Handbook for Bible Students

“B” Entries

Baal-peor.—Baal-peor was god of the Moabite mountains, who took his name from Mt. Peor (Numbers 23:28), the mod ern Fa’ur, and was probably a form of Chemosh (Jerome, Comm., Isaiah 15). The sensual rites with which he was worshiped (Numbers 25:1-3) indicate his connection with the Phonician Baal.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Baal-peor,” p. 346. HBS 23.3

Baal-zebub, In the Old Testament.—Baal-zebub was worshiped at Ekron, where he had a famous oracle (2 Kings 1:2, 3, 16). The name is generally translated “the Lord of flies,” the sun god being associated with the flies which swarm in Palestine during the earlier summer months. It is met with in Assyrian inscriptions. In the New Testament the name assumes the form of Beelzebul, in Authorized Version Beelzebub.—Id., art. “Baal-zebub,” p. 346. HBS 23.4

Baal-Zephon, Meaning of.—“Ba’al-Zephon” is understood by many to mean “Lord of the North;” but this is to take the words in their hard and literal meaning, without recognizing their applied and symbolic signification. Ba’al had a personality in the minds of his worshipers, which went beyond the etymological meaning of his name as “lord” and “master.” To them Ba’al was Ba’al. So, also, it was with Zephon. HBS 23.5

Tsaphon, or Tsephon, Tsephona, means in Hebrew, and in Phonician, the North, or the darkness, or the shadow, or the winter, or the region of destructive winds; as over against the South, the light, the summer, the region of calm and warmth; “since the ancients regarded the North as the seat of gloom and darkness, in contrast with the bright and sunny South;” as “the dark cold region, where the sun and stars are extinguished, and the light swallowed up.” Tsaphon, as a god, therefore, included the idea not of the North as a region, but of that which the region of the North typified. “Tsephon,” or “Tsaphon,” in the Hebrew and in the Phonician, was the correspondent of “Tebha” in the Egyptian, of “Tephon,” or “Tuphon,” in the Aramaic, and of “Typhon” in the Greek. Either word represented the idea of each and all of the other equivalents; and each word when used as the name of a divinity represented a distinct identity, an ideal personality. HBS 23.6

Every indication which the monuments or records of Egypt, of Phonicia, or of the regions east or west of those lands, give to us concerning the characteristics of a divinity bearing any one of these names, goes to show the same idea which is represented in the earlier Egyptian divinity, Set; in the later Hittite divinity, Sutekh; and in the still later Greek divinity, Typhon. It would seem clear, indeed, that Set, Seth, Sutekh, Tebha, Tephon, Tuphon, Typhon, Tsapuna, Tsaphona, Tsaphon, Tsephon, Zephon, represent one and the same idea, principle, essence, divinity; and that Ba’al (as the Semitic correspondent of the Egyptian R â, Osiris, and Horus) in combination with any one of those names, represents the opposite of that idea, principle, essence, divinity; the two terms together representing the dualistic divinity of Ba’al-Set, or Râ-Set, or Horus-Set, or Ba’al-Typhon, or Ba’a l-Tsaphon, or Ba’al-Zephon. HBS 23.7

How clearly all this brings out the identification and relative location of the sanctuary, or the image, of Ba’al-Zephon, in the story of the exodus. Typhon was the guardian of Lower Egypt. Typhon was the god of the desert. Typhon was the emblem of the sea. Typhon was the controlling deity of all foreign peoples. Typhon was the favored divinity of the reigning Pharaohs in the days of the Hebrew oppression. Ba’al-Typhon, or Ba’al-Zephon, was the one object of common worship among those who accepted the Ba’al cult imported from the North, and those also who determinedly adhered to the old divinities of the Egyptian theogony. The place of places for a shrine of Ba’al-Typhon was over against the wilderness gateway of Lower Egypt; looking toward the East whither the Ba’al worship was always directed; overlooking the desert which Typhon ruled; above the sea which Typhon typified; watching against the foreigners whom Typhon controlled. The northernmost highway out of Lower Egypt, as also the central one, went Canaanward. Only the southern road led pre-eminently desertward, while at the same time it was in proximity to the sea. HBS 24.1

And when Pharaoh-Meneptah, of the family Devoted-to-Typhon, neared the eastern borders of his dominion, and saw the objects of his pursuit gathered there under the very shadow of his own patron divinity, the guardian god of the land which they would flee from, how auspicious must the sign have been to him; and how confident his assurance that success was now his, so certainly as Ba’al-Typhon was Ba’al-Typhon.—“Kadesh-Barnea,” H. Clay Trumbull, D. D., pp. 419-421. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1884. HBS 24.2

Babel, Tower of.—Writers, whose Babylonian history seems drawn directly from him [Berosus], or from the sources which he used, give the following account of the tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues: HBS 24.3

“At this time the ancient race of men were so puffed up with their strength and tallness of stature, that they began to despise and contemn the gods; and labored to erect that very lofty tower, which is now called Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. But when the building approached the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid of the winds, and by their help overturned the tower, and cast it to the ground. The name of the ruins is still called Babel; because until this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and diverse tongues.”-“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 70. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 24.4

Babel, Legend of the Tower of, and the Confusion of Tongues.—This tablet is fragmentary and badly mutilated. HBS 24.5

1. HBS 24.6

1.... them the father. HBS 24.7

2. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil. HBS 24.8

3.... the father of all the gods he turned from. HBS 24.9

4. (The thoughts) of his heart were evil. HBS 24.10

5.... Babylon corruptly to sin went and HBS 25.1

6. small and great mingled on the mound. HBS 25.2

7.... Babylon corruptly to sin went and HBS 25.3

8. small and great mingled on the mound. HBS 25.4

2. HBS 25.5

1. The King of the holy mound ... HBS 25.6

2. In front and Anu lifted up ... HBS 25.7

3. to the good god his father ... HBS 25.8

4. Then his heart also ... HBS 25.9

5. which carried a command ... HBS 25.10

6. At that time also ... HBS 25.11

7. he lifted it up ... HBS 25.12

8. Davkina. HBS 25.13

9. Their (work) all day they founded HBS 25.14

10. to their stronghold in the night HBS 25.15

11. entirely an end he made. HBS 25.16

12. In his anger also the secret counsel he poured out HBS 25.17

13. to scatter (abroad) his face he set HBS 25.18

14. he gave a command to make strange their speech HBS 25.19

15.... their progress he impeded HBS 25.20

16.... the altar HBS 25.21

(Column 3 is so broken, only a few words remain, so it is omitted.) HBS 25.22

4. HBS 25.23

1. In (that day) HBS 25.24

2. he blew and ... HBS 25.25

3. For future time the mountain ... HBS 25.26

4. Nu-nam-nir went ... HBS 25.27

5. Like heaven and earth he spake ... HBS 25.28

6. His ways they went ... HBS 25.29

7. Violently they fronted against him HBS 25.30

8. He saw them and to the earth (descended) HBS 25.31

9. When a stop he did not make HBS 25.32

10. of the gods ... HBS 25.33

11. Against the gods they revolted HBS 25.34

12.... violence ... HBS 25.35

13. Violently they wept for Babylon HBS 25.36

14. very much they wept. HBS 25.37

15. And in the midst ... HBS 25.38

(The rest is wanting). HBS 25.39

-Tablet in the British Museum, translated by W. St. Chad. Boscawen; cited in “The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. I, pp. 433, 434. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907. HBS 25.40

Babil, Name of Babylon.—Il (or Ra) was, as already remarked, a somewhat shadowy being. There is a vagueness about the name itself, which means simply “god,” and can scarcely be said to connote any particular attribute. The Babylonians never represent his form, and they frequently omit him from lists which seem to contain all the other principal gods. Yet he was certainly regarded as the head of the pantheon, and in the most ancient times must have been acknowledged as the tutelary deity of Babylon itself, which received its name of Bab-il (in Accadian, Ka-ra), meaning “the Gate of Il [or god],” from him.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson,” M. A., p. 37. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 25.41

Babylon, Era of Nabonassar.—This era begins with the accession of the Babylonian king Nabonassar. Its epoch, as defined in the Astronomical Canon of the ancients, is the 1st Thoth = 26 February of the year 747 b. c. The dates connected with this era are always those of the vague year of the Egyptians.—“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., p. 483. London: John W. Parker, 1844. HBS 25.42

Babylon, Era of Nabonassar, Origin of.—This scientific Chaldean era commenced soon after the Grecian and the Roman. Combined with the Christian, they form the four cardinal eras of sacred and profane chronology. HBS 26.1

The origin of this era is thus represented by Syncellus, from the accounts of Polyhistor and Berosus, the earliest writers extant on Chaldean history and antiquities. HBS 26.2

“Nabonassar (king of Babylon) having collected the acts of his predecessors, destroyed them, in order that the computation of the reigns of the Chaldean kings might be made from himself.” HBS 26.3

It began therefore with the reign of Nabonassar, Feb. 26, b. c. 747.—“A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,” Rev. William Hales, D. D., Vol. I, p. 155. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830. HBS 26.4

Babylon, Religion of.—In the first place, it must be noticed that the religion was to a certain extent astral. The heaven itself, the sun, the moon, and the five planets, have each their representative in the Chaldean Pantheon among the chief objects of worship. At the same time it is to be observed that the astral element is not universal, but partial; and that, even where it has place, it is but one aspect of the mythology, not by any means its full and complete exposition. The Chaldean religion even here is far from being mere Sabaanism-the simple worship of the “host of heaven.”-“The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. I, p. 111. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. HBS 26.5

Babylon, Idolatry of, a Real Polytheism.—The Babylonian and Assyrian polytheism differed from the Egyptian, in the first place, by being less multitudinous, and in the second, by having, far more than the Egyptian, an astral character. The Mesopotamian system was, moreover, so far as appears, what the Egyptian was not, a belief in really distinct gods.... According to all appearance, the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was thus a real polytheism, a worship of numerous divinities, whom it was not thought necessary to trace to a single stock, who were essentially on a par the one with the other, and who divided among them the religious regards of the people.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 35, 36. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 26.6

Babylon, Idolatry of, Bel.—The god Bel, familiarly known to us both from Scripture and from the Apocrypha, is one of the most marked and striking figures in the pantheon alike of Babylonia and of Assyria. Bel is the “god of lords,” “the father of the gods,” “the creator,” “the mighty prince,” and “the just prince of the gods.” He plays a leading part in the mythological legends which form so curious a feature in the Babylonian and Assyrian religion. In the “History of Creation” we are told that Bel made the earth and the heaven; that he formed man by means of a mixture of his own blood with earth, and also formed beasts; and that afterward he created the sun and the moon, the stars, and the five planets. In the “War of the Gods,” we find him contending with the great dragon, Tiamat, and after a terrible single combat destroying her by flinging a thunderbolt into her open mouth. He also, in conjunction with Hoa, plans the defense when the seven spirits of evil rise in rebellion, and the dwelling-place of the gods is assaulted by them. The titles of Bel generally express dominion. He is “the lord,” par excellence, which is the exact meaning of his name in Assyrian; he is “the king of all the spirits,” “the lord of the world,” and again, “the lord of all the countries.” Babylon and Nineveh are, both of them, under his special care, Nineveh having the title of “the city of Bel,” in some passages of the inscriptions.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 40. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 26.7

Babylon, Idolatry of, Merodach.—As Nin was a favorite Assyrian, so Merodach was a favorite Babylonian god. From the earliest times the Babylonian monarchs placed him in the highest rank of deities, worshiping him in conjunction with Anu, Bel, and Hea, the three gods of the first triad. The great temple of Babylon, known to the Greeks as the Temple of Bel, was certainly dedicated to him; and it would therefore seem that the later Babylonians, at any rate, must have habitually applied to him the name of Bel, or “lord,” which in earlier times had designated a different member of their pantheon. Merodach’s ordinary titles are, “the great,” “the great lord,” “the prince,” “the prince of the gods,” and “the august god.” He is also called “the judge,” “the most ancient,” “he who judges the gods,” “the eldest son of heaven,” and in one place, “the lord of battles.” Occasionally, he has still higher and seemingly exclusive designations, such as, “the great lord of eternity,” “the king of heaven and earth,” “the lord of all beings,” “the chief of the gods,” and “the god of gods.” But these titles seem not to be meant exclusively. He is held in considerable honor among the Assyrians, being often coupled with Asshur, or with Asshur and Nebo, as a war god, one by whom the kings gain victories and obtain the destruction of their enemies. But it is in Babylonia, and especially in the latter Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar, that his worship culminates. It is then that all the epithets of highest honor are accumulated upon him, and that he becomes an almost exclusive object of worship; it is then that we find such expressions as: “I supplicated the king of gods, the lord of lords, in Borsippa, the city of his loftiness;” and, “O god Merodach, great lord, lord of the house of the gods, light of the gods, father, even for thy high honor, which changeth not, a temple have I built.”-Id., pp. 47, 48. HBS 27.1

Babylon, Idolatry of, Bel-Merodach.—Bel-Merodach is, beyond all doubt, the planet Jupiter, which is still called Bel by the Mendaans. The name “Merodach” is of uncertain etymology and meaning... Most likely the word is a descriptive epithet, originally attached to the name Bel, in the same way as Nipru, but ultimately usurping its place and coming to be regarded as the proper name of the deity.—“The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. I, p. 134. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. HBS 27.2

Babylon, Idolatry of, Nebo.—Nebo, the last of the five planetary deities, presided over Mercury. It was his special function to have under his charge learning and knowledge. He is called “the god who possesses intelligence,” “he who hears from afar,” “he who teaches,” and “he who teaches and instructs.” The tablets of the royal library at Nineveh are said to contain “the wisdom of Nebo.” He is also, like Mercury, “the minister of the gods,” though scarcely their messenger, an office which belongs to Paku. At the same time, as has often been remarked, Nebo has, like many other of the Assyrian and Babylonian gods, a number of general titles implying divine power, which, if they had belonged to him alone, would have seemed to prove him the supreme deity. He is “the lord of lords, who has no equal in power,” “the supreme chief,” “the sustainer,” “the supporter,” “the ever ready,” “the guardian of heaven and earth,” “the lord of the constellations,” “the holder of the scepter of power,” “he who grants to kings the scepter of royalty for the governance of their people.” It is chiefly by his omission from many lists, and by his humble place, when he is mentioned together with the really “great gods,” that we are assured of his occupying a (comparatively speaking) low position in the general pantheon.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 50, 51. New York: Hurst & Co. HBS 27.3

Babylon, Chariots of.—The employment of war chariots by the Babylonians, which is asserted by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:13; 50:37), in marked contrast with his descriptions of the Medo-Persians, who are represented as “riders upon horses” (ib., verse 42; compare chap. 51:27), receives confirmation from the Assyrian inscriptions, which repeatedly mention the chariot force as an important part of the Babylonian army, and is also noticed by Polyhistor. Their skill with the bow, also noted by the same prophet (chaps. 4:29; 5:16; 6:23; 51:3), has the support of Aschylus, and is in accordance with the monuments, which show us the bow as the favorite weapon of the monarchs.—“Egypt and Babylon,” George Rawlinson, M. A., p. 103. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. HBS 28.1

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Time of Reign of.—We have both Scripture testimony, and profane, to the fact of a twofold epoch of the years of this king of Babylon [Nebuchadnezzar]. HBS 28.2

In the first place, Daniel, a minister of state, and writing his own history at Babylon, indicates the fact in a manner which is not to be mistaken. Daniel 1:1. “In the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah [which ended at 1 Nisan b. c. 606], came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.” “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God” [i. e., when the siege was ended, which of course took some time: and it is from the end of the siege in the fourth or fifth Jewish month, as I suppose, that the first year of King Nebuchadnezzar bears date in the Scripture enumeration]. And the king ordered certain of the youths to be selected for education, which education was to last three years, “that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.” “Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.” Three years counted from 606 lead to the same date of 603; i. e., to the end of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar according to the canon. Now mark the context (2:1): “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, etc.;” that is to say, after the expiration of the three years of training, which expired, as we have seen, in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar as reckoned in the canon. Can anything be plainer than the fact thus brought out, that the actual reign of Nebuchadnezzar, in the enumeration which would of course be followed by a writer living at Babylon, began later than the conquest of Jerusalem in which Daniel was taken? and consequently, that the Scripture itself recognizes two distinct epochs, the one of King Nebuchadnezzar, in respect of his first conquest of Jerusalem, the other, of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon?-“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., p. 171. London: John W. Parker, 1844. HBS 28.3

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Length of Reign of.—The length of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is stated without any variety by Berosus, Polyhistor, and Ptolemy, at forty-three years. The Babylonian monuments go near to prove the same, for the forty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar has been found on a clay tablet. Here Scripture is in exact accordance; for as the first year of Evil-Merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, is the thirty-seventh of the captivity of Jehoiachin, who was taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year, it is evident that just forty-three years are required for the reign of the great Chaldean monarch. This agreement, moreover, is incidental; for Evil-Merodach is not said in Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchadnezzar: we only know this fact from profane sources.—“The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 133, 134. New York: John B. Alden, 1883. HBS 28.4

Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s Religion.—The peculiar character of Nebuchadnezzar’s religion-at one time polytheistic, at another monotheistic-is also evidenced by his inscriptions. The polytheism is seen in the distinct and separate acknowledgment of at least thirteen deities, to most of whom he builds temples, as well as in his mention of “the great gods,” and the expressions “chief of the gods,” “king of gods,” and “god of gods,” which are of frequent occurrence. The monotheism, or at least the “kathenotheism,” discloses itself in the attitude assumed toward Merodach, who is “the great lord,” “the god his maker,” “the lord of all beings,” “the prince of the lofty house,” “the chief, the honorable, the prince of the gods, the great Merodach,” “the divine prince, the deity of heaven and earth, the lord god,” “the king of gods and lord of lords,” “the chief of the gods,” “the lord of the gods,” “the god of gods,” and “the king of heaven and earth.” Nebuchadnezzar assigns to Merodach a pre-eminence which places him on a pedestal apart from and above all the other deities of his pantheon. He does not worship him exclusively, but he worships him mainly; and when engaged in the contemplation of his greatness, scarcely takes into account the existence of any other deity. No other Babylonian king is so markedly the votary of one god as Nebuchadnezzar; though, no doubt, something of a similar spirit may be traced in the inscriptions of Khammurabi, of Neriglissar, and of Nabonidus.—“Egypt and Babylon,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 46, 47. New York: John B. Alden, 1885. HBS 29.1

Babylon, Belshazzar’s Relationship to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:11).—There is no real evidence [from the records] which can be adduced to prove that Belshazzar was an actual descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. It is, however, highly probable that Belshazzar may have been so descended. For, like Neriglissor, Nabunaid would naturally have sought to strengthen his position by intermarriage with the old royal stock; and it is admitted on the other side that there is no evidence to show that he did not so ally himself.—“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., p. 130. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. HBS 29.2

Babylon, Belshazzar as Son of Reigning House.—As to the relation between Belshazzar and the two kings Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunaid, he may well have been the son of both. First he may have been the procreated son of Nebuchadnezzar and the stepson of Nabunaid, because the latter married Belshazzar’s mother after the death of Nebuchadnezzar. It was the custom of succeeding kings to marry the wives of their predecessors.... The queen of Daniel 5:10 may have been the mother of Belshazzar (though she is not called this), and still have been a young woman when the glory of the Chaldee’s excellency passed into the hands of the conquering Medo-Persian army under Gobryas and Cyrus. Or, Belshazzar may have been the own son of Nebuchadnezzar and the adopted son of Nabunaid. This would account for the fact that Berosus, according to Josephus (Cont. Apion, i. 20), calls Nabunaid a Babylonian, whereas Belshazzar is called by Daniel a Chaldean. What could have been better policy on the part of the Babylonian Nabunaid than to attempt to unite the conquered Babylonians and the Chaldean conquerors by adopting as his own successor the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, the greatest of all the Chaldean kings? According to the code of Hammurabi, 186, 190, 193, a man might in this way have two fathers. This was the law also, in the time of Nabunaid.—“Studies in the Book of Daniel,” Robert D. Wilson, pp. 119, 120. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. HBS 29.3

How could Belshazzar be called by Nabunaid, not merely the “son of the king,” but “Belshazzar the first-born son,” and “Belshazzar the first-born son, the offspring of my heart,” if he were not the born son of Nabunaid? Fortunately, this question is answered in Meissner’s Altbabylonisches Privatrecht, 98, where we learn that an adopted son could be called, not merely “the son,” but “the eldest son” of his adopted parents. In the inscription of Eshki-Harran the high priest calls Nabunaid his “son, the offspring of his heart.”-Id., p. 120. HBS 30.1

Babylon, Darius the Mede and Gobryas.—Xenophon’s statement about Gobryas’s share in the death of the king of Babylon is confirmed by the Tablet of Cyrus. Gobryas is spoken of in the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus as having been governor of Gutium, in Kurdistan, and therefore might be regarded as a Median. He is afterward spoken of as governor of Babylon. HBS 30.2

Dr. Pinches has, therefore, with considerable probability, conjectured that Gobryas was “Darius the Mede.” ... Cyrus, of course, retained his position as “king of kings” or “king of countries.” The book of Daniel states that after the death of Belshazzar, “Darius the Median received (i[Hebrew word]÷) the kingdom.” The Aramaic verb implies that Darius received the crown from some superior power. The expression used later (Daniel 9:1) also suggests that Darius had over him a suzerain lord, for it is: “Darius the Mede, who was made king [italics ours] over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.”-“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, p. 136. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. HBS 30.3

Now, Gobryas was governor of Gutium (which at this time included Ecbatana) when he conquered Babylon. When he became governor of Babylonia, his dominion would extend over all the country from the mountains of Media to the deserts of Arabia.—“Studies in the Book of Daniel,” Robert D. Wilson, p. 143. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. HBS 30.4

Why may not the name Darius have been assumed first of all by Gobryas the Mede, when he became king of Babylon? When Tiglath-Pileser was proclaimed king of Babylon and the other Assyrian kings who adopted a policy similar to his, they often ruled as kings in Babylon under names different from those which they had as kings of Assyria.—Id., pp. 138, 139. HBS 30.5

Babylon, A Co-Regent Called “King.“—Cyrus made his son Cambyses a co-regent the year before his death (530 b. c.). He gave him the title “King of Babylon,” while he retained “King of countries.”-“Light on the Old Testament from Babel,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., p. 386. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1907. HBS 30.6

Babylon, Witness of the Contract Tablets.—The chronicle [tablet] mentions the fact that, prior to Cyrus’s appearing in person, the gates of E-Sagila were guarded, and that no arms were taken into the sanctuary. It is not so likely that Belshazzar and his nobles were assembled there, but it is quite possible that they had fortified themselves in the great palace which Nebuchadnezzar had built; in which case it would be the palace referred to in the book of Daniel. The king’s palace was separately fortified, and protected by walls and moats,-in other words, it was a fortress within a fortified city. After Nabonidus, who was the rightful heir to the throne, had been dethroned, it is altogether reasonable to suppose that Belshazzar’s faithful followers proclaimed him king, and that he reigned in this peculiar way for nearly four months. HBS 31.1

The dating of contracts shows that the people did not recognize Cyrus as king until after he had entered the city. In contracts published by Father Strassmaier there are no less than twelve dated in the reign of Nabonidus after he was imprisoned, in fact, up to the day before Belshazzar’s death, and one even later. On the other hand, there is one published contract dated in the reign of Cyrus which is supposed to belong to the month prior to his entrance into the city, but the tablet is effaced, and the date uncertain. The first tablet, the date in which his reign is mentioned, was written on the 24th of Marchesvan, i. e., twenty-one days after Cyrus had proclaimed peace in Babylon. These facts show that Cyrus was not generally acknowledged to be king until after he entered Babylon, three and a half months after his army had dethroned Nabonidus. And although during this period the scribes continued to date legal documents in the reign of the dethroned king, it is quite reasonable to believe that at least some regarded Belshazzar as the ruler.—“Light on the Old Testament from Babel,” Albert T. Clay, Ph. D., pp. 377-379. Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Company, 1907. HBS 31.2

Note.—Thus the tablets were still dated in the reign of Nabonidus, while the final blow was tarrying. Little wonder, then, that Belshazzar himself should count Nabonidus first ruler, himself second, and so promise Daniel the place of “third ruler in the kingdom.”-Eds. HBS 31.3

Babylon, How Sonship was Counted in Ancient East.—Son was used in ancient documents (1) to denote succession in office, as Jehu is called the son of Omri [in inscription of Shalmaneser III: “The tribute of the Tyrian, the Sidonian, and of Jehu, son of Omri, I received.”-Barton’s “Archeology and the Bible,” p. 362]; or (2) for members of a corporation, as the son of a prophet is used in the Scriptures (1 Kings 20:35), or the son of a scribe in Assyrian [Sargon’s Annals]; or (3) for remote descendant, as son of Adam in the “Arabian Nights” (Lane, ii, 196), or son of David, and son of Abraham in the New Testament (Luke 18:38; 19:9); or (4) for grandson, as frequently in the Scriptures.—“Studies in the Book of Daniel,” Robert D. Wilson, pp. 117, 118. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. HBS 31.4

Babylon, City of, in the Light of Excavations.—In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the traveler who approached the capital of Babylonia from the north would find himself where the Nil Canal flows today, face to face with the colossal wall that surrounded mighty Babylon. Part of this wall still exists and is recognizable at the present time in the guise of a low earthen ridge about four to five kilometers in length. Up to the present [Preface is dated “Babylon, May 16, 1912”] we have only excavated a small part.... There was a massive wall of crude brick 7 meters thick, in front of which, at an interval of about 12 meters, stood another wall of burnt brick 7.8 meters thick.... The space between the two walls was filled in with rubble, at least to the height at which the ruins are preserved, and presumably to the crown of the outer wall. Thus on the top of the wall there was a road that afforded space for a team of four horses abreast, and even for two such teams to pass each other.... The line of defense was very long; the northeast front, which can still be measured, is 4,400 meters long.... Generally speaking, the measurements given [by Herodotus and other ancient writers] are not in accordance with those actually preserved, while the general description, on the contrary, is usually accurate.—“The Excavations at Babylon,” Robert Koldeway, pp. 1-3. London, 1914. HBS 31.5

Note.—It must be remembered, however, that excavators are not sure that they have found the outmost walls and defenses of Babylon : so that Herodotus, while admittedly capable of exaggerating, may not be overstating Babylon’s dimensions after all.—Eds. HBS 32.1

Babylon, The Confounder Confounded.—While the Greek name Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were nevertheless two entirely distinct titles. These titles were both alike often given to the same god, but they had totally different meanings. Baal, as we have already seen, signified the “lord;” but Bel signified the “confounder.” When, then, we read that Belus, the father of Ninus, was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt in what sense it was that the title of Belus was given to him? It must have been in the sense of Bel the “confounder.” And to this meaning of the name of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in Jeremiah 1:2, where it is said, “Bel is confounded,” that is, “The confounder is brought to confusion.” That Cush was known to pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel, the “confounder,” a statement of Ovid very clearly proves. HBS 32.2

The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus, “the god of gods,” from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say of himself: “The ancients ... called me Chaos.” Now, first, this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but as the “god of confusion;” but, secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name Chus, or Cush? Then, look at the symbol of Janus, whom “the ancients called Chaos,” and it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of Cush, when he is identified with Bel, the “confounder.” That symbol is a club; and the name of “a club” i n Chaldee comes from the very word which signifies “to break in pieces,” or scatter abroad.” He who caused the confusion of tongues was he who “broke” the previously united earth (Genesis 11:1) “in pieces,” and “scattered” the fragments abroad. HBS 32.3

How significant, then, as a symbol, is the club, as commemorating the work of Cush, as Bel, the “confounder”! And that significance will be all the more apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of Genesis 11:9, and finds that the very word from which a club derives its name is that which is employed when it is said that in consequence of the confusion of tongues, the children of men were “scattered abroad on the face of all the earth.” The word there used for scattering abroad is Hephaitz, which, in the Greek form becomes Hephaizt, and hence the origin of the well-known but little understood name of Hephaistos, as applied to Vulcan, “the father of the gods.” Hephaistos is the name of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as the “scatterer abroad,” as Bel is the name of the same individual as the “confounder of tongues.” HBS 32.4

Here, then, the reader may see the real origin of Vulcan’s hammer, which is just another name for the club of Janus or Chaos, “the god of confusion;” and to this, as breaking the earth in pieces, there is a covert allusion in Jeremiah 50:23, where Babylon, as identified with its primeval god, is thus apostrophized: “How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken!” Now, as the tower building was the first act of open rebellion after the flood, and Cush, as Bel, was the ringleader in it, he was, of course, the first to whom the name Merodach, “the great rebel,” must have been given, and, therefore, according to the usual parallelism of the prophetic language, we find both names of the Babylonian god referred to together, when the judgment on Babylon is predicted: “Bel is confounded: Merodach is broken in pieces.” Jeremiah 1:2. The judgment comes upon the Babylonian god according to what he had done. As Bel, he had “confounded” the whole earth, therefore he is “confounded.” As Merodach, by the rebellion he had stirred up, he had “broken” the united world in pieces; therefore he himself is “broken in pieces.”-“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, pp. 26-28, 7th edition. London: S. W. Partridge & Co. HBS 33.1

Beelzebub, In New Testament.—Beelzebub (in Authorized Version and Revised Version is an error [after Vulgate] for Beelzebul [Revised Version, margin]). In the time of Christ this was the current name for the chief or prince of demons, and was identified with Satan and the devil. The Jews committed the unpardonable sin of ascribing Christ’s work of casting out demons to Beelzebul, thus ascribing to the worst source the supreme manifestation of goodness. Matthew 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18, 19. There can be little doubt that it is the same name as Baalzebub. It is a well-known phenomenon in the history of religions that the gods of one nation become the devils of its neighbors and enemies. When the Aryans divided into Indians and Iranians, the Devas remained gods for the Indians, but became devils (daevas) for the Iranians, while the Ahuras remained gods for the Iranians and became devils (asuras) for the Indians. Why Baalzebub became Beelzebul, why the b changed into l, is a matter of conjecture.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Beelzebub,” p. 423. HBS 33.2

Baptism, Definition of Term in Lexicons.— HBS 33.3

[Greek word] [bapto]: ... 1. Trans. to dip in water.... 2. To dip in dye, to dye.... 3. To draw water by dipping a vessel.—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, 7th edition, 1882. New York: American Book Company. HBS 33.4

[Greek word] [bapto]: ... To dip, plunge, immerse: to dye or stain; ... to temper, by dipping in water; ... to wash; ... to fill by drawing up; ... to bathe one’s self; to be submerged, sunk; ... to be lost as a ship.—Greek-English Lexicon, George Dunbar, A. M., F. R. S. E., professor of Greek in the University of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart, 1850. HBS 33.5

[Greek word] [bapto]: 1. To dip.... 2. To dye....4. To plunge a knife.—Greek Lexicon of the Greek and Byzantine Periods (from B. C. 146 to A. D. 1100), E. A. Sophocles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900. HBS 33.6

[Greek word] [baptisma] ([Greek word] [baptizo]), a word peculiar to the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers, immersion, submersion.... 1. Used tropically of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed.... 2. Of John’s baptism.... 3. Of Christian baptism; this according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of sacred immersion, commanded by Christ.—A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, translated by Joseph Henry Thayer, D. D., 4th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. HBS 33.7

Note.—Bapto is the root whence comes the word baptizo, the Anglicized form of which, “baptize,” is a familiar word in our English speech.—Eds. HBS 34.1

Baptism, Early Interpretation of.—The doctrine of baptism stands in intimate connection with the doctrine of the church. From the founding of Christianity great efficacy was attached to baptism in relation to the forgiveness of sins and to regeneration. Some of the Fathers, especially Irenaus, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in treating of this subject, as well as of the doctrine of the church, often indulged in exaggerated, fanciful, and absurd allegories and symbolisms, while Origen draws a more distinct line between the external sign and the thing signified. Infant baptism was not universal until the time of Tertullian; and this Father, though a strenuous advocate of the doctrine of original sin, nevertheless opposed padobaptism on the ground that an innocent age needs no cleansing from sins. Origen, on the contrary, is in favor of infant baptism. In the time of Cyprian it became more general in the African church, so that the African bishop Fidus appealed to the analogy of circumcision under the Old Testament dispensation, and proposed to delay the performance of the ceremony of baptism to the eighth day, which, however, Cyprian did not allow.—“A History of Christian Doctrines,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, pp. 277, 278. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880. HBS 34.2

Bible, Christ the Key to.—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, 10. 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; 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.”-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Bible,” p. 468. HBS 34.3

Bible, Time of Writing of New Testament Books.— HBS 34.4

Epistle of James before a. d. 50 HBS 34.5

1 and 2 Thessalonians, from Corinth 52-53 HBS 34.6

1 Corinthians and Galatians, from Ephesus 55-57 HBS 34.7

2 Corinthians, from Macedonia 57 HBS 34.8

Romans, from Corinth 57, 58 HBS 34.9

Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, from Rome 62 HBS 34.10

Philippians, from Rome 63 HBS 34.11

1 Timothy and Titus, from Macedonia 65-66 HBS 34.12

2 Timothy, from Rome 67 HBS 34.13

Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Jude, and Hebrews before 67 HBS 34.14

1 and 2 Peter, from Rome 64-67 HBS 34.15

Fourth Gospel, Revelation, Epistles of John, from Ephesus before 100 HBS 34.16

-Id., art. “Chronology of the New Testament,” p. 650. HBS 34.17

Note.—This table is not based upon any definite Chronological data, but represents the best judgment of modern scholars.—Eds. HBS 34.18

Bible, New Testament Manuscripts.—It is an amazing thing that no scholar forty years ago had ever read a manuscript written during the lifetime of Jesus and in the language commonly spoken and written in that era. Many classics dated indeed from that or earlier periods, but these were all known to us through manuscripts written many centuries after their composition. The New Testament manuscripts had been reproduced oftener than any classic, so that the text was to that degree more certain, yet no New Testament manuscript known was older than the fourth century a. d., and only three or four older than the sixth century. Horne, in his well-known “Introduction,” published some ninety years ago, could mention 550 good New Testament texts of all ages that had been collated by scholars, and Westcott and Hort made their critical Greek text, which formed the basis of our Revised Version, from 1,700 manuscripts; but in 1902, when Von Soden published his “Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments,” he knew of 2,328 uncial manuscripts besides over 1,700 important minuscules, the text of the New Testament being more thoroughly fixed, therefore, than the text of any of Shakespeare’s plays.... HBS 35.1

Up to this generation the oldest New Testament manuscripts known were the Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century, discovered 1859; the Codex Vaticanus, fourth century, published, though very inaccurately, 1828-38; the Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century, known since the seventeenth century and representing essentially the text of our Authorized Version; and the Codex Bezae, sixth century or earlier, the knowledge of which dates to the sixteenth century. Such were all the ancient New Testament manuscripts of the first class known previous to this generation; though there were known a good many valuable manuscripts of the second class, dating from the sixth and later centuries. HBS 35.2

In 1909 Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory catalogued all the known manuscripts of the New Testament in all lands, being able to list thirty-five or forty fragments of parchment and vellum dating from the fourth to the sixth century, and some twenty fragments from some fifteen different ancient New Testaments written on papyrus between the third and sixth centuries. Sir F. G. Kenyon in 1913 added eight papyrus Testaments to this list. The present writer, in 1917, was able to report twenty-eight additional fragments of papyrus New Testaments dating from the third to the sixth century. HBS 35.3

The importance of these discoveries is immensely great. We now for the first time have in our hands manuscripts written in the third century, a hundred years earlier than any previously known, and these New Testaments written long before the days of the emperor Constantine are in every essential exactly like our own. They differ occasionally in verbal form and in the spelling of words, as the Revised Version differs from the Authorized Version and the Authorized Version from Wycliffe’s version, but in every essential phrase and fact they are our New Testament and none other.... HBS 35.4

While most of these newly recovered Greek texts are pitifully fragmentary, one at least, the Washington Codex, in size and complete preservation, as well as in other respects, deserves to rank on an equality with the Sinaitic manuscript which Tischendorf found on Mt. Sinai and which became the chief treasure of the library in Constantinople. HBS 35.5

This beautiful manuscript of the four Gospels was bought in Cairo, December, 1906, by an American, Mr. Charles L. Freer, of Detroit. It consists of 372 well-written pages, and according to Prof. Edgar J. Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago, “it promises to play an important part in further studies of the Western text,” while in its Syrian parts it stands with the Alexandrinus as a second and hardly inferior Greek witness. Prof. Henry A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan, the scholarly editor of this manuscript, has shown convincingly, as the writer believes, that the date of this manuscript, which shall forever be the pride of America, must be allowed to be “the fourth century, though the beginning of the fifth must still be admitted as a possibility.” With the exception of a spectacular addition to Mark 16:14, this venerable manuscript-so old that it was shown as a curiosity in the fifth century, as the blots from pilgrim candles still testify-remains another invaluable testimony to the accuracy with which our New Testament has been transmitted.—Article by Camden M. Cobern, D. D., Litt. D., “The New Archeological Discoveries and the New Testament Text,” in the Biblical Review, January, 1920, pp. 14-21, New York. HBS 35.6

Bible, Key-Words to Books of.— HBS 36.1