International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Beth-millo — Bitterness, Water of

Beth-millo

Beth-millo - beth-mil'-o.

Beth-nimrah - beth-nim'-ra (beth nimrah, "house of leopard," Numbers 32:36, but in verse 3 it is simply Nimrah): In Joshua 13:27 the full name appears. In Isaiah 15:6 the name appears as Nimrim, identified as Tell Nimrim, between Jericho and the mountains on the east, where there is a fountain of large size. The city was assigned to Gad. In the 4th century AD it was located as five Roman miles North of Livias. Eusebius calls it Bethamnaram (SEP, I, Tell Nimrin).

Beth-palet

Beth-palet - beth-pa'-let.

See BETH-PELET.

Beth-pazzez

Beth-pazzez - beth-paz'-ez (beth patstsets; Bersaphes, Baithphrasee): A town in the territory of Issachar, named with En-gannim and En-haddah (Joshua 19:21). The site has not been discovered; it probably lay near the modern Jenin.

Beth-pelet

Beth-pelet - beth-pe'-let (beth-peleT; Baithphaleth, "house of escape"; the King James Version Beth-palet; Joshua 15:27, Beth-phelet, the King James Version Nehemiah 11:26): One of "the uttermost cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the border of Edom in the (Negeb) South" (Joshua 15:21, 27). Site unknown.

Beth-peor

Beth-peor - beth-pe'-or (beth pe`or; oikos Phogor; in Joshua (Vaticanus), Baithphogor, or beth-): "Over against Beth-peor" the Israelites were encamped, "beyond the Jordan, in the valley," when Moses uttered the speeches recorded in Dt (Deuteronomy 3:29; 4:46). "In the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor" Moses was buried (Deuteronomy 34:6). Beth-peor and the slopes of Pisgah (the King James Version "Ashdoth-pisgah") are mentioned in close connection in Joshua 13:20. According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Beth-peor was situated near Mt. Peor (Fogor) opposite Jericho, 6 miles above Livias. Mt. Peor is the "top" or "head" of Peor (Numbers 23:28). Some height commanding a view of the plain East of the river in the lower Jordan valley is clearly intended, but thus far no identification is possible. "The slopes of Pisgah" are probably the lower slopes of the mountain toward Wady `Ayun Musa. Somewhere North of this the summit we are in search of may be found. Conder suggested the cliff at Minyeh, South of Wady Jedeideh, and of Pisgah; and would locate Beth-peor at el-Mareighat, "the smeared things," evidently an ancient place of worship, with a stone circle and standing stones, about 4 miles East, on the same ridge. This seems, however, too far South, and more difficult to reach from Shittim than we should gather from Numbers 25:1 ff.

W. Ewing

Bethphage

Bethphage - beth'-fa-je, beth'-faj (from beth paghah; Bethphage, or Bethphage; in Aramaic "place of young figs"): Near the Mount of Olives and to the road from Jerusalem to Jericho; mentioned together with Bethany (Matthew 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29). The place occurs in several Talmudic passages where it may be inferred that it was near but outside Jerusalem; it was at the Sabbatical distance limit East of Jerusalem, and was surrounded by some kind of wall. The medieval Bethphage was between the summit and Bethany. The site is now enclosed by the Roman Catholics. As regards the Bethphage of the New Testament, the most probable suggestion was that it occupied the summit itself where Kefr et Tur stands today. This village certainly occupies an ancient site and no other name is known. This is much more probable than the suggestion that the modern Abu Dis is on the site of Bethphage.

E. W. G. Masterman

Beth-phelet

Beth-phelet - beth-fe'-let.

See BETH-PELET.

Beth-rapha

Beth-rapha - beth-ra'-fa (beth rapha'; B, ho Bathraia, Bathrepha): The name occurs only in the genealogical list in 1 Chronicles 4:12. It does not seem possible now to associate it with any particular place or clan.

Beth-rehob

Beth-rehob - beth-re'-hob (beth-rechobh; ho oikos Rhaab) : An Aramean town and district which, along with Zobah and Maacah, assisted Ammon against David (2 Samuel 10:6, 8, Rehob). It is probably identical with Rehob (Numbers 13:21), the northern limit of the spies' journey. Laish-Dan (probably Tell el-Kadi) was situated near it (Judges 18:28). The site of the town is unknown. It has been conjecturally identified with Hunin, West of Banias, and, more plausibly, with Banias itself (Thomson, The Land and the Book (2), 218; Buhl, Geog., 240; Moore, ICC, Jgs, 399).

C. H. Thomson

Bethsaida

Bethsaida - beth-sa'-i-da (Bethsaida, "house of fishing"):

(1) A city East of the Jordan, in a "desert place" (that is, uncultivated ground used for grazing) at which Jesus miraculously fed the multitude with five loaves and two fishes (Mark 6:32 ff; Luke 9:10). This is doubtless to be identified with the village of Bethsaida in Lower Gaulonitis which the Tetrarch Philip raised to the rank of a city, and called Julias, in honor of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. It lay near the place where the Jordan enters the Sea of Gennesaret (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; BJ, II, ix, 1; III, x, 7; Vita, 72). This city may be located at et-Tell, a ruined site on the East side of the Jordan on rising ground, fully a mile from the sea. As this is too far from the sea for a fishing village, Schumacher (The Jaulan, 246) suggests that el-`Araj, "a large, completely destroyed site close to the lake," connected in ancient times with et-Tell "by the beautiful roads still visible," may have been the fishing village, and et-Tell the princely residence. He is however inclined to favor el-Mes`adiyeh , a ruin and winter village of Arab et-Tellawiyeh, which stands on an artificial mound, about a mile and a half from the mouth of the Jordan. It should be noted, however, that the name is in origin radically different from Bethsaida. The substitution of sin for cad is easy: but the insertion of the guttural `ain is impossible. No trace of the name Bethsaida has been found in the district; but any one of the sites named would meet the requirements.

To this neighborhood Jesus retired by boat with His disciples to rest awhile. The multitude following on foot along the northern shore of the lake would cross the Jordan by the ford at its mouth which is used by foot travelers to this day. The "desert" of the narrative is just the barriyeh of the Arabs where the animals are driven out for pasture. The "green grass" of Mark 6:39, and the "much grass" of John 6:10, point to some place in the plain of el-BaTeichah, on the rich soil of which the grass is green and plentiful compared with the scanty herbage on the higher slopes.

(2) Bethsaida of Galilee, where dwelt Philip, Andrew, Peter (John 1:44; 12:21), and perhaps also James and John. The house of Andrew and Peter seems to have been not far from the synagogue in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:29, etc.). Unless they had moved their residence from Bethsaida to Capernaum, of which there is no record, and which for fishermen was unlikely, Bethsaida must have lain close to Capernaum. It may have been the fishing town adjoining the larger city. As in the case of the other Bethsaida, no name has been recovered to guide us to the site. On the rocky promontory, however, East of Khan Minyeh we find Sheikh `Aly ec-Caiyadin, "Sheikh Aly of the Fishermen," as the name of a ruined weley, in which the second element in the name Bethsaida is represented. Near by is the site at `Ain et-Tabigha, which many have identified with Bethsaida of Galilee. The warm water from copious springs runs into a little bay of the sea in which fishes congregate in great numbers. This has therefore always been a favorite haunt of fishermen. If Capernaum were at Khan Minyeh, then the two lay close together. The names of many ancient places have been lost, and others have strayed from their original localities. The absence of any name resembling Bethsaida need not concern us.

Were There Two Bethsaidas?:

Many scholars maintain that all the New Testament references to Bethsaida apply to one place, namely, Bethsaida Julias. The arguments for and against this view may be summarized as follows:

(a) Galilee ran right round the lake, including most of the level coastland on the East. Thus Gamala, on the eastern shore, was within the jurisdiction of Josephus, who commanded in Galilee (BJ, II, xx, 4). Judas of Gamala (Ant., XVIII, i, l) is also called Judas of Galilee (ibid., i, 6). If Gamala, far down the eastern shore of the sea, were in Galilee, a fortiori Bethsaida, a town which lay on the very edge of the Jordan, may be described as in Galilee.

But Josephus makes it plain that Gamala, while added to his jurisdiction, was not in Galilee, but in Gaulonitis (BJ, II, xx, 6). Even if Judas were born in Gamala, and so might properly be called a Gaulonite, he may, like others, have come to be known as belonging to the province in which his active life was spent. "Jesus of Nazareth" was born in Bethlehem. Then Josephus explicitly says that Bethsaida was in Lower Gaulonitis (BJ, II, ix, 1). Further, Luke places the country of the Gerasenes on the other side of the sea from Galilee (8:26)--antipera tes Galilaias ("over against Galilee").

(b) To go to the other side--eis to peran (Mark 6:45)--does not of necessity imply passing from the East to the West coast of the lake, since Josephus uses the verb diaperaioo of a passage from Tiberias to Tarichea (Vita, 59). But (i) this involved a passage from a point on the West to a point on the South shore, "crossing over" two considerable bays; whereas if the boat started from any point in el-BaTeichah, to which we seem to be limited by the "much grass," and by the definition of the district as belonging to Bethsaida, to sail to et-Tell, it was a matter of coasting not more than a couple of miles, with no bay to cross. (ii) No case can be cited where the phrase eis to peran certainly means anything else than "to the other side." (iii) Mark says that the boat started to go unto the other side to Bethsaida, while John, gives the direction "over the sea unto Capernaum" (Mark 6:17). The two towns were therefore practically in the same line. Now there is no question that Capernaum was on "the other side," nor is there any suggestion that the boat was driven out of its course; and it is quite obvious that, sailing toward Capernaum, whether at Tell Chum or at Khan Minyeh, it would never reach Bethsaida Julius. (iv) The present writer is familiar with these waters in both storm and calm. If the boat was taken from any point in el-BaTeichah towards et-Tell, no east wind would have distressed the rowers, protected as that part is by the mountains. Therefore it was no contrary wind that carried them toward Capernaum and the "land of Gennesaret." On the other hand, with a wind from the West, such as is often experienced, eight or nine hours might easily be occupied in covering the four or five miles from el-BaTeichah to the neighborhood of Capernaum.

(c) The words of Mark (Mark 6:45), it is suggested (Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 42), have been too strictly interpreted: as the Gospel was written probably at Rome, its author being a native, not of Galilee, but of Jerusalem. Want of precision on topographical points, therefore, need not surprise us. But as we have seen above, the "want of precision" must also be attributed to the writer of John 6:17. The agreement of these two favors the strict interpretation. Further, if the Gospel of Mark embodies the recollections of Peter, it would be difficult to find a more reliable authority for topographical details connected with the sea on which his fisher life was spent.

(d) In support of the single-city theory it is further argued that (i) Jesus withdrew to Bethsaida as being in the jurisdiction of Philip, when he heard of the murder of John by Antipas, and would not have sought again the territories of the latter so soon after leaving them. (ii) Medieval works of travel notice only one Bethsaida. (iii) The East coast of the sea was definitely attached to Galilee in AD 84, and Ptolemy (circa 140) places Julius in Galilee. It is therefore significant that only the Fourth Gospel speaks of "Bethsaida of Galilee." (iv) There could hardly have been two Bethsaidas so close together.

But: (i) It is not said that Jesus came hither that he might leave the territory of Antipas for that of Philip; and in view of Mark 6:30 ff, and Luke 9:10 ff, the inference from Matthew 14:13 that he did so, is not warranted. (ii) The Bethsaida of medieval writers was evidently on the West of the Jordan. If it lay on the East it is inconceivable that none of them should have mentioned the river in this connection. (iii) If the 4th Gospel was not written until well into the 2nd century, then the apostle was not the author; but this is a very precarious assumption. John, writing after 84 AD, would hardly have used the phrase "Bethsaida of Galilee" of a place only recently attached to that province, writing, as he was, at a distance from the scene, and recalling the former familiar conditions. (iv) In view of the frequent repetition of names in Palestine the nearness of the two Bethsaidas raises no difficulty. The abundance of fish at each place furnished a good reason for the recurrence of the name.

W. Ewing

Bethsamos

Bethsamos - beth-sa'-mos.

See BETHASMOTH.

Beth-shean; Beth-shan

Beth-shean; Beth-shan - beth-she'-an, beth'-shan (beth-shan, or [beth-she'an]; in Apocrypha Baithsan or Bethsa): A city in the territory of Issachar assigned to Manasseh, out of which the Canaanites were not driven (Joshua 17:11; Judges 1:27); in the days of Israel's strength they were put to taskwork (Judges 1:28). They doubtless were in league with the Philistines who after Israel's defeat on Gilboa exposed the bodies of Saul and his sons on the wall of the city (1 Samuel 31:7 ff), whence they were rescued by the men of Jabesh , who remembered the earlier kindness of the king (1 Samuel 31:7 ff; 2 Samuel 21:12). In 1 Kings 4:12 the name applies to the district in which the city stands. It was called Scythopolis by the Greeks. This may be connected with the invasion of Palestine by the Scythians who, according to George Syncellus, "overran Palestine and took possession of Beisan." This may be the invasion noticed by Herodotus, circa 600 BC (i.104-6). Here Tryphon failed in his first attempt to take Jonathan by treachery (1 Maccabees 12:40). It fell to John Hyrcanus, but was taken from the Jews by Pompey. It was rebuilt by Gabinius (Ant., XIV, v, 3), and became an important member of the league of the "ten cities" (BJ, III, ix, 7). The impiousness of the inhabitants is painted in dark colors by Josephus (Vita, 6; BJ, II, xviii, 3); and the Mishna speaks of it as a center of idol worship (`Abhodhah Zarah, i.4). Later it was the seat of a bishop.

It is represented by the modern Beisan, in the throat of the Vale of Jezreel where it falls into the Jordan valley, on the southern side of the stream from `Ain Jalud. The ruins of the ancient city are found on the plain, and on the great mound where probably stood the citadel. Between the town and the stretch of marsh land to the South runs the old road from East to West up the Vale of Jezreel, uniting in Esdraelon with the great caravan road from North to South.

W. Ewing

Beth-shemesh

Beth-shemesh - beth-she'-mesh, beth'-shemesh (beth-shemesh; Baithsamus, "house of the sun"): This name for a place doubtless arose in every instance from the presence of a sanctuary of the sun there. In accordance with the meaning and origin of the word, it is quite to be expected that there should be several places of this name in Bible lands, and the expectation is not disappointed. Analysis and comparison of the passages in the Bible where a Beth-shemesh is mentioned show four places of this name.

1. Beth-shemesh of Judah: The first mention of a place by this name is in the description of the border of the territory of Judah (Joshua 15:10) which "went down to Beth-Shemesh." This topographical indication "down" puts the place toward the lowlands on the East or West side of Palestine, but does not indicate which. This point is clearly determined by the account of the return of the ark by the Philistine lords from Ekron (1 Samuel 6:9-19). They returned the ark to Beth-shemesh, the location of which they indicated by the remark that if their affliction was from Yahweh, the kine would bear the ark "by the way of its own border." The Philistines lay along the western border of Judah and the location of Beth-Shemesh of Judah is thus clearly fixed near the western lowland, close to the border between the territory of Judah and that claimed by the Philistines. This is confirmed by the account of the twelve officers of the commissariat of King Solomon. One of these, the son of Dekar, had a Beth-shemesh in his territory. By excluding the territory assigned to the other eleven officers, the territory of this son of Dekar is found to be in Judah and to lie along the Philistine border (1 Kings 4:9). A Philistine attack upon the border-land of Judah testifies to the same effect (2 Chronicles 28:18). Finally, the battle between Amaziah of Judah and Jehoash of Israel, who "looked one another in the face" at Beth-shemesh, puts Beth-Shemesh most probably near the border between Judah and Israel, which would locate it near the northern part of the western border of Judah's territo ry. In the assignment of cities to the Levites, Judah gave Beth-shemesh with its suburbs (Joshua 21:16). It has been identified with a good degree of certainty with the modern `Ain Shems.

It may be that Ir-shemesh, "city of the sun," and Har-cherec, "mount of the sun," refer to Beth-shemesh of Judah (Joshua 15:10; Joshua 19:41-43; 1 Kings 4:9; Judges 1:33, 35). But the worship of the sun was so common and cities of this name so many in number that it would be hazardous to conclude with any assurance that because these three names refer to the same region they therefore refer to the same place.

2. Beth-shemesh of Issachar: In the description of the tribal limits, it is said of Issachar (Joshua 19:22), "And the border reached to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Beth-shemesh; and the goings out of their border were at the Jordan." The description indicates that Beth-shemesh was in the eastern part of Issachar's territory. The exact location of the city is not known.

3. Beth-shemesh of Naphtali: A Beth-shemesh is mentioned together with Beth-anath as cities of Naphtali (Joshua 19:38). There is no clear indication of the location of this city. Its association with Beth-anath may indicate that they were near each other in the central part of the tribal allotment. As at Gezer, another of the cities of the Levites the Canaanites were not driven out from Beth-shemesh.

4. Beth-shemesh "that is in the Land of Egypt": A doom is pronounced upon "Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt" (Jeremiah 43:13). The Seventy identify it with Heliopolis. There is some uncertainty about this identification. If Beth-shemesh, "house of the sun," is here a description of Heliopolis, why does it not have the article? If it is a proper name, how does it come that a sanctuary in Egypt is called by a Hebrew name? It may be that the large number of Jews in Egypt with Jeremiah gave this Hebrew name to Heliopolis for use among themselves, Beth-shemesh. being a translation of Egyptian Perra as suggested by Griffith. Otherwise, Beth-shemesh. cannot have been Heliopolis, but must have been some other, at present unknown, place of Semitic worship. This latter view seems to be favored by Jeremiah's double threat: "He shall also break the pillars of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of Egypt shall he burn with fire" (save place). If Beth-shemesh were the "house of the sun," then the balancing of the state ment would be only between "pillars" and "houses," but it seems more naturally to be between Beth-shemesh, a Semitic place of worship "that is in the land of Egypt" on the one hand, and the Egyptian place of worship, "the houses of the gods of Egypt," on the other.

But the Seventy lived in Egypt and in their interpretation of this passage were probably guided by accurate knowledge of facts unknown now, such as surviving names, tradition and even written history. Until there is further light on the subject, it is better to accept their interpretation and identify this Beth-shemesh with Heliopolis.

See ON .

M. G. Kyle

Beth-shemite

Beth-shemite - beth-she'-mit beth-shimshi (1 Samuel 6:14, 21)): An inhabitant of Beth-shemesh in Judah (compare BETH-SHEMESH 1).

Beth-shittah

Beth-shittah - beth-shit'-a (beth ha-shiTTah, "house of the acacia"): A place on the route followed by the Midianites in their flight before Gideon (Judges 7:22). It is probably identical with the modern ShuTTa, a village in the Vale of Jezreel, about 6 miles Northwest of Beisan.

Bethsura; Bethsuron

Bethsura; Bethsuron - beth-su'-ra (Baithsoura (1 Maccabees 4:29, etc.)), (2 Maccabees 11:5 the Revised Version (British and American)): The Greek form of the name BETH-ZUR (which see).

Beth-tappuah

Beth-tappuah - beth-tap'-u-a (beth-tappuach; Beththapphoue, "place of apples" (see however APPLE));A town in the hill country of Judah (Joshua 15:53), probably near Hebron (el Tappuah, 1 Chronicles 2:43), possibly the same as Tephon (1 Maccabees 9:50). The village of Tuffuch, 3 1/2 miles Northwest of Hebron, is the probable site; it stands on the edge of a high ridge, surrounded by very fruitful gardens; an ancient highroad runs through the village, and there are many old cisterns and caves. (See PEF ,III , 310, 379, ShXXI . )

E. W. G. Masterman

Bethuel (1)

Bethuel (1) - be-thu'-el (bethu'el; "dweller in God"): A son of Nahor and Milcah, Abraham's nephew, father of Laban and Rebekah (Genesis 22:23; 15, 24, 47, 50; 25:20; 2, 5). In the last-named passage, he is surnamed "the Syrian." The only place where he appears as a leading character in the narrative is in connection with Rebekah's betrothal to Isaac; and even here, his son Laban stands out more prominently than he--a fact explainable on the ground of the custom which recognized the right of the brother to take a special interest in the welfare of the sister (compare Genesis 34:5, 21, 25; 2 Samuel 13:20, 22). Ant, I, xvi, 2 states that Bethuel was dead at this time.

Frank E. Hirsch

Bethuel (2)

Bethuel (2) - be-thu'-el, beth'-u-el (bethu'el, "destroyed of God"): A town of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:30), the same as Bethul (Joshua 19:4), and, probably, as the Beth-el of 1 Samuel 30:27.

Bethul

Bethul - beth'-ul, be'-thul (bethul):

See BETHUEL; CHESIL.

Bethulia

Bethulia - be-thu'-li-a (Baithouloua): A town named only in the Book of Judith (4:6; 6:10 ff; 7:1 ff; 8:3; 10:6; 12:7; 15:3,6; 16:21 ff). From these references we gather that it stood beside a valley, on a rock, at the foot of which was a spring, not far from Jenin; and that it guarded the passes by which an army might march to the South. The site most fully meeting these conditions is that of Sanur. The rock on the summit of which it stands rises sheer from the edge of Merj el-Ghariq, on the main highway, some 7 miles South of Jenin. Other identifications are suggested: Conder favoring Mithiliyeh, a little farther north; while the writer of the article "Bethulia" in Encyclopedia Biblica argues for identification with Jerusalem.

W. Ewing

Beth-zacharias

Beth-zacharias - beth-zak-a-ri'-as Baith-zacharia): Here Judas Maccabeus failed in battle with Antiochus Eupator, and his brother Eleazar fell in conflict with an elephant (1 Maccabees 6:32 ff; the King James Version "Bathzacharias"). It was a position of great strength, crowning a promontory which juts out between two deep valleys. It still bears the ancient name with little change, Beit Zakaria. It lies about 4 miles Southwest of Bethlehem (BR, III, 283 ff; Ant, XII, ix, 4).

Beth-zur

Beth-zur - beth'-zur (beth-tsur; Baith-sour, "house of rock"; less probably "house of the god Zur"):

(1) Mentioned (Joshua 15:58) as near Halhul and Gedor in the hill country of Judah; fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:7). In Nehemiah 3:16 mention is made of "Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district of Beth-zur." During the Maccabean wars it (Bethsura) came into great importance (1 Maccabees 4:29, 61; 7, 26, 31, 49, 50; 9:52; 10:14; 11:65; 7, 33). Josephus describes it as the strongest place in all Judea (Ant., XIII, v, 6). It was inhabited in the days of Eusebius and Jerome.

(2) It is the ruined site Belt Cur, near the main road from Jerusalem to Hebron, and some 4 miles North of the latter. Its importance lay in its natural strength, on a hilltop dominating the highroad, and also in its guarding the one southerly approach for a hostile army by the Vale of Elah to the Judean plateau. The site today is conspicuous from a distance through the presence of a ruined medieval tower. (See PEF ,III , 311, ShXXI ).

E. W. G. Masterman

Betimes

Betimes - be-timz': In the sense of "early" is the translation of two Hebrew words: (1) shakham, a root meaning "to incline the shoulder to a load," hence "to load up," "start early": in Genesis 26:31 "they rose up betimes in the morning," also in 2 Chronicles 36:15 (the American Standard Revised Version "early"); (2) of shachar, a root meaning "to dawn" in Job 8:5; 24:5, the American Standard Revised Version "diligently," and in Psalms 13:6, "chasteneth him betimes."

In the Apocrypha (Sirach 6:36) "betimes" is the translation of orthizo, literally, "to rise early in the morning," while in Bel and the Dragon verse 16 the same word is translated "betime."

In other cases the King James Version "betimes" appears as "before the time" (Sirach 51:30); "early" (1 Maccabees 4:52; 11:67); "the mourning" (1 Maccabees 5:30).

Arthur J. Kinsella

Betolion

Betolion - be-to'-li-on (Betolio (Codex Alexandrinus), or (Codex Vaticanus) Betolio; the King James Version Betolius, be-to'-li-us): A town the people of which to the number of 52 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:21). It corresponds to Bethel in Ezra 2:28.

Betomesthaim; Betomasthaim

Betomesthaim; Betomasthaim - be-to-mes'-tha-im, be-to-mes'-tham the King James Version Betomestham, (Betomesthaim (Judith 4:6)): the King James Version Betomasthem (Baitornasthaim (Judith 15:4)): The place is said to have been "over against Jezreel, in the face of (i.e eastward of) the plain that is near Dothan" It can hardly be Deir Massin, which lies West of the plain. The district is clearly indicated, but no identification is yet possible.

Betonim

Betonim - bet'-o-nim, be-to'-nim (beTonim; Botanei or Botanin): A town East of the Jordan in the territory of Gad (Joshua 13:26). It may be identical with BaTneh, about 3 miles Southwest of es-SalT.

Betray

Betray - be-tra' (ramah; paradidomi): In the Old Testament only once (1 Chronicles 12:17). David warns those who had deserted to him from Saul: "If ye be come to betray me to mine adversaries .... the God of our fathers look thereon." The same Hebrew word is elsewhere translated "beguile" (Genesis 29:25; Joshua 9:22), "deceive" (1 Samuel 19:17; 28:12; 2 Samuel 19:26; Proverbs 26:19; Lamentations 1:19).

In the New Testament, for paradidomi: 36 times, of the betrayal of Jesus Christ, and only 3 times besides (Matthew 24:10; Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16) of kinsmen delivering up one another to prosecution. In these three places the Revised Version (British and American) translates according to the more general meaning, "to deliver up," and also (in Matthew 17:22; 20:18; 26:16; Mark 14:10, 21; Luke 22:4, 6) where it refers to the delivering up of Jesus. The Revisers' idea was perhaps to retain "betray" only in direct references to Judas' act, but they have not strictly followed that rule. Judas' act was more than that of giving a person up to the authorities; he did it under circumstances of treachery which modified its character: (a) he took advantage of his intimate relation with Jesus Christ as a disciple to put Him in the hands of His enemies; (b) he did it stealthily by night, and (c) by a kiss, an act which professed affection and friendliness; (d) he did it for money, and (e) he knew that Jesus Christ was innocent of any crime (Matthew 27:4).

T. Rees

Betrayers

Betrayers - be-tra'-ers (prodotai, "betrayers," "traitors"): Stephen charged the Jews with being betrayers of the Righteous One (Acts 7:52) i.e. as having made Judas' act their own; compare Luke 6:16: "Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor;" 2 Timothy 3:4, "traitors."

Betroth

Betroth - be-troth', be-troth' ('dras): On betrothal as a social custom see MARRIAGE. Hosea, in his great parable of the prodigal wife, surpassed only by a greater Teacher's parable of the Prodigal Son, uses betrothal as the symbol of Yahweh's pledge of His love and favor to penitent Israel (Hosea 2:19-20). In Exodus 21:8-9 the Revised Version (British and American) renders "espouse" for the "betroth" of the King James Version, the context implying the actual marriage relation.

Between the Testaments

Between the Testaments - I. THE PERIOD IN GENERAL

II. A GLANCE ALTES TESTAMENT CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORY

1. The Egyptian Empire

2. Greece

3. Rome

4. Asia

III. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS

1. The Persian Period

2. The Alexandrian Period

3. The Egyptian Period

4. The Syrian Period

5. The Maccabean Period

6. The Roman Period

IV. INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS PERIOD

1. Literary Activity

(a) The Apocrypha

(b) Pseudepigrapha

2. Spiritual Conditions

3. Parties

4. Preparation for Christianity

As the title indicates, the historical period in the life of Israel extends from the cessation of Old Testament prophecy to the beginning of the Christian era.

I. The Period in General. The Exile left its ineffaceable stamp on Judaism as well as on the Jews. Their return to the land of their fathers was marked by the last rays of the declining sun of prophecy. With Malachi it set. Modern historical criticism has projected some of the canonical books of the Bible far into this post-exilic period. Thus Kent (HJP, 1899), following the lead of the Wellhausen-Kuenen hypothesis, with all its later leaders, has charted the period between 600 BC, the date of the first captivity, to 160 BC, the beginning of the Hasmonean period of Jewish history, in comparative contemporaneous blocks of double decades. Following the path of Koster, the historical position of Ezra and Nehemiah is inverted, and the former is placed in the period 400-380 BC, contemporaneously with Artaxerxes II; Joel is assigned to the same period; portions of Isa (chapters 63 through 66; 24 through 27) are placed about 350 BC; Zec is assigned to the period 260-240, and Dan is shot way down the line into the re ign of the Seleucids, between 200 and 160 BC. Now all this is very striking and no doubt very critical, but the ground of this historical readjustment is wholly subjective, and has the weight only of a hypothetical conjecture. Whatever may be our attitude to the critical hypothesis of the late origin of some of the Old Testament literally, it seems improbable that any portion of it could have reached far into the post-exilic period. The interval between the Old and the New Testaments is the dark period in the hist ory of Israel. It stretches itself out over about four centuries, during which there was neither prophet nor inspired writer in Israel. All we know of it we owe to Josephus, to some of the apocryphal books, and to scattered references in Greek and Latin historians. The seat of empire passed over from the East to the West, from Asia to Europe. The Persian Empire collapsed, under the fierce attacks of the Macedonians, and the Greek Empire in turn gave way to the Roman rule.

II. A Glance at Contemporaneous History. For the better understanding of this period in the history of Israel, it may be well to pause for a moment to glance at the wider field of the history of the world in the centuries under contemplation, for the words "fullness of time" deal with the all-embracing history of mankind, for whose salvation Christ appeared, and whose every movement led to its realization.

1. The Egyptian Empire: In the four centuries preceding Christ, The Egyptian empire, the oldest and in many respects the most perfectly developed civilization of antiquity, was tottering to its ruins. The 29th or Mendesian Dynasty, made place, in 384 BC, for the 30th or Sebennitic Dynasty, which was swallowed up, half a century later, by the Persian Dynasty. The Macedonian or 32nd replaced this in 332 BC, only to give way, a decade later, to the last or 33rd, the Ptolemaic Dynasty. The whole history of Egypt in this period was therefore one of endless and swiftly succeeding changes. In the Ptolemaic Dynasty there was a faint revival of the old glory of the past, but the star of empire had set for Egypt, and the mailed hand of Rome finally smote down a civilization whose beginnings are lost in the dim twilight of history. The Caesarian conquest of 47 BC was followed, 17 years later, by the annexation of Egypt to the new world-power, as a Roman province. Manetho's history is the one great literary monument of Egyptian history in this period. Her priests had been famous for their wisdom, to which Lycurgus and Solon, the Greek legislators, had been attracted, as well as Pythagoras and Plato, the world's greatest philosophers.

2. Greece: In Greece also the old glory was passing away. Endless wars sapped the strength of the national life. The strength of Athens and Sparta, of Corinth and Thebes had departed, and when about the beginning of our period, in 337 BC, the congress of Greek states had elected Philip of Macedon to the hegemony of united Greece, the knell of doom sounded for all Greek liberty. First Philip and after him Alexander wiped out the last remnants of this liberty, and Greece became a fighting machine for the conquest of the world in the meteoric career of Alexander the Great. But what a galaxy of illustrious names adorn the pages of Greek history, in this period, so dark for Israel! Think of Aristophanes and Hippocrates, of Xenophon and Democritus, of Plato and Apelies, of Aeschines and Demosthenes, of Aristotle and Praxiteles and Archimedes, all figuring, amid the decay of Greek liberty, in the 4th and 3rd centuries before Christ! Surely if the political glory of Greece had left its mark on the ages, its intellectual brilliancy is their pride.

3. Rome: Rome meanwhile was strengthening herself, by interminable wars, for the great task of world-conquest that lay before her. By the Latin and Samnite and Punic wars she trained her sons in the art of war, extended her territorial power and made her name dreaded everywhere. Italy and north Africa, Greece and Asia Minor and the northern barbarians were conquered in turn. Her intellectual brilliancy was developed only when the lust of conquest was sated after a fashion, but in the century immediately preceding the Christian era we find such names as Lucretius and Hortentius, Cato and Cicero, Sallust and Diodorus Siculus, Virgil and Horace. At the close of the period between the Testaments, Rome had become the mistress of the world and every road led to her capital.

4. Asia: In Asia the Persian empire, heir to the civilization and traditions of the great Assyrian-Babylonian world-power, was fast collapsing and was ultimately utterly wiped out by the younger Greek empire and civilization. In far-away India the old ethnic religion of Brahma a century or more before the beginning of our period passed through the reformatory crisis inaugurated by Gatama Buddha or Sakya Mouni, and thus Buddhism, one of the great ethnic religions, was born. Another reformer of the Tauistic faith was Confucius, the sage of China, a contemporary of Buddha, while Zoroaster in Persia laid the foundations of his dualistic world-view. In every sense and in every direction, the period between the Testaments was therefore one of political and intellectual ferment.

III. Historical Developments. As regards Jewish history, the period between the Testaments may be divided as follows: (1) the Persian period; (2) the Alexandrian period; (3) the Egyptian period; (4) the Syrian period; (5) the Maccabean period; (6) the Roman period.

1. The Persian Period: The Persian period extends from the cessation of prophecy to 334 BC. It was in the main uneventful in the history of the Jews, a breathing spell between great national crises, and comparatively little is known of it. The land of Palestine was a portion of the Syrian satrapy, while the true government of the Jewish people was semi-theocratic, or rather sacerdotal, under the rule of the high priests, who were responsible to the satrap. As a matter of course, the high-priestly office became the object of all Jewish ambition and it aroused the darkest passions. Thus John, the son of Judas, son of Eliashib, through the lust of power, killed his brother Jesus, who was a favorite of Bagoses, a general of Artaxerxes in command of the district. The guilt of the fratricide was enhanced, because the crime was committed in the temple itself, and before the very altar. A storm of wrath, the only notable one of this period, thereupon swept over Judea. The Persians occupied Jerusalem, the temple was defiled, the city laid waste in part, a heavy fine was imposed on the people and a general persecution followed, which lasted for many years (Ant., XI, 7; Kent, HJP, 231). Then as later on, in the many persecutions which followed, the Samaritans, ever pliable and willing to obey the tyrant of the day, went practically scot free.

2. The Alexandrian Period: The Alexandrian period was very brief, 334-323 BC. It simply covers the period of the Asiatic rule of Alexander the Great. In Greece things had been moving swiftly. The Spartan hegemony, which had been unbroken since the fall of Athens, was now destroyed by the Thebans under Epaminondas, in the great battles of Leuctra and Mantinea. But the new power was soon crushed by Philip of Macedon, who was thereupon chosen general leader by the unwilling Greeks. Persia was the object of Philip's ambition and vengeance, but the dagger of Pausanias (Ant., XI, viii, 1) forestalled the execution of his plans. His son Alexander, a youth of 20 years, succeeded him, and thus the "great he-goat," of which Daniel had spoken (Daniel 8:8; 10:20), appeared on the scene. In the twelve years of his reign (335-323 BC) he revolutionized the world. Swift as an eagle he moved. All Greece was laid at his feet. Thence he moved to Asia, where he defeated Darius in the memorable battles of Granicus and Issus. Passing southward, he conquered the Mediterranean coast and Egypt and then moved eastward again, for the complete subjugation of Asia, when he was struck down in the height of his power, at Babylon, in the 33rd year of his age. In the Syrian campaign he had come in contact with the Jews. Unwilling to leave any stronghold at his back, he reduced Tyre after a siege of several months, and advancing southward demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. But the Jews, taught by bitter experience, desired to remain loyal to Persia. As Alexander approached the city, Jaddua the high priest, with a train of priests in their official dress, went out to meet him, to supplicate mercy. A previous dream of this occurrence is said to have foreshadowed this event, and Alexander spared the city, sacrificed to Yahweh, had the prophecies of Daniel concerning him rehearsed in his hearing, and showed the Jews many favors (Ant., XI, viii, 5) From that day on they became his favorites; he employed them in his army and gave them equal rights w ith the Greeks, as first citizens of Alexandria, and other cities, which he founded. Thus the strong Hellenistic spirit of the Jews was created, which marked so large a portion of the nation, in the subsequent periods of their history.

3. The Egyptian Period: The Egyptian period (324-264 BC). The death of Alexander temporarily turned everything into chaos. The empire, welded together by his towering genius, fell apart under four of his generals--Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Selenus (Daniel 8:21-22). Egypt fell to the share of Ptolemy Soter and Judea was made part of it. At first Ptolemy was harsh in his treatment of the Jews, but later on he learned to respect them and became their patron as Alexander had been. Hecataeus of Thrace is at this time said to have studied the Jews, through information received from Hezekiah, an Egyptian Jewish immigrant, and to have written a Jewish history from the time of Abraham till his own day. This book, quoted by Josephus and Origen, is totally lost. Soter was succeeded by Ptolemy Philadelphus, an enlightened ruler, famous through the erection of the lighthouse of Pharos, and especially through the founding of the celebrated Alexandrian library. Like his father he was very friendly to the Jews, and in his reign the celebrated Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Septuagint, was made, according to tradition (Ant.,. XII, ii). As however the power of the Syrian princes, the Seleucids, grew, Palestine increasingly became the battle ground between them and the Ptolemies. In the decisive battle between Ptolemy Philopator and Antiochus the Great, at Raphia near Gaza, the latter was crushed and during Philopator's reign Judea remained an Egyptian province. And yet this battle formed the turning-point of the history of the Jews in their relation to Egypt. For when Ptolemy, drunk with victory, came to Jerusalem, he endeavored to enter the holy of holies of the temple, although he retreated, in confusion, from the holy place. But he wreaked his vengeance on the Jews, for opposing his plan, by a cruel persecution. He was succeeded by his son Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child of 5 years. The long-planned vengeance of Antiochus now took form in an invasion of Egypt. Coele-Syria and Judea were occupied by the Syrians and passed over into th e possession of the Seleucids.

4. The Syrian Period: The Syrian period (204-165 BC). Israel now entered into the valley of the shadow of death. This entire period was an almost uninterrupted martyrdom. Antiochus was succeeded by Seleucis Philopator. But harsh as was their attitude to the Jews, neither of these two was notorious for his cruelty to them. Their high priests, as in former periods, were still their nominal rulers. But the aspect of everything changed when Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC) came to the throne. He may fitly be called the Nero of Jewish history. The nationalists among the Jews were at that time wrangling with the Hellenists for the control of affairs. Onias III, a faithful high priest, was expelled from office through the machinations of his brother Jesus or Jason (2 Maccabees 4:7-10). Onias went to Egypt, where at Heliopolis he built a temple and officiated as high priest. Meanwhile Jason in turn was turned out of the holy office by the bribes of still another brother, Menelaus, worse by far than Jason, a Jew-hater and an avowed defender of Greek life and morals. The wrangle between the brothers gave Antiochus the opportunity he craved to wreak his bitter hatred on the Jews, in the spoliation of Jerusalem, in the wanton and total defilement of the temple, and in a most horrible persecution of the Jews (1 Maccabees 1:16-28; 2 Maccabees 5:11-23; Daniel 11:28; Ant, XII, v, 3.4). Thousands were slain, women and children were sold into captivity, the city wall was torn down, all sacrifices ceased, and in the temple on the altar of burnt off ering a statue was erected to Jupiter Olympius (1 Maccabees 1:43; 2 Maccabees 6:1-2). Circumcision was forbidden, on pain of death, and all the people of Israel were to be forcibly paganized. As in the Persian persecution, the Samaritans again played into the hands of the Syrians and implicitly obeyed the will of the Seleucids. But the very rigor of the persecution caused it to fail of its purpose and Israel proved to be made of sterner stuff than Antiochus imagined. A priestly family dwelling at Modin, west of Jerusalem , named Hasmonean, after one of its ancestors, consisting of Mattathias and his five sons, raised the standard of revolt, which proved successful after a severe struggle.

See ASMONEANS.

5. The Maccabean Period: The Maccabean period (165-63 BC). The slaying of an idolatrous Jew at the very altar was the signal of revolt. The land of Judea is specially adapted to guerilla tactics, and Judas Maccabeus, who succeeded his father, as leader of the Jewish patriots, Was a past master in this kind of warfare. All efforts of Antiochus to quell the rebellion failed most miserably, in three Syrian campaigns. The king died of a loathsome disease and peace was at last concluded with the Jews. Though still nominally under Syrian control, Judas became governor of Palestine. His first act was the purification and rededication of the temple, from which the Jews date their festival of purification (see PURIFICATION). When the Syrians renewed the war, Judas applied for aid to the Romans, whose power began to be felt in Asia, but he died in battle before the promised aid could reach him (Ant., XII, xi, 2). He was buried by his father's side at Modin and was succeeded by his brother Jonathan. From that time the Maccabean history becomes one of endless cabals. Jonathan was acknowledged by the Syrians as meridarch of Judea, but was assassinated soon afterward. Simon succeeded him, and by the help of the Romans was made hereditary ruler of Palestine. He in turn was followed by John Hyrcanus. The people were torn by bitter partisan controversies and a civil war was waged, a generation later, by two grandsons of John Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. In this internecine struggle the Roman general Pompey participated by siding with Hyrcanus, while Aristobulus defied Rome and defended Jerusalem. Pompey took the city, after a siege of three months, and entered the holy of holies, thereby forever estranging from Rome every loyal Jewish heart.

6. The Roman Period: The Roman period (63-4 BC). Judea now became a Roman province. Hyrcanus, stripped of the hereditary royal power, retained only the high-priestly office. Rome exacted an annual tribute, and Aristobulus was sent as a captive to the capital. He contrived however to escape and renewed the unequal struggle, in which he was succeeded by his sons Alexander and Antigonus. In the war between Pompey and Caesar, Judea was temporarily forgotten, but after Caesar's death, under the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, Antony, the eastern triumvir, favored Herod the Great, whose intrigues secured for him at last the crown of Judea and enabled him completely to extinguish the old Maccabean line of Judean princes.

IV. Internal Developments in This Period. One thing remains, and that is a review of the developments within the bosom of Judaism itself in the period under consideration. It is self-evident that the core of the Jewish people, which remained loyal to the national traditions and to the national faith, must have been radically affected by the terrible cataclysms which mark their history, during the four centuries before Christ. What, if any, was the literary activity of the Jews in this period? What was their spiritual condition? What was the result of the manifest difference of opinion within the Jewish economy? What preparation does this period afford for the "fullness of time"? These and other questions present themselves, as we study this period of the history of the Jews.

1. Literary Activity: The voice of prophecy was utterly hushed in this period, but the old literary instinct of the nation asserted itself; it was part and parcel of the Jewish traditions and would not be denied. Thus in this period many writings were produced, which although they lack canonical authority, among Protestants at least, still are extremely helpful for a correct understanding of the life of Israel in the dark ages before Christ.

(a) The Apocrypha. First of all among the fruits of this literary activity stand the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. It is enough here to mention them. They are fourteen in number: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 2 Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. As 3 and 4 Maccabees fall presumably within the Christian era, they are not here enumerated. All these apocryphal writings are of the utmost importance for a correct understanding of the Jewish problem in the day in which they were written. For fuller information, see APOCRYPHA.

(b) Pseudepigrapha. Thus named from the spurious character of the authors' names they bear. Two of these writings very probably belong to our period, while a host of them evidently belong to a later date. In this class of writings there is a mute confession of the conscious poverty of the day. First of all, we have the Psalter of Solomon, originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek--a collection of songs for worship, touching in their spirit, and evincing the fact that true faith never died in the heart of the true believer. The second is the Book of Enoch, a production of an apocalyptic nature, named after Enoch the patriarch, and widely known about the beginning of the Christian era. This book is quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1:14). It was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek as there is no trace of a Christian influence in the book, the presumption is that the greater part of it was written at an earlier period. Both Jude and the author of Revelation must have known it, as a comparative study of both books will show. The question of these quotations or allusions is a veritable crux interpretum: how to reconcile the inspiration of these books with these quotations?

(c) The Septuagint. The tradition of the Septuagint is told by Josephus (Ant., XII, ii, 13). Aristeas and Aristobulus, a Jewish priest in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (2 Maccabees 1:10), are also quoted in support of it by Clement of Alexandria and by Eusebius. See SEPTUAGINT. The truth of the matter is most probably that this great translation of the Old Testament Scriptures was begun at the instance of Ptolemy Philadelphus 285-247 BC, under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, and was completed somewhere about the middle of the 2nd century BC. Internal evidence abounds that the translation was made by different hands and at different times. If the translation was in any way literal, the text of the Septuagint raises various interesting questions in regard to the Hebrew text that was used in the translation, as compared with the one we now possess. The Septuagint was of the utmost missionary value and contributed perhaps more than any other thing to prepare the world for the "fullness of time."

2. Spiritual Conditions: The return from Babylon marked a turning point in the spiritual history of the Jews. From that time onward, the lust of idolatry, which had marked their whole previous history, utterly disappears. In the place of it came an almost intolerable spirit of exclusiveness, a striving after legal holiness, these two in combination forming the very heart and core of the later Pharisaism. The holy books, but especially the law, became an object of almost idolatrous reverence; the spirit was utterly lost in the form. And as their own tongue, the classic Hebrew, gradually gave way to the common Aramaic, the rabbis and their schools strove ever more earnestly to keep the ancient tongue pure, worship and life each demanding a separate language. Thus, the Jews became in a sense bilingual, the Hebrew tongue being used in their synagogues, the Aramaic in their daily life, and later on, in part at least, the Greek tongue of the conqueror, the lingua franca of the period. A spiritual aristocracy very largely replaced the former rule of their princes and nobles. As the core of their religion died, the bark of the tree flourished. Thus, tithes were zealously paid by the believer (compare Matthew 23:23), the Sabbath became a positive burden of sanctity, the simple laws of God were replaced by cumbersome human inventions, which in later times were to form the bulk of the Talmud, and which crushed down all spiritual liberty in the days of Christ (Matthew 11:28; 4, 23). The substitution of the names "Elohim" and "Adonai" for the old glorious historic name "Yahweh" is an eloquent commentary on all that has been said before and on the spiritual condition of Israel in this period (Ewald, History of Israel, V, 198), in which the change was inaugurated. The old centripetal force, the old ideal of centralization, gave way to an almost haughty indifference to the land of promise. The Jews became, as they are today, a nation without a country. For, for every Jew that came back to the old national home, a thousand remained in the land of their adopti on. And yet scattered far and wide, in all sorts of environments, they remained Jews, and the national consciousness was never extinguished. It was God's mark on them now as then. And thus they became world-wide missionaries of the knowledge of the true God, of a gospel of hope for a world that was hopeless, a gospel which wholly against their own will directed the eyes of the world to the fullness of time and which prepared the fallow soil of human hearts for the rapid spread of Christianity when it ultimately appeared.

3. Parties: During the Greek period the more conservative and zealous of the Jews were all the time confronted with a tendency of a very considerable portion of the people, especially the younger and wealthier set, to adopt the manners of life and thought and speech of their masters, the Greeks. Thus the Hellenistic party was born, which was bitterly hated by all true blooded Jews, but which left its mark on their history, till the date of the final dispersion 70 AD. From the day of Mattathias, the Chasids or Haside ans (1 Maccabees 2:42) were the true Jewish patriots. Thus the party of the Pharisees came into existence (Ant., XIII, x, 5; XVIII, i, 2; BJ, I, v, 2). See PHARISEES. They were opposed by the more secular-minded Sadducees (Ant., XIII, x, 6; XVIII, i, 3; BJ, II, viii, 14), wealthy, of fine social standing, wholly free from the restraints of tradition, utterly oblivious of the future life and closely akin to the Greek Epicureans. See SADDUCEES. These parties bitterly opposed each other till the very end of the national existence of the Jews in Palestine, and incessantly fought for the mastery, through the high-priestly office. Common hatred for Christ, for a while, afforded them a community of interests.

4. Preparation for Christianity: Throughout this entire dark period of Israel's history, God was working out His own Divine plan with them. Their Scriptures were translated into Greek, after the conquest of Alexander the Great the common language in the East. Thus the world was prepared for the word of God, even as the latter in turn prepared the world for the reception of the gift of God, in the gospel of His Son. The Septuagint thus is a distinct forward movement in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 12:3; 18:18). As the sacrificial part of Jewish worship declined, through their wide separation from the temple, the eyes of Israel were more firmly fixed on their Scriptures, read every Sabbath in their synagogues, and, as we have seen, these Scriptures, through the rendering of the Septuagint, had become the property of the entire world. Thus, the synagogue everywhere became the great missionary institute, imparting to the world Israel's exalted Messianic hopes. On the other hand, the Jews themselves, embittered by long-continued martyrdoms and suffering, utterly carnalized this Messianic expectation in an increasing ratio as the yoke of the oppressor grew heavier and the hope of deliverance grew fainter. And thus when their Messiah came, Israel recognized Him not, while the heart-hungry heathen, who through the Septuagint had become familiar with the promise, humbly received Him (John 1:9-14). The eyes of Israel were blinded for a season, `till the fullness of the Gentiles shall be gathered in' (Romans 9:32; 11:25).

Henry E. Dosker

Beulah

Beulah - bu'-la (be`ulah "married"): A name symbolically applied to Israel: "Thy land (shall be called) Beulah .... thy land shall be married. .... so shall thy sons marry thee" (Isaiah 62:4 f). In this figure, frequently used since Hosea, the prophet wishes to express the future prosperity of Israel. The land once desolate shall again be populated.

Bewail

Bewail - be-wal' (kopto): In the middle voice, this word has the thought of striking on the breast and of loud lamentation, so common among oriental people in time of great sorrow. It is used to express the most intense grief, a sorrow that compels outward demonstration (Luke 8:52; 23:27). A striking instance of this grief is that of the daughter of Jephthah (Judges 11:37; Leviticus 10:6).

See BURIAL,IV , 4, 5, 6; GRIEF.

Bewitch

Bewitch - be-wich' (existemi): There are two Greek words in the New Testament translated "bewitch." The one given above (Acts 8:9, 21 the King James Version "bewitched," the Revised Version (British and American) "amazed") has reference to the work of Simon Magus. It means "to be out of one's mind," "to astonish," "to overwhelm with wonder." The other word, baskaino (Galatians 3:1), means "to fascinate by false representation." It is by this means the apostle complains they have been led to accept a teaching wholly contrary to the gospel of Christ. Both these words reveal to us something of the difficulty the early teachers had to eradicate the idea so widely held by the Jews and Egyptians especially, that there were certain powers, dark and mysterious, which by certain occult forces they could control. For a long time this had to be contended with as one of the corrupt practices brought into the church by the converts, both from Judaism and heathenism. These words have a reference to the evil eye which for centuries was, and even today is, an important factor in the life of the people of the East. 1 Timothy 6:20 is a reference to this thought and explains the word "science" (the King James Version) as there used.

See DIVINATION; EVIL EYE;SORCERY ; SUPERSTITION.

Jacob W. Kapp

Bewray; Bewrayer

Bewray; Bewrayer - be-ra', be-ra'-er: In its derivation is entirely different from betray (Latin, tradere), and meant originally "to disclose," "reveal" (compare Shakspere, Titus Andronicus,II , iv, 3: "Write down thy mind, bewray thy meaning so"); but has been affected by the former word and is used almost synonymously. It is the translation of three Hebrew words: (1) qara', meaning "to call out" (Proverbs 27:16), "the ointment of his right hand which bewrayeth itself" (the American Standard Revised Version "his right hand encountereth oil," the American Revised Version, margin "the oil of his right hand betrayeth itself"); (2) naghadh meaning "to front," "to announce" (by word of mouth): Proverbs 29:24, "heareth cursing and bewrayeth it not" (the American Standard Revised Version "heareth the adjuration and uttereth nothing"); (3) galah, "to denude," figuratively, "to reveal" (Isaiah 16:3), "bewray not him that wandereth" (the American Standard Revised Version "betray not the fugitive").

In Sirach 27:17 "bewray (the Revised Version (British and American) "reveal") his secrets" is the translation of apokalupto, literally "to uncover"; so also in Sirach 27:21 (the Revised Version (British and American) "revealeth"). Bewrayer of 2 Maccabees 4:1 ("bewrayer of. the money and of his country," the Revised Version (British and American) "had given information of the money and had betrayed his country") is the translation of endeiktes, literally, "one who shows."

In the New Testament "bewrayeth" is the King James Version of Matthew 26:73; "thy speech bewrayeth thee" is the translation of the phrase delon poiein, which the American Standard Revised Version renders "maketh thee known."

Arthur J. Kinsella

Beyond

Beyond - be-yond': Found in the Hebrew only in its application to space and time, and for these ideas three words are employed: hale'ah (Genesis 35:21) = "to the distance"; `abhar = "to go beyond" "to cross" derivative `ebher (Chald. `abhar) = "across," "beyond" (Deuteronomy 30:13; Joshua 18:7; Judges 3:26; 1 Samuel 20:36; 2 Chronicles 20:2; Ezra 4:17, 20; Jeremiah 25:22); and `al (Leviticus 15:25) = "beyond the time." In the New Testament peran, is used to express "beyond" in the spatial sense (Matthew 4:15), while other words and phrases are employed for adverbial ideas of degree: huperperissos (Mark 7:37); huper (2 Corinthians 8:3; 10:16); kathuperbolen (Galatians 1:13). In the King James Version be`eher, is occasionally translated "beyond," and when this word is joined to ha-yarden, "Jordan," as it usually is, it becomes critically important. In the American Standard Revised Version, be`ebher ha-yarden is translated "beyond the Jordan," in Genesis 50:10, 21; Deuteronomy 3:20, 25; Joshua 9:10; Judges 5:17; "on this side Jordan" in Deuteronomy 1:1, 5; Joshua 1:14, 18; "on the othe r side Jordan" in Deuteronomy 11:30; Joshua 12:1; 22:4; 2, 8 (compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), Joshua 24:14, 25; see RIVER, THE), Judges 10:8; 1 Samuel 31:7; and "on the side of Jordan" in Joshua 5:1. the American Standard Revised Version gives "beyond the Jordan" throughout. me`ebher, is used with ha-yarden in Numbers 34:15; 35:14; Joshua 13:32; Judges 7:25; and `ebher, alone in Deuteronomy 4:49 (the King James Version "on this side"); Joshua 13:27 (the King James Version "on the other side"). It is clear that the phrase may be translate d "across Jordan"; that it is used of either side of the Jordan (Deuteronomy 3:8 speaks of the eastern, Deuteronomy 3:20, 25 of the western); that "beyond Jordan" may be used of the side of the Jordan on which the writer stands (Joshua 5:1; 9:1; 12:7); but from the fact that Deuteronomy 1:1, 5; Deuteronomy 4:41, 46-47, 49, where statements are made about Moses, the reference is to the country East of the Jordan, while in Deuteronomy 3:20, 25; 11:30, where Moses is represented as speaking, the West is indicated, critics have concluded that the author (at least of Deuteronomy) must have lived after Moses, being careful to distinguish between himself and the prophet.

Frank E. Hirsch

Bezaanannim

Bezaanannim - be-za-an-an'-im (Joshua 19:33 the Revised Version, margin).

See ZAANANNIM.

Bezai

Bezai - be'-za-i (betsay, "shining"(?)):

(1) A chief who with Nehemiah sealed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:18).

(2) The descendants of Bezai returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (323, Ezra 2:17; (324), Nehemiah 7:23 = Bassai, 1 Esdras 5:16).

Bezalel

Bezalel - bez'-a-lel (betsal'el, "in the shadow (protection) of 'El (God)"; Beseleel; the King James Version Bezaleel):

(1) A master workman under Moses; son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. Yahweh gave him especial wisdom and skill for his task, which was, with the aid of Oholiab of the tribe of Dan, to superintend the making of the tabernacle and its furniture (Exodus 31:2; 35:30; Exodus 36:1-2 (8); 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chronicles 2:20; 2 Chronicles 1:5).

(2) An Israelite of the time of Ezra who put away a foreign wife (Ezra 10:30).

F. K. Farr

Bezek

Bezek - be'-zek (bezeq; Bezek, Codex Vaticanus, Abiezek):

(1) The city of Adoni-bezek taken by Judah and Simeon (Judges 1:4 f), in the territory allotted to Judah. It is somewhat doubtfully identified with Bezqah, about 3 miles Northeast of Gezer.

(2) The place where Saul marshaled his army before marching to the relief of Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 11:8). Eusebius, Onomasticon speaks of two villages of this name 17 Roman miles from Shechem, on the way to Scythopolis. No doubt Khirbet Ibziq is intended. Here, or on the neighboring height, Ras Ibziq, a mountain 2,404 ft. above sea level, the army probably assembled.

W. Ewing

Bezer

Bezer - be'-zer (betser; Bosor, "strong"):

(1) A city of refuge, set apart by Moses for the Reubenites and located in the "plain country" (or table-land, Mishor) East of the Jordan, later assigned to this tribe by Joshua (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8). The same city was assigned by lot as place of residence to the children of Merari of the Levite tribe (Joshua 21:36; 1 Chronicles 6:63, 78). Driver, HDB, suggests the identity of Bezer with Bozrah (Septuagint, Bosor) (Jeremiah 48:24). Besheir has been suggested as the present site. According to the manuscript it was forti fied by Mesha.

(2) A son of Zophah of the house of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:37).

A. L. Breslich

Bezeth

Bezeth - be'-zeth (Bezeth): A place in the neighborhood of Jerusalem to which Bacchides withdrew and where he slew several deserters (1 Maccabees 7:19). Possibly the same as Bezetha (see JERUSALEM).

Bezetha

Bezetha - be-ze'-tha: Also called by Josephus the "New City" (BJ, V, iv, 2), certain suburbs of Jerusalem, North of the Temple, which were outside the second but included within the third wall. BEZETH (which see) may be the same place.

See JERUSALEM.

Biatas

Biatas - bi'-a-tas (Phalias; Codex Alexandrinus, Phiathas): the Revised Version (British and American) "Phalias," one of the Levites (1 Esdras 9:48) who "taught (the people) the law of the Lord, making them withal to understand it." Called Pelaiah in Nehemiah 8:7.

Bible, The, I-III Introduction

Bible, The, I-III Introduction - bi'-b'-l, (biblia):

I. THE NAMES

1. Bible

2. Other Designations--Scriptures, etc.

3. Old Testament and New Testament

II. LANGUAGES

III. COMPASS AND DIVISIONS

1. The Jewish Bible

Josephus, etc.

2. The Septuagint

The Apocrypha

3. The Vulgate (Old Testament)

4. The New Testament

(1) Acknowledged Books

(2) Disputed Books

IV. LITERARY GROWTH AND ORIGIN--CANONICITY

1. The Old Testament

(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself

(a) Patriarchal Age

(b) Mosaic Age

(d) Monarchy

(e) Wisdom Literature--History

(f) Prophecy

(aa) Assyrian Age

(bb) Chaldean Age

(g) Josiah's Reformation

(h) Exilian and Post-Exilian

(i) Daniel, etc.

(j) Pre-exilic Bible

(2) Critical Views

(a) The Pentateuch

(b) Histories

(3) Formation of Canon

(a) Critical Theory

(b) More Positive View

2. The New Testament

(1) Historical Books

(a) The Synoptics

(b) Fourth Gospel

(2) The Epistles

(a) Pauline

(b) Epistle to Hebrews

(3) Prophecy

Book of Revelation

(4) New Testament Canon

V. UNITY AND SPIRITUAL PURPOSE--INSPIRATION

1. Scripture a Unity

2. The Purpose of Grace

3. Inspiration

4. Historical Influence

VI. ADDENDA

1. Chapters and Verses

2. The King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)

3. Helps to Study

LITERATURE

General Designation:

This word designates the collection of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament recognized and in use in the Christian churches. Different religions (such as the Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan) have their collections of sacred writings, sometimes spoken of as their "Bibles." The Jews acknowledge only the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Christians add the writings contained in the New Testament. The present article deals with the origin, character, contents and purpose of the Christian Scriptures, regarded as the depository and authoritative record of God's revelations of Himself and of His will to the fathers by the prophets, and through His Son to the church of a later age (Hebrews 1:1-2). Reference is made throughout to the articles in which the several topics are more fully treated.

I. The Names. 1. Bible: The word "Bible" is the equivalent of the Greek word biblia (diminutive from biblos, the inner bark of the papyrus), meaning originally "books." The phrase "the books" (ta biblia) occurs in Daniel 9:2 (Septuagint) for prophetic writings. In the Prologue to Sirach ("the rest of the books") it designates generally the Old Testament Scriptures; similarly in 1 Maccabees 12:9 ("the holy books"). The usage passed into the Christian church for Old Testament (2 Clem 14:2), and by and by (circa 5th century) was extended to the whole Scriptures. Jerome's name for the Bible (4th century) was "the Divine Library" (Bibliotheca Divina). Afterward came an important change from plural to singular meaning. "In process of time this name, with many others of Greek origin, passed into the vocabulary of the western church; and in the 13th century, by a happy solecism, the neuter plural came to be regarded as a feminine singular, and `The Books' became by common consent `The Book' (biblia, singular), in which form the word was passed into the languages of modern Europe" (Westcott, Bible in the Church, 5). Its earliest occurrences in English are in Piers Plowman, Chaucer and Wycliffe.

2. Other Designations--Scriptures, etc.:

There is naturally no name in the New Testament for the complete body of Scripture; the only Scriptures then known being those of the Old Testament. In 2 Peter 3:16, however, Paul's epistles seem brought under this category. The common designations for the Old Testament books by our Lord and His apostles were "the scriptures" (writings) (Matthew 21:42; Mark 14:49; Luke 24:32; John 5:39; Acts 18:24; Romans 15:4, etc.), "the holy, scriptures" (Romans 1:2); once "the sacred writings" (2 Timothy 3:15). The Jewish technical division (see below) into "the law," the "prophets," and the "(holy) writings" is recognized in the expression "in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44). More briefly the whole is summed up under "the law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:17;, Matthew 11:13; Acts 13:15). Occasionally even the term "law" is extended to include the other divisions (John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1 Corinthians 14:21). Paul uses the phrase "the oracles of God" as a name for the Old Testament Scriptures (Romans 3:2; compare Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11).

3. Old Testament and New Testament: Special interest attaches to the names "Old" and "New Testament," now and since the close of the 2nd century in common use to distinguish the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. "Testament" (literally "a will") is used in the New Testament (the King James Version) to represent the Greek word diatheke, in classical usage also "a will," but in the Septuagint and New Testament employed to translate the Hebrew word berith, "a covenant." In the Revised Version (British and American), accordingly, "testament" is, with two exceptions (Hebrews 9:16, 27), changed to "covenant" (Matthew 26:28; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:15; Hebrews 7:22; 9:15, etc.). Applied to the Scriptures, therefore, "Old" and "New Testament" mean, strictly, "Old" and "New Covenant," though the older usage is now too firmly fixed to be altered. The name is a continuation of the Old Testament designation for the law, "the book of the covenant" (2 Kings 23:2). In this sense Paul applies it (2 Corinthians 3:14) to the Old Testament law; "the reading of the old testament" (the Revised Version (British and American) "Covenant"). When, after the middle of the 2nd century, a def inite collection began to be made of the Christian writings, these were named "the New Testament," and were placed as of equal authority alongside the "Old." The name Novum Testamentum (also Instrumentum ) occurs first in Tertullian (190-220 AD), and soon came into general use. The idea of a Christian Bible may be then said to be complete.

II. Languages. The Old Testament, it is well known, is written mostly in Hebrew; the New Testament is written wholly in Greek, the parts of the Old Testament not in Hebrew, namely, Ezra 4:8 through Ezra 6:18; Ezra 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4 through Daniel 7:28, are in Aramaic (the so-called Chaldee), a related dialect, which, after the Exile, gradually displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews (see ARAMAIC; LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). The ancient Hebrew text was "unpointed," i.e. without the vowel-marks now in use. These are due to the labors of the Massoretic scholars (after 6th century AD).

The Greek of the New Testament, on which so much light has recently been thrown by the labors of Deissmann and others from the Egyptian papyri, showing it to be a form of the "common" (Hellenistic) speech of the time (see LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT), still remains, from its penetration by Hebrew ideas, the influence of the Septuagint, peculiarities of training and culture in the writers, above all, the vitalizing and transforming power of Christian conceptions in vocabulary and expression, a study by itself. "We speak," the apostle says, "not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2:13). This is not always remembered in the search for parallels in the papyri. (For translations into other languages, see VERSIONS.)

III. Compass and Divisions. The story of the origin, collection, and final stamping with canonical authority of the books which compose our present Bible involves many points still keenly in dispute. Before touching on these debatable matters, certain more external facts fall to be noticed relating to the general structure and compass of the Bible, and the main divisions of its contents.

1. Jewish Bible

Josephus, etc.:

A first step is to ascertain the character and contents of the Jewish Bible--the Bible in use by Christ and His apostles. Apart from references in the New Testament itself, an important aid is here afforded by a passage in Josephus (Apion, I, 8), which may be taken to represent the current belief of the Jews in the 1st century AD. After speaking of the prophets as writing their histories "through the inspiration of God," Josephus says: "For we have not myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but 22 only, comprising the record of all time, and justly accredited as Divine. Of these, 5 are books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the traditions of mankind until his own death, a period of almost 3,000 years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who followed Moses narrated the events of their time in 13 books. The remaining 4 books consist of hymns to God, and maxims of conduct for men. From Artaxerxes to our own age, the history has been written in detail, but it is not esteemed worthy of the same credit, on account of the exact succession of the prophets having been no longer maintained." He goes on to declare that, in this long interval, "no one has dared either to add anything to (the writings), or to take anything from them, or to alter anything," and speaks of them as "the decrees (dogmata) of God," for which the Jews would willingly die. Philo (20 BC-circa 50 AD) uses similar strong language about the law of Moses (in Eusebius, Pr. Ev., VIII, 6).

In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish sacred books--39 in our Bible--are reckoned as 22 (after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), namely, 5 of the law, 13 of the prophets and 4 remaining books. These last are Ps, Prov, Song and Eccl. The middle class includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the reduction in the number from 30 to 13 is explained by Jgs-Ruth, 1 and 2 S, 1 and 2 K, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezr-Neh, Jer-Lam and the 12 minor prophets, each being counted as one book. In his 22 books, therefore, Josephus includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides--not the books known as the APOCRYPHA, though he was acquainted with and used some of these.

Other Lists and Divisions.

The statement of Josephus as to the 22 books acknowledged by the Jews is confirmed, with some variation of enumeration, by the lists preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, vi.26) from Melito of Sardis (circa 172 AD) and Origen (186-254 AD), and by Jerome (Pref to Old Testament, circa 400)--all following Jewish authorities. Jerome knew also of a rabbinical division into 24 books. The celebrated passage from the Talmud (Babha' Bathra', 14b: see CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT; compare Westcott, Bible in Church, 35; Driver, LOT, vi) counts also 24. This number is obtained by separating Ruth from Judges and Lamentations from Jeremiah. The threefold division of the books, into Law, Prophets, and other sacred Writings (Hagiographa), is old. It is already implied in the Prologue to Sirach (circa 130 BC), "the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books"; is glanced at in a work ascribed to Philo (De vita contempl., 3); is indicated, as formerly seen, in Luke 24:44. It really reflects stages in the formation of the Hebrew canon (see below). The rabbinical division, however, differed materially from that of Josephus in reckoning only 8 books of the prophets, and relegating 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezr-Neh, Esther, Job and Dan to the Hagiographa, thus enlarging that group to 9 (Westcott, op. cit., 28; DB, I, "Canon"). When Ruth and Lam were separated, they were added to the list, raising the number to 11. Some, however, take this to be the original arrangement. In printed Hebrew Bibles the books in all the divisions are separate. The Jewish schools further divided the "Prophets" into "the former prophets" (the historical books--Josh, Jgs, Sam and Ki), and "the latter prophets" (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets as one book).

New Testament References.

It may be concluded that the above lists, excluding the Apocrypha, represent the Hebrew Bible as it existed in the time of our Lord (the opinion, held by some, that the Sadducees received only the 5 books of the law rests on no sufficient evidence). This result is borne out by the evidence of quotations in Josephus and Philo (compare Westcott, op. cit.). Still more is it confirmed by an examination of Old Testament quotations and references in the New Testament. It was seen above that the main divisions of the Old Testament are recognized in the New Testament, and that, under the name "Scriptures," a Divine authority is ascribed to them. It is therefore highly significant that, although the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha (see below), no quotation from any book of the Apocrypha occurs in their pages, One or two allusions, at most, suggest acquaintance with the Book of Wisdom (e.g. Wisdom of Solomon 5:18-21 parallel Ephesians 6:13-17). On the other hand, "every book in the Hebrew Bible is distinctly quoted in the New Testament with the exception of Josh, Jgs, Chronicles, Cant, Eccl, Ezr, Neh, Esther, Ob, Zeph and Nah" (Westcott). Enumerations differ, but about 178 direct quotations may be reckoned in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles; if references are included, the number is raised to about 700 (see QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT). In four or five places (Luke 11:49-51; James 4:5; 1 Corinthians 2:9; Ephesians 5:14; John 7:38) apparent references occur to sources other than the Old Testament; it is doubtful whether most of them are really so (compare Westcott, op. cit., 46-48; Ephesians 5:14 may be from a Christian hymn). An undeniable influence of Apocalyptic literature is seen in Jude, where Ephesians 1:14, 23 are a direct quotation from the Book of Enoch. It does not follow that Jude regarded this book as a proper part of Scripture.

2. The Septuagint: Hitherto we have been dealing with the Hebrew Old Testament; marked changes are apparent when we turn to the Septuagint, or Greek version of the Septuagint current in the Greek-speaking world at the commencement of the Christian era. The importance of this version lies in the fact that it was practically the Old Testament of the early church. It was used by the apostles and their converts, and is freely quoted in the New Testament, sometimes even when its renderings vary considerably from the Hebrew. Its influence was necessarily, therefore, very great.

Origin.

The special problems connected with origin, text and literary relations of the Septuagint are dealt with elsewhere (see SEPTUAGINT). The version took its rise, under one of the early Ptolemies, from the needs of the Jews in Egypt, before the middle of the 2nd century BC; was gradually executed, and completed hardly later than circa 100 BC; thereafter spread into all parts. Its renderings reveal frequent divergence in manuscripts from the present Massoretic Text, but show also that the translators permitted themselves considerable liberties in enlarging, abbreviating, transposing and otherwise modifying the texts they had, and in the insertion of materials borrowed from other sources.

The Apocrypha.

The most noteworthy differences are in the departure from Jewish tradition in the arrangement of the books (this varies greatly; compare Swete, Introduction to Old Testament in Greek,II , chapter i), and in the inclusion in the list of the other books, unknown to the Hebrew canon, now grouped as the Apocrypha. These form an extensive addition. They include the whole of the existing Apocrypha, with the exception of 2 Esdras and Pr Man. All are of late date, and are in Greek, though Sirach had a Hebrew original which has been partly recovered. They are not collected, but are interspersed among the Old Testament books in what are taken to be their appropriate places. The Greek fragments of Esther, e.g. are incorporated in that book; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon form part of Daniel; Baruch is joined with Jeremiah, etc. The most important books are Wisdom, Sirach and 1 Maccabees (circa 100 BC). The fact that Sirach, originally in Hebrew (circa 200 BC), and of high repute, was not included in the Hebrew canon, has a weighty bearing on the period of the closing of the latter.

Ecclesiastical Use.

It is, as already remarked, singular that, notwithstanding this extensive enlargement of the canon by the Septuagint, the books just named obtained no Scriptural recognition from the writers of the New Testament. The more scholarly of the Fathers, likewise (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyprian, Jerome, etc.), adhere to the Hebrew list, and most draw a sharp distinction between the canonical books, and the Greek additions, the reading of which is, however, admitted for edification (compare Westcott, op. cit., 135-36, 168, 180, 182-83). Where slight divergencies occur (e.g. Est is omitted by Melito and placed by Athanasius among the Apocrypha; Origen and Athanasius add Baruch to Jer), these are readily explained by doubts as to canonicity or by imperfect knowledge. On the other hand, familiarity with the Septuagint in writers ignorant of Hebrew could not but tend to break down the limits of the Jewish canon, and to lend a Scriptural sanction to the additions to that canon. This was aided in the West by the fact that the Old Latin versions (2nd century) based on the Septuagint, included these additions (the Syriac Peshitta followed the Hebrew). In many quarters, therefore, the distinction is found broken down, and ecclesiastical writers (Clement, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, etc.) quote freely from books like Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, 2 Esdras, as from parts of the Old Testament.

3. The Vulgate (Old Testament): An important landmark is reached in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) or Latin version of Jerome. Jerome, on grounds explained in his Preface, recognized only the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical; under pressure he executed later a hasty translation of Tobit and Judith. Feeling ran strong, however, in favor of the other books, and ere long these were added to Jerome's version from the Old Latin (see VULGATE). It is this enlarged Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) which received official recognition, under anathema, at the Council of Trent (1543), and, with revision, from Clement VIII (1592), though, earlier, leading Romish scholars (Ximenes, Erasmus, Cajetan) had made plain the true state of the facts. The Greek church vacillated in its decisions, sometimes approving the limited, sometimes the extended, canon (compare Westcott, op. cit., 217-29). The churches of the Reformation (Lutheran, Swiss), as was to be expected, went back to the Hebrew canon, giving only a qualified sanction to the reading and ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha. The early English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.) include, but separate, the apocryphal books (see ENGLISH VERSIONS). The Anglican Articles express the general estimate of these books: "And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine" (Art. VIII). Modern Protestant Bibles usually exclude the Apocrypha altogether.

4. The New Testament: From this survey of the course of opinion on the compass of the Old Testament, we come to the New Testament. This admits of being more briefly treated. It has been seen that a Christian New Testament did not, in the strict sense, arise till after the middle of the 2nd century. Gospels and Epistles had long existed, collections had begun to be made, the Gospels, at least, were weekly read in the assemblies of the Christians (Justin, 1 Apol., 67), before the attempt was made to bring together, and take formal account of, all the books which enjoyed apostolic authority (see CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). The needs of the church, however, and very specially controversy with Gnostic opponents, made it necessary that this work should be done; collections also had to be formed for purposes of translation into other tongues. Genuine gospels had to be distinguished from spurious; apostolic writings from those of later date, or falsely bearing apostolic names. When this task was undertaken, a distinction soon revealed itself between two classes of books, setting aside those recognized on all hands as spurious: (1) books universally acknowledged--those named afterward by Eusebius the homologoumena; and (2) books only partially acknowledged, or on which some doubt rested--the Eusebian antilegomena (Historia Ecclesiastica, iii.25). It is on this distinction that differences as to the precise extent of the New Testament turned.

(1) Acknowledged Books. The "acknowledged" books present little difficulty. They are enumerated by Eusebius, whose statements are confirmed by early lists (e.g. that of Muratori, circa 170 AD), quotations, versions and patristic use. At the head stand the Four Gospels and the Acts, then come the 13 epistles of Paul, then 1 Peter and 1 John. These, Westcott says, toward the close of the 2nd century, "were universally received in every church, without doubt or limitation, as part of the written rule of Christian faith, equal in authority with the Old Scriptures, and ratified (as it seemed) by a tradition reaching back to the date of their composition" (op. cit., 133). With them may almost be placed Revelation (as by Eusebius) and He, the doubts regarding the latter relating more to Pauline authority than to genuineness (e.g. Origen).

(2) Disputed Books. The "disputed" books were the epistles of James, Jude, 2 John and 3 John and 2 Peter. These, however, do not all stand in the same rank as regards authentication. A chief difficulty is the silence of the western Fathers regarding James, 2 Peter and 3 John. On the other hand, James is known to Origen and is included in the Syriac Peshitta; the Muratorian Fragment attests Jude and 2 John as "held in the Catholic church" (Jude also in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen); none of the books are treated as spurious. The weakest in attestation is 2 Pet, which is not distinctly traceable before the 3rd century (See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; articles under the word) It is to be added that, in a few instances, as in the case of the Old Testament Apocrypha, early Fathers cite as Scripture books not generally accepted as canonical (e.g. Barnabas, Hermas, Apocrypha of Peter).

The complete acceptance of all the books in our present New Testament canon may be dated from the Councils of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) and of Carthage (397 AD), confirming the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome and Augustine.

Bible, The, IV Canonicity

Bible, The, IV Canonicity - IV. Literary Growth and Origin--Canonicity. Thus far the books of the Old Testament and New Testament have been taken simply as given, and no attempt has been made to inquire how or when they were written or compiled, or how they came to acquire the dignity and authority implied in their reception into a sacred canon. The field here entered is one bristling with controversy, and it is necessary to choose one's steps with caution to find a safe way through it. Details in the survey are left, as before, to the special articles.

1. The Old Testament: Attention here is naturally directed, first, to the Old Testament. This, it is obvious, and is on all sides admitted, has a long literary history prior to its final settlement in a canon. As to the course of that history traditional and modern critical views very widely differ. It may possibly turn out that the truth lies somewhere midway between them.

(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself. If the indications furnished by the Old Testament itself be accepted, the results are something like the following:

(a) Patriarchal Age: No mention is made of writing in the patriarchal age, though it is now known that a high literary culture then prevailed in Babylonia, Egypt and Palestine, and it is not improbable, indeed seems likely, that records in some form came down from that age, and are, in parts, incorporated in the early history of the Bible.

(b) Mosaic Age: In Mosaic times writing was in use, and Moses himself was trained in the learning of the Egyptians (Exodus 2:10; Acts 7:22). In no place is the composition of the whole Pentateuch (as traditionally believed) ascribed to Moses, but no inconsiderable amount of written matter is directly attributed to him, creating the presumption that there was more, even when the fact is not stated. Moses wrote "all the words of Yahweh" in the "book of the covenant" (Exodus 21:1-36 through Exodus 23:1-33; 4, 7). He wrote "the words of this law" of Deuteronomy at Moab, "in a book, until they were finished" (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24, 26). This was given to the priests to be put by the side of the ark for preservation (Deuteronomy 31:25-26). Other notices occur of the writing of Moses (Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:19, 22; compare Numbers 11:26). The song of Miriam, and the snatches of song in Numbers 21:1-35, the first (perhaps all) quoted from the "book of the Wars of Yahweh" (Numbers 21:14 ff), plainly belong to Mosaic times. In this connection it should be noticed that the discourses and law of Dt imply the history and legislation of the critical JE histories (see below). The priestly laws (Leviticus, Numbers) bear so entirely the stamp of the wilderness that they can hardly have originated anywhere else, and were probably then, or soon after, written down. Joshua, too, is presumed to be familiar with writing (Joshua 8:30-35; compare Deuteronomy 27:8), and is stated to have written his farewell address "in the book of the law of God" (Joshua 24:26; compare Joshua 1:7-8). These statements already imply the beginning of a sacred literature.

(c) Judges: The song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31) is an indubitably authentic monument of the age of the Judges, and the older parts of Jgs, at least, must have been nearly contemporary with the events which they record. A knowledge of writing among the common people seems implied in Judges 8:14 (American Revised Version, margin). Samuel, like Joshua, wrote "in a book" (1 Samuel 10:25), and laid it up, evidently among other writings, "before Yahweh."

(d) Monarchy: The age of David and Solomon was one of high development in poetical and historical composition: witness the elegies of David (2 Samuel 1:17 ff; 2 Samuel 3:33-34), and the finely-finished narrative of David's reign (2 Samuel 9:1-13 through 2 Samuel 20:1-26), the so-called "Jerusalem-Source," admitted to date "from a period very little later than that of the events related" (Driver, LOT, 183). There were court scribes and chroniclers.

David and the Monarchy: David, as befits his piety and poetical and musical gifts (compare on this POT, 440 ff), is credited with laying the foundations of a sacred psalmody (2 Samuel 23:1 ff; see PSALMS), and a whole collection of psalms (Psalms 1:1-6 through Psalms 72:1-20, with exclusion of the distinct collection, Psalms 42:1-11 through Psalms 50:1-23), once forming a separate book (compare Psalms 72:20), are, with others, ascribed to him by their titles (Psalms 1:1-6; Psalms 2:1-12; Psalms 10:1-18 are untitled). It is hardly credible that a tradition like this can be wholly wrong, and a Davidic basis of the Psalter may safely be Assumed. Numerous psalms, by their mention of the "king" (as Psalms 2:1-12; Psalms 18:1-50; Psalms 20:1-9; Psalms 21:1-13; Psalms 28:1-9; Psalms 33:1-22; Psalms 45:1-17; Psalms 61:1-8; Psalms 63:1-11; Psalms 72:1-20; Psalms 101:1-8; Psalms 110:1-7), are naturally referred to the period of the monarchy (some, as Psalms 18:1-50 certainly, Davidic). Other groups of psalms are referred to the temple guilds (Sons of Korah, Asaph).

(e) Wisdom Literature--History: Solomon is renowned as founder of the Wisdom literature and the author of Proverbs (1 Kings 4:32; Proverbs 1:1; 10:1; Ecclesiastes 12:9; Eccl itself appears to be late), and of the Song (Song of Solomon 1:1). The "men of Hezekiah" are said to have copied put a collection of his proverbs (Proverbs 25:1; see PROVERBS). Here also may be placed the Book of Job. Hezekiah's reign appears to have been one of literary activity: to it, probably, are to be referred certain of the Psalms (e.g. Psalms 46:1-11, Psalms 48:1-14; compare Perowne, Delitzsch). In history, during the monarchy, the prophets would seem to have acted as the "sacred historiographers" of the nation. From their memoirs of the successive reigns, as the later books testify (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15, etc.), are compiled most of the narratives in our canonical writings (hence the name "former prophets"). The latest date in 2 Ki is 562 BC, and the body of the book is probably earlier.

(f) Prophecy: (i) Assyrian Age: With the rise of written prophecy a new form of literature enters, called forth by, and vividly mirroring, the religious and political conditions of the closing periods of the monarchy in Israel and Judah (see PROPHECY). On the older view, Obadiah and Joel stood at the head of the series in the pre-Assyrian period (9th century), and this seems the preferable view still. On the newer view, these prophets are late, and written prophecy begins in the Assyrian period with Amos (Jeroboam II, circa 750 BC) and Hosea (circa 745-735). When the latter prophet wrote, Samaria was tottering to its fall (721 BC). A little later, in Judah, come Isaiah (circa 740-690) and Micah (circa 720-708). Isaiah, in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, is the greatest of the prophets in the Assyrian age, and his ministry reaches its climax in the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:1-37; 2 Kings 19:1-37; Isaiah 36:1-22; Isaiah 37:1-38). It is a question whether some oracles of an Isaianic school are not mingled with the prophet's ow n writings, and most scholars now regard the 2nd part of the book (Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24) as exilian or (in part) post-exilian in date. The standpoint of much in these chapters is certainly in the Exile; whether the composition of the whole can be placed there is extremely doubtful (see ISAIAH). Nahum, who prophesies against Nineveh, belongs to the very close of this period (circa 660).

(ii) Chaldean Age:

The prophets Zephaniah (under Josiah, circa 630 BC) and Habakkuk (circa 606) may be regarded as forming the transition to the next--the Chaldean--period. The Chaldeans (unnamed in Zephaniah) are advancing but are not yet come (Habakkuk 1:6). The great prophetic figure here, however, is Jeremiah, whose sorrowful ministry, beginning in the 13th year of Josiah (626 BC), extended through the succeeding reigns till after the fall of Jerusalem (586 BC). The prophet elected to remain with the remnant in the land, and shortly after, troubles having arisen, was forcibly carried into Egypt (Jeremiah 43:1-13). Here also he prophesied (Jeremiah 43:1-13; Jeremiah 44:1-30). From the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah consistently declared the success of the Chaldean arms, and foretold the 70 years' captivity (25:12-14). Baruch acted as his secretary in writing out and editing his prophecies (Jeremiah 36:1-32; Jeremiah 45:1-5).

(g) Josiah's Reformation: A highly important event in this period was Josiah's reformation in his 18th year (621 BC), and the discovery, during repairs of the temple, of "the book of the law," called also "the book of the covenant" and "the law of Moses" (2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 23:2, 24-25). The finding of this book, identified by most authorities with the Book of Deuteronomy, produced an extraordinary sensation. On no side was there the least question that it was a genuine ancient work. Jeremiah, strangely, makes no allusion to this discovery, but his prophecies are deeply saturated with the ideas and style of Deuteronomy.

(h) Exilian and Post-Exilian: The bulk of Isaiah 40:1-31 through Isaiah 66:1-24 belongs, at least in spirit, to the Exile, but the one prophet of the Exile known to us by name is the priestly Ezekiel. Carried captive under Jehoiachin (597 BC), Ezekiel labored among his fellow-exiles for at least 22 years (Ezekiel 1:2; 29:17). A man of the strongest moral courage, his symbolic visions on the banks of the Chebar alternated with the most direct expostulation, exhortation, warning and promise. In the description of an ideal temple and its worship with which his book closes (chapters 40 through 48), critics think they discern the suggestion of the Levitical code.

(i) Daniel, etc.: After Ezekiel the voice of prophecy is silent till it revives in Daniel, in Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Deported in 605 BC, Daniel rose to power, and "continued" until the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC; Daniel 1:21). Criticism will have it that his prophecies are product of the Maccabean age, but powerful considerations on the other side are ignored (see DANIEL). Jonah may have been written about this time, though the prophet's mission itself was pre-Assyrian (9th century). The rebuilding of the temple after the return, under Zerubbabel, furnished the occasion for the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah (520 BC). Scholars are disposed to regard only Zechariah 1:1-21 through 8 as belonging to this period--the remainder being placed earlier or later. Malachi, nearly century after (circa 430), brings up the rear of prophecy, rebuking unfaithfulness, and predicting the advent of the "messenger of the covenant" (Malachi 3:1-2). To this period, or later, belong, besides post-exilian psalms (e.g. Psalms 124:1-8; Psalms 126:1-6), the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronciles, Esther and apparently Ecclesiastes.

(j) Preexilic Bible: If, in this rapid sketch, the facts are correctly represented, it will be apparent that, in opposition to prevalent views, large body of sacred literature existed (laws, histories, psalms, wisdom-books, prophecies), and was recognized long before the Exile. God's ancient people had "Scriptures"--had a Bible--if not yet in collected form. This is strikingly borne out by the numerous Old Testament passages referring to what appears to be a code of sacred writings in the hands of the pious in Israel. Such are the references to, and praises of, the "law" and "word" of God in many of the Psalms (e.g. 1; 19; 119; 12:6; 17:4; 18:21,22), with the references to God's known "words," "ways," "commandments," "statutes," in other books of the Old Testament (Job 8:8; Hosea 8:12; Daniel 9:2). In brief, Scriptures, which must have contained records of God's dealings with His people, a knowledge of which is constantly presupposed, "laws" of God for the regulation of the heart and conduct, "statutes," "ordinances, " "words" of God, are postulate of a great part of the Old Testament.

(2) Critical views. The account of the origin and growth of the Old Testament above presented is in marked contrast with that given in the textbooks of the newer critical schools. The main features of these critical views are sketched in the article CRITICISM (which see); here a brief indication will suffice. Generally, the books of the Old Testament are brought down to late dates; are regarded as highly composite; the earlier books, from their distance from the events recorded, are deprived of historical worth. Neither histories nor laws in the Pentateuch belong to the Mosaic age: Joshua is a "romance"; Judges may embody ancient fragments, but in bulk is unhistorical. The earliest fragments of Israelite literature are lyric pieces like those preserved in Genesis 4:23-24; Genesis 9:25-27; Numbers 21:1-35; the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31) is probably genuine. Historical writing begins about the age of David or soon thereafter. The folklore of the Hebrews and traditions of the Mosaic age began to be reduced to writing about the 9th century BC.

(a) The Pentateuch: Our present Pentateuch (enlarged to a "Hexateuch," including Josh) consists of 4 main strands (themselves composite), the oldest of which (called Jahwist (Jahwist), from its use of the name Yahweh) goes back to about 850 BC. This was Judean. A parallel history book (called E, from its use of the name Elohim, God) was produced in the Northern kingdom about a century later (circa 750). Later still these two were united (JE). These histories, "prophetic" in spirit, were originally attributed to individual authors, distinguished by minute criteria of style: the more recent fashion is to regard them as the work of "schools." Hitherto the only laws known were those of the (post-Mosaic) Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33). Later, in Josiah's reign, the desire for centralization of worship led to the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy. This, secreted in the temple, was found by Hilkiah (2 Kings 22:1-20), and brought about the reformation of Josiah formerly mentioned. Deuteronomy (D), thus produced, is the third stra nd in the Pentateuchal compilation. With the destruction of the city and temple, under the impulse of Ezekiel, began a new period of law-construction, now priestly in spirit. Old laws and usages were codified; new laws were invented; the history of institutions was recast; finally, the extensive complex of Levitical legislation was brought into being, clothed with a wilderness dress, and ascribed to Moses. This elaborate Priestly Code (PC), with its accompanying history, was brought from Babylon by Ezra, and, united with the already existing JE and D, was given forth by him to the restored community at Jerusalem (444 BC; Nehemiah 8:1-18) as "the law of Moses." Their acceptance of it was the inauguration of "Judaism."

(b) Histories: In its theory of the Pentateuch the newer criticism lays down the determinative positions for its criticism of all the remaining books of the Old Testament. The historical books show but a continuation of the processes of literary construction exemplified in the books ascribed to Moses. The Deuteronomic element, e.g. in Josh, Jgs, 1, 2 Sam, 1, 2 Ki, proves them, in these parts, to be later than Josiah, and historically untrustworthy. The Levitical element in 1, 2 Ch demonstrates its pictures of David and his successors to be distorted and false. The same canon applies to the prophets. Joel, e.g. must be post-exilian, because it presupposes the priestly law. The patriarchal and Mosaic histories being subverted, it is not permitted to assume any high religious ideas in early Israel. David, therefore, could not have written the Psalms. Most, if not practically all, of these are post-exilian.

(c) Psalms and Prophets: Monotheism came in--at least first obtained recognition--through Amos and Hosea. The prophets could not have the foresight and far-reaching hopes seen in their writings: these passages, therefore, must be removed. Generally the tendency is to put dates as low as possible and very many books, regarded before as preexilian, are carried down in whole or part, to exilian, post-exilian, and even late Greek times (Priestly Code, Psalter, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Second Isaiah, Joel, Lamentations). Daniel is Maccabean and unhistorical (circa 168-167 BC).

It is not proposed here to discuss this theory, which is not accepted in the present article, and is considered elsewhere (see CRITICISM; PENTATEUCH). The few points calling for remark relate to canonical acceptance.

(3) Formation of the Canon. The general lines of the completed Jewish canon have already been sketched, and some light has now been thrown on the process by which the several books obtained a sacred authority. As to the actual stages in the formation of the canon opinions again widely diverge (see CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT).

(a) Critical Theory: On theory at present in favor, no collections of sacred books were made prior to the return from Babylon. The only books that had authority before the Exile were, perhaps, the old Book of the Covenant, and, from Josiah's time, the Book of Deuteronomy. Both, after the return, were, on this theory, embodied, with the JE histories, and the Priestly Code, in Ezra's completed Book of the Law (with Joshua(?)), in which, accordingly, the foundation of a canon was laid. The fivefold division of the law was later. Subsequently, answering to the 2nd division of the Jewish canon, a collection was made of the prophetic writings. As this includes books which, on the critical view, go down to Greek times (Jon; Zechariah 9:1-17 through Zechariah 14:1-21), its completion cannot be earlier than well down in the Zechariah 3:11-10rd century BC. Latest of all came the collection of the "Hagiographa"--a division of the canon, on theory, kept open to receive additions certainly till the 2nd century, some think after. Into it were received such late writings as Ecclesiastes, the Maccabean Psalms, Daniel. Even then one or two books (Ecclesiastes, Esther) remained subjects of dispute.

(b) More Positive View: It will appear from the foregoing that this theory is not here accepted without considerable modification. If the question be asked, What constituted a right to a place in the canon? the answer can hardly be other than that suggested by Josephus in the passage formerly quoted--a real or supposed inspiration in the author of the book. Books were received if men had the prophetic spirit (in higher or lower degree: that, e.g. of wisdom); they ceased to be received when the succession of prophets was thought to fail (after Malachi). In any case the writings of truly inspired men (Moses, the prophets, psalmists) were accepted as of authority. It was sought, however, to be shown above, that such books, many of them, already existed from Moses down, long before the Exile (the law, collections of psalms, of proverbs, written prophecies: to what end did the prophets write, if they did not mean their prophecies to be circulated and preserved?); and such writings, to the godly who knew and used them, had the full value of Scripture. A canon began with the first laying up of the "book of the law" before Yahweh (Deuteronomy 31:25-26; Joshua 24:26). The age of Ezra and Nehemiah, therefore, is not that of the beginning, but, as Jewish tradition rightly held (Josephus; 2 Maccabees 2:13; Talmud), rather that of the completion, systematic delimitation, acknowledgment and formal close of the canon. The divisions of "law, prophets, and holy writings" would thus have their place from the beginning, and be nearly contemporaneous. The Samaritans accepted only the 5 books of the law, with apparently Joshua (see SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH).

(c) Close of Canon: There is no need for dogmatism as to an absolute date for the close of the canon. If inspired voices continued to be heard, their utterances were entitled to recognition. Books duly authenticated might be added, but the non-inclusion of such as a book as Sirach (Ecclesiasticus: in Hebrew, circa 200 BC) shows that the limits of the canon were jealously guarded, and the onus of proof rests on those who affirm that there were such books. Calvin, e.g. held that there were Maccabean Psalms. Many modern scholars do the same, but it is doubtful if they are right. Ecclesiastes is thought on linguistic grounds to be late, but it and other books need not be so late as critics make them. Daniel is confidently declared to be Maccabean, but there are weighty reasons for maintaining a Persian date (see DANIEL). As formerly noticed, the threefold division into "the law, the prophets, and the rest (ta loipa, a definite number) of the books" is already attested in the Prologue to Sirach.

2. The New Testament: Critical controversy, long occupied with the Old Testament, has again keenly attached itself to the New Testament, with similar disturbing results (see CRITICISM). Extremer opinions may be here neglected, and account be taken only of those that can claim reasonable support. The New Testament writings are conveniently grouped into the historical books (Gospels and Acts); Epistles (Pauline and other); and a Prophetic book (Rev). In order of writing, the Epistles, generally, are earlier than the Gospels, but in order of subject, the Gospels naturally claim attention first.

(1) Historical Books: The main facts about the origin of the Gospels can perhaps be distinguished from the complicated literary theories which scholars are still discussing (see GOSPELS). The first three Gospels, known as the Synoptics, evidently embody a common tradition, and draw from common sources. The Fourth Gospel--that of John--presents problems by itself.

(a) The Synoptics: The former--the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)--fall in date well within the apostolic age, and are, in the 2nd century, uniformly connected with the authors whose names they bear, Mark is spoken of as "the interpreter of Peter" (Papias, in HE iii.39); Luke is the well-known companion of Paul. A difficulty arises about Matthew, whose Gospel is stated to have been written in Aramaic (Papias, ut supra, etc.), while the gospel bearing his name is in Greek. The Greek gospel seems at least to have been sufficiently identified with the apostle to admit of the early church always treating it as his.

The older theory of origin assumed an oral basis for all 3 Gospels. The tendency in recent criticism is to distinguish two main sources: (1) Mk, the earliest gospel, a record of the preaching of Peter; (2) a collection of the sayings and discourses of Jesus, attributed to Matthew (the Eusebian Logia, now called Q); with (3) a source used by Luke in the sections peculiar to himself--the result of his own investigations (Luke 1:1-4). Mt and Lk are supposed to be based on Mk and the Logia (Q); in Luke's case with the addition of his special material. Oral tradition furnished what remains. A simpler theory may be to substitute for (1) a Petrine tradition already firmly fixed while yet the apostles were working together in Jerusalem. Peter, as foremost spokesman, would naturally stamp his own type upon the oral narratives of Christ's sayings and doings (the Mark type), while Matthew's stories, in part written, would be the chief source for the longer discourses. The instruction imparted by the apostles and those taught by them would everywhere be made the basis of careful catechetical teaching, and records of all this, more or less fragmentary, would be early in circulation (Luke 1:1-4). This would explain the Petrine type of narrative, and the seeming dependence of Matthew and Luke, without the necessity of supposing a direct use of Mark. So important a gospel could hardly be included in the "attempts" of Luke 1:1.

(b) Fourth Gospel: The Fourth Gospel (Jn), the genuineness of which is assumed (see JOHN,GOSPEL OF ), differs entirely in character and style. It is less a narrative than a didactic work, written to convince its readers that Jesus is "the Son of God" (John 20:31). The gospel may be presumed to have been composed at Ephesus, in the last years of the apostle's residence there. With this its character corresponds. The other gospels had long been known; John does not therefore traverse the ground already covered by them. He confines himself chiefly to matters drawn from his personal recollections: the Judean ministry, the visits of Christ to Jerusalem, His last private discourses to His disciples. John had so often retold, and so long brooded over, the thoughts and words of Jesus, that they had become, in a manner, part of his own thought, and, in reproducing them, he necessarily did so with a subjective tinge, and in a partially paraphrastic and interpretative manner. Yet it is truly the words, thoughts and deeds of his beloved Lord that he narrates. His gospel is the needful complement to the others--the "spiritual" gospel.

(c) Acts: The Acts narrates the origin and early fortunes of the church, with, as its special motive (compare 1:8), the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles through the labors of Paul. Its author is Luke, Paul's companion, whose gospel it continues (1:1). Certain sections--the so-called "we-sections" (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1 through 28:16)--are transcribed directly from Luke's journal of Paul's travels. The book closes abruptly with Paul's 2 years' imprisonment at Rome (28:30,31; 60-61 AD), and not a hint is given of the issue of the imprisonment--trial, liberation or death. Does this mean that a 3rd "treatise" was contemplated? Or that the book was written while the imprisonment still continued? (thus now Harnack). If the latter, the Third Gospel must be very early.

(2) The Epistles. (a) Pauline: Doubt never rested in the early church on the 13 epistles of Paul. Following upon the rejection by the "Tubingen" school of all the epistles but 4 (Rom, 1, 2 Cor, Gal), the tide of opinion has again turned strongly in favor of their genuineness. An exception is the Pastoral epistles (1, 2 Tim, Tit), still questioned by some on insufficient grounds (see PASTORAL EPISTLES). The epistles, called forth by actual needs of the churches, are a living outpouring of the thoughts and feelings of the mind and heart of the apostle in relation to his converts. Most are letters to churches he himself had founded (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians(?), Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonains): two are to churches he had not himself visited, but with which he stood in affectionate relations (Romans, Colossians); one is purely personal (Philemon); three are addressed to individuals, but with official responsibilities (1 Timonty, 2 Timothy, Titus). The larger number were written during his missionary labors, and reflect his personal situation, anxieties and companionships at the places of their composition; four are epistles of the 1st Roman imprisonment (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon): 2 Timothy is a voice from the dungeon, in his 2nd imprisonment, shortly before his martyrdom. Doctrine, counsel, rebuke, admonition, tender solicitude, ethical instruction, prayer, thanksgiving, blend in living fusion in their contents. So marvelous a collection of letters, on such magnificent themes, was never before given to the world.

The earliest epistles, in point of date, are generally held to be those to the Thessalonians, written from Corinth (52, 53 AD). The church, newly-founded, had passed through much affliction (1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 3:3-4, etc.), and Paul writes to comfort and exhort it. His words about the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:13 ff) led to mistaken expectations and some disorders. His second epistle was written to correct these problems (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 3:6, etc.).

Corinth itself received the next epistles--the 1st called forth by reports received at Ephesus of grave divisions and irregularities 1 Cor (1:11; 3:3; 11:18 ff, etc.), joined with pride of knowledge, doctrinal heresy (15:12 ff), and at least one case of gross immorality (chapter 5) in the church; the 2nd, written at Philippi, expressing joy at the repentance of the offender, and removing the severe sentence that had been passed upon him (2 Corinthians 2:1-10; compare 1 Corinthians 5:3-4), likewise vindicating Paul's own apostleship 2 Cor (chapters 10 through 13). The date of both is 57 AD. 1 Cor contains the beautiful hymn on love (chapter 13), and the noble chapter on resurrection (chapter 15).

In the following year (58 BC) Paul penned from Corinth the Epistle to the Romans--the greatest of his doctrinal epistles. In it he develops his great theme of the impossibility of justification before God through works of law (Romans 1:1-32 through Romans 3:1-31), and of the Divine provision for human salvation in a "righteousness of God" in Christ Jesus, received through faith. He exhibits first the objective side of this redemption in the deliverance from condemnation effected through Christ's reconciling death (Romans 3:1-31 through Romans 5:1-21); then the subjective side, in the new life imparted by the spirit, giving deliverance from the power of sin (Romans 6:1-23 through Romans 8:1-39). A discussion follows of the Divine sovereignty in God's dealings with Israel, and of the end of these dealings (Romans 9:1-33 through Romans 11:1-36), and the epistle concludes with practical exhortations, counsels to forbearance and greetings (Romans 12:1-21 through Romans 16:1-27).

Closely connected with the Epistle to the Romans is that to the Galatians, in which the same truths are handled, but now with a polemical intent in expostulation and reproach. The Galatian churches had apostatized from the gospel of faith to Jewish legalism, and the apostle, sorely grieved, writes this powerful letter to rebuke their faithlessness, and recall them to their allegiance to the truth. It is reasonable to suppose that the two epistles are nearly related in place and time. The question is complicated, however, by the dispute which has arisen as to whether the churches intended are those of Northern Galatia (the older view; compare Conybeare and Howson, Lightfoot) or those of Southern Galatia (Sir Wm. Ramsay), i.e. the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, in Paul's time embraced in the Roman province of Galatia (see GALATIA; GALATIANS). If the latter view is adopted, date and place are uncertain; if the former, the epistle may have been written from Ephesus (circa 57 AD).

The 4 epistles of the imprisonment all fall within the years 60, 61 AD. That to the Philipplans, warmly praising the church, and exhorting to unity, possibly the latest of the group, was sent by the hand of Epaphroditus, who had come to Rome with a present from the Philippian church, and had there been overtaken by a serious illness (Philippians 2:25-30; Philippians 4:15-18). The remaining 3 epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon) were written at one time, and were carried to their destinations by Epaphras. Ephesians and Colossians are twin epistles, similar in thought and style, extolling the preeminence of Christ, but it is doubtful whether the former was not really a "circular" epistle, or even, perhaps, the lost Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16; see LAODICEANS,EPISTLE TO THE ). The Colossian epistle has in view an early form of Gnostic heresy (compare Lightfoot, Gal). Philemon is a personal letter to a friend of the apostle's at Colosse, whose runaway slave, Onesimus, now a Christian, is being sent back to him with warm commendation s.

See CAPTIVITY EPISTLES.

Latest from Paul's pen are the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus), implying his liberation from his first imprisonment, and a new period of missionary labor in Ephesus, Macedonia and Crete (see PASTORAL EPISTLES). Timothy was left at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), Titus at Crete (Titus 1:5), for the regulation and superintendence of the churches. The epistles, the altered style of which shows the deep impress of advancing years and changed conditions, contain admonitions to pastoral duty, with warnings as to perils that had arisen or would arise. 1 Timothy and Titus were written while the apostle was still at liberty (63 AD); 2 Timothy is from his Roman prison, when his case had been partly heard, and the end was impending (2 Timothy 4:6, 22, 22).

(b) Epistle to the Hebrews: These are the Pauline Epistles proper. The Epistle to the Hebrews, though ascribed to Paul in the title of the King James Version, is not really his. It is an early writing (probably before the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD) of some friend of the apostle's (in Italy, Hebrews 13:23-24), designed, by a reasoned exhibition of the superiority of Jesus to Moses and the Levitical priesthood, and of the fulfillment of Old Testament types and institutions in His person and sacrifice, to remove the difficulties of Jewish Christians, who clung with natural affection to their temple and divinely appointed ritual. It was included by Eusebius, with others in the East (not, however, by Origen), among the epistles of Paul: in the West the Pauline authorship was not admitted. Many, nevertheless, with Origen, upheld a connection with Paul ("the thoughts are Paul's"). Ideas and style suggest an Alexandrian training: hence Luther's conjecture of Apollos as the writer. There can be no certainty on the subject. The value of the Epistle is unimpaired, whoever was the author.

(c) Catholic Epistles: Of the seven so-called "Catholic" Epistles, James and Jude are by "brethren" of the Lord (James, "the Lord's brother," was head of the church at Jerusalem, Acts 15:13; 21:18; Galatians 1:19, etc.); Peter and John, to whom the others were ascribed, were apostles. James and 1 Peter are addressed to the Jews of the Dispersion (1 Peter 1:1; James 1:1). The doubts respecting certain of these writings have already been mentioned. The early date and acceptance of Jas is attested by numerous allusions (Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Didache). Many regard it as the earliest of the epistles--before Paul's. Its tone is throughout practical. The seeming conflict with Paul on faith and works, which led Luther to speak slightingly of it, is only verbal. Paul, too, held that a dead faith avails nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6). 1 John, like 1 Peter, was undisputed (if the Fourth Gospel is genuine, 1 John is), and, on internal grounds, the shorter epistles (2 John, 3 John) need not be doubted (see JOHN,THE EPISTLES OF ). Jude, rugged in style, with allusions to Jewish Apocalypses (Galatians 1:9, 24), is well attested, and 2 Peter seems to found on it. The last-named epistle must rely for acceptance on its own claim (2 Peter 1:1, 21), and on internal evidence of sincerity. It is to be observed that, though late in being noticed, it never appears to have been treated as spurious. The style certainly differs from 1 Peter; this may be due to the use of an amanuensis. If accepted, it must be placed late in Peter's life (before 65 AD). 1 Peter and Jude, in that case, must be earlier (see CATHOLIC EPISTLES).

(3) Prophecy. The Book of Revelation:

The one prophetic book of the New Testament--the apocalyptic counterpart of Daniel in the Old Testament--is the Book of Revelation. The external evidence for the Johannine authorship is strong (see APOCALYPSE). Tradition and internal evidence ascribe it to the reign of Domitian (circa 95 AD). Its contents were given in vision in the isle of Patmos (Revelation 1:9). The theory which connects it with the reign of Nero through the supposed fitness of this name to express the mystic number 666 is entirely precarious (compare Salmon, Introduction to New Testament, 245-54). The main intent is to exhibit in symbolic form the approaching conflicts of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers--with secular world-power (Beast), with intellectual anti-Christianism (False Prophet), with ecclesiastical anti-Christianism (Woman)--these conflicts issuing in victory and a period of triumph, preluding, after a sharp, final struggle, the last scenes (resurrection, judgment), and the eternal state. When the visions are taken, not as poetic imaginings, but as true apocalyptic unveilings, the change in style from the gospel, which may be regarded as already written, can readily be understood. These mighty revelations in Patmos brought about, as by volcanic force, a tremendous upheaval in the seer's soul, breaking through all previous strata of thought and feeling, and throwing everything into a new perspective. On the resultant high keynote: "Amen: Come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:20), the New Testament closes.

(4) New Testament Canon. The principal steps by which the books now enumerated were gradually formed into a New Testament "Canon," have been indicated in previous sections. The test of canonicity here, as in the Old Testament, is the presence of inspiration. Some would prefer the word "apostolic," which comes to the same thing. All the writings above reckoned were held to be the works of apostles or of apostolic men, and on this ground were admitted into the list of books having authority in the church. Barnabas (circa 100-120 AD) already quotes Matthew 20:16 with the formula "it is written." Paul quotes as "scripture" (1 Timothy 5:18) a passage found only in Lk (10:7). Paul's Epistles are classed with "other scriptures" in 2 Peter 3:16. Post-apostolic Fathers draw a clear distinction between their own writings and those of apostles like Paul and Peter (Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas). The Fathers of the close of the 2nd century treat the New Testament writings as in the fullest degree inspired (compare Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, Appendix B). An important impulse to the formation of a definite canon came from the Gnostic Marcion (circa 140 AD), who made a canon for himself in 2 parts, "Gospel" and "Apostolicon," consisting of one gospel (a mutilated Lk) and 10 epistles of Paul (excluding Pastorals). A challenge of this kind had to be taken up, and lists of New Testament writings began to be made (Melito, Muratorian Fragment, etc.), with the results previously described. By the commencement of the 4th century unanimity had practically been attained as regards even the Antilegomena. At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), Westcott says, "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were silently admitted on all sides to have a final authority" (Bible in Church, 155).

See CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Bible, The, V Inspiration

Bible, The, V Inspiration - V. Unity and Spiritual Purpose--Inspiration. 1. Scripture a Unity: Holy Scripture is not simply a collection of religious books: still less does it consist of mere fragments of Jewish and Christian literature. It belongs to the conception of Scripture that, though originating "by divers portions and in divers manners" (Hebrews 1:1), it should yet, in its completeness, constitute a unity, evincing, in the spirit and purpose that bind its parts together, the Divine source from which its revelation comes. The Bible is the record of God's revelations of Himself to men in successive ages and dispensations (Ephesians 1:8-10; Ephesians 3:5-9; Colossians 1:25-26), till the revelation culminates in the advent and work of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit. It is this aspect of the Bible which constitutes its grand distinction from all collections of sacred writings--the so-called "Bibles" of heathen religions--in the world. These, as the slightest inspection of them shows, have no unity. They are accumulations of heterogeneous materials, presenting, in their collocation, no order, progress, or plan. The reason is, that they embody no historical revelation working out a purpose in consecutive stages from germinal beginnings to perfect close. The Bible, by contrast, is a single book because it embodies such a revelation, and exhibits such a purpose. The unity of the book, made up of so many parts, is the attestation of the reality of the revelation it contains.

2. The Purpose of Grace: This feature of spiritual purpose in the Bible is one of the most obvious things about it (compare POT, 30 ff). It gives to the Bible what is sometimes termed its "organic unity." The Bible has a beginning, middle and end. The opening chapters of Gen have their counterpart in the "new heaven and new earth" and paradise restored of the closing chapters of Revelation (21; 22). Man's sin is made the starting-point for disclosures of God's grace. The patriarchal history, with its covenants and promises, is continued in the story of the Exodus and the events that follow, in fulfillment of these promises. Dt recapitulates the lawgiving at Sinai. Josh sees the people put in possession of the promised land. Backsliding, rebellion, failure, do not defeat God's purpose, but are overruled to carry it on to a surer completion. The monarchy is made the occasion of new promises to the house of David (2 Samuel 7:1-29). The prophets root themselves in the past, but, at the very hour when the nation seems sinking in ruin; hold out bright hopes of a greater future in the extension of God's kingdom to the Gentiles, under Messiah's rule. A critical writer, Kautzsch, has justly said: "The abiding value of the Old Testament lies above all in this, that it guarantees to us with absolute certainty the fact and the process of a Divine plan and way of salvation, which found its conclusion and fulfillment in the new covenant, in the person and work of Jesus Christ" (Bleibende Bedeutung des Altes Testament, 22, 24, 28-29, 30-31).

Fulfilment in Christ.

How truly all that was imperfect, transitional, temporary, in the Old Testament was brought to realization and completion in the redemption and spiritual kingdom of Christ need not here be dwelt upon. Christ is the prophet, priest and king of the New Covenant. His perfect sacrifice, "once for all," supersedes and abolishes the typical sacrifices of the old economy (Hebrews 9:1-28 through Hebrews 10:1-39). His gift of the Spirit realizes what the prophets had foretold of God's law being written in men's hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 32:39-40; Ezekiel 11:19-20, etc.). His kingdom is established on moveless foundations, and can have no end (Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 5:13, etc.). In tracing the lines of this redeeming purpose of God, brought to light in Christ, we gain the key which unlocks the inmost meaning of the whole Bible. It is the revelation of a "gospel."

3. Inspiration: "Inspiration" is a word round which many debates have gathered. If, however, what has been said is true of the Bible as the record of a progressive revelation, of its contents as the discovery of the will of God for man's salvation, of the prophetic and apostolic standing of its writers, of the unity of spirit and purpose that pervades it, it will be difficult to deny that a quite peculiar presence, operation, and guidance of the Spirit of God are manifest in its production. The belief in inspiration, it has been seen, is implied in the formation of these books into a sacred canon. The full discussion of the subject belongs to a special article. (see INSPIRATION).

Biblical Claim.

Here it need only be said that the claim for inspiration in the Bible is one made in fullest measure by the Bible itself. It is not denied by any that Jesus and His apostles regarded the Old Testament Scriptures as in the fullest sense inspired. The appeal of Jesus was always to the Scriptures, and the word of Scripture was final with Him. "Have ye not read?" (Matthew 19:4). "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). This because "God" speaks in them (Matthew 19:4). Prophecies and psalms were fulfilled in Him (Luke 18:31; 22:37; 27, 44). Paul esteemed the Scriptures "the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). They are "God-inspired" (2 Timothy 3:16). That New Testament prophets and apostles were not placed on any lower level than those of the Old Testament is manifest from Paul's explicit words regarding himself and his fellow-apostles. Paul never faltered in his claim to be "an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (Ephesians 1:1, etc.)--"separated unto the gospel of God " (Romans 1:1)--who had received his message, not from man, but by "revelation" from heaven (Galatians 1:11, 22). The "mystery of Christ" had "now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit," in consequence of which the church is declared to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20; 3:5).

Marks of Inspiration.

It might be shown that these claims made by New Testament writers for the Old Testament and for themselves are borne out by what the Old Testament itself teaches of prophetic inspiration, of wisdom as the gift of God's spirit, and of the light, holiness, saving virtue and sanctifying power continually ascribed to God's "law," "words," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments" (see above). This is the ultimate test of "inspiration"--that to which Paul likewise appeals--its power to "make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:15)--its profitableness "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)--all to the end "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17). Nothing is here determined as to "inerrancy" in minor historical, geographical, chronological details, in which some would wrongly put the essence of inspiration; but it seems implied that at least there is no error which can interfere with or nullify the utility of Scripture for the ends specified. Who that brings Scripture to its own tests of inspiration, will deny that, judged as a whole, it fulfils them?

4. Historical Influence of the Bible: The claim of the Bible to a Divine origin is justified by its historical influence. Regarded even as literature, the Bible has an unexampled place in history. Ten or fifteen manuscripts are thought a goodly number for an ancient classic; the manuscripts of whole or parts of the New Testament are reckoned by thousands, the oldest going back to the 4th or 5th century. Another test is translation. The books of the New Testament had hardly begun to be put together before we find translations being made of them in Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, later into Gothic and other barbarous tongues (see VERSIONS). In the Middle Ages, before the invention of printing, translations were made into the vernacular of most of the countries of Europe. Today there is not a language in the civilized world, hardly a language among uncivilized tribes, wherever missions have gone, into which this word of God has not been rendered. Thanks to the labors of Bible Societies, the circulation of the Bible in the different countries of the world in recent years outstrips all previous records. No book has ever been so minutely studied, has had so many books written on it, has founded so vast a literature of hymns, liturgies, devotional writings, sermons, has been so keenly assailed, has evoked such splendid defenses, as the Bible. Its spiritual influence cannot be estimated. To tell all the Bible has been and done for the world would be to rewrite in large part the history of modern civilization. Without it, in heathen lands, the arm and tongue of the missionary would be paralyzed. With it, even in the absence of the missionary, wondrous results are often effected. In national life the Bible is the source of our highest social and national aspirations. Professor Huxley, though an agnostic, argued for the reading of the Bible in the schools on this very ground. "By the study of what other book," he asked, "could children be so much humanized, and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between two eternities, and earns the blessings or the curses of all times, according to its effort to do good and to hate evil, even as they are also earning their payment for their work?" (Critiques and Addresses, 61).

VI. Addenda. A few notes may be added, in closing, on special points not touched in the preceding sections.

1. Chapters and Verses: Already in pre-Talmudic times, for purposes of reading in the synagogues, the Jews had larger divisions of the law into sections called Para-shahs, and of the prophets into similar sections called HaphTarahs. They had also smaller divisions into Pecuqim, corresponding nearly with our verses. The division into chapters is much later (13th century). It is ascribed to Cardinal Hugo de St Caro (died 1248); by others to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury (died 1227). It was adopted into the Vulgate, and from this was transferred by R. Nathan (circa 1440) to the Hebrew Bible (Bleek, Keil). Verses are marked in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) as early as 1558. They first appear in the New Testament in Robert Stephens' edition of the Greek Testament in 1551. Henry Stephens, Robert's son, reports that they were devised by his father during a journey on horseback from Paris to Lyons.

2. The King James Version and Revised Version: The King James Version of 1611, based in part on earlier English Versions, especially Tyndale's, justly holds rank as one of the noblest monuments of the English language of its own, or any, age. Necessarily, however, the Greek text used by the translators ("Textus Receptus"), resting on a few late manuscripts, was very imperfect. With the discovery of more ancient manuscripts, and multiplication of appliances for criticism, the need and call for a revised text and translation became urgent. Finally, at the instance of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, the task of revision was undertaken by Committees representing the best English and American scholarship. Their labors resulted in the publication, in 1881, of the Revised New Testament, and in 1885, of the Revised Old Testament (a revised edition of the Apocrypha was published in 1896). The preferencest of the American Revisers were printed in an appendix, a pledge being given that no further changes should be made for 14 years. The English Companies were disbanded shortly after 1885, but the American Committee, adhering to its own renderings, and believing that further improvements on the English the Revised Version (British and American) were possible, continued its organization and work. This issued, in 1901, in the production of the American Standard Revised Version, which aims at greater consistency and accuracy in a number of important respects, and is supplied, also, with carefully selected marginal references (see AMERICAN REVISED VERSION). Little could be done, in either the English Revised V ersion or the American Standard Revised Version, in the absence of reliable data for comparison, with the text of the Old Testament, but certain obvious corrections have been made, or noted in the margin.

3. Helps to Study: In recent years abundant helps have been furnished, apart from Commentaries and Dictionaries, for the intelligent study of the English Bible. Among such works may be mentioned the Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible; the valuable Aids to Bible Students (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898); Dr. Angus' Bible Handbook (revised by Green); A. S. Peake's Guide to Biblical Study (1897); W. F. Adeney's How to Read the Bible (1896); R. C. Moulton's The Modern Reader's Bible (1907); The Sunday School Teachers' Bible (1875); The Variorum Reference Bible and Variorum Teachers' Bible (1880); Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1909); The Twentieth Century New Testament (Westcott and Hort's text, 1904); S. Lloyd's The Corrected English New Testament (Bagster, 1905).

LITERATURE.

Compare articles in the Bible Dicts., specially Sanday on "Bible," and Dobschutz on "The Bible in the Church," in Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, II; Westcott, The Bible in the Church (1875); W. H. Bennett, A Primer of the Bible (1897); A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament (1896); J. Eadie, The English Bible; works on Introduction (Driver, etc.); books mentioned above under "Helps"; B. B. Warfield in Princeton Theological Review (October, 1910); C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (Scribners, 1899); W. H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament (Scribners, 1899); E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure (Scribners, 1885); Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament.

James Orr

Biblical Criticism

Biblical Criticism - See CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE.

Biblical Discrepancies

Biblical Discrepancies - bib'-li-kal diskrep'-an-siz.

See DISCREPANCIES, BIBLICAL.

Biblical Theology

Biblical Theology - bib'-li-kal the-ol'-o-ji:

I. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE

1. Definition

2. Relation to Dogmatics

3. Place and Method of Biblical Theology

4. Relation to Scientific Exegesis

II. HISTORY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

1. Its Rise in Scientific Form

2. Patristic and Scholastic Periods

3. Biblical Efforts in 17th and 18th Centuries

4. Old Testament Theology in First Half of 19th Century

5. New Testament Theology in the 19th Century

6. Old Testament Theology in Second Half of 19th Century

7. Bearings of Criticism on Old Testament Theology

III. DIVISIONS OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

1. Divergent Views of Old Testament Divisions

2. Law and Prophecy

3. Primal Prophetism and Final Judaism

4. Place of Mosaism

5. Nature of Israel's Religious Development

LITERATURE

I. Biblical Theology As a Science. 1. Definition: Biblical theology seems best defined as the doctrine of Biblical religion. As such it works up the material contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament as the product of exegetical study. This is the modern technical sense of the term, whereby it signifies a systematic representation of Biblical religion in its primitive form.

Biblical theology has sometimes been taken to signify not alone this science of the doctrinal declarations of the Scriptures, but the whole group of sciences Concerned with the interpretation and exposition of the Scriptures. In that wider view of Biblical theology, the term exegetical theology has been used to define and include the group of sciences already referred to. But the whole weight of preference seems, in our view, to belong to the narrower use of the term Biblical theology, as more strictly scientific.

2. Relation to Dogmatics: This is not to confound the science of Biblical theology with that of dogmatics, for their characters are sharply distinguished. The science of dogmatics is a historico-philosophical one; that of Biblical theology is purely historic. Dogmatics declares what, for religious faith, must be regarded as truth; Biblical theology only discovers what the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament adduce as truth. This latter merely ascertains the contents of the ideas put forward by the sacred writers, but is not concerned with their correctness or verification. It is the what of truth, in these documentary authorities, Biblical theology seeks to attain. The why, or with what right, it is so put forward as truth, belongs to the other science, that of dogmatics.

3. Place and Method of Biblical Theology: Biblical theology is thus the more objective science; it has no need of dogmatics; dogmatics, on the other hand, cannot be without the aid of Biblical theology. The Biblical theologian should be a Christian philosopher, an exegete, and, above all, a historian. For it is in a manner purely historical that Biblical theology seeks to investigate the teaching, in whole, of each of the sacred writers. Each writing it studies in itself, in its relation to the others, and in its place in history taken as a whole. Its method is historical-genetic. The proper place of Biblical theology is at the head of historical theology, where it shines as a center of light. Its ideal as a science is to present a clear, complete and comprehensive survey of the Biblical teachings.

4. Relation to Scientific Exegesis: In pursuance of this end, Biblical theology is served by scientific exegesis, whose results it presents in ordered form so as to exhibit the organic unity and completeness of Biblical religion. The importance of Biblical theology lies in the way it directs, corrects and fructifies all moral and dogmatic theology by bringing it to the original founts of truth. Its spirit is one of impartial historical inquiry.

II. History of Biblical Theology. 1. Its Rise in Scientific Form: Biblical theology, in any truly scientific form, dates only from the 18th century. Offspring as it was of German rationalism, it has yet been found deserving of cultivation and scientific study by the most orthodox theology. Indeed, Pietism, too, urged its claims as Biblical dogma, over against the too scholastic dogma of orthodoxy.

2. Patristic and Scholastic Periods: The Patristic theology, no doubt, was Biblical, and the Alexandrian School deserves special praise. The scholastic theology of the Middle Ages leaned on the Fathers rather than on the Bible. Biblical theology, in spirit, though not in form, found a revival at the Reformation. But this was early followed by a 17th century type of scholasticism, polemical and confessional.

3. Biblical Efforts in 17th and 18th Centuries: Even in that century, however, efforts of a more purely Biblical character were not wanting, as witness those of Schmidt, Witsius and Vitringa. But throughout the entire 18th century there were manifest endeavors to throw off the scholastic yoke and return to Biblical simplicity. Haymann (1708), Busching (1756), Zachariae (1772) and Storr (1793), are examples of the efforts referred to. But it was from the rationalistic side that the first vindication of Biblical theology as a science of independent rank was made. This merit belonged to Gabler (1787), who urged a purely historical treatment of the Bible, and was, later, shared by his colleague, G. L. Bauer, who issued a Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Ger) in four parts (1800-1802). More independent still was the standpoint assumed by C. F. Ammon in his Biblische Theologie (2nd edition, 1801-2). Ammon does not fail to apprehend the historical character of our science, saying that Biblical theology should deal only with the "materials, fundamental ideas, and results of Biblical teaching, without troubling itself about the connection of the same, or weaving them into an artificial system."

4. Old Testament Theology in First Half of 19th Century:

The influence of Schleiermacher was hardly a fortunate one, the Old Testament being sundered from the New Testament, and attention centered on the latter. Kayser (1813) and, still more, DeWette, who died in 1850, pursued the perfecting of our science, particularly in matters of method. Continuators of the work were Baumgarten-Crusius (1828), Cramer (1830) and Colln, whose work was posthumously presented by D. Schulz in 1836. It was in the second quarter of the 19th century that the Biblical theology of the Old Testament began to receive the full attention it deserved. It has been declared the merit of Hegel's philosophy to have taught men to see, in the various Biblical systems of doctrine, a complete development, and Hegel did, no doubt, exert a fertilizing influence on historical inquiry. But it must also be said that the Hegelian philosophy affected Biblical theology in a prejudicial manner, as may be seen in Vatke's a priori construction of history and doctrine in his work, Die bib. Theologie (1835), and in Bruno Bauer's Die Religion des AT (1838-39), which disputed but did not improve upon Vatke. Steudel (1840), Oehler (1845) and Havernick (1848) are worthy of particularly honorable mention in this Old Testament connection. In his Theology of the Old Testament (3rd edition, 1891; American edition, 1883) G. F. Oehler excellently maintained the close connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which Hengstenberg had already emphasized in 1829.

5. New Testament Theology in the 19th Century: The Biblical theology of the New Testament was furthered by the memorable Neander. In 1832, he first issued his Planting and Training of the Christian Church, while his Life of Jesus first appeared in 1837. In this latter work, he summarized the doctrine of the Redeemer, while the former presented the doctrinal teaching of the apostolic writers in such wise as to show the different shades of thought peculiar to each of them, pointing out, at the same time, "how, notwithstanding all difference, there was an essential unity beneath, unless one is deceived by the form, and how the form in its diversity is easily explained." C. F. Schmid improved in some respects upon Neander's work in his excellent Biblical Theology of the New Testament, issued (1853) after his death by Weizsacker (new edition, 1864). In Schmid's work, the Biblical theology of the New Testament is presented with objectivity, clearness and penetrating sympathy.

Hahn's Theology of the New Testament (1854) came short of doing justice to the diverse types of doctrinal development in the New Testament. The work of G. V. Lechler on the apostolic and post-apostolic age, was, in its improved form of 1857, much more important. E. Reuss, in 1852, issued his valuable History of the Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, a complete and critical work, but not sufficiently objective in its treatment. The Prelections on New Testament Theology of F. C. Baur, head of the Tubingen school, exemplify both the merits and the defects of the school. They are critical, independent and suggestive, but lacking in impartiality. They were published by his son after his death (1864). A new edition of these lectures on New Testament theology was issued by Pfleiderer in 1893.

Having first dealt with the teachings of Jesus, Baur then set out the materials of the New Testament theology in three periods, making Paul well-nigh the founder of Christianity. For him only four epistles of Paul were genuine products of the apostolic age, namely, Romans, the two Corinthians, Galatians, together with the Revelation. To the growth and history of the New Testament Baur applied the method of the Hegelian dialectic, and, though powerful and profound, displayed a lack of sane, well-balanced judgment. Yet so conservative a scholar as Weiss gave Baur the credit of having "first made it the problem of criticism to assign to each book of the New Testament its place in the history of the development of primitive Christianity, to determine the relations to which it owes its origin, the object at which it aims, and the views it represents." Among Baur's followers may be noted Pfleiderer, in his Paulinism (1873).

The Theology of the New Testament, by J. J. Van Oosterzee (English edition, 1870), is a serviceable book for students, and the New Testament Theology of A. Immer (1878), already

famous for his hermeneutical studies, is noteworthy. Chief among subsequent cultivators of the Biblical theology of the New Testament must be reckoned B. Weiss, whose work in two volumes (English edition, 1882-83) constitutes a most critical and complete, thorough and accurate treatment of the subject in all its details: W. Beyschlag, whose New Testament Theology (English edition, in 2 volumes, 1895) is also valuable; H. Holtzmann, whose treatise on New Testament Theology (1897) dealt in a critical fashion with the doctrinal contents of the New Testament. Holtzmann's learning and ability are great, but his work is marred by naturalistic presuppositions. The French work on Theology of the New Testament, by J. Boron (2 volumes, 1893-94) is marked by great independence, skill and fairness. The Theology of the New Testament, by W. F. Adeney (1894), and the yet more recent, and very attractively written, work with the same title, by G. B. Stevens (1899), bring us pretty well up to the present state of our science in respect of the New Testament.

6. Old Testament Theology in Second Half of the 19th Century:

Coming back to the Biblical theology of the Old Testament in the second half of the 19th century, we find A. Klostermann's Investigations into the Old Testament Theology, which appeared in 1868. The Old Testament theology, no less than that of the New Testament, was set forth by that great scholar, H. Ewald, in four volumes (1871-75; English edition (first part), 1888). His interest in New Testament theology was due to his strong feeling that the New Testament is really the second part of the record of Israel's revelation. A. Kuenen dealt with the Religion of Israel in two volumes (English edition, 1874-75), writing nobly but with defective insight into, and comprehension of, the higher religious ideas of Israel. F. Hitzig's Prelections (1880) deal with theology of the Old Testament, as part of their contents. H. Schultz treated of the Old Testament Theology in two volumes (1st edition, 1869; 5th edition, 1896; English edition, 1892), in a careful, mainly just, and, by comparison, well-balanced handling of the development of its religious ideas.

We have not touched upon writers like Smend, for example, in his History of Old Testament Religion (1893), and J. Robertson, in his Early Religion of Israel (2nd edition, 1892), who treat of the Biblical theology of the Old Testament only in a way subsidiary to the consideration of the historico-critical problems. The Conception of Revelation in the Old Testament was dealt with by F. E. Konig in 1882 in a careful and comprehensive manner, and with regard to the order and relation of the documents, revelation in Israel being taken by him in a supranaturalistic sense. Significant also for the progress of Old Testament Biblical theology was The Theological and the Historical View of the Old Testament, by C. Siegfried (1890), who insisted on the development of the higher religion of Israel being studied from the elder prophets as starting-point, instead of the law.

Mention should be made of Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods and History, by C. A. Briggs (1883; 4th edition, 1891); of the important Compendium of the Biblical Theology of the Old and the New Testament by K. Schlottmann (1889); of E. Riehm's valuable Old Testament Theology (1889); and of G. Dalman's Studies in Biblical Theology--the Divine name and its history--in 1889. Also, of the Old Testament Theology of A. Duff (1891); A. Dillmann's Handbook of Old Testament Theology, edited by Kittel (189:5); and of Marti's edition of the Theology of the Old Testament of A. Kayser (3rd edition, 1897).

Of Theology of the Old Testament, by A. B. Davidson (1904), it may be said that it does full justice to the idea of a progressive development of doctrine in the Old Testament, and is certainly divergent from the view of those who, like Cheyne, treat the Old Testament writings as so many fragments, from which no theology can be extracted. Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, by B. Stade (1905), is the work of a distinguished representative of the modern critical views, already famous for his work on the history of Israel (1887). The Theology of the Old Testament by W. H. Bennett (1906) is a clear and useful compendium of the subject.

7. Bearings of Criticism on Old Testament Theology:

Recent works like The Problem of the Old Testament by James Orr (1905), Old Testament Critics by Thomas Whitelaw (1903), and Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, by Harold M. Wiener (1909), deal with the critical questions, and do not concern us here, save to remark that they are not without bearing, in their results, upon theology of the Old Testament. Such results are, e.g. the insistences, in Orr's work, on the unity of the Old Testament, the higher than naturalistic view of Israel's religious development, the discriminate use of Divine names like Elohim and Yahweh, and so forth; and the express contention in Whitelaw's work, that the critical hypotheses are not such as can yield "a philosophically reasonable theology" (p. 346). Indeed, it must not be supposed that even works, like that of S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (first issued in 1891), axe without resultant influence on Biblical theology.

So far from that, the truth is that there is probably no result of the readjustment of the history and literature of the Old Testament so important as its bearings on the Biblical theology of the Old Testament. For the order and the method of revelation are most surely involved in the order and relation of the books or documents, and the course of the history. The progress of the revelation ran parallel with the work of God in Nature and in the growth of human society. Hence, the reconstruction of the historical theology of the Old Testament will take much time and study, that the full value of the Old Testament may be brought out as that of an independent and permanent revelation, with characteristic truths of its own. Meantime, the reality of that revelation, and the teleological character of the Old Testament, have been brought out, in the most signal manner, by theological scholars like Dorner, Dillmann, Kittel, Kautsch, Schultz and others, who feel the inadequacy of natural development or "human reflection" to account for Old Testament th eology, and the immediacy of God's contact with man in Old Testament times to be alone sufficient to account for a revelation so weighty, organically connected, dynamically bound together, monotheistic and progressive.

III. Divisions of Biblical Theology. 1. Divergent Views of Old Testament Divisions: The divisions of Old Testament theology are matters of grave difficulty. For the newer criticism has practically transformed that mode of representing the process of Israel's religious development, which had been customary or traditional. On this latter view, the Patriarchal Age was succeeded by the Mosaic Age, with its law-giving under Moses, followed, after an intercalated period of Judges and monarchy, by the splendid Age of Prophecy. Then there was the Exile preparing the way, after the Return, for the new theocracy, wherein the Law of Moses was sought with more persistent endeavor, though not without darkly legalistic result. Such were the historic bases for Old Testament theology, but the modifications proposed by the new criticism are sufficiently serious. These it will be necessary to indicate, without going beyond the scope of this article and attempting criticism of either the one view or the other. It is the more necessary to do so, that finality has not been reached by criticism. We are only concerned with the difference which these divergent views make for Old Testament Biblical theology, whose reconstruction is very far from perfected.

2. Law and Prophecy: That they do mean serious difference has been indicated in the historical part of this article. Most obtrusive of these differences is the proposal to invert the order of law and prophecy, and speak rather of the Prophets and the Law. For the Law is, on the newer view, taken to belong to the post-prophetic period--in short, to the period of the return from the Exile, whereas, in the traditional scheme of the order of revelation, the Law was found in full force both at the Exodus and the Return, with a dead-letter period between. The garment of legalism, the newer criticism asserts, could not have suited the Israelite nation in its early and undeveloped stage, as it does after the teachings of the prophets and the discipline of the Exile. Against this, the older scheme prefers the objection that an external and legalistic system is made the outcome of the lofty spiritual teaching of the prophets; the letter appears super-imposed upon the spirit. Criticism, however, postulates for the ritual codes of the Pentateuch an influence parallel in time with that of prophetism.

3. Primal Prophetism and Final Judaism: Besides the adjustments of prophecy and law just referred to, the critical views postulate a primal period in which the religion of the prophets, with their view of Israel's vocation, was inculcated; also, a final period of Judaism, intercalated between the Return and the Maccabees, in which are seen at work the Levitical law, and various anti-legal tendencies. It must be obvious that attempts to integrate the Old Testament theology amid the prevailing uncertainties of criticism must be far from easy or final, even if the need and importance be felt of keeping the religious interest before even the historical in Old Testament study. For the Old Testament writers, religion was primary, history secondary and incidental, we may well believe.

4. Place of Mosaism: We must be content to know less of the remote beginnings and initial stages of Israel's religious development, for, as A. B. Davidson remarked, "in matters like this we never can get at the beginning." J. Robertson deems criticism wrong in not allowing "a sufficient starting-point for the development," by which he means that pure prophetic religion needs "a pure pre-prophetic religion" to explain its more than "germinal or elementary character." It may be noted, too, how much greater place and importance are attached to Mosaism or Moses by critics like Reuss, Schultz, Bredenkamp and Strack, than by Wellhausen, who yet allows a certain substratum of actual and historical fact.

5. Nature of Israel's Religious Development: It may be observed, further, that no one is under any compulsion to account for such a transformation, as even Wellhausen allows, in the slow growth from very low beginnings of the idea of Yahweh up to pure and perfect monotheism--among a non-metaphysical people--by the simple supposition of naturalistic theory. Evolutionary the critical hypothesis of the religious development of Israel may be, but that development was clearly not so exclusively controlled by human elements or factors as to exclude the presence of supernatural energy or power of revelation. It had God within it--had, in Dorner's phrase, "teleology as its soul." Thus, as even Gunkel declares, "Israel is, and remains, the people of revelation." This is why Israel was able to make--despite all retrograde tendencies--rectilinear progress toward a predestined goal--the goal of being what Ewald styled a "purely immortal and spiritual Israel." Old Testament theology does not seem to have sufficiently realized that the Old Testament really presents us with theologies rather than a theology--with the progressive development of a religion rather than with theological ideas resting on one historic plane.

LITERATURE.

I. Old Testament Literature: B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des A T, 1905; H. Schultz, A T Theologie, 5th edition, 1896; English edition, 1892; H. Ewald, Revelation: Its Nature and Record, English edition, 1884; G F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English edition, 1874; A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, English edition, 1875; E. Riehm, AT Theologie, 1889; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1st edition, 1891, A. B. Davidson, Theology the Old Testament, 1904; J. Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, 1905; A. Duff, Old Testament Theology, 1891; J. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 2nd edition, 1892; W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, new edition, 1892; W. H. Bennett; The Theology of the Old Testament, 1896; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, 1893; T. Whitelaw, Old Testament Critics, 1903; W. G. Jordan, Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, 1909; H. M. Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Crit icism, 1909; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 1885; D. K. V. Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy, Amer. edition, 1885, English edition, 1893; B. Duhm, Die Theologogie der Propheten, 1875; E. Richre, Messianic Prophecy, 2nd English edition, 1891; C. I. Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, 1881; W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel, 1882; D. K. Schlottmann, Kompendium der biblischen Theologie des A. u. N. Testaments, 1889; A. T. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament, 1891; J. Lindsay, The Significance of the Old Testament for Modern Theology, 1896; R. Kittel, Scientific Study of the Old Testament, English edition, 1910.

II. New Testament Literature: W. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, 2nd edition, 1896; English edition, 1895; H. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der N T Theologie, 1897; B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des New Testament, 7th edition, 1903; English edition, 1883; J. J. V. Oosterzee, Die Theologie des New Testament, 2nd edition, 1886; English edition, 1870; J. Boron, Theologie du Nouveau Testament, 1893-94; C. F. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des New Testament, new edition, 1864; G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, 1899; F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen uber New Testament Theologie, 1864; W. F. Adeney, The Theology of the New Testament, 1894; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897; E. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, English edition, 1872; H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, English edition, 1892; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1890; J. Moorhouse, The Teaching of Christ, 1891; O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, 2nd edition, 1890; 2nd English edition, 1891; A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, English edition, 1891; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, 2nd edition, 1897; G. Matheso n, The Spiritual Development of Paul, 1890; E. Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefs, 1867; B. Weiss, Der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855; G. B. Stevens, The Johannine Theology, 1894; B. Weiss, Der johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinen Grundzugen untersucht, 1862.

James Lindsay

Bichri

Bichri - bik'-ri (bikhri, "first born"; compare HPN , 88, 102): Father of Sheba who rebelled against David. Bichri is of the house of Benjamin and the word probably means a "descendant of Becher" (2 Samuel 20:1 ff). Compare BECHER 1.

Bid

Bid - Variously signifying, according to six Hebrew and as many Greek originals: (1) "to command" (Numbers 14:10; Matthew 1:24 the King James Version, prostasso); (2) "to prescribe" or "order" (John 2:2); (3) "to consecrate," and so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (Zephaniah 1:7; compare 1 Samuel 16:5); (4) eipon, "to say" or "tell" (Matthew 16:12); (5) "to call" i.e. "invite" (kaleo), conspicuously used in this sense in Christ's parables of the Marriage Feast (Matthew 22:3-9) and of the Great Supper (Luke 14:7-24); (6) "to take leave of," appotasso (Luke 9:61).

Bidden

Bidden - bid'-n: "Called," "invited" (1 Samuel 9:13).

Bide

Bide - bid: A variant of "abide" (which see); is the rendering of perimeno, in Wisdom of Solomon 8:12 (the Revised Version (British and American) "they shall wait for me"). In Acts 1:4 the same word is translated "wait for."

Bidkar

Bidkar - bid'-kar (bidhqar; "son of Deker" (?); compare HPN , 69):A captain in the service of Jehu, formerly his fellow-officer (2 Kings 9:25).

Bier

Bier - ber:

(1) Found in the Old Testament only in 2 Samuel 3:31, "and king David followed the bier"; and in the New Testament in Luke 7:14, "and he (Jesus) came nigh and touched the bier." The Hebrew word rendered "bier" (miTTah) and its Greek equivalent (soros) mean strictly "coffin." The so-called "bier" among the ancient Hebrews was simply an open coffin or a flat wooden frame, on which the body of the dead was carried from the house to the grave.

(2) Closed coffins, so universal now in the West, were unknown to common usage among the Hebrews of olden times, though not unknown to Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

At the burial of Abner the people were commanded to "rend their clothes" and "gird themselves with sackcloth," and the king himself in token of his grief and royal regard, "followed the bier" in the procession to the grave (2 Samuel 3:31).

(3) Of Jesus, when He met the procession that went out of the gate of the city of Nain, bearing to the grave the only son of the widowed mother, Luke says, "When the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her .... and he came nigh and touched the bier," and commanded the young man to arise, etc. We should recall that contact with a dead body was forbidden by the law as a source of defilement (Numbers 19:11 f); so Jesus here "came nigh" and "touched the bier" only in raising the young man, thus avoiding any criticism for infraction of the law. In John 11:35, as here, we have a miracle of Jesus which clearly pointed to a higher law--the eternal law of compassion which received its first full expression in the life of Jesus and forms one of the distinctive features of the gospel.

George B. Eager

Bigtha

Bigtha - big'-tha (bighetha'; Septuagint Barazi; Codex Vaticanus, Boraze; Codex Alexandrinus, Oareboa): One of the seven eunuchs or chamberlains having charge of the harem of King Xerxes ("Ahasuerus") and commanded to bring Vashti to the king's banquet (Esther 1:10).

Bigthan; Bigthana

Bigthan; Bigthana - big'-than big-tha'-na (bighethan, bighethana'; Septuagint omits name): One of the two chamberlains or eunuchs of Xerxes ("Ahasuerus") who conspired against the king's life, the conspiracy being detected by Mordecai and the culprits hanged (Esther 2:21). Possibly these men had been partially superseded by the degradation of Vashti and were thus prompted to take revenge on Xerxes.

Bigvai

Bigvai - big'-va-i (bighway; Baogei, Bagoua):

(1) The head of one of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 7:7), having a large number of his retainers (2,056, according to Ezra 2:14, 1-70, 067, according to Nehemiah 7:19), besides 72 males later under Ezra (8:14).

(2) One of those who subscribed the covenant with Nehemiah (10:16).

Bikath-aven

Bikath-aven - bik-ath-a'-ven (biq`ath 'awen, "valley of vanity" (Amos 1:5 King James Version, margin)).

See AVEN; BETH-EDEN.

Bildad

Bildad - bil'-dad (bildadh, "Bel has loved"): The second of the three friends of Job who, coming from distant regions, make an appointment together to condole with and comfort him in his affliction (Job 2:11). He is from Shuah, an unknown place somewhere in the countries East and Southeast of Palestine (or the designation Shuhite may be intended to refer to his ancestor Shuah, one of Abraham's sons by Keturah, Genesis 25:2), and from his name (compounded with Bel, the name of a Babylonian deity) would seem to represent the wisdom of the distant East. His three speeches are contained in Job 8:1-22; Job 18:1-21 and Job 25:1-6. For substance they are largely an echo of what Eliphaz has maintained, but charged with somewhat increased vehemence (compare Job 8:2; Job 18:3-4) because he deems Job's words so impious and wrathful. He is the first to attribute Job's calamity to actual wickedness; but he gets at it indirectly by accusing his children (who were destroyed, Job 1:19) of sin to warrant their punishment (Job 8:4). For his contribution to the discussion he appeals to tradition (Job 8:8-10), and taking Eliphaz' cue of cause and effect (Job 8:11) he gives, evidently from the literary stores of wisdom, a description of the precarious state of the wicked, to which he contrasts, with whatever implication it involves, the felicitous state of the righteous (Job 8:11-22). His second speech is an intensified description of the wicked man's woes, made as if to match Job's description of his own desperate case (compare Job 18:5-21 with Job 16:6-22), thus tacitly identifying Job with the reprobate wicked. His third speech (Job 25:1-6), which is the last utterance of the friends, is brief, subdued in tone, and for substance is a kind of Parthian shot, reiterating Eliphaz' depravity idea, the doctrine that dies hardest. This speech marks the final silencing of the friends.

John Franklin Genung

Bileam

Bileam - bil'-e-am (bil`am; Iblaam): A town in the territory of Manasseh assigned to the Kohathite Levites (1 Chronicles 6:70), probably the same as Ibleam (Joshua 17:11, etc.), and identical with the modern Bel`ameh, half a mile South of Jenin.

Bilgah; Bilgai

Bilgah; Bilgai - bil'-ga bil'-ga-i (bilgah; bilgay, "cheerfulness"): A priest or priestly family in the time of the Return (Nehemiah 12:5), and (under the form of "Bilgai," Nehemiah 10:8) in the time of Nehemiah. According to 1 Chronicles 24:14, Bilgah is the 1 Chronicles 15:11-29th of the 1 Chronicles 24:1-31 divisions of the priests who officiated in the Temple. In the Septuagint, the names read Belgai, Belga and Balgas. The traditional explanation of the name is "rejuvenation"; modern exegetes explain it as "cheerfulness."

Bilhah (1)

Bilhah (1) - bil'-ha (person) (bilhah; Balla): A slave girl whom Laban gave to Rachel (Genesis 29:29), and whom the latter gave to Jacob as a concubine (Genesis 30:3-4); the mother of Dan and Naphtali (Genesis 30:4, 7; 35:25; 46:25; 1 Chronicles 7:13); guilty of incest with Reuben (Genesis 35:22).

Bilhah (2)

Bilhah (2) - bil'-ha (place) (bilhah; Codex Alexandrinus, Balaa; Codex Vaticanus, Abella): A city in Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:29) = Baalah (Joshua 15:29), Balah (Joshua 19:3), and Baalath (Joshua 19:44). Unidentified.

Bilhan (3)

Bilhan (3) - bil'-han (bilhan; Balaan) :

(1) A Horite chief, son of Ezer (Genesis 36:27; 1 Chronicles 1:42).

(2) A descendant of Benjamin, son of Jediael, father of seven sons who were heads of houses in their tribes (1 Chronicles 7:10).

BILL, BOND, etc.

(1) In the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:6 f) "bill," the King James Version, better "bond," the Revised Version (British and American), is used to translate the Greek grammata, which is the equivalent of the contemporary Hebrew legal term sheTar, "writing." This "writing," in the usage of the times, was an acknowledgment of the taking over or receiving of goods or money that had to be written and signed by the debtor himself. (See Babha' Bathra' Luke 10:8.) Edersheim's averment that the Greek word was adopted into the Hebrew (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 272), is based, according to competent textual critics, upon a false reading. The Greek, according to Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, is ta grammata, not to gramma (Textus Receptus of the New Testament). The word is indefinite, literally "the letter," and determines nothing involved in controversy.

(2) A question much discussed is, Was "the bond" (the Revised Version (British and American)) merely an acknowledgment of debt, or was it an obligation to pay a fixed annual rental from the produce of a farm? Edersheim, for instance, holds the former view, Lightfoot the latter. That the obligation is stated in the parable in kind--wheat and oil--and not in money--seems to bear against the simple debt theory. Edersheim sets down the remissions spoken of as authorized by the steward as amounting in money value to only about 5 British pounds and 25 British pounds respectively, and thinks they represented not a single but an annual payment (compare Kennedy, 1-volHDB , and Fraser,DCG , article "Bill").

(3) Still another question has arisen: Was the old "bond" simply altered, or was a new one substituted for it? Here again Lightfoot and Edersheim are in the controversy and on opposite sides. The alteration of the old bond is suggested though not demanded by the language here, and, moreover, would be, Edersheim thinks, in accordance with the probabilities of the case. Such bonds were usually written, not on vellum or papyrus, but on wax-covered tablets, and so could be easily erased or altered by the stylus with its fiat, thick "eraser" (mocheq).

(4) It is probably safe to conclude: (a) that the "bill" or "bond" had to be written and signed by the person assuming the obligation; (b) that it was the only formal or legal evidence of the debt incurred; and (c) that the supervision of the whole transaction belonged of right to "the steward." Should "the steward" conspire with the debtor against the master, the latter, it would appear, would have no check against the fraud.

LITERATURE.

Lightfoot, Hor. Hebrew, edition L. and T., II, 268-73; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, 272 ff; crit. commentary in the place cited.

George B. Eager

Bill of Divorcement

Bill of Divorcement - di-vors'-ment.

See DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

Billow

Billow - bil'-o (gal, "a great rolling wave"): Figuratively, of trouble, "All thy waves and thy billows are gone over me" (Psalms 42:7; compare Jonah 2:3).

Bilshan

Bilshan - bil'-shan (bilshan): An Israelite who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2:2 = Nehemiah 7:7). The name may be explained as "inquirer" (new Hebrew and Aramaic), balash, the ("b" being an abbreviation of ben, as in bidhqar, and bimhal. Bilshan would then be a compound of ben, and lashon. J. Halevy (Revue etudes juives, X, 3) translates the name "pere de la langue," 'abh lashon. In 1 Esdras 5:8, he is called "Beelsarus," which is akin to the form "Belshar" = "Belshar-uccur" or "O Bel, protect the king." Bilshan points to "Belsun," "his lord." The rabbis take Bilshan as a surname to the preceding Mordecai.

H. J. Wolf

Bimhal

Bimhal - bim'-hal (bimhal): A descendant of Asher (1 Chronicles 7:33).

Bind; Bound

Bind; Bound - bind (deo): There are a number of Hebrew words used to express this word in its various meanings, 'alam (Genesis 37:7), 'acar (Genesis 42:24), qashar (Deuteronomy 6:8). It sometimes means "to attach," "to fasten" (Exodus 28:28; Deuteronomy 14:25). It was used also with reference to an agreement in a judicial sense (Numbers 30:2-3), or to make one a prisoner (Judges 16:10; Psalms 149:8). It means also "to control" (Job 38:31).

Figurative: In a figurative sense, to bind heavy and burdensome (extra) so-called religious duties on men (Matthew 23:4). This figurative use of the word in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 has given special interest to it. Necessarily certain powers for administration must be conferred on this company of men to carry out the purpose of Christ. That this power was not conferred on Peter alone is evident from the fact that in Matthew 18:18 it is conferred on all the apostles. The use of the word in the New Testament is to declare a thing to be binding or obligatory (John 20:23). In this sense this authority is used by some denominations in the service in preparation for the Lord's Supper, in which after the confession of sin by the people the ministers say, "I declare to you who have sincerely repented of your sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ the entire forgiveness of your sins." This statement is followed by the further declaration that if any have not so repented God will not forgive them, but will retain them and call them to account. The claim of the church of Rome that these statements of our Lord confer on the priests and bishops, or primarily on the pope, the power to retain or forgive sins, is without historical validity and does violence to the Scriptures.

See AUTHORITY; FORGIVENESS; PETER.

Jacob W. Kapp

Binea

Binea - bin'-e-a (bin`ah): A name in the genealogy of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:37: = 1 Chronicles 9:43).

Binnui

Binnui - bin'-u-i (binnuy, a proper name, "a building up"):

(1) A Levite, living in the time of Ezra (Ezra 8:33; Nehemiah 10:9; 12:8).

(2) One of the bene Pachath-mo'abh who had taken foreign wives (Ezra 10:30--Balnuus of 1 Esdras 9:31) and one of the bene Bani (Ezra 10:38) who had also intermarried.

(3) The son of Henadad, who built part of the wall of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:24), and sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Nehemiah 10:9). In all probability he is identical with "Bavvai, the son of Henadad" mentioned in Nehemiah 3:18. "Bavvai" is either a corruption of "Binnui," or is the name of the Levitical house of which Bavvai was the chief representative. Binnui is mentioned in Nehemiah 10:9 as a leading Levite, and, besides, the names in these verses are obviously those of priests and Levites; so the former theory is probably correct.

(4) Head of a family who returned with Zerubbabel (Nehemiah 7:15; Ezra 2:10).

H. J. Wolf

Bird-catcher

Bird-catcher - burd'-kach-er

See FOWLER.

Birds

Birds - burds (`ayiT; Greek variously ta peteina (Matthew 13:4) ta ornea tou ouranou (Revelation 19:17) ornis (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34) Latin, avis; Old English "brid"):

I. Meaning of the Word. All authorities agree that the exact origin of the word bird, as we apply it to feathered creatures, is unknown.

1. In Early Hebrew: The Hebrew `ayiT means to "tear and scratch the face," and in its original form undoubtedly applied to birds of prey. It is probable that no spot of equal size on the face of the globe ever collected such numbers of vultures, eagles and hawks as ancient Palestine. The land was so luxuriant that flocks and herds fed from the face of Nature. In cities, villages, and among tent-dwellers incessant slaughter went on for food, while the heavens must almost have been obscured by the ascending smoke from the burning of sacrificed animals and birds, required by law of every man and woman. From all these slain creatures the offal was thrown to the birds. There were no guns; the arrows of bowmen or "throw sticks" were the only protection against them, and these arms made no noise to frighten feathered creatures, and did small damage. So it easily can be seen that the birds would increase in large numbers and become so bold that men were often in actual conflict with them, and no doubt their faces and hands were torn and scratched.

2. In Later Usage: Later, as birds of song and those useful for food came into their lives, the word was stretched to cover all feathered creatures. In the King James Version `ayiT is translated "fowl," and occurs several times: "And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away" (Genesis 15:11). "They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth; and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them" (Isaiah 18:6). "There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen" (Job 28:7). The American Standard Revised Version changes these and all other references to feathered creatures to "birds," making a long list. The Hebrew `ayiT in its final acceptance was used in Palestine as "bird" is with us.

3. In Old English: Our earliest known form of the word is the Old English "brid," but they applied the term to the young of any creature. Later its meaning was narrowed to young produced from eggs, and the form changed to "bird."

II. Natural History of Birds. The first known traces of birds appear in the formation of the Triassic period, and are found in the shape of footprints on the red sandstone of the Connecticut valley.

1. Earliest Traces and Specimens: This must have been an ancient sea bed over which stalked large birds, leaving deeply imprinted impressions of their feet. These impressions baked in the sun, and were drifted full of fine wind-driven sand before the return of the tide. Thus were preserved to us the traces of 33 species of birds all of which are proven by their footprints to have been much larger than our birds of today. The largest impressions ever found measured 15 inches in length by 10 in width, and were set from 4 to 6 ft. apart. This evidence would form the basis for an estimate of a bird at least four times as large as an ostrich. That a bird of this size ever existed was not given credence until the finding of the remains of the dinornis in New Zealand. The largest specimen of this bird stood 10 1/2 ft. in height. The first complete skeleton of a bird was found in the limestone of the Jurassic period in Solenhofen, Bavaria. This bird had 13 teeth above and 3 below, each set in a separate socket, wings ending in three-fingered claws much longer than the claws of the feet, and a tail of 20 vertebrae, as long as the body, having a row of long feathers down each side of it, the specimen close to the size of a crow. The first preserved likeness of a bird was found frescoed on the inside of a tomb of Maydoon, and is supposed to antedate the time of Moses 3,000 years. It is now carefully preserved in the museum of Cairo. The painting represents six geese, four of which can be recognized readily as the ancestors of two species known today. Scientists now admit that Moses was right in assigning the origin of birds to the water, as their structure is closer reptilian than mammalian, and they reproduce by eggs. To us it seems a long stretch between the reptile with a frame most nearly bird-like and a feathered creature, but there is a possibility that forms making closer connection yet will be found.

2. Structural Formation: The trunk of a bird is compact and in almost all instances boat-shaped. Without doubt prehistoric man conceived his idea of navigation and fashioned his vessel from the body of a water bird, and then noticed that a soaring bird steered its course with its tail and so added the rudder. The structural formation of a bird is so arranged as to give powerful flight and perfect respiration. In the case of a few birds that do not fly, the wings are beaten to assist in attaining speed in running, as the ostrich, or to help in swimming under the water, as the auk. The skull of a young bird is made up of parts, as is that of man or animal; but with age these parts join so evenly that they appear in a seamless formation. The jaws extend beyond the face, forming a bill that varies in length and shape with species, and it is used in securing food, in defense, feather dressing, nest building--in fact it is a combination of the mouth and hand of man. The spine is practically immovable, because of the ribs attached to the upper half and the bony structure supporting the pelvic joints of the lower. In sharp contrast with this the neck is formed of from 10 to 23 vertebrae, and is so flexible that a bird can turn its head completely around, a thing impossible to man or beast. The breast bone is large, strong, and provided with a ridge in the middle, largest in birds of strong flight, smallest in swimmers, and lacking only in birds that do not fly, as the ostrich. The wings correspond to the arms of man, and are now used in flight and swimming only. Such skeletons as the Archeopteryx prove that the bones now combined in the tip of the wing were once claws. This shows that as birds spread over land and developed wing power in searching longer distances for food or when driven by varying conditions of climate, the wings were used more in flight, and the claws gradually joined in a tip and were given covering that grew feathers, while the bill became the instrument for taking food and for defense. At the same time the long tail proving an encumbrance, it gradually wore away and contracted to the present form. Studied in detail of bony structure, muscle, and complicated arrangement of feathers of differing sizes, the wing of a bird proves one of Nature's marvels. The legs are used in walking or swimming, the thigh joint being so enveloped in the body that the true leg is often mistaken for it. This makes the knee of a man correspond to the heel of a bird, and in young birds of prey especially, the shank or tarsus is used in walking, until the bones harden and the birds are enabled to bear their weight on the feet and straighten the shank. The toes vary with species. Pliny classified birds by them: "The first and principal difference and distinction in birds is taken from their feet; for they have either hooked talons, as Hawkes, or long round claws as Hens, or else they be broad, flat and whole-footed as Geese." Flight is only possible to a bird when both wings are so nearly full-feathered that it balances perfectly. In sleep almost every bird places its head under its wing and stands on one foot. The arrangement by which this is accomplished, without tiring the bird in the least, is little short of miraculous and can be the result only of slow ages of evolution. In the most finished degree this provision for the comfort of the bird is found among cranes and other long-legged water birds. The bone of one part of the leg fits into the bone of the part above, so that it is practically locked into place with no exertion on the part of the bird. At the same time the muscles that work the claws, cross the joints of the leg so that they are stretched by the weight of the bird, and with no effort, it stands on earth or perches on a branch. This explains the question so frequently asked as to why the feet of a perching bird do not become so cramped and tired that it falls.

3. Birds' Food, Blood, etc.: Birds feed according to their nature, some on prey taken alive, some on the carrion of dead bodies, some on fish and vegetable products of the water, some on fruit seed, insects and worms of the land. Almost every bird indulges in a combination of differing foods. Their blood is from 12 degrees to 16 degrees warmer than that of the rest of the animal kingdom, and they exhibit a corresponding exhilaration of spirits. Some indulge in hours of sailing and soaring, some in bubbling notes of song, while others dart near earth in playful dashes of flight. Birds are supposed to be rather deficient in the senses of taste and touch, and to have unusually keen vision. They reproduce by eggs that they deposit in a previously selected and prepared spot, and brood for a length of time varying with the species. The young of birds of prey, song birds, and some water birds, remain in the nests for differing lengths of time and are fed by the old birds; while others of the water birds and most of the game birds leave the nest as soon as the down is dry, and find food as they are taught by their elders, being sheltered at night so long as needful.

III. Birds of the Bible. The birds of the Bible were the same species and form as exist in Palestine today. Because of their wonderful coloring, powerful flight, joyous song, and their similarity to humanity in home-making and the business of raising their young, birds have been given much attention, and have held conspicuous place since the dawn of history. When the brain of man was young and more credulous than today he saw omens, signs and miracles in the characteristic acts of birds, and attributed to them various marvelous powers: some were considered of good omen and a blessing, and some were bad and a curse.

1. Earliest Mention: The historians of the Bible frequently used birds in comparison, simile, and metaphor. They are first mentioned in Genesis 7:14-15, "They, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort." This is the enumeration of the feathered creatures taken into the ark to be preserved for the perpetuation of species after the flood abated. They are next found in the description of the sacrifice of Abram, where it was specified that he was to use, with the animals slaughtered, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, the birds not to be divided. It is also recorded that the birds of prey were attracted by the carcasses as described in Genesis 15:9-11, "And he said unto him, Take me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon. And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other: but the birds divided he not. And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away." Palestine abounded in several varieties of "doves" (which see) and their devotion to each other, and tender, gentle characteristics had marked them as a loved possession of the land; while the clay cotes of pigeons were reckoned in establishing an estimate of a man's wealth.

2. Used in Sacrifice: In an abandon of gratitude to God these people offered of their best-loved and most prized possessions as sacrifice; and so it is not surprising to find the history of burnt offerings frequently mentioning these birds which were loved and prized above all others. Their use is first commanded in Leviticus 1:14-17, "And if his oblation to Yahweh be a burnt-offering of birds, then he shall offer his oblation of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons. And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off its head , and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar; and he shall take away its crop with the filth thereof, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes." Again in Leviticus 5:7-10, we read: "And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his trespass-offering for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto Yahweh; one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering." Throughout the Bible these birds figure in the history of sacrifice (Leviticus 12:8; Leviticus 14:4-8; Numbers 6:10, etc.).

3. Other References: The custom of weaving cages of willow wands, in which to confine birds for pets, seems to be referred to when Job asks (41:5):

"Wilt thou play with him as with a bird?

Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?"

See Job 12:7:

"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee;

And the birds of the heavens, and they shall tell thee."

David was thinking of the swift homeward flight of an eagle when he wrote:

"In Yahweh do I take refuge:

How say ye to my soul,

Flee as a bird to your mountain?" (Psalms 11:1).

His early days guarding the flocks of his father no doubt suggested to him the statement found in Psalms 50:11:

"I know all the birds of the mountains;

And the wild beasts of the field are mine"

(the Revised Version margin, "in my mind").

In describing Lebanon, the Psalmist wrote of its waters:

"By them the birds of the heavens have their habitation;

They sing among the branches" (Psalms 104:12).

He mentioned its trees:

"Where the birds make their nests:

As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house" (Psalms 104:17).

Birds of Abomination

Birds of Abomination - See ABOMINATION, BIRDS OF.

Birds of Prey

Birds of Prey - pra: They were undoubtedly the first birds noticed by the compilers of Biblical records. They were camp followers, swarmed over villages and perched on the walls of cities. They were offensive in manner and odor, and of a boldness unknown to us in birds. They flocked in untold numbers, there was small defense against them, and the largest and strongest not only carried away meat prepared for food and sacrifice, but also preyed upon the much-prized house pigeons, newly born of the smaller animals, and even at times attacked young children. See Genesis 15:11, "And the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away." Because they were attracted from above the clouds by anything suitable for food, people recognized that these were birds of unusual vision. When Job wanted to tell how perfectly the path to the gold mine was concealed, he wrote, "That path no bird of prey knoweth" (Job 28:7). The inference is, that, if it were so perfectly concealed that it escaped the piercing eyes of these birds, it was not probable that man would find it. These birds were so strong, fierce and impudent that everyone feared them, and when the prophets gave warning that people would be left for birds of prey to ravage, they fully understood what was meant, and they were afraid (Isaiah 18:6). In His complaint against His heritage, Yahweh questions, "Is my heritage unto me as a speckled bird of prey? are the birds of prey against her round about?" (Jeremiah 12:9). And when he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah painted a dreadful picture, but one no doubt often seen in that land of pillage and warfare: "Their dead bodies will I give to be food for the birds of the heavens, and for the beasts of the earth" (Jeremiah 19:7).

Gene Stratton-Porter

Birds, Unclean

Birds, Unclean - un-klen': The lists of birds forbidden as food are given in Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:12-18. The names are almost identical, Deuteronomy containing one more than Leviticus and varying the order slightly. In Deuteronomy 14:13 the first name, ha-ra'ah, is almost certainly a corruption of ha-da'-ah, the first name in Leviticus 11:14. In the American Standard Revised Version it is translated "kite" in Leviticus, while in Deuteronomy it is translated "glede." The additional one in Deuteronomy is ha-dayyah, and is translated "kite." Doubtless the three words, ha-da'ah, ha-'ayyah and ha-dayyah, are generic and refer to different birds of the kite or perhaps falcon family, so it is impossible to give specific meanings to them. There are twenty-one names in all, counting the extra one in Deuteronomy. The translation of many of these words is disputed. The American Standard Revised Version gives them as follows: eagle, gier eagle, osprey, kite, falcon, glede, every raven, ostrich, night-hawk, sea-mew, hawk, little owl, cormorant, great owl, horned owl, pelican, vulture, stork, h eron, hoopoe and bat. It will be observed that all of them are either carrion-eaters, birds of prey, or water fowl. The names of those birds which may be eaten are not given, the principle of classification is that of elimination. No principle of separation is given as is the case with the animals. The reason for the prohibition doubtless lies in the unsanitary and repulsive nature of the flesh of these birds, the Divine command endorsing the instincts which were repelled by such food. For particulars, see separate articles on each of these birds.

Birsha

Birsha - bur'-sha (birsha`): King of Gomorrah (Genesis 14:2), who joined the league against Chedorlaomer. The name is probably corrupt; some have tried to explain it as beresha`, "with wickedness," a name purposely used by the writer in referring to this king.

Birth

Birth - burth (genesis):

(1) It was said by the angel beforehand of John the Baptist, "Many shall rejoice at his birth"; and when he was born Elisabeth said, "Thus hath the Lord done unto me .... to take away my reproach among men" (Luke 1:14, 25). Among the ancient Hebrews barrenness was a "reproach" and the birth of a child, of a son especially, an occasion for rejoicing.

(2) This, no doubt, was due in part to the Messianic hope inspired and sustained by prophecy (see Genesis 3:15, where it was foretold that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head; and subsequent prophecies too numerous to mention). Cases in point worth studying are found in Genesis 4:1, where Eve rejoices over the birth of her firstborn and cries, "I have gotten a man with the help of Yahweh"; and 1 Samuel 1:20, where Hannah exults over her firstborn, calling his name "Samuel," "because," she says, "I have asked him of Yahweh."

(3) The marvelous passage in Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," must have intensified the longing and hope of every devout Jewish maiden to be a mother, if mayhap, under God, she might be the mother of Messiah--Immanuel! (Compare Matthew 1:22-23; Luke 1:13 f.)

See JESUS CHRIST; VIRGIN BIRTH.

George B. Eager

Birth, New

Birth, New - See REGENERATION.

Birth, Virgin

Birth, Virgin - See VIRGIN BIRTH.

Birthday

Birthday - burth'-da:

(1) The custom of observing birthdays of great men, especially of kings, was widespread in ancient times (see Genesis 40:20 f, "the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday," etc.; compare 2 Maccabees 6:7; and Herod. ix.110; in the New Testament, Matthew 14:6; Mark 6:21, "Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords," etc., i.e. Herod Antipas). Here we see the ancient custom reflected in two conspicuous instances centuries apart: (a) Pharaoh, on his birthday "made a feast unto all his servants," etc., and (b) Herod o n his birthday "made a supper to his lords, and the high captains," etc. The King James Version (Matthew 14:6) has it "when Herod's birthday was kept," etc.

The correct text here (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort) has a very peculiar construction, but without material difference of meaning. The locative case gives the time of the principal action, "danced on Herod's birthday, when it occurred." The construction is not unexampled (see Jelf, section 699). This need not be called "a case absolute," though it corresponds to the Latin ablative (locative) absolute; and the Greek genitive absolute is itself not really "absolute," i.e. it is not cut loose from the rest of the construction, but gives some event to which the principal action is referred, for the indication of its circumstances.

(2) The term "birthday" (ta genesia) was applied also to the anniversary of a king's accession to the throne (Edersheim); but Wieseler's argument that such is the case here is not conclusive. It is easy to suppose that when Herod's birthday approached he was sojourning at the castle of Macherus, accompanied by leading military and civil officials of his dominions (Mark 6:21). Petty ruler as he was, not properly "king" at all, he affected kingly ways (compare Esther 5:3, 6; 7:2).

(3) Genesia, which in Attic Greek means the commemoration of the dead, in later Greek is interchangeable with genethlia = "birthday celebrations"; and there is no good reason why the rendering of the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) here, "birthday," should not be right (See Swete on Mark 6:21, and HDB, under the word) For date of Christ's birth, etc., see JESUS CHRIST; CALENDAR, etc.

George B. Eager

Birthright

Birthright - burth'-rit (bekhorah, from bekhor, "firstborn"; prototokia): Birthright is the right which naturally belonged to the firstborn son. Where there were more wives than one, the firstborn was the son who in point of time was born before the others, apparently whether his mother was a wife or a concubine. Sarah protests against Ishmael being heir along with Isaac, but it is possible that the bestowal of the rights of the firstborn on Isaac was not due to any law, but rather to the influence of a favorite wife (Genesis 21:10). The birthright of the firstborn consisted in the first place of a double portion of what his father had to leave. This probably means that he had a double share of such property as could be divided. We have no certain knowledge of the manner in which property was inherited in the patriarchal age, but it seems probable that the lands and flocks which were the possession of the family as a whole, remained so after the death of the father. The firstborn became head of the family and thus succeeded to the charge of the family property, becoming responsible for the maintenance of the younger sons, the widow or widows, and the unmarried daughters. He also, as head, succeeded to a considerable amount of authority over the other members. Further, he generally received the blessing, which placed him in close and favored covenant-relationship with Yahweh. According to the accounts which have come down to us, all these gifts and privileges could be diverted from the firstborn son. This could happen with his own consent, as in the case of Esau, who sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:29-34), or by the decision of the father, as in the case of Reuben (Genesis 48:22; Genesis 49:3-4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-2) and of Shimri (1 Chronicles 26:10). In the Deuteronomic version of the law, a provision is made, prohibiting the father from making the younger son the possessor of the birthright, just because his mother was specially beloved (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). The blessing also could be diverted from the eldest son. This was done when Jacob blessed the children of Joseph, and deliberately put the younger before the elder (Genesis 48:13-14, 17-19); even when the blessing was obtained by the younger son in a fraudulent manner, it could not be recalled (Genesis 27:1-46). Jacob does not appear to have inherited any of the property of his father, although he had obtained both the birthright and the blessing.

In the New Testament "birthright," prototokia, is mentioned only once (Hebrews 12:16), where the reference is to Esau. In various passages where our Lord is spoken of as the firstborn, as in Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:2, the association of ideas with the Old Testament conception of birthright is easy to trace.

See also FIRSTBORN; FAMILY; HEIR; INHERITANCE; LAW.

J. Macartney Wilson

Birth-stool

Birth-stool - burth'-stool: Found only in Exodus 1:16, in connection with Hebrew women in Egypt when oppressed by Pharaoh. The Hebrew ('obhnayim) here rendered "birth-stool" is used in Jeremiah 18:3, and is there rendered "potter's wheel." The word is used in both places in the dual form, which points, no doubt, to the fact that the potter's wheel was composed of two discs, and suggests that the birth-stool was similarly double.

See STOOL.

Birzaith

Birzaith - bur-za'-ith, bur-za'-vith the King James Version Birzavith, (birzawith or birzayith; Bezaith, or Berzaie): The name of a town in Asher founded by Malchiel (1 Chronicles 7:31). It probably corresponds to the modern Bir ez-Zait, "well of olive oil," near Tyre.

Bishlam

Bishlam - bish'-lam (bishlam, "peaceful" (?)): One of three foreign colonists who wrote a letter of complaint against the Jews to Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7 = 1 Esdras 2:16). In 1esdras the reading is "Belemus." "And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes, king of Persia," etc. (Ezra 4:7). The Septuagint renders Bishlam as en eirene, "in peace," as though it were a phrase rather than a proper name; this is clearly an error.

Bishop

Bishop - bish'-up: The word is evidently an abbreviation of the Greek episkopos; Latin, episcopus.

GENERAL

1. Use in the Septuagint and Classic Greek: The Septuagint gives it the generic meaning of "superintendency, oversight, searching" (Numbers 4:16; 31:14) in matters pertaining to the church, the state, and the army (Judges 9:28; 2 Kings 12:11; 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17; 1 Maccabees 1:54; Wisdom of Solomon 1:6). Nor is it unknown to classical Greek. Thus Homer in the Iliad applied it to the gods (xxii.255), also Plutarch, Cam., 5. In Athens the governors of conquered states were called by this name.

2. New Testament Use: The word is once applied to Christ himself, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25). It abounds in Pauline literature, and is used as an alternative for presbuteros or elder (Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Timothy 3:1; 4:14; 17, 19). The earliest ecclesiastical offices instituted in the church were those of elders and deacons, or rather the reverse, inasmuch as the latter office grew almost immediately out of the needs of the Christian community at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-6). The presbyteral constitution of Jerusalem must have been very old (Acts 11:30) and was distinct from the apostolate (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4). As early as 50 AD Paul appointed "elders" in every church, with prayer and fasting (Acts 14:23), referring to the Asiatic churches before established. But in writing to the Philippians (Acts 1:1) he speaks of "bishops" and "deacons." In the GentileChristian churches this title evidently had been adopted; and it is only in the Pastoral Epistles that we find the name "presbyters" applied. The name "presbyter" or "elder," familiar to the Jews, signifies their age and place in the church; while the other term "bishop" refers rather to their office. But both evidently have reference to the same persons. Their office is defined as "ruling" (Romans 12:8), "overseeing" (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:2), caring for the flock of God (Acts 20:28). But the word archein, "to rule," in the hierarchical sense, is never used. Moreover, each church had a college of presbyter-bishops (Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 4:14). During Paul's lifetime the church was evidently still unaware of the distinction between presbyters and bishops.

Of a formal ordination, in the later hierarchical sense, there is no trace as yet. The word "ordained" used in the King James Version (Acts 1:22) is an unwarrantable interpolation, rightly emended in the Revised Version (British and American). Neither the word cheirotonesantes (Acts 14:23, translated "appointed" the American Standard Revised Version) nor katasteses (Titus 1:5, translated "appoint" the American Standard Revised Version) is capable of this translation. In rendering these words invaria bly by "ordain" the King James Version shows a vitium originis. No one doubts that the idea of ordination is extremely old in the history of the church, but the laying on of hands, mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; compare Acts 14:26; 15:40) points to the communication of a spiritual gift or to its invocation, rather than to the imparting of an official status.

3. Later Development of the Idea: According to Rome, as finally expressed by the Council of Trent, and to the episcopal idea in general, the hierarchical organization, which originated in the 3rd century, existed from the beginning in the New Testament church. But besides the New Testament as above quoted, the early testimony of the church maintains the identity of "presbyters" and "bishops." Thus, Clement of Rome (Ep. 1, chapters 42, 44, 57), the Didache, chapter 15; perhaps the Constitutions, II, 33, 34, in the use of the plural form; Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., iii.2, 3), Ambrosiaster (on 1 Timothy 3:10; Ephesians 4:11), Chrysostom (Hom 9 in Ep. ad Tim), in an unequivocal statement, the "presbyters of old were called bishops .... and the bishops presbyters," equally unequivocally Jerome (Ad Tit, 1, 7), "the same is the presbyter, who is also the bishop." Augustine and other Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries hold this view, and even Peter Lombard, who preceded Aquinas as the great teacher of the church of the Middle Ages. Hatch of Oxford and Harnack of Berlin, in the face of all t his testimony, maintain a distinction between the presbyters, as having charge of the law and discipline of the church, and the bishops, as being charged with the pastoral care of the church, preaching and worship. This theory is built upon the argument of prevailing social conditions and institutions, as adopted and imitated by the church, rather than on sound textual proof. The distinction between presbyters and bishops can only be maintained by a forced exegesis of the Scriptures. The later and rapid growth of the hierarchical idea arose from the accession of the Ebionite Christian view of the church, as a necessary continuation of the Old Testament dispensation, which has so largely influenced the history of the inner development of the church in the first six centuries of her existence.

Henry E. Dosker

ANGLICAN VIEW

I. Episcopacy Defined. Episcopacy is the government in the Christian church by bishops. The rule of the Orthodox churches in the East, of the Roman Catholics, and of the Anglicans is that the consecration of other bishops, and the ordination of priests and deacons can only be by a bishop; and with them, a bishop is one who claims historic descent from apostolic or sub-apostolic times.

II. Offices in the Early Church. In the New Testament, the office of bishop is not clearly defined. Indeed there appear to have been many degrees of ministry in the infant church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, presbyters or elders, bishops or overseers, and deacons.

Due allowance is not generally made for the mental attitude of the apostles and early Christians. They were looking for the speedy return of Christ, and consequently did not organize the church in its infancy, as it was afterward found necessary to do. For this reason, while the different persons who composed the body of Christian ministers did not overlap or infringe on each other's work, yet the relative rank or priority of each minister was not clearly defined.

1. Apostles: The apostles were undoubtedly first, and in them rested the whole authority, and they were the depository of the power committed unto them by Christ.

2. Prophets: Next to the apostles in rank, and first in point of mention (Acts 11:27), came the prophets. So important were these officers in the early church that they were sent from Jerusalem to warn the rapidly growing church at Antioch of an impending famine. Then it appears that there were resident prophets at Antioch, men of considerable importance since their names are recorded, Barnabas, Symeon, Lucius, Manaen and Saul (Acts 13:1). These men received a command from the Holy Spirit to "separate me Barnabas and Saul," on whom they laid their hands and sent them forth on their work. The election is conducted on the same lines as the election by the eleven apostles of Matthias, and Barnabas and Paul are hereafter called apostles. It is an ordination to the highest order in the Christian ministry by "prophets and teachers." Whether "prophets and teachers" refers to two distinct ministries, or whether they are terms used for the same one is uncertain. It may be that of the five men mentioned, some were prophets, and others teachers.

In Acts 15:32 we have given us the names of two other prophets, Judas and Silas. Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 12:28) that God hath set some in his church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, and writing to the Ephesians he places the prophets in the same rank. "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry" (Ephesians 4:11-12 the King James Version). And again, he says that the mystery of Christ is now "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:5). The same apostle in that wonderful imagery of Christians being built up for a habitation of God, says they are "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20).

In the case of the ordination of Timothy, which Paul says distinctly was by his own laying on of hands and that of the presbytery, it is of great consequence to note that Paul says to Timothy that his ordination was "according to the prophecies which went before on thee" (1 Timothy 1:18 the King James Version). From this it would appear that the prophets, as in the case of Paul himself, guided by the Holy Ghost, chose Timothy for the overseership or bishopric, or it may be, which is just as likely, that Timothy was set apart by the laying on of hands by some prophets, to the rank of elder or presbyter which did not carry with it the "overseership." It is at any rate evident that in the selection of Timothy, Paul is insistent on pointing out that it was through the prophets (compare 1 Timothy 1:18; 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6).

In Revelation, the term prophet constantly occurs as a term denoting rank equivalent to that of apostle: "ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets" (Revelation 18:20); "blood of prophets and of saints" (Revelation 16:6; 18:24). The angel calls himself "thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets" (Revelation 22:9 the King James Version). The words prophesy and prophesying are used in a general sense, and it does not mean that they were in every case the formal utterances of prophets.

3. Elders or Presbyters: The ministry of the elders of the Christian church was modeled after that of the synagogue in which there were elders and teachers. The Christian elders or presbyters were most likely a council of advice in each local Christian ekklesia. They appear to act conjointly and not separately (Acts 15:4, 6, 22; 16:4; 20:17; James 5:14).

4. Teachers: Teachers were the equivalent of those teachers or catechists of the synagogue before whom our Lord was found in the temple.

5. Evangelists: Evangelists were persons who probably had the gift of oratory and whose function it was to preach the glad tidings. Philip was one of them (Acts 21:8). In the instructions to Timothy he is bidden to do the work of an evangelist, that is to say, to preach the gospel. This was to be part of his work in the ministry.

In writing to Timothy, Paul twice says that he himself was ordained preacher, and apostle and teacher. This does not mean that he held three grades of the ministry, but that his duties as an apostle were to preach and to teach. The fact that the apostles called themselves elders does not thereby confirm the view that the bishops mentioned by them were not superior to elders, any more than the fact that the apostles called themselves teachers, or preachers, makes for the view that teachers, or preachers, were the equals of apostles.

6. Bishops: Bishops or overseers were probably certain elders chosen out of the body of local elders. Under the Jewish dispensation, the elders stayed at home, that is, they did no ministerial visiting, but it was soon found necessary as the Christian church grew to have someone to attend to outside work to win over by persuasion and exposition of the Scriptures those inclined to embrace Christianity. This necessitated visiting families in their own homes. Then, it became necessary to shepherd the sheep. Someone had to oversee or superintend the general work. The Jewish elders always had a head and in a large synagogue the conditions laid down for its head, or legatus, were almost identical with those laid down by Paul to Timothy. He was to be a father of a family, not rich or engaged in business, possessing a good voice, apt to teach, etc.

The term episkopos was one with which the Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles were well acquainted; and it became thus a fitting term by which to designate the men called out of the body of elders to this special work of oversight. Then, again, the term episkopos was endeared to the early Christians as the one applied to our Lord--"the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25). The duties of elders, or presbyters, are not clearly defined in the New Testament.

In the Acts, the term is found only twice, one in reference to Judas, "his bishopric (or overseership) let another take" (Acts 1:20 the King James Version), and in Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, he warns them to feed the church over which they have been made overseers or bishops (Acts 20:28). It is impossible to say whether this "overseership" refers to all the elders addressed, or to such of those elders as had been made "overseers," or "bishops."

In the epistles, we find the church more clearly organized, and in these writings we find more definite allusions to bishops and their duties (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25).

Paul tells Timothy, "If a man desire the office of a bishop (or overseer) he desireth a good work." "A bishop (or overseer) must be blameless" (1 Timothy 3:1-2 the King James Version). He tells Titus that "he is to ordain elders in every city" and that a "bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God" (Titus 1:5, 7 the King James Version).

On the other hand, there are numerous texts where elders and their duties are mentioned and where there is no reference whatever to bishopric or oversight. The epistles show that of necessity there had grown to be a more distinct organization of the ministry, and that following the custom of the synagogue to some of the elders had been committed a bishopric or oversight. At the same time the rank of a bishop, or overseer, was not yet one of the highest. Paul does not enumerate it in the order of ministry which he gives to the Ephesians--apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

That Timothy had an oversight over the elders or presbyters is evident from the fact that Paul enjoins him to rebuke those that sin: "Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove in the sight of all" (1 Timothy 5:19-20). This, of course, refers to a formal trial by one in authority of persons inferior to him in rank.

It has been asserted that the terms elder and bishop in the New Testament were equivalent and denoted the same office or grade in the ministry. This assertion seems unwarranted. They do not naturally denote the same grade any more than do apostle and teacher, or angel and prophet.

7. Deacons: The deacons were the seven appointed to take charge of the temporal affairs of the church. Their appointment was perhaps suggested by the alms-collectors of the synagogue. In the New Testament they do not appear as deacons to have had any part in the sacred ministry, except, in the case of Philip the evangelist, if it be assumed that he was a deacon, which is uncertain. Nowhere is it recorded that they laid hands on anyone, or were considered as capable of bestowing any grace. In the epistles they are mentioned with the bishops--"bishops and deacons" (Philippians 1:1), thus showing the nature of their influence as the helpers of the "bishops" in the management of the growing funds, or properties of the church.

III. Episcopacy according to the New Testament. The passages where the Greek word occurs which has been translated either as bishops, or overseers, are so few that they are enumerated: Acts 20:17, 28: the Ephesian elders are stated to be bishops (or overseers) to feed the church; Philippians 1:1 the salutation of Paul and Timothy to bishops (or overseers) and deacons at Philippi; 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and Titus 1:7 give the exhortation to Timothy and Titus as holding the office of a bishop; 1 Peter 2:25, where the apostle referring to Christ says, "unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

IV. The "Didache."

Passing out of the New Testament, we come to the early Christian writing, the so-called Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Setting aside the question for what class of Christians this document was intended, the clear fact stands out that at the date of its writing the two highest grades in the Christian ministry were still called apostles and prophets. Various dates have been assigned to this document ranging from 80 to 160 AD.

At the end of chapter 10, which deals with the thanksgiving or eucharist, the remark is made, "But permit the prophets to make thanksgiving as much as they desire." Chapters 11 and 13 deal with apostles and prophets. They were to be treated "according to the ordinance of the gospel." An apostle was not to be allowed to stay more than a couple of days at the utmost, and in no case was he to receive any money, else he was to be considered "a false prophet." A prophet could beg on behalf of others, but not for himself; but a prophet could settle among a congregation, and in that case he was to receive the same first-fruits "of money and raiment and of every possession" as the chief priest did under the old dispensation. It is to be noted that in reality the prophets, though placed second in order, were to be treated with the greater respect. If the prophet settles down, he becomes the man of the first rank in that Christian community.

Chapter 15 deals with bishops and deacons, and we are told that if appointed they rendered the ministry of prophets and teachers, but the warning is given, "Despise them not, therefore, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers." This shows that bishops were localized; and that while they could be appointed over a community, they were not considered as of equal rank with the prophets.

V. Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians says that the apostles preaching through countries and cities appointed the first-fruits of their labors to be bishops and deacons (chapter 42). It is usually said that Clement meant elders by the term "bishops," but it is much more likely that he meant what he said; that according to the tradition received by him, the apostles appointed bishops, that is, appointed bishops out of the elders--mentioned in the Acts. In chapter 44 Clement warns against the sin of ejecting from the episcopate those who have presented the offerings, and says, "Blessed are those presbyters who have finished their course."

The reason why the terms apostles and prophets fell into desuetude was, as regards the first, not so much out of respect to the original apostles, but because the apostles in the sub-apostolic age became apparently only wandering evangelists of little standing; while the prophets lowered their great office by descending to be soothsayers, as the Shepherd of Hermas plainly intimates. With the fall of the apostles and the prophets, there rose into prominence the bishops and deacons.

VI. Bishops and Deacons. The deacons acted as secretaries and treasurers to the bishops. They were their right-hand men, representing them in all secular matters. As the numbers of Christians increased, it was found absolutely necessary for the bishops to delegate some of their spiritual authority to a second order.

VII. Bishops and Presbyters (Priests). Thus very slowly emerged out of the body of elders the official presbyters or priests. To them the bishop delegated the power to teach, to preach, to baptize, to celebrate the Holy Eucharist; but how slowly is evidenced by the fact that so late as 755 AD the Council of Vern forbade priests to baptize, except by distinct permission of their bishop.

VIII. Ignatian Epistles on the Three Orders. When we come to the Ignatian epistles written between 110-17 AD, we find a distinct threefold order. We have given us the names of Damas, for bishop, Bassus and Apollonius for presbyters, Zotion for deacon. Throughout these epistles there is no question that the bishop is supreme. Apostles and prophets are not even mentioned. The bishop succeeds to all the powers the apostles and prophets had. On the other hand, as with the Jewish elders, so with the Christian presbyters, they form a council with the bishop. Here we see in clear day what we had all along suspected to be the case in apostolic times: a council of presbyters with a ruler at their head and deacons to attend to money matters.

It is quite immaterial as to whether a bishop had ten or a hundred presbyter-elders under him, whether he was bishop in a small town or in a large city. The question of numbers under him would not affect his authority as has been claimed. The greatness of the city in which he exercised this rule would add dignity to his position, but nothing to his inherent authority.

From this time on it is admitted by all that bishops, priests and deacons have been continuously in existence. Their powers and duties have varied, have been curtailed as one order has encroached on the power of the other, but still there the three orders have been. Gradually the presbyters or priests encroached on the power of the bishop, till now, according to Anglican usage, only the power of ordaining, confirming and consecrating churches is left to them.

IX. Views of Reformers. At the time of the Reformation there was a great outcry against bishops. This was caused by the fact that under feudalism the bishops had come to be great temporal lords immersed in schemes of political and material aggrandizement, and often actually leading their armies in times of war. Many of the bishops were proud and arrogant, forgetful that their duties as fathers of the children of Christ were to look after those committed to them with fatherly kindness and charity or that as pastors they had to tend the erring sheep with Divine patience and infinite love.

The bulk of the adherents to the Reformed religion, looking upon the bishops as they were and as their fathers had known them, recoiled from retaining the office, although their principal men, like Calvin, deplored the loss of bishops, and hoped that bishops of the primitive order would some day be restored. The present modern Anglican bishop seems to sum up in his person and office the requirements laid down by Calvin.

Conclusion:

Thus the claim put forth by the Anglicans in the preface to the Ordinal may be considered as sound: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church--Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

LITERATURE.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; Clement of Rome; Shepherd of Hermas; Ignatian epistles; Muratorian Fragment; Works of John Lightfoot; Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien; Pellicia, Polity of the Christian Church; Bishop MacLean, Ancient Church Orders; Cheetham, Hist of the Christian Church during the First Six Centuries; Salmon, Introduction to New Testament; Elwin, The Minister of Baptism; Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity; Potter, Church Government; Lowndes, Vindication of Anglican Orders; E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches; C. Gore, The Church and the Ministry; Thompson, Historic Episcopate (Presbyterian); Baird, Huguenots.

Arthur Lowndes

CONGREGATIONAL VIEW:

1. The New Testament Church a Spiritual Democracy:

As a spiritual and social democracy, Congregationaliam finds no warrant or precedent in the New Testament for the episcopal conception of the words "bishop," "presbyter," and "eider." It interprets epi-skopos, literally as overseer--not an ecclesiastical dignitary but a spiritual minister. It finds the Romanist view of Peter's primacy, founded alone on Matthew 16:18, contradicted by the entire trend of Christ's teaching, as e.g. when referring to the Gentiles exercising lordship and authority Christ says, "Not so shall it be among you" (Matthew 20:26 ff). He set the precedent of official greatness when He said "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister," and that "whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister (servant)." Paul's testimony confirms this in suggesting no primacy among the apostles and prophets, but making "Christ .... himself .... the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). The organization and history of the early Christian church establish this view of its simplicity and democracy. In Acts 1:20 the Revised Version (British and American) corrects the rendering "bishopric" (given by the King James translators, who were officers in the Episcopal church) to "office," thus, relieving the verse of possible ecclesiastical pretensions.

The church formed on the day of Pentecost was the spontaneous coming together of the original 120 disciples and the 3,000 Christian converts, for fellowship, worship and work, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its only creed was belief in the risen Christ and the renewing power of the Holy Spirit; its only condition of membership, repentance and baptism.

2. Election of Officers by Popular Vote: The apostles naturally took leadership but, abrogating all authority, committed to the church as a whole the choice of its officers and the conduct of its temporal and spiritual affairs. Judas' place in the apostolate was not filled by succession or episcopal appointment (Acts 1:23-26). The seven deacons were elected by popular vote (Acts 6:1-6). One of the seven--Philip--preached and, without protest, administered the rite of baptism (Acts 8:12-13).

The churches in the apostolic era were independent and self-governing, and the absence of anything like a centralized ecclesiastical authority is seen by the fact that the council at Jerusalem, called to consider whether the church at Antioch should receive the uncircumcised into membership, was a delegated body, composed in part of lay members, and having only advisory power (Acts 15:1-29).

3. The Epistles not Official Documents: The apostolic letters, forming so large a part of the New Testament, are not official documents but letters of loving pastoral instruction and counsel. The terms bishops, elders, pastors and teachers are used synonymously and interchangeably, thus limiting the officers of the early church to two orders: pastors and deacons.

Bishoprick

Bishoprick - bish'-up-rik (episkope; Acts 1:20 the King James Version, quoted from Psalms 109:8): the Revised Version (British and American) "office," margin, "overseership."

See BISHOP.

Bishops' Bible

Bishops' Bible - See ENGLISH VERSIONS.

Bit and Bridle

Bit and Bridle - bri'-d'-l (methegh wa-recen): The two words occur in conjunction (Psalms 32:9 the King James Version, "Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding; whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee"; the Revised Version (British and American) "else they will not come near unto thee," margin, "that they come not near." Methegh, translated "bit" above, is properly a bridle or halter in which the bit was a loop passed round the under jaw of the animal; recen has a similar meaning. The counsel in the verse is that men should render a willing obedience to God and not be like the animals that man has to bridle and curb in order to get them to do his will. Compare James 3:3, where we have "bit" as translation of chalinos, "a bit" or "curb," "We put bits (the Revised Version (British and American) "bridles") in the horses' mouths that they may obey us." "Bridle" occurs separately as translation of methegh (2 Samuel 8:1), "David took Metheg-ammah," King James Version margin "the bridle of Ammah," the Revised Version (British and American) "the bridle of the mother city," margin, as the King James Version; the meaning may be that he took the control or dominion of it; "I will put .... my bridle in thy lips" (2 Kings 19:28; Isaiah 37:29); "a bridle for the ass" (Proverbs 26:3); of recen (Job 30:11), "They have also let loose the bridle before me," the Revised Version (British and American) "and they have cast off the bridle before me" (acted in an unbridled (unrestrained) manner); Job 41:13, said of "leviathan" (the Revised Version (British and American) "the hippopotamus"), "Who can come to him his double bridle?" the American Standard Revised Version "within his jaws?" the English Revised Version "within his double bridle," others, "into the double row of his teeth"; Isaiah 30:28, "a bridle in the jaws of the people causing them to err," the Revised Version (British and American) "a bridle that causeth to err"; of machcom, which means "a muzzle" (Psalms 39:1), "I will keep my mouth with a bridle," King James Version margins "Hebrew, a bridle, or muzzle for my mouth"; so the Revised Version, margin.

To "bridle" occurs (James 1:26, "bridleth not his tongue"; 3:2 "able to bridle the whole body"; chalinagogeo, "to lead" or "guide with a bit"). In 1 Esdras 3:6, and 2 Maccabees 10:29, we have "bridles of gold" (chrusochalinos).

W. L. Walker

Bithiah

Bithiah - bi-thi'-a (bithyah; Beththia; Codex Vaticanus, Gelia, "daughter of Yah"): The daughter of a Pharaoh who married Mered, a descendant of Judah (1 Chronicles 4:18). Whether this Pharaoh was an Egyptian king, or whether it was in this case a Hebrew name, it is difficult to say. The name Bithiah seems to designate one who had become converted to the worship of Yahweh, and this would favor the first supposition. If, as the Revised Version (British and American) reads, the other wife of Mered is distinguished as "the Jewess" (instead of the King James Version "Jehudijah"), this supposition would receive further support.

Frank E. Hirsch

Bithron

Bithron - bith'-ron (ha-bithron; holen ten parateinousan, literally "the entire (land) extending"; 2 Samuel 2:29, "the Bithron," i.e. the gorge or groove): Does not seem to be a proper name; rather it indicates the gorge by which Abner approached Mahanaim. Buhl (GAP, 121) favors identification with Wady `Ajlun, along which in later times a Rom road connected `Ajlun and Mahanaim. Others (Guthe, Kurz. bib. Worterbuch, under the word) incline to Wady esh Sha`ib.

Bithynia

Bithynia - bi-thin'-i-a (Bithunia): A coast province in northwestern Asia Minor on the Propontis and the Euxine. Its narrowest compass included the districts on both sides of the Sangarius, its one large river, but in prosperous times its boundaries reached from the Rhyndacus on the west to and beyond the Parthenius on the east. The Mysian Olympus rose in grandeur to a height of 6,400 ft. in the southwest, and in general the face of Nature was wrinkled with rugged mountains and seamed with fertile valleys sloping toward the Black Sea.

Hittites may have occupied Bithynia in the remote past, for Priam of Troy found some of his stoutest enemies among the Amazons on the upper Sangarius in Phrygia, and these may have been Hittite, and may easily have settled along the river to its mouth. The earliest discernible Bithynians, however, were Thracian immigrants from the European side of the Reliespont. The country was overcome by Croesus, and passed with Lydia under Persian control, 546 BC. After Alexander the Great, Bithynia became independent, and Nicomedes I, Prusias I and II, and Nicomedes II and III, ruled from 278 to 74 BC. The last king, weary of the incessant strife among the peoples of Asia Minor, especially as provoked by the aggressive Mithridates, bequeathed his country to Rome. Nicomedia and Prusa, or Brousa, were founded by kings whose names they bear; the other chief cities, Nicea and Chalcedon, had been built by Greek enterprise earlier. There were highways leading from Nicomedia and Nicea to Dorylaeum and to Angora (see Ramsay , Historical Geography of Asia Minor, and The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170). Under Rome the Black Sea littoral as far as Amisus was more or less closely joined with Bithynia in administration.

Paul and Silas essayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not (Acts 16:7). Other evangelists, however, must have labored there early and with marked success. Bithynia is one of the provinces addressed in 1 Peter 1:1.

Internal difficulties and disorders led to the sending of Pliny, the lawyer and literary man, as governor, 111 to 113 AD. He found Christians under his jurisdiction in such numbers that the heathen temples were almost deserted, and the trade in sacrificial animals languished. A memorable correspondence followed between the Roman governor and the emperor Trajan, in which the moral character of the Christians was completely vindicated, and the repressive measures required of officials were interpreted with leniency (see E. G. Hardy, Pliny's Correspondence with Trajan, and Christianity and the Roman Government). Under this Roman policy Christianity was confirmed in strength and in public position. Subsequently the first Ecumenical Council of the church was held in Nicea, and two later councils convened in Chalcedon, a suburb of what is now Constantinople. The emperor Diocletian had fixed his residence and the seat of government for the eastern Roman Empire in Nicomedia.

Bithynia was for a thousand years part of the Byzantine Empire, and shared the fortunes and misfortunes of that state. On the advent of the Turks its territory was quickly overrun, and Orchan, sultan in 1326, selected Brousa as his capital, since which time this has been one .of the chief Ottoman cities.

G. E. White

Bitter Herbs

Bitter Herbs - hurbs, or urbs (merorim): Originally in the primitive Passover (Exodus 12:8; Numbers 9:11) these were probably merely salads, the simplest and quickest prepared form of vegetable accompaniment to the roasted lamb. Such salads have always been favorites in the Orient. Cucumbers, lettuce, water-cress, parsley and endive are some of those commonly used. Later on the Passover ritual (as it does today) laid emphasis on the idea of "bitterness" as symbolical of Israel's lot in Egypt. In modern Palestine the Jews use chiefly lettuce and endive for the "bitter herbs" of their Passover. In Lamentations 3:15 the same word is used: "He hath filled me with bitterness merorim, he hath sated me with wormwood." Here the parallelism with "wormwood" suggests some plant more distinctly bitter than the mild salads mentioned above, such, for example, as the colocynth (Citrullus colocynthus) or the violently irritating squirting cucumber (Ecballium elaterium).

E. W. G. Masterman

Bitter Water

Bitter Water - See ADULTERY (2); MARAH.

Bitter; Bitterness

Bitter; Bitterness - bit'-er, bit'-er-nes (mar, or marah = "bitter" (literally or figuratively); also (noun) "bitterness" or (adverb) "bitterly"; "angry," "chafed," "discontented," "heavy" (Genesis 27:34; Exodus 15:23; Numbers 5:18-19, 23-24, 27; Esther 4:1; Job 3:20; Psalms 64:3; Proverbs 5:4; 27:7; Ecclesiastes 7:26; Isaiah 5:20; Jeremiah 2:19; 4:18; Ezekiel 27:31; Amos 8:10; Habakkuk 1:6); the derivatives marar, meror, and merorah, used with the same significance according to the context, are found in Exodus 1:14; 12:8; Numbers 9:11; Job 13:26; Isaiah 24:9. The derivati ves meri and meriri occur in Deuteronomy 32:24; Job 23:2 (margin); and tamrur, is found in Jeremiah 6:26; 31:15. In the New Testament the verb pikraino = "to embitter"; the adjective pikros = "bitter," and the noun pikria, "bitterness," supply the same ideas in Colossians 3:19; James 3:11, 14; Revelation 8:11; Revelation 10:9-10): It will be noted that the word is employed with three principal spheres of application: (1) the physical sense of taste; (2) a figurative meaning in the objective sense of cruel, biting words; intense misery resulting from forsaking God, from a life of sin and impurity; the misery of servitude; the misfortunes of bereavement; (3) more subjectively, bitter and bitterness describe emotions of sympathy;' the sorrow of childlessness and of penitence, of disappointment; the feeling of misery and wretchedness, giving rise to the expression "bitter tears"; (4) the ethical sense, characterizing untruth and immorality as the bitter thing in opposition to the sweetness of truth and the gospel; (5) Numbers 5:18 the Revised Version (British and American) speaks of "the water of bitterness that causeth the curse." Here it is employed as a technical term.

Frank E. Hirsch

Bittern

Bittern - bit'-ern (qippodh; Latin Botaurus stellaris; Greek echinos): A nocturnal member of the heron family, frequenting swamps and marshy places. Its Hebrew name means a creature of waste and desert places. The bittern is the most individual branch of the heron (ardeidae) family on account of being partially a bird of night. There are observable differences from the heron in proportion, and it differs widely in coloration. It is one of the birds of most ancient history, and as far back as records extend is known to have inhabited Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and America. The African bird that Bible historians were familiar with was 2 1/2 ft. in length. It had a 4-inch bill, bright eyes and plumage of buff and chestnut, mottled with black. It lived around swamps and marshes, hunting mostly at night, and its food was much the same as that of all members of the heron family, frogs being its staple article of diet. Its meat has not the fishy taste of most members of the heron family, and in former times wa s considered a great delicacy of food. In the days of falconry it was protected in England because of the sport afforded in hunting it. Aristotle mentions that previous to his time the bittern was called oknos, which name indicates "an idle disposition." It was probably bestowed by people who found the bird hiding in swamps during the daytime, and saw that it would almost allow itself to be stepped upon before it would fly. They did not understand that it fed and mated at night. Pliny wrote of it as a bird that "bellowed like oxen," for which reason it was called Taurus. Other medieval writers called it botaurus, from which our term "bittern" is derived. There seems to be much confusion as to the early form of the name; but all authorities agree that it was bestowed on the bird on account of its voice. Turner states that in 1544 the British called it "miredromble," and "botley bump," from its voice. Rolland says the French called it, Boeuf d'eau. In later days "bog-bull," "stake-driver" and "thunder-pumper" have attached themselves to it as terms fitly descriptive of its voice. Nuttall says its cry is "like the interrupted bellowing of a bull, but hollower and louder, and is heard at a mile's distance, as if issuing from some formidable being that resided at the bottom of the waters." Tristram says, "Its strange booming note, disturbing the stillness of night, gives an idea of desolation which nothing but the wail of a hyena can equal." Thoreau thought its voice like the stroke of an ax on the head of a deeply driven stake. In ancient times it was believed the bird thrust its sharp beak into a reed to produce this sound. Later it was supposed to be made by pushing the bill into muck and water while it cried. Now the membrane by which the sound is produced has been located in the lungs of the bird. In all time it has been the voice that attracted attention to the bittern, and it was solely upon the ground of its vocal attainments that it entered the Bible. There are three references, all of which originated in its cry. Isaiah in prophesying the destruction of Babylon (Isaiah 14:23 in the King James Version) wrote: "I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water"; in other words he would make of it a desolate and lonely swamp. Again in Isaiah 34:11 in the King James Version, in pronouncing judgment against Idumaea, he wrote, "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it." In the Revised Version (British and American), "cormorant" and "bittern" are changed to "pelican" and "porcupine." The change from the cormorant to pelican makes less difference, as both are water birds, and the Hebrew shalakh, which means "a plunging bird," would apply equally to either of them. If they were used to bear out the idea that they would fill the ruins with terrifying sound, then it is well to remember that the cormorant had something of a voice, while the pelican is notoriously the most silent of birds. The change from bittern to porcupine is one with which no ornithologist would agree. About 620 BC, the prophet Zephaniah (2:14) clearly indicates this bird: "And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar work." This should forever settle the question raised by some modern commentators as to whether a bird or beast is intended by the word qippodh. In some instances it seems to have been confounded with qunfudh, the hedgehog or porcupine. No natural historian ever would agree to this, because these animals are not at home in the conditions that were known to exist here. Even granting that Nineveh was to be made dry, it must be remembered that the marshes of the Tigris lay very close, and the bird is of night, with a voice easily carrying over a mile. Also it was to "sing" and to "lodge" on the "upper lintels" which were the top timbers of the doors and windows. These formed just the location a bittern would probably perch upon when it left its marshy home and went booming through the night in search of a mate. It was without doubt the love song of the bittern that Isaiah and Zephaniah used in completing prophecies of desolation and horror, because with the exception of mating time it is a very quiet bird. For these reasons the change from bittern to porcupine in the Revised Version (British and American), of the paragraph quoted, is a great mistake, as is also that of cormorant to pelican.

Gene Stratton-Porter

Bitterness

Bitterness - bit'-er-ness.

See BITTER.

Bitterness, Water of

Bitterness, Water of - See ADULTERY (2).