao, "to beget," or "bear"): generally used of a father (Matthew 1:1-16); more rarely of a mother (Luke 1:13, 57); used metaphorically of causing or engendering moral and spiritual relations and states (1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 1:10); of the new birth of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3 ff). Men who obey and love God as sons are begotten of Him (John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 1, 4, 18; compare 1 Peter 1:23). Used especially of God's act in making Christ His Son: "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Psalms 2:7) quoted in Acts 13:33 in reference to His resurrection (compare Romans 1:4). The same passage is cited (Hebrews 1:5) as proving Christ's filial dignity, transcending the angels in that "he hath inherited a more excellent name than they," i.e. the name of son; and again (Hebrews 5:5) of God conferring upon Christ the glory of the priestly office.
Commentators differ as to whether the act of begetting the Son in these two passages is (a) the eternal generation, or (b) the incarnation in time, or (c) the resurrection and ascension. The immediate context of Hebrews 1:5 (see Hebrews 1:3) seems to favor the last view (Westcott). The first view would not be foreign to the author's thought: with Hebrews 5:5 compare Hebrews 6:20, "a high priest forever" (Alford). The author of Heb thinks of the eternal and essential sonship of Christ as realized in history in His ascension to the "right hand of the Majesty" (Hebrews 1:3). And what is emphatic is the fact and status of sonship, rather than the time of begetting.
T. Rees
Beguile
Beguile - be-gil': In 2 Peter 2:14 the King James Version (compare James 1:14) the word deleazo, is translated "beguile," and means particularly to "entice," "catch by bait." Doubtless Peter got this idea from his old business of fishing, baiting the hook to beguile the fish. In Romans 7:11; 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:18 the word is exapatao, and means "to cheat" or "to thoroughly deceive." The thought is to be so completely deceived as to accept falsehood for the truth, believing it to be the truth. In Colossians 2:4, 18 the King James Version; James 1:22 the word is paralogizomai, and means "to miscalculate," "to be imposed upon." It refers particularly to being beguiled by mere probability.
Jacob W. Kapp
Behalf
Behalf - be-haf': "On the part of" (Exodus 27:21, i.e. so far as it affects them); "on the side of" (Job 36:2). For huper, "over," in the sense of furnishing assistance, as in 2 Corinthians 5:20, "in the interest of Christ" (verse 21); "for our good," "in his cause" (Philippians 1:29); also, often in 2 Cor, in general sense of "concerning" (5:12; 7:4; 8:24; 9:2; 12:5). Huper does not of itself indicate substitution, although one who shelters ("is over") another, suffers "in his stead" (the King James Version 2 Corinthians 5:20), as well as "in his behalf."
Behavior
Behavior - be-hav'-yer (Ta`am, "taste," "flavor," hence, "intellectual taste," i.e. judgment, reason, understanding): Of significance as referring to David's feigning madness before Aehish, king of Gath, being "sore afraid." Gesenius renders it "changed his understanding," i.e. his mental behavior and outward manner (1 Samuel 21:13, and title to Psalms 34:1-22).
Twice used in the New Testament (the King James Version) of the well-ordered life of the Christian (kosmios, "well-arranged," "modest," i.e. living with decorum: 1 Timothy 3:2), defining the blameless life expected of a minister (overseer), "A bishop must be. .... of good behavior," the Revised Version (British and American) "orderly" (katastema, "demeanor," "deportment"), including, according to Dean Alford, "gesture and habit" as the outward expression of a reverent spirit (1 Peter 3:1-2). "Aged women .... in behavior as becometh holiness" (Titus 2:3; the Revised Version (British and American) "reverent in demeanor").
Dwight M. Pratt
Beheading
Beheading - be-hed'-ing.
See PUNISHMENTS.
Behemoth
Behemoth - be'-he-moth, be-he'-moth (behemoth: Job 40:15): Apparently the plural of behemah, "a beast," used of domestic or wild animals. The same form, behemoth, occurs in other passages, e.g. Deuteronomy 28:26; 32:24; Isaiah 18:6; Habakkuk 2:17, where it is not rendered "behemoth" but "beasts." According to some, the word behemoth, occurring in Job 40:15, is not a Hebrew word, the plural of behemah, but a word of Egyptian origin signifying "water ox." This etymology is denied by Cheyne and others. The word has by various writers been understood to mean rhinoceros and elephant, but the description (Job 40:15-24) applies on the whole very well to the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus arnphibius) which inhabits the Nile and other rivers of Africa. Especially applicable are the references to its great size, its eating grass, the difficulty with which weapons penetrate its hide, and its frequenting of streams.
"He lieth under the lotus-trees,
In the covert of the reed, and the fen.
The lotus-trees cover him with their shade;
The willows of the brook compass him about."
The remains of a fossil hippopotamus of apparently the same species are found over most of Europe, so that it may have inhabited Palestine in early historical times, although we have no record of it. There is a smaller living species in west Africa, and there are several other fossil species in Europe and India. The remains of Hippopotamus minutus have been found in enormous quantities in caves in Malta and Sicily.
For an elaborate explanation of behemoth and leviathan (which see) as mythical creatures, see Cheyne,EB , under the word
Alfred Ely Day
Beholding
Beholding - be-hold'-ing: Many Hebrew and Greek words are so rendered in English Versions of the Bible, but epopteusantes, "your good works, which they behold" (1 Peter 2:12); "beholding your chaste behavior" (1 Peter 3:2), and epoptai, "We were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16) are peculiar to Peter. The fact that this word is used only by Peter and is used in both epistles is an argument for identity of authorship. The word epoptes denotes one who had been initiated into the innermost secrets of his faith and who enjoyed the highest religious privileges; but now in contradiction to the secrecy of all pagan "mysteries" (Eleusinian, etc.) the apostles would share with all the faithful every spiritual vision which they enjoyed ("we made known unto you").
In 2 Corinthians 3:18, for katoptrizomenoi, the English Revised Version gives "reflecting (as a mirror) the glory of the Lord," the American Standard Revised Version "beholding (as in mirror," etc.). Katoptron was a mirror of polished metal. We cannot clearly and fully behold the outshining of spiritual grandeur in Christ Jesus, but in the gospel God accommodates and adjusts the vision as we are able to bear it, and the glory beheld becomes glory imparted to (and reflected by) the beholder.
John's Gospel gives us theaomai ("to look closely at"), and theoreo ("to discern"). "We beheld (etheasametha) his glory" (John 1:14), "that they may behold (theorosin) my glory" (John 17:24). In classic literature, the former word is closely associated with theatrical spectacles, and the latter with athletic games, and they both convey the idea of unceasing interest, deepening in this connection into love and joy.
M. O. Evans
Behoove
Behoove - be-hoov': Used in the New Testament for two Greek words dei (Luke 24:26; Acts 17:3) and opheilo (Hebrews 2:17); the former referring to a physical, and the latter to a moral, necessity (Bengelon, 1 Corinthians 11:10). The former means "must," that is, it is required by the order which God has ordained; the latter, "ought," that is, it is required as a debt.
Beirut
Beirut - ba'-root'.
See BERYTUS.
Beka
Beka - be'-ka (beqa`, "half"): Half a shekel, the amount contributed by each male of the Israelites for the use of the Sanctuary (Exodus 38:26). Its value varied according to the standard used, but on the ordinary, or Phoenician, standard it would represent about 122 grams.
See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Bel
Bel - bel, bal (bel): Appellative name of a Bah god (compare BAAL), in the Old Testament and Apocrypha identified with Marduk or Merodach, the tutelary deity of Babylon (compare Isaiah 46:1; Jeremiah 51:44; Baruch 6:41).
See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA,RELIGION OF .
Bel, and the Dragon
Bel, and the Dragon - bel, bal, drag'-un (Greek words: drakon, "dragon," "serpent"; ektos, "except"; horasis "vision," "prophecy"; ophis, "serpent"; sphragisamenos, "having sealed"; choris, "except," Hebrew or Aramaic words: chatham, "to seal"; zepha', "pitch"; za`apha', "storm," "wind"; nachash, "snake"; tannin, "serpent," "sea monster"):
I. INTRODUCTORY
II. NAME OF BEL AND THE DRAGON
III. CONTENTS
1. The Bel Story: the God of Bel
2. The Dragon Story; Meaning of "Dragon"; Serpent-Worship in Babylon
IV. TEXTUAL AUTHORITIES
1. Manuscripts
(1) Greek
(2) Syriac
2. Recensions or Versions
(1) Greek
(2) Syriac
(3) Latin
(4) Aramaic
V. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE: PRINCIPAL OPINIONS
VI. TEACHING
Little in this work that is distinctly Jewish. God is great, absolute and ever-living; angels intervene for special ends; the absurdity of idol-worship
VII. AUTHOR, PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
Probably not in Babylon; perhaps the Hebrew text originated in Palestine about 146 BC or later. The Septuagint version produced in Egypt about 100 BC, which may be the date and language of the Book. Theta (Theodotion's version) was produced probably at Ephesus about 180 AD
VIII. CANONICITY AND AUTHENTICITY
Accepted as canonical by the Jews of Egypt but rejected by the Jews of Palestine Accepted as part of the Bible by Greek and Latin church Fathers, by the Council of Trent and therefore by the Roman church; denied by Protestants to be canonical
LITERATURE
I. Introductory. Bel and the Dragon is the third of the three Apocryphal additions to Daniel, The SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN and SUSANNA (which see) being the other two. In the Greek and Latin versions (see below, "IV . Textual Authorities") these "additions" form an integral part of the canonical Book of Daniel, and they are recognized as such and therefore as themselves canonical by the Council of Trent. But the Song of the Three Children is the only piece having a necessary connection with the Hebrew canonical Book of Daniel; in the Greek and Latin texts it follows Daniel 3:24. The other two are appended and appear to have an origin independent of the book to which they are appended and also of each other, though in all three as also in the Hebrew Book of Daniel the name and fame of Daniel stand out prominently.
II. Name of Bel and the Dragon. Since in the Greek and Latin recensions or versions Bel and the Dragon forms a portion of the Book of Dan it does not bear a special name. But in the only two known manuscripts of the Septuagint in Syro-Hexaplar (see below, "IV . Textual Authorities") these words stand at the head of the "addition" now under consideration: "From (or "a part of") the prophecy of Habakkuk son of Joshua of the tribe of Levi." That the Biblical writing prophet of that name is meant is beyond question. In Theta (Theodotian) this fact is distinctly stated (see Bel and the Dragon verse 33); and it is equally beyond question that these tales could never have come from the prophet so called (see below "VIII . Canonicity and Authenticity").
In codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus of Theodotian (Theta) the title is: Horasis 12, i.e. Daniel 12:1-13, canonical Daniel being comprised in Daniel 11:1-45 chapters. In the Vulgate, Bel and the Dragon forms chapter 14, but, as in the case of the earlier chapters, it has no heading.
In the Syriac Peshitta (W) the story of Bel and the Dragon is preceded by "Bel the idol," and that of the Dragon by "Then follows the Dragon." Bel and the Dragon is the title in all Protestant versions of the Apocrypha, which rigidly keep the latter separate from the books of the Hebrew canon.
III. Contents. The stories of Bel and of the Dragon have a separate origin and existed apart: they are brought together because they both agree in holding up idolatry to ridicule and in encouraging Jewish believers to be true to their religion. The glorification of Daniel is also another point in which both agree, though while the Daniel of the Bel and the Dragon story appears as a shrewd Judge corresponding to the etymology of that name, he of the Dragon story is but a fearless puritan who will die rather than be faithless to his religion.
It is evident, however that the editor of the "additions" has fused both stories into one, making the Dragon story depend on that which precedes (See Bel and of the Dragon verses 23 f). It seems very likely that, in a Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, 391), Bel and the Dragon is comprised under the title, The Little Daniel.
The two stories as told in common by Septuagint and Theodotion may be thus summarized:
1. The Story of Bel: the God of Bel: There is in Babylon an image of Bel which Daniel refuses to worship, though no form of worship is mentioned except that of supplying the god with food. The king (Cyrus according to Theodotion) remonstrates with the delinquent Hebrew, pointing Out to him the immense amount of food consumed daily by Bel, who thus proves himself to be a living god. Daniel, doubting the king's statement as to the food, asks to be allowed to test the alleged fact. His request being granted, he is shown by expressed desire th e lectisternia, the sacred tables being covered by food which the god is to consume during the night. The doors are all sealed by arrangement, and after the priests have departed Daniel has the temple floor strewn with light ashes. When the morning breaks it is found that the doors are still sealed, but the food has disappeared. Upon examination the tracks of bare feet are found on the ash-strewn floor, showing that the priests have entered the temple by a secret way and removed the food. Angered by the trick played on him the king has the priests put to death and the image destroyed.
The word Bel, a short form of Baal, occurs in the Old Testament in Isaiah 46:1; Jeremiah 50:2; 51:44, where it stands for Merodach or Marduk, chief of the Babylonian deities. Originally however it denotes any one of the Babylonian local deities, and especially the principal deity worshipped at Nippur (for similar use of the Hebrew "Baal" see the article on this word). In Theodotion Cyrus appears as an abettor of Bel-worship, which is quite in accordance with the practice of the early Persian kings to show favor to the worship of the countries they conquered. See Century Bible, "Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther," 40.
2. The Dragon Story; Meaning of "Dragon"; Serpent-Worship in Babylon:
There is in Babylon a great live dragon worshipped by a large number of the inhabitants, who lavishly feed it. In the present case the god is or is represented by a living creature which can be fed, and, indeed, needs feeding. Daniel refuses to bow down before the dragon and makes an offer to the king to kill it. Believing the god well able to care for himself, the king accepts Daniel's challenge. Daniel makes a mixture of which pitch forms the principal ingredient and thrusts it down the dragon's throat, so that "it bursts asunder and dies." The people are infuriated at the death of their god and demand that the king shall have the god-murderer put to death, a demand to which the royal master yields by having Daniel cast into a den of lions, as was done to other culprits found guilty of capital charges. But though the prophet remained in the company of 7 lions for 6 days he suffered no injury. On the last day when Daniel, without food, was naturally hungry, a miracle was performed by way of supplying him with food. Habakkuk (see above, "II . Name"), when cooking food for his reapers, heard an angel's voice commanding him to carry the food he had prepared to Daniel in the lions' den in Babylon. Upon his replying that he did not know where the den, or even Babylon, was, the angel laid hold of his hair and by it carried the prophet to the very part of the den where Daniel was. Having handed the latter the meal intended for the reapers, he was safely brought back by the angel to his own home. It would seem that Habakkuk was protected from the lions as well as Daniel. Seeing all this the king worshipped God, set Daniel free, and in his stead east his accusers into the lions' den, where they were instantly devoured,
Zockler in his commentary (p. 215) speaks of the "fluidity" of the Dragon myth, and he has been followed by Marshall and Daubney. But what in reality does the Greek word drakon, rendered "dragon," mean? In the Septuagint the word is used generally (15 times) to translate the Hebrew tannin which denotes a serpent or sea monster. It is this word (tannin) which in the Aramaic version of the Dragon story translates the Greek drakon. Now in Exodus 4:3 and Exodus 7:9 the Hebrew tannin and nachash ("serpent") seem identified as are the Greek drakon and ophis in Revelation 12:9. We may therefore take drakon in the present story to stand for a serpent. We know that in Babylon the god Nina was worshipped in the form of a serpent (see Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 281 f), and it is more probable that it is the worship of this god or of some other serpent deity that is here meant, than that there is any allusion to the Babylonian story according to which Marduk the supreme deity of Babylon engaged in a conflict with Tiamat the monster--foe to light and order. (1) The dragon of the present story is a god and not as Tiamat, a kind of devil, and a male, not a female. (2) The dragon in the present story is a serpent, which is not true of Tiamat. (3) Apsu (male) and Tiamat (female) are Babylonian deities who give birth to the gods of heaven; these gods subsequently led by their mother Tiamat engaged in a fierce contest with Marduk.
Since Gunkel published his book, Schopfung und Chaos (1895), it has been the fashion to see reflections of the Marduk-Tiamat conflict throughout the Old Testament. But recent investigations tend to show that Babylonian mythology has not dominated Hebrew thought to the extent that was formerly thought, and with this statement Gunkel himself now agrees, as the last edition of his commentary on Genesis proves.
IV. Textual Authorities. 1. Manuscripts: (1) Greek. There exist in Greek two forms of the text (see below). (a) The Septuagint text has been preserved in but one original MS, the codex Christianus (from the Chigi family who owned it, published in Rome in 1772). This belongs to about the 9th century. This text has been printed also in Cozza's Sacrorum Bibliorum vestustissima fragmenta Graeca et Latina, part iii, Romae, 1877, and in Swete's edition of the Septuagint side by side with Theodotion. In Tischendorf's Septuagint it occurs at the close of the ordinary text of the Septuagint. (b) Of Theta (the text of Theodotion) we have the following important manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Q (codex Marchalianus), Gamma (verses 1,2-4 only) and Delta (from verse 21 to verse 41).
(2) Syriac. There exists in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, a manuscript of the 8th century of the Syro-Hexaplar version made by Paul of Tella in 617 AD at Alexandria from col vi (Septuagint) of Origen's Hexapla. This most valuable manuscript has been edited and published by Ceriani.
2. Recensions or Versions: (1) Greek. (a) The Septuagint: Of this we have but one manuscript (see above under "Manuscripts") and until its publication at Rome in 1772 what is now known as Theta was believed to be the real Septuagint version, notwithstanding hints to the contrary by early Christian writers.
(b) Theta, or the Version of Theodotion: This version appears to be a revision of the Septuagint, with the help, perhaps, as in the case of the canonical Daniel, of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. It is much less pedantic than Aquila's Greek translation which preceded it, and its Greek is better. It is also a better translation than the Septuagint; yet it has many transliterations of Hebrew words instead of translations. This version of Daniel displaced that of the Septuagint at a very early time, for though Origen gave place to the Septuagint in his Hexapla, in his writings he almost always cites from Theta. In his preface to Daniel Jerome points to the fact that in his own time the church had rejected the Septuagint in favor of Theodotion, mentioning the defectiveness of the former as the ground. Even Irenaeus (died 202) and Porphyry (died 305) preferred Theodotion to the Septuagint. Field was the first to point out that it is the work of Theodotion (not the Septuagint) that we have in 1 Esdras, etc.
(2) Syriac. In addition to the Syro-Hexaplar version (see above, under "Manuscript") the Peshitta version must be noted. It follows Theodotion closely, and is printed in Walton's Polyglot (in one recension only of Bel and the Dragon) and in a revised text edited by Lagarde in 1861; not as R. H. Charles (Enc Brit, VII, 807) erroneously says in The Book of Tobit by Neubauer.
(3) Latin. (a) The old Latin version, which rests on Theodotion, fragments of which occur in Sabatier's work, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae (1743, etc., II). (b) The Vulgate, which follows Jerome's translation, is also based on Theodotion, and follows it closely.
(4) Aramaic. For the Aramaic version published by M. Caster and claimed to be the text of the book as first written, see below, "V. Original Language."
V. The Original Language: Principal Opinions. It has been until recent years most generally maintained that Bel and the Dragon was composed and first edited in the Greek language. So Eichhorn, de Wette, Schrader, Fritzsche, Schurer and Konig. In favor of this the following reasons have been given: (1) No Semitic original with reasonable claims has been discovered. Origen, Eusebius and Jerome distinctly say that no Hebrew (or Aramaic) form of this tract existed or was known in their time. (2) The Hebraisms with which this work undoubtedly abounds are no more numerous or more crucial than can be found in works by Jewish authors which are known to have been composed in the Greek language, such as the continual recurrence of kai (= "and"), kai eipe ("and he said"), etc.
On the other hand, the opinion has been growing among recent scholars that this work was written first of all either in Hebrew or Aramaic Some of the grounds are the following: (1) It is known that Theodotion in making his translation of other parts of the Old Testament (Daniel) endeavored to correct the Septuagint with the aid of the Massoretic Text. A comparison of the Septuagint and of Theodotion of Bel and the Dragon reveal differences of a similar character. How can we account for them unless we assume that Theodotion had before him a Semitic original? A very weak argument, however, for the translator might have corrected on a priori principles, using his own Judgment; or there might well have been in his time different recensions of the Septuagint. Westcott (DB, I, 397a; 2nd edition, 714a) holds that some of Theodotion's changes are due to a desire to give consistency to the facts. (2) Much has been made of the Semiticisms in the work, and it must be admitted that they are numerous and striking. But are these Hebraisms or Aramaisms? The commonest and most undoubted Semiticism is the repeated use of kai and kai egeneto with the force of the waw-consecutive and only to be explained and understood in the light of that construction. But the waw-consecutive exists only in classical Hebrew; Aramaic and post-Biblical. Hebrew, including late parts of the Old Testament (parts of Ecclesiastes, etc.), know nothing of it. It must be assumed then that if the Semiticisms of this work imply a Semitic original, that original was Hebrew, not Aramaic
The following Hebraisms found in the Septuagint and in Theodotion may briefly be noted: (1) The use of the Greek kai with all the varied meanings of the waw-consecutive. (see below, under "VI . Teaching"). The beginning of a sentence with kai en ("and there was") Bel and the Dragon (verses 1,3 in the Septuagint; 2 f, etc., in Theodotion) agrees with the Hebrew waw-consecutive construction, but makes poor Greek. In verse 15 kai egeneto can be understood only in the light of the Hebrew for which it stands. (2) The syntactical feature called parataxy (coordination) presents itself throughout the Greek of this piece, and it has been reproduced in the English translations (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American)) as any English reader can see. In the classical languages it is hypotaxy that prevails. If, as seems likely, those responsible for Septuagint and Theodotion followed a Hebrew original, they failed to make sufficient allowance for the peculiar force of the waw-consecutive idiom, for this does not involve hypotaxy to an y considerable extent. (3) The constant occurrence of Kurios ("Lord") without the article implies the Hebrew Yahweh; and the phrase the "Lord God" is also Hebrew. (4) There are difficulties and differences best explained by assuming a Hebrew origin. The Greek word sphragisamenos has no sense in verse 14 (Septuagint) for, retaining it, we should read of a sealing of the temple (of Bel) and also of a sealing with signet rings of the doors. The Hebrew word "shut" (catham) is written much like that for "seal" (chatham), and was probably, as Marshal suggests, mistaken for the latter. The temple was "shut" and the doors "sealed." In verse 10 the Septuagint (choris) and Theodotion (ektos) have 2 words of similar sense, which are best explained as independent renderings of one Hebrew word.
Marshall, identifying this dragon story with the Babylonian creation-myth of Marduk and Tiamat, thinks that instead of "pitch" used in making the obolus with which Daniel destroyed the dragon, the original Aramaic document has "storm wind," the two words being in Aramaic written much alike (za`apha' = "storm wind," and zepha' = pitch). But the fact is quite overlooked that the obolus contained not only pitch, but also "fat" and "hair" (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 27). Besides, in the Aramaic version, published by Gaster, to which Marshall attaches great importance as at least a real source, we have four ingredients, namely, pitch (zepetha'), fat, flax (kittan) and hair. Dr. Marshall's suggestion involves therefore not only the confusion of two words spelled differently in Aramaic, but the substitution of 3 or 4 terms for one in the original draft. Moreover, in Bel and the Dragon the several ingredients are made up into a cake with which the dragon was gorged. Dr. Marshall's view assumes also an Aramaic original which is a gainst the evidence. But the suggestion would not have been made but for a desire to assimilate the dragon story to the Babylonian creation-myth, though in motive and details both differ so essentially.
In favor of a Semitic original many writers have cited the fact that forms of the story have been found in Hebrew and Aramaic in the 13th century. Raymund Martini in his Pugio Fidei (written against the Jews) quotes Bel and the Dragon from a Hebrew Midrash on Genesis which Neubauer discovered and which is almost verbatim identical with the unique manuscript containing Midrash Rabba de Rabba (see Neubauer, Tobit, viii, and Franz Delitzsch, de Habacuci, 82). Still other Hebrew forms of these stories have been found. All the "additions" to Daniel "occur in Hebrew in the remains of Yosippon," the "Hebrew Josephus," as he has been called. He wrote in the 10th century.
But most important of all is the discovery by Dr. M. Gaster of the dragon story in Aramaic, imbedded in the Chronicles of Yerahmeel, a work of the 10th century. Dr. Gaster maintains that in this Aramaic fragment we have a portion of the original Bel and the Dragon (see PSBA , 1894, 280 ff (Introduction), 312 (Text) and 1895 (for notes and translation)). The present writer does not think Dr. Gaster has made out his case. (1) If such an Aramaic original did really exist at any time we should have learned something definite about it from early writers, Jewish and Christian. (2) Dr. Gaster has discovered an Aramaic form of only two of the three "additions," those of the Song of the Three Children and of the dragon story. What of the rest of the Aramaic document? (3) It has already been pointed out that the waw-consecutive constructions implied in the Greek texts go back to a Hebrew, not an Aramaic original. (4) The Aramaic text of the Dragon story not seldom differs both from the Septuagint and Theodotion as in the following and many other cases: The two Greek versions have in Bel and the Dragon, verse 24 "The king (said)," which the Aramaic omits: in verse 35 the Aramaic after "And Habakkuk said" adds "to the angel," which the Septuagint and Theodotion are without. (5) The compiler of the Yerahmeel Chronicle says distinctly that he had taken the Song of the Three Children and the dragon story from the writings of Theodotion (see PSBA , 1895, 283), he having, it is quite evident, himself put them into Aramaic. Dr. Gaster lays stress on the words of the compiler, that what he gives in Aramaic is that which "Theodotion found" (loc. cit.). But the reference can be only to the Septuagint which this translator made the basis of his own version; it is far too much to assume that the Chronicler means an Aramaic form of the stories.
VI. Teaching. The two stories teach the doctrine of the oneness and absoluteness of Yahwe, called throughout Kurios ("Lord"), a literal rendering of the Hebrew word 'adhonai ("Lord") which the Jews substituted for Yahwe in reading the Hebrew as do now-a-day Jews. In the Greek and Latin versions it is the word read (the Qere perpetuum), not that written Kethibh), which is translated. It would have been more consonant with universal practice if the proper name Yahweh had been transliterated as proper names usually are.
But very little is said of the character of Yahweh. He is great and the only (true) God in Bel and the Dragon (verse 41), the living God in contrast with Bel (verse 57). Of the nature of His demands on His worshippers, ritualistic and ethical, nothing is said. There is no reference to any distinctly Jewish beliefs or practices; nothing about the torah or about any Divine revelation to men, about sacrifice or the temple or even a priesthood, except that in the Septuagint (not in Theodotion) Daniel the prophet is spoken of as a priest--strong evidence of the low place assigned by the writer to the external side of the religion he professed. We do however find mention of an angel, a sort of deus ex machina in the Dragon story (verses 34 ff); compare Daniel 6:22.
The incident of the transportation of Habakkuk to Babylon shows that the writer had strong faith in supernatural intervention on behalf of the pious. Apart from this incident the two stories steer fairly clear of anything that is supernatural. But Bel and the Dragon verses 33-39 are a late interpolation.
VII. Author, Place and Date of Composition. Nothing whatever is known of the author of the book and nothing definite or certain of the place or date of composition. It has been commonly felt, as by Bissell, etc., that it reflects a Babylonian origin. Clay (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 7) abounded in Babylon (but surely not only in Babylon); bronze (Bel and the Dragon, verse 7) was often used in that country for the manufacturing of images, and the lion, it is known, was native to the country (but that was the case also in Palestine in Biblical, and even post-Biblical times). None of the arguments for a Babylonian origin have much weight, and there are contrary arguments of considerable force.
The anachronisms and inconsistencies are more easily explained on the assumption of a non-Babylonian origin. Besides, the Judaism of Babylon was of a very strict and regulation kind, great attention being given to the law and to matters of ritual. There is nothing in Bel and the Dragon regarding these points (see above under "Teaching").
If we assume a Hebrew original, as there are good grounds for doing, it is quite possible that these legends were written in Palestine at a time when the Jewish religion was severely persecuted: perhaps when Antiochus VII (Sidetes, 139-128 BC) reconquered Judah for Syria and sorely oppressed the subject people. Yet nothing very dogmatic can be said as to this. We cannot infer much from the style of the Hebrew (or Aramaic?), since no Semitic original has come down to us. It is quite clear that these "additions" imply the existence of the canonical Book of Dan and belong to a subsequent date, for they contain later developments of traditions respecting Daniel. The canonical Book of Daniel is dated by modern scholars about 160 BC, so that a date about 136 BC (see above) could not be far amiss.
If, on the other hand, we take for granted that the Septuagint is the original text of the book, the date of that recension is the date of the work itself. It seems probable that this recension of Daniel was made in Egypt about 150 BC (see 1 Maccabees 1:54; 2:59), and we have evidence that up to that date the "three additions" formed no part of the book, though they exist in all Greek and Syriac manuscripts of Daniel, which have come down to us. Probably the "additions" existed as separate compositions for some time before they were joined to Daniel proper, but it is hardly too much to assume that they were united no later than 100 BC. Yet the data for reaching a conclusion are very slight. It may be added that the Greek of the Septuagint is distinctly Alexandrian in its character, as Westcott, Bissell and others have pointed out. Theodotion's version is supposed to have been made at Ephesus toward the end of the 2nd century AD.
VIII. Canonicity and Authenticity. The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. The Palestine Jews, on the other hand, limited their canonical Scriptures to the Hebrew Old Testament. There is, of course, some uncertainty (largely no doubt because it was originally a translation from the Hebrew) as to whether the Septuagint at the first included the Apocrypha in its whole extent or not, but all the evidence points to the fact that it did, though individual books like Dan existed apart before they formed a portion of the Greek or Egyptian canon.
In the early Christian church all the three "additions" are quoted as integral parts of Dan by Greek and by Latin Fathers, as e.g. by Irenaeus (IV, 5, 2 f); Tertullian (De idololatria c.18); Cyprian (Ad fortunatum, c.11).
By a decree of the Council of Trent these "additions" were for the Roman church made as much a part of the Bible canon as the Hebrew Book of Daniel. Protestant churches have as a rule excluded the whole of the Apocrypha from their Bibles, regarding its books as either "Deutero-canonical" or "non-canonical." In consequence of this attitude among Protestants the Apocrypha has until lately been greatly neglected by Protestant writers. But a great change is setting in, and some of the best commentaries by Protestant scholars produced in recent years deal with the Apocrypha and its teaching.
Julius Africanus (flourished about first half of 3rd century AD) was the first to impugn the truth of the stories embodied in the "additions" to Daniel. This he did in a letter to Origen to which the recipient vigorously replied.
The improbabilities and contradictions of these three pieces have often been pointed out from the time of Julius Africanus down to the present day. The following points may be set down as specimens: (1) Daniel is called a priest in the Septuagint (Bel and the Dragon, verse 1), and yet he is identified with the prophet of that name. (2) Habakkuk the prophet (he is so called in Theodotion (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 33), and no other can be intended) is made to be a contemporary of Daniel and also of the Persian king Cyrus (see Bel and the Dragon, verses 1 and 33 in the English Bible). Now Cyrus conquered Babylon in 538 BC, the principal Jews in Babylon returning to Palestine the following year. The events narrated in Bel and the Dragon could not have occurred during the time Cyrus was king of Babylon, but the Septuagint speaks of "the king" without naming him. (3) It was not Cyrus but Xerxes who destroyed the image of Bel, this being in 475 BC (see Herodotus i.183; Strabo xvi.1; Arrian, Exped. Alex., vii.1). (4) It is further objected that dragon-worship in Babylon, such as is implied in the dragon story, is contrary to fact. Star-worship, it has been said, did exist, but not animal-worship. So Eichhorn and Fritzsche. But there is every reason for believing that the worship of living animals as representing deity, and especially of the living serpent, existed in Babylon as among other nations of antiquity, including the Greeks and Romans (see Herzog, 1st edition, article "Drache zu Babylon," by J. G. Muller). It has already been pointed out (see list of meanings) that the word "dragon" denotes a serpent.
LITERATURE.
Eichhorn, Einleitung in die apoc. Schriften des Alten Testaments (1795), 431 ff (remarkable for its time: compares the Septuagint and Theodotion); W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel (Cambridge, 1906; contains much matter though rather uncritically treated); the commentaries of Fritzsche (Vol I: still very rich in material; it forms part of the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch); Bissell (in Lange's series, but not a translation); Ball Speaker's Commentary (this is the best English commentary on the Apocrypha. See also Schurer, Geschichte3,III , 333, and his article inRE 3, I, 639; and the articles by Kamphausen inEB , I, 1014; Toy, in Jewish Encyclopedia,II , 650; R. H. Charles, Encyclopedia Brittanica, VII, 807, and especially that by J. Turner Marshall in HDB, I, 267. Fritzsche Libri Veteris Testamenti Graece (1871), and Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, III, 1894, and later editions, give the Septuagint and Theodotion on parallel pages. In the edition of the Septuagint edited by Tischendorf, the Septuagint is given in the text and Theodotion in an appendix.
T. Witton Davies
Bel, and the Dragon
Bel, and the Dragon - bel, bal, drag'-un (Greek words: drakon, "dragon," "serpent"; ektos, "except"; horasis "vision," "prophecy"; ophis, "serpent"; sphragisamenos, "having sealed"; choris, "except," Hebrew or Aramaic words: chatham, "to seal"; zepha', "pitch"; za`apha', "storm," "wind"; nachash, "snake"; tannin, "serpent," "sea monster"):
I. INTRODUCTORY
II. NAME OF BEL AND THE DRAGON
III. CONTENTS
1. The Bel Story: the God of Bel
2. The Dragon Story; Meaning of "Dragon"; Serpent-Worship in Babylon
IV. TEXTUAL AUTHORITIES
1. Manuscripts
(1) Greek
(2) Syriac
2. Recensions or Versions
(1) Greek
(2) Syriac
(3) Latin
(4) Aramaic
V. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE: PRINCIPAL OPINIONS
VI. TEACHING
Little in this work that is distinctly Jewish. God is great, absolute and ever-living; angels intervene for special ends; the absurdity of idol-worship
VII. AUTHOR, PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
Probably not in Babylon; perhaps the Hebrew text originated in Palestine about 146 BC or later. The Septuagint version produced in Egypt about 100 BC, which may be the date and language of the Book. Theta (Theodotion's version) was produced probably at Ephesus about 180 AD
VIII. CANONICITY AND AUTHENTICITY
Accepted as canonical by the Jews of Egypt but rejected by the Jews of Palestine Accepted as part of the Bible by Greek and Latin church Fathers, by the Council of Trent and therefore by the Roman church; denied by Protestants to be canonical
LITERATURE
I. Introductory. Bel and the Dragon is the third of the three Apocryphal additions to Daniel, The SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN and SUSANNA (which see) being the other two. In the Greek and Latin versions (see below, "IV . Textual Authorities") these "additions" form an integral part of the canonical Book of Daniel, and they are recognized as such and therefore as themselves canonical by the Council of Trent. But the Song of the Three Children is the only piece having a necessary connection with the Hebrew canonical Book of Daniel; in the Greek and Latin texts it follows Daniel 3:24. The other two are appended and appear to have an origin independent of the book to which they are appended and also of each other, though in all three as also in the Hebrew Book of Daniel the name and fame of Daniel stand out prominently.
II. Name of Bel and the Dragon. Since in the Greek and Latin recensions or versions Bel and the Dragon forms a portion of the Book of Dan it does not bear a special name. But in the only two known manuscripts of the Septuagint in Syro-Hexaplar (see below, "IV . Textual Authorities") these words stand at the head of the "addition" now under consideration: "From (or "a part of") the prophecy of Habakkuk son of Joshua of the tribe of Levi." That the Biblical writing prophet of that name is meant is beyond question. In Theta (Theodotian) this fact is distinctly stated (see Bel and the Dragon verse 33); and it is equally beyond question that these tales could never have come from the prophet so called (see below "VIII . Canonicity and Authenticity").
In codices Alexandrinus and Vaticanus of Theodotian (Theta) the title is: Horasis 12, i.e. Daniel 12:1-13, canonical Daniel being comprised in Daniel 11:1-45 chapters. In the Vulgate, Bel and the Dragon forms chapter 14, but, as in the case of the earlier chapters, it has no heading.
In the Syriac Peshitta (W) the story of Bel and the Dragon is preceded by "Bel the idol," and that of the Dragon by "Then follows the Dragon." Bel and the Dragon is the title in all Protestant versions of the Apocrypha, which rigidly keep the latter separate from the books of the Hebrew canon.
III. Contents. The stories of Bel and of the Dragon have a separate origin and existed apart: they are brought together because they both agree in holding up idolatry to ridicule and in encouraging Jewish believers to be true to their religion. The glorification of Daniel is also another point in which both agree, though while the Daniel of the Bel and the Dragon story appears as a shrewd Judge corresponding to the etymology of that name, he of the Dragon story is but a fearless puritan who will die rather than be faithless to his religion.
It is evident, however that the editor of the "additions" has fused both stories into one, making the Dragon story depend on that which precedes (See Bel and of the Dragon verses 23 f). It seems very likely that, in a Nestorian list mentioned by Churton (Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, 391), Bel and the Dragon is comprised under the title, The Little Daniel.
The two stories as told in common by Septuagint and Theodotion may be thus summarized:
1. The Story of Bel: the God of Bel: There is in Babylon an image of Bel which Daniel refuses to worship, though no form of worship is mentioned except that of supplying the god with food. The king (Cyrus according to Theodotion) remonstrates with the delinquent Hebrew, pointing Out to him the immense amount of food consumed daily by Bel, who thus proves himself to be a living god. Daniel, doubting the king's statement as to the food, asks to be allowed to test the alleged fact. His request being granted, he is shown by expressed desire th e lectisternia, the sacred tables being covered by food which the god is to consume during the night. The doors are all sealed by arrangement, and after the priests have departed Daniel has the temple floor strewn with light ashes. When the morning breaks it is found that the doors are still sealed, but the food has disappeared. Upon examination the tracks of bare feet are found on the ash-strewn floor, showing that the priests have entered the temple by a secret way and removed the food. Angered by the trick played on him the king has the priests put to death and the image destroyed.
The word Bel, a short form of Baal, occurs in the Old Testament in Isaiah 46:1; Jeremiah 50:2; 51:44, where it stands for Merodach or Marduk, chief of the Babylonian deities. Originally however it denotes any one of the Babylonian local deities, and especially the principal deity worshipped at Nippur (for similar use of the Hebrew "Baal" see the article on this word). In Theodotion Cyrus appears as an abettor of Bel-worship, which is quite in accordance with the practice of the early Persian kings to show favor to the worship of the countries they conquered. See Century Bible, "Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther," 40.
2. The Dragon Story; Meaning of "Dragon"; Serpent-Worship in Babylon:
There is in Babylon a great live dragon worshipped by a large number of the inhabitants, who lavishly feed it. In the present case the god is or is represented by a living creature which can be fed, and, indeed, needs feeding. Daniel refuses to bow down before the dragon and makes an offer to the king to kill it. Believing the god well able to care for himself, the king accepts Daniel's challenge. Daniel makes a mixture of which pitch forms the principal ingredient and thrusts it down the dragon's throat, so that "it bursts asunder and dies." The people are infuriated at the death of their god and demand that the king shall have the god-murderer put to death, a demand to which the royal master yields by having Daniel cast into a den of lions, as was done to other culprits found guilty of capital charges. But though the prophet remained in the company of 7 lions for 6 days he suffered no injury. On the last day when Daniel, without food, was naturally hungry, a miracle was performed by way of supplying him with food. Habakkuk (see above, "II . Name"), when cooking food for his reapers, heard an angel's voice commanding him to carry the food he had prepared to Daniel in the lions' den in Babylon. Upon his replying that he did not know where the den, or even Babylon, was, the angel laid hold of his hair and by it carried the prophet to the very part of the den where Daniel was. Having handed the latter the meal intended for the reapers, he was safely brought back by the angel to his own home. It would seem that Habakkuk was protected from the lions as well as Daniel. Seeing all this the king worshipped God, set Daniel free, and in his stead east his accusers into the lions' den, where they were instantly devoured,
Zockler in his commentary (p. 215) speaks of the "fluidity" of the Dragon myth, and he has been followed by Marshall and Daubney. But what in reality does the Greek word drakon, rendered "dragon," mean? In the Septuagint the word is used generally (15 times) to translate the Hebrew tannin which denotes a serpent or sea monster. It is this word (tannin) which in the Aramaic version of the Dragon story translates the Greek drakon. Now in Exodus 4:3 and Exodus 7:9 the Hebrew tannin and nachash ("serpent") seem identified as are the Greek drakon and ophis in Revelation 12:9. We may therefore take drakon in the present story to stand for a serpent. We know that in Babylon the god Nina was worshipped in the form of a serpent (see Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 281 f), and it is more probable that it is the worship of this god or of some other serpent deity that is here meant, than that there is any allusion to the Babylonian story according to which Marduk the supreme deity of Babylon engaged in a conflict with Tiamat the monster--foe to light and order. (1) The dragon of the present story is a god and not as Tiamat, a kind of devil, and a male, not a female. (2) The dragon in the present story is a serpent, which is not true of Tiamat. (3) Apsu (male) and Tiamat (female) are Babylonian deities who give birth to the gods of heaven; these gods subsequently led by their mother Tiamat engaged in a fierce contest with Marduk.
Since Gunkel published his book, Schopfung und Chaos (1895), it has been the fashion to see reflections of the Marduk-Tiamat conflict throughout the Old Testament. But recent investigations tend to show that Babylonian mythology has not dominated Hebrew thought to the extent that was formerly thought, and with this statement Gunkel himself now agrees, as the last edition of his commentary on Genesis proves.
IV. Textual Authorities. 1. Manuscripts: (1) Greek. There exist in Greek two forms of the text (see below). (a) The Septuagint text has been preserved in but one original MS, the codex Christianus (from the Chigi family who owned it, published in Rome in 1772). This belongs to about the 9th century. This text has been printed also in Cozza's Sacrorum Bibliorum vestustissima fragmenta Graeca et Latina, part iii, Romae, 1877, and in Swete's edition of the Septuagint side by side with Theodotion. In Tischendorf's Septuagint it occurs at the close of the ordinary text of the Septuagint. (b) Of Theta (the text of Theodotion) we have the following important manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Q (codex Marchalianus), Gamma (verses 1,2-4 only) and Delta (from verse 21 to verse 41).
(2) Syriac. There exists in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, a manuscript of the 8th century of the Syro-Hexaplar version made by Paul of Tella in 617 AD at Alexandria from col vi (Septuagint) of Origen's Hexapla. This most valuable manuscript has been edited and published by Ceriani.
2. Recensions or Versions: (1) Greek. (a) The Septuagint: Of this we have but one manuscript (see above under "Manuscripts") and until its publication at Rome in 1772 what is now known as Theta was believed to be the real Septuagint version, notwithstanding hints to the contrary by early Christian writers.
(b) Theta, or the Version of Theodotion: This version appears to be a revision of the Septuagint, with the help, perhaps, as in the case of the canonical Daniel, of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, now lost. It is much less pedantic than Aquila's Greek translation which preceded it, and its Greek is better. It is also a better translation than the Septuagint; yet it has many transliterations of Hebrew words instead of translations. This version of Daniel displaced that of the Septuagint at a very early time, for though Origen gave place to the Septuagint in his Hexapla, in his writings he almost always cites from Theta. In his preface to Daniel Jerome points to the fact that in his own time the church had rejected the Septuagint in favor of Theodotion, mentioning the defectiveness of the former as the ground. Even Irenaeus (died 202) and Porphyry (died 305) preferred Theodotion to the Septuagint. Field was the first to point out that it is the work of Theodotion (not the Septuagint) that we have in 1 Esdras, etc.
(2) Syriac. In addition to the Syro-Hexaplar version (see above, under "Manuscript") the Peshitta version must be noted. It follows Theodotion closely, and is printed in Walton's Polyglot (in one recension only of Bel and the Dragon) and in a revised text edited by Lagarde in 1861; not as R. H. Charles (Enc Brit, VII, 807) erroneously says in The Book of Tobit by Neubauer.
(3) Latin. (a) The old Latin version, which rests on Theodotion, fragments of which occur in Sabatier's work, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae (1743, etc., II). (b) The Vulgate, which follows Jerome's translation, is also based on Theodotion, and follows it closely.
(4) Aramaic. For the Aramaic version published by M. Caster and claimed to be the text of the book as first written, see below, "V. Original Language."
V. The Original Language: Principal Opinions. It has been until recent years most generally maintained that Bel and the Dragon was composed and first edited in the Greek language. So Eichhorn, de Wette, Schrader, Fritzsche, Schurer and Konig. In favor of this the following reasons have been given: (1) No Semitic original with reasonable claims has been discovered. Origen, Eusebius and Jerome distinctly say that no Hebrew (or Aramaic) form of this tract existed or was known in their time. (2) The Hebraisms with which this work undoubtedly abounds are no more numerous or more crucial than can be found in works by Jewish authors which are known to have been composed in the Greek language, such as the continual recurrence of kai (= "and"), kai eipe ("and he said"), etc.
On the other hand, the opinion has been growing among recent scholars that this work was written first of all either in Hebrew or Aramaic Some of the grounds are the following: (1) It is known that Theodotion in making his translation of other parts of the Old Testament (Daniel) endeavored to correct the Septuagint with the aid of the Massoretic Text. A comparison of the Septuagint and of Theodotion of Bel and the Dragon reveal differences of a similar character. How can we account for them unless we assume that Theodotion had before him a Semitic original? A very weak argument, however, for the translator might have corrected on a priori principles, using his own Judgment; or there might well have been in his time different recensions of the Septuagint. Westcott (DB, I, 397a; 2nd edition, 714a) holds that some of Theodotion's changes are due to a desire to give consistency to the facts. (2) Much has been made of the Semiticisms in the work, and it must be admitted that they are numerous and striking. But are these Hebraisms or Aramaisms? The commonest and most undoubted Semiticism is the repeated use of kai and kai egeneto with the force of the waw-consecutive and only to be explained and understood in the light of that construction. But the waw-consecutive exists only in classical Hebrew; Aramaic and post-Biblical. Hebrew, including late parts of the Old Testament (parts of Ecclesiastes, etc.), know nothing of it. It must be assumed then that if the Semiticisms of this work imply a Semitic original, that original was Hebrew, not Aramaic
The following Hebraisms found in the Septuagint and in Theodotion may briefly be noted: (1) The use of the Greek kai with all the varied meanings of the waw-consecutive. (see below, under "VI . Teaching"). The beginning of a sentence with kai en ("and there was") Bel and the Dragon (verses 1,3 in the Septuagint; 2 f, etc., in Theodotion) agrees with the Hebrew waw-consecutive construction, but makes poor Greek. In verse 15 kai egeneto can be understood only in the light of the Hebrew for which it stands. (2) The syntactical feature called parataxy (coordination) presents itself throughout the Greek of this piece, and it has been reproduced in the English translations (the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American)) as any English reader can see. In the classical languages it is hypotaxy that prevails. If, as seems likely, those responsible for Septuagint and Theodotion followed a Hebrew original, they failed to make sufficient allowance for the peculiar force of the waw-consecutive idiom, for this does not involve hypotaxy to an y considerable extent. (3) The constant occurrence of Kurios ("Lord") without the article implies the Hebrew Yahweh; and the phrase the "Lord God" is also Hebrew. (4) There are difficulties and differences best explained by assuming a Hebrew origin. The Greek word sphragisamenos has no sense in verse 14 (Septuagint) for, retaining it, we should read of a sealing of the temple (of Bel) and also of a sealing with signet rings of the doors. The Hebrew word "shut" (catham) is written much like that for "seal" (chatham), and was probably, as Marshal suggests, mistaken for the latter. The temple was "shut" and the doors "sealed." In verse 10 the Septuagint (choris) and Theodotion (ektos) have 2 words of similar sense, which are best explained as independent renderings of one Hebrew word.
Marshall, identifying this dragon story with the Babylonian creation-myth of Marduk and Tiamat, thinks that instead of "pitch" used in making the obolus with which Daniel destroyed the dragon, the original Aramaic document has "storm wind," the two words being in Aramaic written much alike (za`apha' = "storm wind," and zepha' = pitch). But the fact is quite overlooked that the obolus contained not only pitch, but also "fat" and "hair" (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 27). Besides, in the Aramaic version, published by Gaster, to which Marshall attaches great importance as at least a real source, we have four ingredients, namely, pitch (zepetha'), fat, flax (kittan) and hair. Dr. Marshall's suggestion involves therefore not only the confusion of two words spelled differently in Aramaic, but the substitution of 3 or 4 terms for one in the original draft. Moreover, in Bel and the Dragon the several ingredients are made up into a cake with which the dragon was gorged. Dr. Marshall's view assumes also an Aramaic original which is a gainst the evidence. But the suggestion would not have been made but for a desire to assimilate the dragon story to the Babylonian creation-myth, though in motive and details both differ so essentially.
In favor of a Semitic original many writers have cited the fact that forms of the story have been found in Hebrew and Aramaic in the 13th century. Raymund Martini in his Pugio Fidei (written against the Jews) quotes Bel and the Dragon from a Hebrew Midrash on Genesis which Neubauer discovered and which is almost verbatim identical with the unique manuscript containing Midrash Rabba de Rabba (see Neubauer, Tobit, viii, and Franz Delitzsch, de Habacuci, 82). Still other Hebrew forms of these stories have been found. All the "additions" to Daniel "occur in Hebrew in the remains of Yosippon," the "Hebrew Josephus," as he has been called. He wrote in the 10th century.
But most important of all is the discovery by Dr. M. Gaster of the dragon story in Aramaic, imbedded in the Chronicles of Yerahmeel, a work of the 10th century. Dr. Gaster maintains that in this Aramaic fragment we have a portion of the original Bel and the Dragon (see PSBA , 1894, 280 ff (Introduction), 312 (Text) and 1895 (for notes and translation)). The present writer does not think Dr. Gaster has made out his case. (1) If such an Aramaic original did really exist at any time we should have learned something definite about it from early writers, Jewish and Christian. (2) Dr. Gaster has discovered an Aramaic form of only two of the three "additions," those of the Song of the Three Children and of the dragon story. What of the rest of the Aramaic document? (3) It has already been pointed out that the waw-consecutive constructions implied in the Greek texts go back to a Hebrew, not an Aramaic original. (4) The Aramaic text of the Dragon story not seldom differs both from the Septuagint and Theodotion as in the following and many other cases: The two Greek versions have in Bel and the Dragon, verse 24 "The king (said)," which the Aramaic omits: in verse 35 the Aramaic after "And Habakkuk said" adds "to the angel," which the Septuagint and Theodotion are without. (5) The compiler of the Yerahmeel Chronicle says distinctly that he had taken the Song of the Three Children and the dragon story from the writings of Theodotion (see PSBA , 1895, 283), he having, it is quite evident, himself put them into Aramaic. Dr. Gaster lays stress on the words of the compiler, that what he gives in Aramaic is that which "Theodotion found" (loc. cit.). But the reference can be only to the Septuagint which this translator made the basis of his own version; it is far too much to assume that the Chronicler means an Aramaic form of the stories.
VI. Teaching. The two stories teach the doctrine of the oneness and absoluteness of Yahwe, called throughout Kurios ("Lord"), a literal rendering of the Hebrew word 'adhonai ("Lord") which the Jews substituted for Yahwe in reading the Hebrew as do now-a-day Jews. In the Greek and Latin versions it is the word read (the Qere perpetuum), not that written Kethibh), which is translated. It would have been more consonant with universal practice if the proper name Yahweh had been transliterated as proper names usually are.
But very little is said of the character of Yahweh. He is great and the only (true) God in Bel and the Dragon (verse 41), the living God in contrast with Bel (verse 57). Of the nature of His demands on His worshippers, ritualistic and ethical, nothing is said. There is no reference to any distinctly Jewish beliefs or practices; nothing about the torah or about any Divine revelation to men, about sacrifice or the temple or even a priesthood, except that in the Septuagint (not in Theodotion) Daniel the prophet is spoken of as a priest--strong evidence of the low place assigned by the writer to the external side of the religion he professed. We do however find mention of an angel, a sort of deus ex machina in the Dragon story (verses 34 ff); compare Daniel 6:22.
The incident of the transportation of Habakkuk to Babylon shows that the writer had strong faith in supernatural intervention on behalf of the pious. Apart from this incident the two stories steer fairly clear of anything that is supernatural. But Bel and the Dragon verses 33-39 are a late interpolation.
VII. Author, Place and Date of Composition. Nothing whatever is known of the author of the book and nothing definite or certain of the place or date of composition. It has been commonly felt, as by Bissell, etc., that it reflects a Babylonian origin. Clay (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 7) abounded in Babylon (but surely not only in Babylon); bronze (Bel and the Dragon, verse 7) was often used in that country for the manufacturing of images, and the lion, it is known, was native to the country (but that was the case also in Palestine in Biblical, and even post-Biblical times). None of the arguments for a Babylonian origin have much weight, and there are contrary arguments of considerable force.
The anachronisms and inconsistencies are more easily explained on the assumption of a non-Babylonian origin. Besides, the Judaism of Babylon was of a very strict and regulation kind, great attention being given to the law and to matters of ritual. There is nothing in Bel and the Dragon regarding these points (see above under "Teaching").
If we assume a Hebrew original, as there are good grounds for doing, it is quite possible that these legends were written in Palestine at a time when the Jewish religion was severely persecuted: perhaps when Antiochus VII (Sidetes, 139-128 BC) reconquered Judah for Syria and sorely oppressed the subject people. Yet nothing very dogmatic can be said as to this. We cannot infer much from the style of the Hebrew (or Aramaic?), since no Semitic original has come down to us. It is quite clear that these "additions" imply the existence of the canonical Book of Dan and belong to a subsequent date, for they contain later developments of traditions respecting Daniel. The canonical Book of Daniel is dated by modern scholars about 160 BC, so that a date about 136 BC (see above) could not be far amiss.
If, on the other hand, we take for granted that the Septuagint is the original text of the book, the date of that recension is the date of the work itself. It seems probable that this recension of Daniel was made in Egypt about 150 BC (see 1 Maccabees 1:54; 2:59), and we have evidence that up to that date the "three additions" formed no part of the book, though they exist in all Greek and Syriac manuscripts of Daniel, which have come down to us. Probably the "additions" existed as separate compositions for some time before they were joined to Daniel proper, but it is hardly too much to assume that they were united no later than 100 BC. Yet the data for reaching a conclusion are very slight. It may be added that the Greek of the Septuagint is distinctly Alexandrian in its character, as Westcott, Bissell and others have pointed out. Theodotion's version is supposed to have been made at Ephesus toward the end of the 2nd century AD.
VIII. Canonicity and Authenticity. The Alexandrian Jews, recognizing the Septuagint as their Bible, accepted the whole of the Apocrypha as canonical. The Palestine Jews, on the other hand, limited their canonical Scriptures to the Hebrew Old Testament. There is, of course, some uncertainty (largely no doubt because it was originally a translation from the Hebrew) as to whether the Septuagint at the first included the Apocrypha in its whole extent or not, but all the evidence points to the fact that it did, though individual books like Dan existed apart before they formed a portion of the Greek or Egyptian canon.
In the early Christian church all the three "additions" are quoted as integral parts of Dan by Greek and by Latin Fathers, as e.g. by Irenaeus (IV, 5, 2 f); Tertullian (De idololatria c.18); Cyprian (Ad fortunatum, c.11).
By a decree of the Council of Trent these "additions" were for the Roman church made as much a part of the Bible canon as the Hebrew Book of Daniel. Protestant churches have as a rule excluded the whole of the Apocrypha from their Bibles, regarding its books as either "Deutero-canonical" or "non-canonical." In consequence of this attitude among Protestants the Apocrypha has until lately been greatly neglected by Protestant writers. But a great change is setting in, and some of the best commentaries by Protestant scholars produced in recent years deal with the Apocrypha and its teaching.
Julius Africanus (flourished about first half of 3rd century AD) was the first to impugn the truth of the stories embodied in the "additions" to Daniel. This he did in a letter to Origen to which the recipient vigorously replied.
The improbabilities and contradictions of these three pieces have often been pointed out from the time of Julius Africanus down to the present day. The following points may be set down as specimens: (1) Daniel is called a priest in the Septuagint (Bel and the Dragon, verse 1), and yet he is identified with the prophet of that name. (2) Habakkuk the prophet (he is so called in Theodotion (see Bel and the Dragon, verse 33), and no other can be intended) is made to be a contemporary of Daniel and also of the Persian king Cyrus (see Bel and the Dragon, verses 1 and 33 in the English Bible). Now Cyrus conquered Babylon in 538 BC, the principal Jews in Babylon returning to Palestine the following year. The events narrated in Bel and the Dragon could not have occurred during the time Cyrus was king of Babylon, but the Septuagint speaks of "the king" without naming him. (3) It was not Cyrus but Xerxes who destroyed the image of Bel, this being in 475 BC (see Herodotus i.183; Strabo xvi.1; Arrian, Exped. Alex., vii.1). (4) It is further objected that dragon-worship in Babylon, such as is implied in the dragon story, is contrary to fact. Star-worship, it has been said, did exist, but not animal-worship. So Eichhorn and Fritzsche. But there is every reason for believing that the worship of living animals as representing deity, and especially of the living serpent, existed in Babylon as among other nations of antiquity, including the Greeks and Romans (see Herzog, 1st edition, article "Drache zu Babylon," by J. G. Muller). It has already been pointed out (see list of meanings) that the word "dragon" denotes a serpent.
LITERATURE.
Eichhorn, Einleitung in die apoc. Schriften des Alten Testaments (1795), 431 ff (remarkable for its time: compares the Septuagint and Theodotion); W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel (Cambridge, 1906; contains much matter though rather uncritically treated); the commentaries of Fritzsche (Vol I: still very rich in material; it forms part of the Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch); Bissell (in Lange's series, but not a translation); Ball Speaker's Commentary (this is the best English commentary on the Apocrypha. See also Schurer, Geschichte3,III , 333, and his article inRE 3, I, 639; and the articles by Kamphausen inEB , I, 1014; Toy, in Jewish Encyclopedia,II , 650; R. H. Charles, Encyclopedia Brittanica, VII, 807, and especially that by J. Turner Marshall in HDB, I, 267. Fritzsche Libri Veteris Testamenti Graece (1871), and Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, III, 1894, and later editions, give the Septuagint and Theodotion on parallel pages. In the edition of the Septuagint edited by Tischendorf, the Septuagint is given in the text and Theodotion in an appendix.
T. Witton Davies
Bela
Bela - be'-la.
See ZOAR.
Bela; Belah
Bela; Belah - be'-la (bela`, "destruction"; the King James Version Belah, Genesis 46:21):
(1) Bela, the son of Beor, was the first king of Edom previous to the kingdom of Israel and reigned in the city of Dinhabah (Genesis 36:32 f; 1 Chronicles 1:43 f). Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus, Balak.
(2) Bela, the firstborn son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21; 1 Chronicles 7:6 f; 1 Chronicles 8:1). He was the head of the family of the Belaites (Numbers 26:38), the father of Addar (called Ard, Numbers 26:40), Gera, Abihud, Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, Gera, Shephuphan (compare Shephupham, Numbers 26:39), Huram (1 Chronicles 8:3-5; Numbers 26:40).
(3) Bela, a son of Azaz, of the tribe of Reuben, was a man of great power and wealth. His possessions reached from Nebo to the Euphrates (1 Chronicles 5:8 ff).
A. L. Breslich
Belaites
Belaites - be'-la-its (bal`i, "belonging to Bela"): The descendants of Bela (Numbers 26:38). Compare BELA (2).
Belch
Belch - belsh: The primary idea of this word is "to gush forth" as a fountain. As used in Psalms 59:7 the thought is that these enemies had so cherished these evil thoughts and bitter wrath that now the heart is a very fountain of evil, and has taught the tongue how to give utterance thereto. But the previous verse shows that the Psalmist also had in mind the howling and barking of the dogs about the city. The imprecations of his enemies are like the snarling, howling, barking of dogs which in an eastern city makes the night hideous with the noise, and is continued until the daybreak.
Jacob W. Kapp
Belemus
Belemus - bel'-e-mus (Belemos; Balsamus): An officer of King Artaxerxes in Palestine associated with Beeltethmus in hindering the rebuilding of the temple (1 Esdras 2:16): called Bishlam in Ezra 4:7.
Belial
Belial - be'-li-al, bel'-yal (beliya`al; Beliar): This name, occurring very frequently in the Old Testament, has the sense of "worthlessness" (compare 2 Samuel 23:6 margin); accordingly in such phrases as "sons of Belial" (Judges 20:13; 1 Samuel 10:27, etc.), "men of Belial" (1 Samuel 30:22; 1 Kings 21:13, etc.), which the English Revised Version usually retains, the American Standard Revised Version more correctly renders, "base fellows" (so "daughter of Belial" 1 Samuel 1:16, "wicked woman"). There is here no suggestion a proper name. Afterward, however, "Belial" became a proper name for Satan, or for Antichrist (thus frequently in the Jewish Apocalyptic writings, e.g. in XII the Priestly Code (P), Book Jubilees, Asc Isa, Sib Or). In this sense Paul used the word in 2 Corinthians 6:15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" (Beliar). Bousset thinks that Paul's "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where some authorities read "man of lawlessness," is a translation of this term. The sense at least is similar.
See ANTICHRIST; MAN OF SIN.
James Orr
Belie
Belie - be-li': Is the translation of kachash, "to be untrue" (Jeremiah 5:12), "They have belied the Lord" (the American Standard Revised Version "denied Yahweh"), here used as synonym of "give the lie to."
In Wisdom of Solomon 1:11 "belle" translates katapseudomai (the kata prefix referring to the kata in katalalia in the same verse), "A mouth that belieth destroyeth a soul."
Belief
Belief - be-lef'.
See FAITH.
Believers
Believers - be-lev'-ers (in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of Acts 5:14, for posteuontes, the Revised Version, margin "believing"; in the King James Version of 1 Timothy 4:12 for hoi pistoi, the Revised Version (British and American) "them that believe"): Equivalent phrases, they (he, she) that believe (for hoi pepisteukotes; hoi, pisteuontes; (adj.), pistos, etc.) occur frequently as a regular description of those who professed their faith in Christ, and attached themselves to the Christian church. The one essential condition of admission into the Christian community was, that men should believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). The actual experiences of the men thus denoted varied with all the possible degrees and modifications of FAITH (which see). Believers are nowhere in the New Testament distinguished as a subordinate class from the "Christians who know" as in the Gnostic antithesis of pistikoi and gnostikoi, "believers" and "knowers."
T. Rees
Bell
Bell - (metsilloth, pa`amon): The former of these terms occurs only once (Zechariah 14:20) where it is thus translated. It is derived from a verb meaning "to tingle" or "dirl" (1 Samuel 3:11), and there is, therefore, no objection etymologically to rendering the noun by "bells." But the little bell attached to the harness of horses would hardly be a suitable place for a fairly long inscription, and as buckles shaped exactly like cymbals (see MUSIC) were used as ornaments for horses, "cymbals" is probably a better rendering.
The other Hebrew word for bell is found only in Exodus 28:33 f; Exodus 39:25-26, where "bells of gold" are directed to be attached to the hem of Aaron's official robe, that the people may hear him when he enters and quits the sanctuary. Bells were not employed by the Hebrews to summon the congregation to worship, nor do Mohammedans so use them at the present day. The church bell is a peculiarly Christian institution, said to have been introduced by Bishop Paulinus of Nola in Campania, who lived about the end of the 4th century. Little bells, however, like those attached to the hem of Aaron's robe, frequently form part of the harness of horses, or are fastened to the necks of the he-goats or wethers that lead the flock in eastern lands.
James Millar
Bellows
Bellows - bel'-oz, bel'-us: The word occurs once only in English Versions of the Bible, in Jeremiah 6:29, where the prophet is predicting the coming of the destroyer (verse 26), "a great nation" from "the north country" (verse 22), down upon Israel, because "all of them deal corruptly" (verse 28). "The bellows blow fiercely; the leads is of the fire." Here the imagery is drawn from the refiner's art, and the "bellows" are those used to make the refiner's fires burn fiercely.
See CRAFTS,II , 10.
Belly
Belly - bel'-i: gachon = "the external abdomen" (Genesis 3:14; Leviticus 11:42). qobhah = "the abdominal cavity" (Numbers 25:8 the American Standard Revised Version "body"). beTen = "the internal abdomen," "the womb" (1 Kings 7:20; Job 15:2, 35 the King James Version; Job 20:15, 23; 40:16; Psalms 17:1-15, 14; Proverbs 13:25; 18:20; Jeremiah 1:5; Ezekiel 3:3); also figuratively "the internal regions," "the body of anything" (Jonah 2:2). me`eh = "intestines," "abdomen" (Daniel 2:32; Jonah 1:17; Jonah 2:1-2). In the New Testament koilia = "a cavity," espec ially the abdominal (Matthew 12:40; 15:17; Mark 7:19); the seat of appetite and of the carnal affections (Romans 16:18; 1 Corinthians 6:13; Philippians 3:19; Revelation 10:9-10); the innermost of the soul (the American Revised Version, margin John 7:38).
Frank E. Hirsch
Belmaim
Belmaim - bel'-ma-im, the King James Version Belmen (Belmaim, Judith 7:3; Bailmain, 4:4): A place in the neighborhood of Dothan (Judith 7:3), to which warning was sent to prepare for the invasion of Holofernes (Judith 4:4). It probably answers to the modern Bir Bil`ameh (Ibleam), a ruined site about half a mile South of Jenin.
Belmen; Belmon
Belmen; Belmon - bel'-men, bel'-mon.
See BELMAIM.
Belomancy
Belomancy - bel'-o-man-si.
See AUGURY,IV , 2.
Beloved
Beloved - be-luv'-ed, be-luv'-d' (agapetos): A term of affectionate endearment common to both Testaments; in the Old Testament found, 26 out of 42 times, in Solomon's Song of Love. Limited chiefly to two Heb words and their derivatives: 'ahebh, "to breathe" or "long for," hence, to love, corresponding to the New Testament, agapao, "to prefer," i.e. a love based on respect and benevolent regard; dodh, "love," chiefly love between the sexes, based on sense and emotion, akin to phileo (Latin amare). Used occasionally, in their nobler sense, interchangeably, e.g. the former of a husband's love for his wife (Deuteronomy 21:15-16); twice of a lover (Song of Solomon 1:14, 16), thus lifting the affection of the Song of Solomon out of mere amorousness into the realm of the spiritual and possibly Messianic. Both words used of God's love for His chosen: e.g. Solomon, "beloved of his God" (Nehemiah 13:26); Benjamin "beloved of Yahweh" (Deuteronomy 33:12); so even of wayward Israel (Jeremiah 11:15).
In the New Testament "beloved" used exclusively of Divine and Christian love, an affection begotten in the community of the new spiritual life in Christ, e.g. "beloved in the Lord" (Romans 16:8). The beauty, unity, endearment of this love is historically unique, being peculiarly Christian. "Brethren" in Christ are "beloved" (1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:58; James 1:16; 2:5). Many individuals are specified by name: Timothy (2 Timothy 1:2); Philemon (Philemon 1:1); Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Persis (Romans 16:8-9, 12), etc. The aged John is the conspicuous New Testament illustration of the depth and tenderness of Christian love. In his epistles alone he addresses his disciples 12 times as "beloved." Paul terms "God's elect" "holy and beloved" (Colossians 3:12).
The term rises to still Diviner significance as an epithet of Christ, whom Paul, grateful for His "freely bestowed" grace, terms "the Beloved." This is the word used repeatedly to express God the Father's infinite affection for Jesus His "beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 20:13).
Agapetos rendered as above 47 times is 9 times "dearly beloved" (the Revised Version (British and American) uniformly omits "dearly") and 3 times "well beloved" (the Revised Version (British and American) omits "well"). The former rendering found only once in the Old Testament (yedhidhuth, "something beloved"), portraying God's tender love for His people: "dearly beloved of my soul" (Jeremiah 12:7). Thrice is Daniel spoken of as "greatly beloved" of Gabriel and of God (hamudhoth, "precious," i.e. delight = beloved; Daniel 9:23; 11, 19). Through the apostles the word has become familiar in pastoral and sermonic address. Few New Testament words better illustrate the power and impress of the Christian spirit on succeeding centuries than this.
Dwight M. Pratt
Belshazzar
Belshazzar - bel-shaz'-ar (belsha'tstsar; Baltasar, Babylonian Bel-shar-usur): According to Daniel 5:30, he was the Chaldean king under whom Babylon was taken by Darius the Mede. The Babylonian monuments speak a number of times of a Bel-shar-usur who was the "firstborn son, the offspring of the heart of" Nabunaid, the last king of the Babylonian empire, that had been founded by Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, at the time of the death of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, in 626 BC. There is no doubt that this Belshazzar is the same as the Belshazzar of Dnl. It is not necessary to suppose that Belshazzar was at any time king of the Babylonian empire in the sense that Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunaid were. It is probable, as M. Pognon argues, that a son of Nabunaid, called Nabunaid after his father, was king of Babylon, or Babylonian king, in Harran (Haran), while his father was overlord in Babylon. This second Nabunaid is called "the son of the offspring of the heart" of Nabunaid his father. It is possible that this second Nabundid was the king who was killed by Cyrus, when he crossed the Tigris above Arbela in the 9th year of Nabunaid his father, and put to death the king of the country (see the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle col. ii, 17); since according to the Eshki-Harran inscription, Nabunaid the Second died in the 9th year of Nabunaid the First. Belshazzar may have been the son of the king who is said in the same chronicle to have commanded the Babylonian army in Accad from the 6th to the 11th year of Nabunaid I; or, possibly longer, for the annals before the 6th and after the 11th year are broken and for the most part illegible. This same son of the king is most probably mentioned again in the same chronicle as having died in the night in which Babylon was captured by Gobryas of Gutium. As Nabunaid II, though reigning at Hatran under the overlordship of his father, is called king of Babylon on the same inscription on which his father is called by the same title; so Belshazzar may have been called king of Babylon, although he was only crown prince. It is probable also, that as Nabunaid I had made one of his sons king of Harran, so he had made another king of Chaldea. This would account for Belshazzar's being called in Daniel 5:30 the Chaldean king, although, to be sure, this word Chaldean may describe his race rather than his kingdom. The 3rd year of Belshazzar spoken of in Daniel 8:1, would then refer to his Daniel 3:11-30rd year as subking of the Chaldeans under his father Nabunaid, king of Babylon, just as Cambyses was later subking of Babylon, while his fathe r Cyrus was king of the lands. From the Book of Daniel we might infer that this subkingdom embraced Chaldea and Susiana, and possibly the province of Babylon; and from the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle that it extended over Accad as well. That the city of Babylon alone was sometimes at least governed by an official called king is highly probable, since the father of Nergal-har-ucur is certainly, and the father of Nabunaid I is probably, called king of Babylon, in both of which cases, the city, or at most the province, of Babylon must have been meant, since we know to a certainty all of the kings who had been ruling over the empire of Babylon since 626 BC, when Nabopolassar became king, and the names of neither of these fathers of kings is found among them.
In addition to Nabunaid II, Belshazzar seems to have had another brother named Nebuchadnezzar, since the two Babylonian rebels against Darius Hystaspis both assumed the name of Nebuchadnezzar the son of Nabunaid (see the Behistun Inscription, I, 85, 89, 95). He had a sister also named Ina-esagilaremat, and a second named probably Ukabu'shai'-na.
Belshazzar had his own house in Babylon, where he seems to have been engaged in the woolen or clothing trade. He owned also estates from which he made large gifts to the gods. His father joins his name with his own in some of his prayers to the gods, and apparently appointed him commander of the army of Accad, whose especial duty it was to defend the city of Babylon against the attacks of the armies of Media and Persia.
It would appear from the Nabunaid-Cyrus Chronicle, that Belshazzar was de facto king of the Babylonian empire, all that was left of it, from the 4th to the 8th month of the 17th year of the reign of his father Nabunaid, and that he died on the night in which Babylon was taken by Gobryas of Gutium (that is, probably, Darius the Mede (see DARIUS)).
The objection to the historical character of the narrative of Daniel, based upon the fact that Belshazzar in 5:11,18 is said to have been the son of Nebuchadnezzar whereas the monuments state that he was the son of Nabunaid, is fully met by supposing that one of them was his real and the other his adoptive father; or by supposing that the queen-mother and Daniel referred to the greatest of his predecessors as his father, just as Omri is called by the Assyrians the father of Jehu, and as the claimants to the Medo-Pers throne are called on the Behistun Inscription the sons of Cyaxares, and as at present the reigning sheikhs of northern Arabia are all called the sons of Rashid, although in reality they are not his sons.
LITERATURE.
The best sources of information as to the life and times of Belshazzar for English readers are: The Records of the Past; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia; Sayce. The Higher Criticism and the Monuments; and W. W. Wright's two great works, Daniel and His Prophecies and Daniel and His Critics.
R. Dick Wilson
Belt
Belteshazzar
Belteshazzar - bel-te-shaz'-ar (belTsha'tstsar Babylonian BalaT-sharucur "protect his life"; Daniel 4:8): The Bah name given to Daniel (Daniel 1:7; 2:26; 5:12). Not to be confounded with Belshazzar.
Belus, Temple of
Belus, Temple of - be'-lus.
See BABEL.
Ben
Ben - ben (ben, "son"): A Levite appointed to assist as musician in the temple service (1 Chronicles 15:18). The text seems to be doubtful, since the name is omitted in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and not mentioned at all in the Septuagint.
Ben-
Ben- - Ben (prefix) (singular ben, "son of"; plural bene, "sons of" = Aramaic bar): This word is used in the singular or plural to express relationship of almost any kind: (1) to a person; as such it is found as part of many compound names like Benjamin, Benhur, etc. (compare Bar); (2) to a clan; in this connection it is found in the plural only: "children of Israel," "children of Ammon," etc.; (3) to a town; perhaps as place of birth ("son of Jabesh"; 2 Kings 15:10 ff); (4) to occupation, state of life, age, character, quality even of things; (5) peculiarly employed in the sense of "scholar disciple" ("son of prophet"), or in phrases like "son of death," etc.; (6) in poetry, "sons of flame" for "sparks" (Job 5:7 margin), etc. The frequent metaphorical use of the word indicates that it was rarely used to express the relation of father to son like the Arabic Ibn. Compare HPN , 64 ff.
A. L. Breslich
Ben-abinadab
Ben-abinadab - ben-a-bin'-a-dab, ben-ab-i-na'-dab (ben 'abhinadhabh, "son of Abinadab"): One of the "captains" of Solomon who provided for the king and his household, each for a month in the year (1 Kings 4:11). His district was the region of Dor. In the King James Version he is called "the son of Abinadab." His wife was Tappath, the daughter of Solomon.
Benaiah
Benaiah - be-na'-ya, be-ni'-a (benayah, benayahu, "Yahweh has built." Compare HPN , 182, 265, 268):
(1) Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada of Kabzeel (compare Joshua 15:21), was a man of "mighty deeds" and was more honorable than any of the mighty men of David except the three chiefs. Therefore David made him his chief counselor (2 Samuel 23:23 m; compare 1 Chronicles 27:34 where the order of names seems to be reversed) and set him over the Cherethites (compare Carites, 2 Kings 11:4 ff and margin) and Pelethites and he was made the 3rd captain of the host and chief over the course of the 3rd month (1 Chronicles 27:5 f; 2 Samuel 8:18; 20:23; 1 Chronicles 18:17; 2 Samuel 23:20 ff; 2 Samuel 11:22 ff). Being a true friend of David (compare 2 Samuel 15:18) he did not take part in the usurpation of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:8, 10, 26), and was therefore with others chosen by the king to proclaim Solomon king over Israel (1 Kings 1:32 ff) and later by Solomon to execute Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25), Joab (1 Kings 2:29 ff), and Shimei (1 Kings 2:46). In recognition of his services Solomon appointed him over the host in Joab's place (1 Kings 2:35; 4:4).
(2) Benaiah, a Pirathonite (compare Judges 12:13, 15), was one of David's 30 mighty men (2 Samuel 23:30; 1 Chronicles 11:31). He was captain over the course of the 11th month numbering 24,000 (1 Chronicles 27:14).
(3) A ruler of the house of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:36).
(4) A Levite of second degree appointed as singer (1 Chronicles 15:18) with "psalteries Set to Alamoth" (1 Chronicles 15:20; 16:5).
(5) A priest appointed "to blow the trumpet before the ark of God" (1 Chronicles 15:24; 16:6).
(6) The father of Jehoiada (1 Chronicles 27:34), but see (1) above.
(7) An ancestor of Jahaziel of the house of Asaph (2 Chronicles 20:14).
(8) An overseer in the service of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 31:13).
(9, 10, 11, 12) Four different men of Israel who had taken "strange wives" (Ezra 10:25, 30, 35, 43).
(13) The father of Pelatiah who was seen by Ezekiel in his vision (Ezekiel 11:1, 13).
A. L. Breslich
Ben-ammi
Ben-ammi - ben-am'-i (ben `ammi, "son of my kinsman," Genesis 19:38): The progenitor of the Ammonites was a son of Lot's younger daughter, born after the destruction of Sodom. The account of his birth as well as that of Moab was commonly regarded as an expression of Israel's intense hatred and contempt toward these two nations. However, this idea is rather unwarranted, in view of the fact that the origin of the tribe of Judah (which is held in especial honor by J) is accounted for in a similiar way (Genesis 38:1-30). Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos, 190) suggests that the narrative (Genesis 19:30-38) was originally a Moabitic account tracing the common origin of Moab and Ammon to Lot. It presupposes a universal catastrophe--such as the conflagration of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim suggests--in which all the human race, save Lot and his two daughters, perished. In order to avert the extinction of the race, his daughters resorted to incestuous practices. In this case we have here a Moabite parallel to the Deluge story (Skinner, Genesis, 313-14). While the common origin of the two brother tribes is undoubtedly a fact (Judges 10:6; 15, 18, 25; Deuteronomy 2:19; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37, etc.), the folk-etymology of their names is rather suspicious. The name Ben-Ammi is probably derived from the deity "Emu," which is the name for Nergal among the shuchites on the West of the Euphrates a land which corresponds to the position of the Bene-`Ammo, "children of his people" (Numbers 22:5). The chief god of the Kataban Arabs was called Ammi (Hom., ZDMG, V, 95, 525, note 1). In cuneiform inscriptions this name appears as part of the title of the Ammonite rulers (HDB). Neubauer (Studia Biblica, 1-26) suggests that the name Balaam is a compound of Bel plus Am, that is, "Am is Lord." For other compounds with Ammi see Gray,HPN , 41-60.
S. Cohon
Bench
Bench - (qeresh): Found only in English Versions of the Bible in Ezekiel 27:6, in the prophet's "lamentation over Tyre": "They have made thy benches of ivory inlaid in boxwood, from the isles of Kittim," where the word evidently stands for the "benches" of the boat whose "mast" (verse 5) and "oars" (verse 6) have just been described, in the vivid figs. of speech in which the city itself is pictured as a merchantship. Compare verse 8, "Thy wise men,O Tyre, were in thee, they were thy pilots."
See SEAT.
Ben-deker
Ben-deker - ben-de'-ker (ben-deqer, "son of Deker," the King James Version "son of Dekar"): The word is derived from a Hebrew root meaning "to pierce." Compare HPN , 69. One of the 12 officers who provided victuals for King Solomon and his household (1 Kings 4:9).
Beneath
Beneath - be-neth': The adverb for "under" (kato). In John 8:23, the words "ye are from beneath," suggest hell in contrast to heaven. But the succeeding clause, "ye are of this world," gives the key for the interpretation. Earth, not hell, is expressed, although "that more awful meaning surely is not excluded" (Alford).
Bene-berak
Bene-berak - ben-e-be'-rak (bene beraq; Banebarak): A town in the territory of Dan (Joshua 19:45), represented by the modern village Ibn Ibraq, about an hour Southeast of Jaffa.
Benediction
Benediction - ben-e-dik'-shun: From the earliest times the records bear testimony that pronouncing the benediction or giving the blessing was a common practice. In the temple service, this duty was assigned to the Aaronites and was made an impressive part of the service. The form of the benediction used is given in Numbers 6:22-27. References to this practice may be found in Leviticus 9:22; Deuteronomy 10:8; 2 Chronicles 30:27. After a time, minute directions were given concerning it and careful preparation was made for this part of the service. All Aaronites, of proper age, were entitled to perform this service, except those who by previous conduct or on account of physical defect were disqualified. One who had killed another, whether intentionally or otherwise, or who had violated the marriage vows, had given himself excessively to wine drinking or other excesses, or indeed had been guilty of unrighteous conduct or life, was not only prohibited from pronouncing the blessing, but was required to withdraw before this part of the service was performed. If one was blind even of one eye, or had a defect in his hands or speech, or was a hunchback, he was also excluded. Before the priest could engage in this service he was required to wash his hands. Then, with uplifted hands, while the people stood, he uttered the words of blessing. The main idea was that thus the name of Yahweh was put on the people. Later it came to be regarded as having some special blessing in and of itself, a result against which the more spiritual of the priests protested.
It was common not only to pronounce the benediction in the public worship but also in the family. We have such instances in Genesis 9:26-27; Genesis 27:27-30. This practice prevailed also on many other occasions not only in Israel, but among the heathen as well. We may readily see, therefore, that from the very beginning of the Christian church the use of the benediction was common. In the course of time an extensive liturgy developed on this subject and it may be said that there are now three distinct ideas in the church as to the benediction. That section of the church which regards the minister as clothed with sacerdotal powers, holds that the blessings pronounced are actually conferred in the act of the utterance of the words, because of the powers conferred upon him when he was set aside for the sacred office. On the other hand it is held that it is merely a prayer that God may bestow certain blessings on the people. From this position others dissent, and teach that it is the declaration of the special privileges and relations in which those stand who have entered into covenant fellowship with Christ; that the blessings now declared are theirs by fight of that relation, and are conferred upon them by the Holy Spirit. The Greek and Roman Catholic churches take the first portion, and therefore we find among them much of detail and minutiae as to the manner in which it should be pronounced. In the Greek church the priest raises his hand with the thumb touching the third finger, signifying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone; or according to others to form the sacred name IHS. In the Roman church the form is, the thumb, first and second fingers are to be open, to symbolize the Trinity. In this church too, the benediction is pronounced in a multitude of cases and in each case the thing so blessed by the priest is made sacred. Crosses, church vessels, houses, paschal eggs, churchyards, are thus blessed. Every parish has a collection of these forms of blessing in what is known as the "Benedictionale." The authority for this is based on some documents claiming to reach back to early church history, but as they belong to the forged decretal class, the position of the Roman church on this subject is untenable.
Apostolic benedictions, as we find them in the epistles, present considerable variety. One of the striking features is that in a number of cases there is the omission of the Holy Ghost. The best explanation seems to be that the Father and the Son effect the redemption of the world and the Holy Ghost applies the blessing so wrought out. "Grace, mercy and peace" may then be said to be sent from the Father and the Son through the Holy Ghost to be the possession of all who have come into the kingdom. The third person of the Trinity, being thus in the act of applying the blessing, is not mentioned. The fact that in other cases Father, Son and Holy Ghost are mentioned, proves that the writers knew the character and office of the Holy Ghost. The most common form used today is that in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Occasionally some changes are introduced by ministers, but it would seem best to adhere strictly to the Scriptural forms.
See BLESSING; SALUTATION.
Jacob W. Kapp
Benefactor
Benefactor - ben-e-fak'-ter (Greek euergetes, Luke 22:25): There is here a probable allusion to two kings of Egypt (Ptolemy III and VII), who had the surname "Euergetes," of whom the period of the first was 247-242 BC, and of the second, 147-117 BC. Jesus draws the contrast between worldly kingdoms, in which the title "benefactor" is given those who rule with all the splendor of earthly display and luxury, and His kingdom, in which it belongs only to those whose work is that of humble, obscure and often menial service.
Benefit
Benefit - ben'-e-fit (gemul = "a deed," 2 Chronicles 32:25); yaTabh = (causat.) "to make well," "to do good" (Jeremiah 18:10). The plural of gemul, is found is found in Psalms 103:2. Psalms 68:19 (the King James Version) should be translated "Blessed be the Lord. Day by day he sustains us; God is our salvation." charis = "gift"; "grace" (2 Corinthians 1:15, "a second benefit": that is, two visits in the same journey). euergesia = "good deed done" (1 Timothy 6:2: "because they that partake of the benefit (of their service) are believing and beloved"); agathos = "good" (Philemon 1:14, the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) "goodness").
Frank E. Hirsch
Bene-jaakan
Bene-jaakan - ben-e-ja'-a-kan, be-ne-ja'-a-kan (bene ya`aqan: Numbers 33:31-32).
See BEEROTH BENE-JAAKAN.
Benevolence
Benevolence - be-nev'-o-lens: the King James Version translation of phrase in Textus Receptus of the New Testament of 1 Corinthians 7:3, rejected by the Revised Version (British and American) which following Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek translates Greek opheile, "due." This reference to the marriage relation is explained in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Compare Exodus 21:10.
Ben-geber
Ben-geber - ben-ge'-ber (ben-gebher, "son of Geber"; the King James Version son of Geber; the word is derived from a Hebrew root meaning "to be strong." Compare HPN , 66, 69): One of the twelve commissariat officers in the service of Solomon (1 Kings 4:13).
Benhadad
Benhadad - ben-ha'-dad (ben-hadhadh; Septuagint huios Hader):
The Name
I. BENHADAD I
1. The Kingdom of Syria Founded
2. Syria and Judah
3. Shortsightedness of Asa
II. BENHADAD II
1. Hadad-'idri of the Monuments
2. Expeditions against Israel
3. Alliance with Ahab
4. Biblical History Confirmed by the Monuments
5. Alliance Broken off
6. Benhadad and Elisha
7. Panic of Syrians at Samaria
8. Murder of Benhadad
III. BENHADAD III
1. His Contemporaries
2. The Assyrians in the West
3. Downfall of Damascus before Ramman-Nirari III
4. Breathing Space for Israel
The Name:
The name of three kings of Syria mentioned in the historical books. Hadad is the Syrian god of storms, and is apparently identical with Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18), the Assyrian Rammanu, "the Thunderer," whose temple was in Damascus. The name Benhadad, "son of Hadad," accords with the custom which obtained in Semitic mythology of calling a king or a nation the son of the national god, as we have Mesha`, son of Chemosh, and the Moabites, children of Chemosh. Benhadad seems to have become a general designation for the kings of Syria (Amos 1:4; Jeremiah 49:27).
I. Benhadad I
1. The Kingdom of Syria Founded: Benhadad I was the son of Tabrimmon, who is called (1 Kings 15:18) "the son of Hezion, king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus." Hezion has been with some plausibility identified with Rezon (1 Kings 11:23, 25) who founded the kingdom of Damascus and imparted to Syria that temper of hostility to Israel which became hereditary. Meanwhile the Arameans had shaken themselves free from the rule of the Hittites, and with Damascus for a center had planted strong settlements in the plains westward from the Euphrates. By the time that Benhadad entered into this succession, Syria was the strongest power in this region of Western Asia, and ready to take advantage of every opportunity of increasing her dominions.
2. Syria and Judah: Such an opportunity presented itself in the appeal of Asa, king of Judah, for help against Baasha king of Israel. The two Hebrew kingdoms had been at feud ever since their disruption. Baasha had pushed his frontier southward to Ramah, within 5 miles of Jerusalem, and this commanding eminence he proceeded to fortify. The danger of a hostile fortress overlooking his capital, and the humiliation of his rival's presence so near, were more than Asa could bear. It was at this juncture that he bethought him of Benhadad. Taking all the silver and the gold that were left in the treasury of the house of the Lord, and the treasury of the king's house, he sent them to Benhadad with a request for an alliance begging him at the same time to break off the league he had with Baasha and thus enable Asa to dislodge his enemy. Benhadad saw an opening for the aggrandizement of his kingdom and broke off the alliance he had had with Jeroboam and Baasha. By an invasion of Northern Israel he obliged Baasha to withdraw from Ramah and confine himself to the neighborhood of his own capital (1 Kings 15:16 ff). Judah obtained relief, but the price paid for it was too great. Asa had surrendered his treasures, and very likely some of his independence.
3. Shortsightedness of Asa: For his shortsightedness in laying himself under obligation to Benhadad and relying upon the help of Syria rather than upon the Lord his God, Asa was rebuked by the prophet Hanani (2 Chronicles 16:1 ff). Benhadad had extended his territories by the transaction and seems to have exercised henceforward some sort of sovereignty over both the Hebrew kingdoms.
LITERATURE.
McCurdy HPM, I, 256; H. P. Smith, Old Testament History, 186.
II. Benhadad II
1. Hadad-'idri of the Monuments: Benhadad II was in all probability the son of Benhadad I. He is the Hadad-ezer, or Hadad-'idri, of the monuments. He comes first upon the scene of the Biblical history invading the land of Israel with a large host, in which were 32 tributary kings, and horses and chariots. He had penetrated as far as Samaria, the newly built city of Omri, now the capital of his son Ahab. Benhadad and his Syrian host had laid siege to Samaria and Ahab had been summoned to surrender. Ahab was disposed to come to terms, but the intolerable proposals made by Benhadad drove him to resistance. Encouraged by the elders of the people, and acting on the counsel of a prophet, Ahab made a sortie and falling upon the carousing Syrians put them so completely to rout that Benhadad himself only escaped on a horse with the horsemen.
2. Expeditions against Israel: Next year the Syrians resolved to retrieve their defeat saying of the Israelites, "Their God is a god of the hills; therefore they were stronger than we: but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they." Ahab had been warned to expect the return of the Syrians and was prepared for the fresh attack. For seven days the two armies faced each other, the Israelites "like two little flocks of kids" before a host that filled the country. On the seventh day they joined battle near to Aphek, and the Syrians met again an overwhelming defeat. Yahweh was proved to be God both of the plains and of the hills. Benhadad was taken prisoner, and appealing to the clemency of the victor, he persuaded Ahab to spare his life.
3. Alliance with Ahab: A treaty was agreed upon between the two monarchs under which Ahab's people were to have bazaars of their own in Damascus, as it would appear Benhadad I had had for his subjects before in Samaria (1 Kings 20:1-34). The treaty was denounced by a prophet, and Ahab was warned that this man whom God had devoted to destruction would be the destruction of himself and his people. Under the treaty, however, there were three years without war between Syria and Israel.
4. Biblical History Confirmed by the Monuments: The treaty and the resulting period of peace receive striking confirmation from the monuments. From the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser II we learn that this Assyrian king in the 6th year of his reign (854 BC) had crossed the Tigris and made his way across the Euphrates on boats of sheepskin into Syria to Chalman (Aleppo). At Karkar he encountered the combined forces of Damascus, Hamath, Israel and the states which had united to oppose his progress westward. Achabbu Sir-'lai, Ahab of Israel Damascus are Dad'idri Hadadezer (Benhadad II) of Damascus are named in the inscription with chariots, horsemen and infantry, making common cause against Shalmaneser and fighting on the same side. It was Benhadad, as we gather, that bore the brunt of the assault, but the result of the battle was the complete rout of the allies with the loss of 14,000 men. That the assistance of Israel on the occasion was the outcome of the treaty between Ahab and Benhadad, and that the combination against Shalmaneser took place dur ing the three years of peace, are in the highest degree probable.
5. Alliance Broken Off: The disaster to the allies, however, seems to have broken up the confederacy. When the king of Syria is next mentioned in Biblical history, it is defending the city of Ramoth-Gilead against the attack made upon it by Ahab, who is found now in alliance with Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, attempting unsuccessfully and with fatal results to himself, to recover this city of Israel from the weakened power of Damascus. At Ramoth-Gilead Benhadad is not said to have 32 tributary kings in his train, but 32 military commanders who have taken their place (1 Kings 22:2, 29-31).
6. Benhadad and Elisha: The peace between Israel and Syria having been broken, there was frequent, if not continuous, war between the kingdoms, in which the prophet Elisha is a prominent figure. He healed of his leprosy Naaman, Benhadad's commander-in-chief. He disclosed to the king of Israel the places wherever Benhadad pitched his camp. He smote with blindness a great host whom Benhadad had sent with horses and chariots to seize him at Dothan, and led them into Samaria where he saw them treated kindly and sent back to their master (2 Kings 6:8-23).
7. Panic of Syrians at Samaria: Some time after Benhadad again assembled all his host and laid siege to Samaria. So great was the famine that women ate their own children. The king of Israel sent one of his men to put Elisha to death, but Elisha closed his house against him and announced that on the morrow there would be great plenty in the city. And so it happened. Certain lepers, despairing of relief, had gone into the Syrian camp and learned that the Syrians had abandoned their camp in a panic, believing that the king of Israel had hired the kings of the Mucri and the northern Hittites to raise the siege (2 Kings 6:24 through 2 Kings 7:20; compare Burney's note, 2 Kings 7:6).
8. Murder of Benhadad: Still another notice of Benhadad II is found in the Annals of Shalmaneser, who records that in the 11th year of his reign he defeated a combination of 12 kings of the Hittites with Benhadad at their head, and slew 10,000 men. Of this. there is no record in Biblical history, but it must have been shortly before the tragedy which ended the career of the Syrian king. Benhadad had fallen sick and sent his commander-in-chief, Hazael, to inquire as to the issue of his sickness of the prophet Elisha, who was visiting Damascus. Elisha foretold the king's death, and wept as he read to Hazael the cruel purpose which the Syrian commander was even then maturing. Hazael professed to be incredulous, but he departed from Elisha and the very next day in cold blood put his master to death and ascended the throne (2 Kings 8:7-15). Thus ingloriously ended the reign of one of the most powerful of the Syrian kings.
LITERATURE.
McCurdy, HPM, I, 267 ff; Schrader, COT, I, 179 if; Winckler, Geschichte Israels, Theil I, 133-55.
III. Benhadad III
1. His Contemporaries: Benhadad III was the son of the usurper Hazael, and though not in the dynastic succesion, assumed on the dent h of his father the dynastic name. He was contemporary with Amaziah, king of Judah; Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, king of Israel; and Ramman-Nirari III, king of Assyria. The fortunes of Israel had fallen low in the days of Jehoahaz, and Hazael and Benhadad III were the instruments of Yahweh's displeasure with the nation. At this time Jehoahaz had no more than 53 horsemen and 10 chariots and 10,000 footmen; for the king of Syria had destroyed them and made them like the dust in threshing (2 Kings 13:7). It was when the fortunes of Israel were at the lowest ebb by reason of the oppression of the king of Syria--by this time Benhadad--that help came to them and Yahweh gave Israel a savior, so that Israel went out from under the hands of the Syrians, "and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents (in their homes) as beforetime" (2 Kings 13:5).
2. The Assyrians in the West: The "saviour" of the Biblical narrative is the one allusion in Scripture to the king of Assyria of that day, Ramman-Nirari III, whose inscriptions record his victorious expedition to the West. "From the Euphrates to the land of the Hittites," runs an inscription, "the west country in its entire compass, Tyre, Zidon, the land Omri, Edom, Philistia as far as the Great Sea of the sunsetting, I subjected to my yoke; payment of tribute I imposed upon them. Against Syria of Damascus I marched; Mari, the king of Syria, in Damascus his royal city I besieged." He then proceeds to tell of the subjugation of the monarch and of the spoils obtained from his capital. That Mari which means in Aramaic "lord," is Benhadad III, the son of Hazael, is now generally believed.
3. Downfall of Damascus before Ramman-Nirari III: With the capture of Damascus and the collapse of the Syrian power under Marl (Benhadad III), an era of recuperation and prosperity became possible to Israel and Judah. So it came to pass that "Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz by war. Three times did Joash smite him, and recovered the cities of Israel" (2 Kings 13:25).
4. Breathing Space for Israel: Israel was able to breathe freely for a time and Jeroboam II restored the Northern Kingdom to its former extent and glory. But the flame of war which had been sent into the house of Hazael and which devoured the palaces of Benhadad (Amos 1:4 ff) was only waiting the time when the Assyrians would be free to renew their expeditions to the West and carry Samaria and Israel "into captivity beyond Damascus" (Amos 5:27).
LITERATURE.
McCurdy, HPM, I, 291 ff; Schrader, COT, I, 202-ff.
T. Nicol.
Ben-hail
Ben-hail - ben-ha'-il (ben-chayil, "son of strength"; compare HPN , 65, 231): One of the princes who was sent by Jehoshaphat "to teach in the cities of Judah" (2 Chronicles 17:7).
Ben-hanan
Ben-hanan - ben-ha'-nan (ben-chanan, "son of grace"): A son of Shimon of the house of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:20).