Source Book for Bible Students
“B” Entries
Babylon, Historical Sketch of.—Babylonia (Assyr. Babilu, Per. Babirush) was the name given to the plain of the Tigris and Euphrates, now forming the modern Arab province of Irak-Arabi. In the Old Testament it is Shinar, Babel, or ‘the land of the Chaldees.” The boundaries of Babylonia varied at different periods of its history. The northern frontier was formed partly by the Euphrates and its tributaries, but chiefly by a line of forts and frontier stations established by mutual arrangement between the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, probably the Median Wall of the classical writers. [p. 38] ... SBBS 45.1
It is now evident, from the monuments and inscriptions which have been obtained from the traditionally oldest cities of Chaldea, that the civilization of the ancient people of Babylonia has an antiquity rivaling that of ancient Egypt. [p. 40] ... SBBS 45.2
On the disruption of the Assyrian Empire after the death of Assurbani-pal, the throne of Babylon was seized by Nabu-abla-utzar, or Nabopolassar, the general of the Babylonian garrison, who had married a Median princess, and was himself no doubt of collateral descent from the royal line of Babylonian kings. He was succeeded in 604 b. c. by his son Nebuchadnezzar, one of the greatest sovereigns who ever ruled over the ancient empire. During a long reign of forty-three years he succeeded in recovering the long-lost provinces of the kingdom, and once more making Babylon queen of nations. He not only restored the empire and rebuilt Babylon, but almost every temple and edifice throughout the land underwent restoration at his hands. It is an astonishing fact that not a single mound throughout Babylonia has as yet been opened by the explorers which has not been found to contain bricks, cylinders, or tablets inscribed with his name. In 599 b. c. he captured Jerusalem, and sent Jehoiakim captive to Babylon, and eleven years later, owing to the still disturbed state of the kingdom (588 b. c.), he destroyed the city, and removed most of the inhabitants to Chaldea. SBBS 45.3
Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in 561 b. c. by his son Evil-merodach, who was murdered by his brother-in-law, “chief seer” of one of the temples. His reign lasted until 556 b. c. The throne was in 556 b. c. usurped by a powerful and active prince, Nabu-naid or Nabonidus, the son of a “chief seer,” whose reign is the most critical, next to that of Nebuchadnezzar, in later Babylonian history. The inscriptions of this king are found in almost all temples, and some of them contain important historical facts. In a cylinder found at Sippara the king records his restoration of the temple at Kharran, which was destroyed by the Scythians; and in his sixth year, 549 b. c., he records the overthrow of Astyages, king of the Medes, and the capture of Ecbatana by Cyrus. In the king’s seventeenth year the whole land of Babylonia was in revolt against him for neglecting the duties of court and religion, leaving all to his son Belshazzar. SBBS 45.4
During the summer of this year Cyrus invaded Babylonia, advancing from the neighborhood of the modern Bagdad, and reaching Sippara on the 14th day of Tammuz (June), which the garrison yielded without fighting. Two days later, Tammuz 16, Babylon capitulated. Babylonia now became a Persian province, and under the rule of Cyrus (538-529 b. c.) and Cambyses (529-521), it appears to have been peaceful. On the accession to the throne of Darius, son of Hystaspes, the old rebellious spirit once more asserted itself, and for three years (521-519) the city held out against the Persians. SBBS 45.5
With the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Babylonia came under the short-lived dominion of Alexander the Great, who died in that city (323 b. c.)-Standard Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pp. 38, 40, 43, 44. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company. SBBS 45.6
The epoch of the new Babylonian Empire covers a period of time from about 615 to 538 b. c., approximately three quarters of a century.... SBBS 46.1
Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur, i. e., “Nabu protect the heir”), according to the Ptolemaic Canon, reigned from 625 b. c. (the date of his accession thus being 626) until 605 b. c., in which year he died, shortly before the victory won by his son Nebuchadrezzar over the Egyptians at Carchemish, having been in ill health before Nebuchadrezzar started for Syria.... SBBS 46.2
Nabopolassar, who died in 605, while his son was on the march for Syria, only just missed the satisfaction of seeing the new kingdom of Babylonia which he had founded enter upon the heritage of the Assyrian Empire, out of which the western province could least of all be spared. He did not see it: instead the news of his father’s death reached the young Nebuchadrezzar (Nabu-kudur-usur, i. e., “Nabu protect the crown”) shortly after the victory of the Egyptians, which decided the fate of Syria for the time being; and leaving his generals to follow up the victory, he had to return to Babylon in hot haste to assume the royal dignity that awaited him. There he received the crown at the hands of the great nobles without encountering any obstacles, and for the long period of his glorious reign, which lasted forty-two years (604-562) he guided the destinies of his country, extended and strengthened its borders, and thus made Babylonia a great power, and Babylon one of the most splendid and illustrious cities of ancient times. If we further take into consideration that it was he who likewise conquered Syria for Babylonia, we cannot but acknowledge his claim to be counted the first ruler who entered upon the full possession of Assyria and consolidated it. SBBS 46.3
Amid all the many and sometimes detailed inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar which have been found in the ruins of Babylon and other cities, not one contains any account of his campaigns; but from a passage in the preamble of the great inscription of the kingdom, we see that in spite of his preference for building and other peaceful labors he was a mighty warrior.—“The Historians’ History of the World,” edited by Henry Smith Williams, LL. D., Vol. I, pp. 448, 449. New York: The Outlook Company, 1905. SBBS 46.4
Babylon, City of.—The accounts given by the classic writers are very confused. With the capital of the older kingdom they have, for the most part, nothing to do; they are all to be referred to the resuscitated and adorned residence of Nebuchadnezzar. Herodotus gives a description of the city, as if from his own observation. It stood on both sides of the river, in the form of a square, the length of whose sides is variously given; by Herodotus it is stated at 120 stadia, making the whole circumference 60 miles. It was surrounded by a wall 200 cubits high and 50 cubits thick, and furnished with 100 brazen gates-the last number is raised by Diodorus to 250. The city was built with extreme regularity, with broad straight streets crossing one another at right angles; and the two parts were connected by a roofed bridge built of hewn stones, fastened together with iron clamps. Of this bridge, not a trace has yet been discovered. The western part of the city is undoubtedly the older, belonging to the early and properly Babylonish dynasty. Here stood, in the middle of the city, as it is described, the famous temple of Belus or Baal, called by the Arabs, Birs Nimrud. The next important point on the western side is the mass of ruins called Mujellibe, which was probably the royal citadel of the old Babylonian monarchy. On the eastern side of the river stood the buildings of the Neo-Babylonian period, among which the “Hanging Gardens” of Semiramis are to be singled out as one of the wonders of the world. Of these gardens Diodorus has left us a detailed description. The ruins may be recognized in the mound called El-Kasr. The city suffered greatly from the Persian conquest. Xerxes plundered the temple of Belus, which had been hitherto spared, and Herodotus found it empty. Although the Persian kings made Babylon their residence, nothing was done for the restoration of the city; and Alexander the Great, who, on his entrance, in 331 b. c., had promised the inhabitants to rebuild the ruined temple, was unable even to clear away the rubbish, although he employed 10,000 workmen for two months. After his death in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, and the foundation of Seleucia on the Tigris by Seleucus Nicator, Babylon went rapidly to decay.—Standard Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Babylon,” p. 37. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company. SBBS 46.5
Babylon, City of, Description by Herodotus.—178. When Cyrus had reduced all the other parts of the continent, he attacked the Assyrians. Now Assyria contains many large cities, but the most renowned and the strongest, and where the seat of government was established after the destruction of Nineveh, was Babylon, which is of the following description: The city stands in a spacious plain, and is quadrangular, and shows a front on every side of one hundred and twenty stades; these stades make up the sum of four hundred and eighty in the whole circumference. Such is the size of the city of Babylon. It was adorned in a manner surpassing any city we are acquainted with. In the first place, a moat deep, wide, and full of water, runs entirely around it; next, there is a wall fifty royal cubits in breadth, and in height two hundred; but the royal cubit is larger than the common one by three fingers’ breadth. SBBS 47.1
179.... And on the top of the wall, at the edges, they built dwellings of one story, fronting each other, and they left a space between these dwellings sufficient for turning a chariot with four horses. In the circumference of the wall there were a hundred gates, all of brass, as also are the posts and lintels.... SBBS 47.2
180. In this manner Babylon was encompassed with a wall; and the city consists of two divisions, for a river, called the Euphrates, separates it in the middle.... The wall, therefore, on either bank, has an elbow carried down to the river; from thence, along the curvatures of each bank of the river, runs a wall of baked bricks. The city itself, which is full of houses three and four stories high, is cut up into straight streets, as well all the other as the transverse ones that lead to the river. At the end of each street a little gate is formed in the wall along the river-side, in number equal to the streets; and they are all made of brass, and lead down to the edge of the river. SBBS 47.3
181. This outer wall, then, is the chief defense, but another wall runs round within, not much inferior to the other in strength, though narrower. In the middle of each division of the city fortified buildings were erected; in one, the royal palace, with a spacious and strong inclosure, brazen-gated; and in the other, the precinct of Jupiter Belus, which in my time was still in existence, a square building of two stades on every side. In the midst of this precinct is built a solid tower of one stade both in length and breadth, and on this tower rose another, and another upon that, to the number of eight; and an ascent to these is outside, running spirally round all the towers. About the middle of the ascent there is a landing-place and seats to rest on, on which those who go up sit down and rest themselves; and in the uppermost tower stands a spacious temple.... SBBS 47.4
183. There is also another temple below, within the precinct at Babylon; in it is a large golden statue of Jupiter [Bel] seated, and near it is placed a large table of gold, the throne also and the step are of gold, which together weigh eight hundred talents, as the Chaldeans affirm.... There was also at that time within the precincts of this temple a statue of solid gold, twelve cubits high: I, indeed, did not see it; I only relate what is said by the Chaldeans. Darius, son of Hystaspes, formed a design to take away this statue, but dared not do so; but Xerxes, son of Darius, took it, and killed the priest who forbade him to remove it.—Herodotus, book 1, pars. 178-183; Cary’s translation, pp. 77-79. Everyman’s Library edition. SBBS 48.1
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. SBBS 48.2
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. SBBS 48.3
Babylon, City of, Its Palaces and Temples.—The most remarkable buildings which the city contained were the two palaces, one on either side of the river, and the great temple of Belus. Herodotus describes the great temple as contained within a square inclosure, two stades (nearly a quarter of a mile) both in length and breadth. Its chief feature was the ziggurat, or tower, a huge solid mass of brickwork, built (like all Babylonian temple towers) in stages, square being emplaced on square, and a sort of rude pyramid being thus formed, at the top of which was the main shrine of the god.... SBBS 48.4
The great palace was a building of still larger dimensions than the great temple. According to Diodorus, it was situated within a triple inclosure, the innermost wall being twenty stades, the second forty stades, and the outermost sixty stades (nearly seven miles), in circumference.... SBBS 48.5
But the main glory of the palace was its pleasure-ground-the “Hanging Gardens,” which the Greeks regarded as one of the seven wonders of the world. This extraordinary construction, which owed its erection to the whim of a woman, was a square, each side of which measured 400 Greek feet. It was supported upon several tiers of open arches, built one over the other, like the walls of a classic theater, and sustaining at each stage, or story, a solid platform, from which the piers of the next tier of arches rose. The building towered into the air to the height of at least seventy-five feet, and was covered at the top with a great mass of earth, in which there grew not merely flowers and shrubs, but trees also of the largest size. Water was supplied from the Euphrates through pipes, and was raised (it is said) by a screw working on the principle of Archimedes.—“The Five Great Monarchies,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. II, pp. 514-517; “The Fourth Monarchy,” chap. 4. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. SBBS 48.6
Babylon, the Capital of Ancient Learning.—Here were the great libraries of the Semitic race. Here were the scholars who copied so painstakingly every little omen or legend that had come down to them out of the hoary past. Here were the men who calculated eclipses, watched the moon’s changes, and looked nightly from observatories upon the stately march of constellations over the sky. Here were the priests who preserved the knowledge of the ancient Sumerian language, that its sad plaints and solemn prayers might be kept for use in temple worship.—“History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Ph. D., Vol. II, pp. 575, 576, sixth edition. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1915. SBBS 49.1
Babylon, Religious Capital of the Semitic Race.—The Assyrian rulers regarded it as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Saggila the installation of the rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk’s temple was incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The influence of these two temples upon the whole course of Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Saggila and E-Zida went forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria.... The thought of E-Saggila and E-Zida must have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan’s enthusiasm for Mecca, or the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem.... The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and growth of Assyria’s power. The influence of E-Saggila and E-Zida was not affected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian conqueror-Cyrus-entered the precincts of E-Saggila, his first step was to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title, “Adorner of E-Saggila and E-Zida.”-“The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria,” Morris Jastrow, Jr., pp. 649, 650. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1898. SBBS 49.2
Babylon, a World Center.—Babylonian civilization and history was not confined to the region watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. A civilization so advanced as that of Babylonia could not exist without attracting to itself the assistance of neighboring lands and carrying thither its own achievements. Thus we see, even in remote antiquity, Babylon reaching out toward Palestine, Armenia, Elam, and even to Arabia. Her merchants went forth in the pursuits of commerce, her soldiers to war and victory. The products of her artists and artisans were laid in foreign markets. Her superfluous population found homes on alien soil.—“The History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Hugo Winckler, Ph. D., translation by J. A. Craig, p. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907. SBBS 49.3
Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar’s Military Exploits.—This Babylonian king conquered Egypt, and Syria, and Phenicia, and Arabia, and exceeded in his exploits all that had reigned before him in Babylon.—Berosus, the Chaldean; cited by Josephus, “Against Apion,” book 1, par. 19. SBBS 49.4
Babylon, Golden Age of, under Nebuchadnezzar.—Nebuchadnezzar is the great monarch of the Babylonian Empire, which, lasting only 88 years-from b. c. 625 to b. c. 538-was for nearly half the time under his sway. Its military glory is due chiefly to him, while the constructive energy, which constitutes its especial characteristic, belongs to it still more markedly through his character and genius. It is scarcely too much to say that, but for Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians would have had no place in history. At any rate, their actual place is owing almost entirely to this prince, who to the military talents of an able general added a grandeur of artistic conception and a skill in construction which place him on a par with the greatest builders of antiquity.—“The Five Great Monarchies,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. III, p. 50; “The Fourth Monarchy,” chap. 8. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. SBBS 50.1
Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar the Great Builder of.—So began one of the longest and most brilliant reigns (604-562 b. c.) of human history. Nebuchadnezzar has not left the world without written witnesses of his great deeds. In his inscriptions, however, he follows the common Babylonian custom of omitting all reference to wars, sieges, campaigns, and battles. Only in a very few instances is there a single reference to any of these. The great burden of all the inscriptions is building. In Babylon was centered his chief pride, and of temples and palaces, and not of battles and sieges, were his boasts.—“History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Ph. D., Vol. II, pp. 504, 505, sixth edition. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1915. SBBS 50.2
Babylon, Ancient, Chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s Reign.—The first year of Judah’s captivity was also the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s power, and the prophetic date of the Babylonian monarchy. The year of that monarch’s accession, in the canon, is a. c. 604. And to this date the prophet refers in the vision of the image, which is said to be in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. But it appears, from other passages, that this monarch began to reign conjointly with his father two years earlier; and from this earlier accession his years, and those of the captivity, are reckoned in every other place. This appears from Daniel’s own narrative. He and his fellows were nourished three full years to stand before the king. Yet the vision was interpreted in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year. Hence the separation of those youths must have been more than one and less than two years before his accession, and their captivity still earlier. Now this took place in the third of Jehoiakim, the time which is elsewhere called the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Hence at Babylon, the seat of empire, the reign of the king was dated from the death of his father, a. c. 604; but in Judea, two years earlier, a. c. 606, from his actual supreme command over the Babylonian forces.—“The Four Prophetic Empires,” Rev. T. R. Birks, M. A., pp. 25, 26. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1845. SBBS 50.3
Babylon, Capture of, by Cyrus, According to Herodotus.—He had recourse to the following stratagem. Having stationed the bulk of his army near the passage of the river where it enters Babylon, and again having stationed another division beyond the city, where the river makes its exit, he gave orders to his forces to enter the city as soon as they should see the stream fordable. H aving thus stationed his forces and given these directions, he himself marched away with the ineffective part of his army; and having come to the lake [“a considerable distance above Babylon”], Cyrus did the same with respect to the river and the lake as the queen of the Babylonians had done [Queen Nitocris had once diverted the river into a marshy lake in order to build a bridge over it in Babylon]; for having diverted the river, by means of a canal, into the lake, which was before a swamp, he made the ancient channel fordable by the sinking of the river. When this took place, the Persians who were appointed to that purpose close to the stream of the river, which had now subsided to about the middle of a man’s thigh, entered Babylon by this passage. If, however, the Babylonians had been aware of it beforehand, or had known what Cyrus was about, they would not have suffered the Persians to enter the city, but would have utterly destroyed them; for, having shut all the little gates that lead down to the river, and mounting the walls that extend along the banks of the river, they would have caught them as in a net; whereas the Persians came upon them by surprise. It is related by the people who inhabited this city, that, by reason of its great extent, when they who were at the extremities were taken, those of the Babylonians who inhabited the center knew nothing of the capture (for it happened to be a festival); but they were dancing at the time, and enjoying themselves, till they received certain information of the truth. And thus Babylon was taken for the first time.—Herodotus, book 1, par. 191; Cary’s translation, pp. 82, 83. Everyman’s Library edition. SBBS 50.4
Babylon, Capture of, According to Xenophon.—13. Thus his army was employed [digging great trenches alongside the walls], but the men within the walls laughed at his preparations, knowing they had supplies to last them more than twenty years. When Cyrus heard that, he divided his army into twelve, each division to keep guard for one month in the year. 14. At this the Babylonians laughed louder still, greatly pleased at the idea of being guarded by Phrygians and Lydians and Arabians and Cappadocians, all of whom, they thought, would be more friendly to themselves than to the Persians. SBBS 51.1
15. However by this time the trenches were dug. And Cyrus heard that it was a time of high festival in Babylon when the citizens drink and make merry the whole night long. As soon as the darkness fell, he set his men to work. 16. The mouths of the trenches were opened, and during the night the water poured in, so that the river-bed formed a highway into the heart of the town. SBBS 51.2
17. When the great stream had taken to its new channel, Cyrus ordered his Persian officers to bring up their thousands, horse and foot alike, each detachment drawn up two deep, the allies to follow in their old order. 18. They lined up immediately, and Cyrus made his own bodyguard descend into the dry channel first, to see if the bottom was firm enough for marching. 19. When they said it was, he called a council of all his generals and spoke as follows: SBBS 51.3
20. “My friends, the river has stepped aside for us; he offers us a passage by his own high-road into Babylon. We must take heart and enter fearlessly, remembering that those against whom we are to march this night are the very men we have conquered before, and that too when they had their allies to help them, when they were awake, alert, and sober, armed to the teeth, and in their battle order. 21. Tonight we go against them when some are asleep and some are drunk, and all are unprepared: and when they learn that we are within the walls, sheer astonishment will make them still more helpless than before. 22. If any of you are troubled by the thought of volleys from the roofs when the army enters the city, I bid you lay these fears aside: if our enemies do climb their roofs, we have a god to help us, the god of Fire. Their porches are easily set aflame, for the doors are made of palm wood and varnished with bitumen, the very food of fire. 23. And we shall come with the pine-torch to kindle it, and with pitch and tow to feed it. They will be forced to flee from their homes or be burnt to death. 24. Come, take your swords in your hand: God helping me, I will lead you on. Do you,” he said, turning to Gadatas and Gobryas, “show us the streets, you know them; and once we are inside, lead us straight to the palace.” SBBS 51.4
25. “So we will,” said Gobryas and his men, “and it would not surprise us to find the palace gates unbarred, for this night the whole city is given over to revelry. Still, we are sure to find a guard, for one is always stationed there.” SBBS 52.1
“Then,” said Cyrus, “there is no time for lingering; we must be off at once and take them unprepared.” SBBS 52.2
26. Thereupon they entered: and of those they met some were struck down and slain, and others fled into their houses, and some raised the hue and cry, but Gobryas and his friends covered the cry with their shouts, as though they were revelers themselves. And thus, making their way by the quickest route, they soon found themselves before the king’s palace. 27. Here the detachment under Gobryas and Gadatas found the gates closed, but the men appointed to attack the guards rushed on them as they lay drinking round a blazing fire, and closed with them then and there. 28. As the din grew louder and louder, those within became aware of the tumult, till, the king bidding them see what it meant, some of them opened the gates and ran out. 29. Gadatas and his men, seeing the gates swing wide, darted in, hard on the heels of the others who fled back again, and they chased them at the sword’s point into the presence of the king. SBBS 52.3
30. They found him on his feet, with his drawn scimitar in his hand. By sheer weight of numbers they overpowered him: and not one of his retinue escaped, they were all cut down.—“Cyropadia: The Education of Cyrus,” Xenophon, book 7, pars. 13-30; translation by Dakyns. Everyman’s Library edition, pp. 237-239. SBBS 52.4
Note.—Xenophon’s “Cyropadia” is classed as historical fiction, the writer enlarging upon conversations and details to round out his story of Cyrus, yet he must have had access to a vast mass of material. Of this description of Babylon’s fall, Rawlinson says, “The picture is graphic, and may well be true.”-“The Fourth Monarchy,” chap. 8, p. 72, footnote.-Eds. SBBS 52.5
Babylon, Capture of, by Cyrus, According to the Tablets.—213. Fortunately we are not dependent upon the statements of second- or third-hand historians for a description of the fall of Babylon. We have the records both of Nabonidus, the reigning and vanquished king, and of Cyrus, the conqueror. Though somewhat fragmentary in some places, they nevertheless furnish us with a reasonably good picture of that momentous event. Nabonidus’s own record [rather, the record of the scribes, evidently priests, who kept the annals of his reign] will be cited first (Nab.-Cyr. Chron. Col. i. Rev. 12-24): SBBS 52.6
“In the month Tammuz [June], when Cyrus gave battle in the city of Opis, on the banks of the river Salsallat, to the troops of Accad, the inhabitants of Accad he subdued. Whenever the people gathered themselves together, he slew them. On the 14th day of the month, Sippar was taken without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day, Gobryas, the governor of Guti, and the troops of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Nabonidus, because of his delay, was taken prisoner in Babylon. Until the end of the month, the shields of the country of Guti guarded the gates of E-Sagila. No weapons were brought into E-Sagila or other sacred precincts, nor was any war standard carried there. On the 3rd day of Marcheshvan (October), Cyrus entered Babylon. Obstructions (?) fell down before him. Peace for the city he established. Cyrus proclaimed peace to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, he appointed governor of Babylon. And from the month Kislev (November) to Adar (February), the gods of Accad, whom Nabonidus had carried to Babylon, returned to their own cities. In the night of the 11th day of Marcheshvan, Gobryas against ... he slew the king’s son. From the 27th of Adar (February) to the 3rd of Nisan (March), there was lamentation in Accad; all the people hung their heads.” This remarkable piece of the royal annals astonishes us by recording but one battle in the neighborhood of Babylon. That was fought near Accad, and resulted favorably for Cyrus’s troops. Thence the way was open into the city of the empire. The reception of the army is equaled only by the liberty which was announced for the whole city. SBBS 52.7
214. Cyrus’s own cylinder gives us a no less wonderful story. This sets out by assuring the reader that Cyrus was thoroughly imbued with the idea that he was the man of destiny (Cyl. 11-19, 22-24). “Through all lands he (Merodach) searched, he saw him, and he sought the righteous prince, after his own heart, whom he took by the hand. Cyrus, king of Anshan, he called by name; to sovereignty over the whole world he appointed him. The country of Kutu (Gutium), all the Umman-Manda, he made his subjects. As for the black-headed people, whom he (Merodach) caused his (Cyrus’s) hands to conquer, with justice and uprightness he cared for them. Merodacn, the great lord, guardian of his people, beheld with joy his gracious deeds and his upright heart; to his own city, Babylon, he issued orders to march, and he caused him to take the road to Babylon, marching by his side like a friend and companion. His wide-extended troops, whose number like the waters of a river cannot be known, fully equipped, marched by his side. Without skirmish or battle he (Merodach) made him enter Babylon. His city Babylon he spared (in its) distress. Nabonidus, the king, who did not reverence him, he delivered into his hand. All the people of Babylon, all Sumer and Accad, nobles and governors, prostrated themselves before him, kissed his feet, rejoiced at his sovereignty, their faces beamed with joy. The lord (Merodach), who by his power brings the dead to life, who by care and protection benefits all mankind-they gladly did him homage, they obeyed his command.... When I made my peaceful entrance into Babylon, with joy and rejoicing I took up my lordly residence in the king’s palace. Merodach, the great lord, [granted] me favor among the Babylonians, and I gave daily attention to his worship. My vast army spread itself out peacefully in the city of Babylon.”-“The Monuments and the. Old Testament,” Ira M. Price, Ph. D., pp. 225-228, 5th edition. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907. SBBS 53.1
Babylon, Capture of; Differences in the Record.—It will be remembered that the old historian Herodotus tells us that Cyrus drained the river Euphrates nearly dry by means of a canal running into a lake, and that the Persians marched up through the river gates, which were carelessly left open by the Babylonians. No mention of this is made in the inscriptions; but there is no reason why Cyrus should not have had recourse to this means as well as to fighting.—“The Assyrian Eponym Canon,” George Smith; cited in “Light for the Last Days,” H. Grattan Guinness, p. 421. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1893. SBBS 53.2
Note.—The tablets, it must be remembered, were written by the priestly scribes to magnify the part of Marduk in leading Cyrus into Babylon, and in the interests of Cyrus, to publish to the world how gladly he was welcomed by the people. It would be perfectly in keeping with their style of history to omit reference to siege, and entrance by draining of the river, etc. On the other hand, both Herodotus and Xenophon wrote in times so near (comparatively) to the events, that they must have gathered information from many Babylonian and other records. The descriptions of Babylon given by these Greek writers, have been generally verified by the modern excavations (see Babylon, City of, in Light of Excavations, p. 48), showing that they wrote from knowledge gained by careful historical research and inquiry. Their accounts of the draining of the Euphrates by Cyrus are not discredited by the omission of such reference in the tablets. All this may be covered by the statements of both tablets that Cyrus entered without battle; and it would be in harmony with their plan, for the glorification of Cyrus as the chosen deliverer of Marduk’s shrine and people, to omit references to any street fighting after Cyrus’s army entered; though they preserve the essential story of the attack upon the citadel.—Eds. SBBS 53.3
Babylon, Capture of, the Citadel.—It is clear that a Babylonian citadel was not simply a fortress to be used by the garrison for the defense of the city as a whole: it was also a royal residence, into which the monarch and his court could shut themselves for safety should the outer wall of the city itself be penetrated.... In the case of the Southern citadel of Babylon on which excavations have now been continuously carried out for sixteen years, we shall see that it formed a veritable township in itself. It was a city within a city, a second Babylon in miniature. SBBS 54.1
The southern or chief citadel was built on the mound now known as the Kasr, and within it Nebuchadnezzar erected his principal palace partly over an earlier building of his father Nabopolassar. The palace and citadel occupy the old city square or center of Babylon, which is referred to in the inscriptions as the irsit Babili, “the Babil place.” ... We may conclude that the chief fortress of Babylon always stood upon this site, and the city may well have derived its name Bab-ili, “the gate of the gods,” from the strategic position of its ancient fortress, commanding as it does the main approach to E-Sagila, the famous temple of the city god.—“A History of Babylon,” L. W. King, p. 27. SBBS 54.2
Babylon, Capture of, Slaying of King’s Son.—It was October before Cyrus entered the city.... On the night of the 11th of Marcheshwan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against something, and the king, or son of the king, died. The combination of these two statements, taken in connection with the record of Daniel 5:30, suggests that the latter reading is the correct one. [p. 417] ... SBBS 54.3
The probability is, therefore, that the “son of the King,” Belshazzar, held out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during that time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon the palace, and he, the rightful. Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in Daniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be “Gobryas of Gutium.”-“The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records,” T. G. Pinches, pp. 417, 418. SBBS 54.4
Babylon, Capture of, Storming the Place of Belsiiazzar’s Feast.—Cyrus’s triumphal entry took place on 3rd Marcheshwan (October 27).... Seven days after Cyrus’s triumphal entry ... Guburu stormed that part of Babylon which still held out against the Medo-Persian army. On that night (the 11th of Marcheshwan-November 4) Belshazzar, “the king’s son,” was slain. The record of Cyrus confirms the narrative of the last day of Babylon as it is depicted in Daniel 5. [p. 129] ... SBBS 54.5
As to the feast itself, so vividly described in this chapter of Daniel, there is nothing, apart from the story of the handwriting on the wall, which ought to present any difficulty to a historical critic of the broadest school of thought. The great palace of Babylon and the portion of the city which it commanded was (as Cyrus’s tablets lead us to believe) the rallying-place for the Babylonian army in command of Belshazzar. [p. 130] ... SBBS 54.6
To encourage his soldiers in their struggle with the Medo-Persian foe, Belshazzar considered it fit to make a magnificent banquet. He was in possession of the treasures that had been carried off from Jerusalem. At his feast, therefore, Belshazzar sought to remind his warriors of the old campaigns which their forefathers fought, when they had trodden down the people of Jehovah as the mire in the streets.—“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., pp. 129-131. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. SBBS 55.1
Babylon, Capture of, Scene of Belshazzar’s Feast.—The front of the great palace of Belshazzar was six times as great as the front of St. Peter’s church at Rome, four times as great as the length of the Capitol at Washington. The whole structure was surrounded by three walls, so high that it would take thirteen tall men, standing erect one above the other, to reach the top. The outer wall of the palace inclosed more ground than Central Park in New York.... SBBS 55.2
The flames of idolatrous sacrifice rose high into heaven from the lofty tower of Belus. The hanging-gardens were hung with lanterns and torches, till they seemed like a mountain of fire at midnight. Torchlight processions flowed like rivers of flame through the broad streets. The light of lamps outshone the starlight, and the blue Chaldean heavens looked black above the blaze of the great illumination. SBBS 55.3
Meanwhile, Belshazzar has entered the hall of banquet- SBBS 55.4
“And a thousand dark nobles all bend at his board;
Fruits glisten, flowers blossom, meats steam, and a flood
Of the wine that man loveth runs redder than blood;
Wild dancers are there and a riot of mirth,
And the beauty that maddens the passions of earth;
And the crowd all shout, while the vast roofs ring,
All praise to Belshazzar, Belshazzar the king!”
SBBS 55.5
“The music and the banquet and the wine; the garlands, the roseodors, and the flowers; the sparkling eyes, the flashing ornaments, the jeweled arms, the raven hair, the braids, the bracelets, the thin robes floating like clouds; the fair forms, the delusion and the false enchantment of the dizzy scene,” take away all reason and all reverence from the flushed and crowded revelers. There is now nothing too sacred for them to profane, and Belshazzar himself takes the lead in the riot and the blasphemy. Even the mighty and terrible Nebuchadnezzar, who desolated the sanctuary of Jehovah at Jerusalem, would not use his sacred trophies in the worship of his false gods. But this weak and wicked successor of the great conqueror, excited with wine and carried away with the delusion that no foe can ever capture his great city, is anxious to make some grand display of defiant and blasphemous desecration: SBBS 55.6
“‘Bring forth,’ cries the monarch, ‘the vessels of gold
Which my father tore down from the temples of old;
Bring forth, and we’ll drink while the trumpets are blown,
To the gods of bright silver, of gold, and of stone.
Bring forth.’ And before him the vessels all shine,
And he bows unto Baal, and he drinks the dark wine,
While the trumpets bray and the cymbals ring,
‘Praise, praise to Belshazzar, Belshazzar the king.’
Now what cometh? Look, look! without menace or call,
Who writes with the lightning’s bright hand on the wall?
SBBS 55.7
What pierceth the king like the point of a dart?
What drives the bold blood from his cheek to his heart?
Let the captive of Judah the letters expound.
They are read; and Belshazzar is dead on the ground.
Hark! the Persian has come on the conqueror’s wing,
And the Mede’s on the throne of Belshazzar the king.”
SBBS 56.1
The graphic lines of the modern poet do not exaggerate the rapidity with which the ministers of vengeance came upon Belshazzar and his thousand lords on the last night of his impious reign. At the very moment when their sacrilegious revelry was at its height, the bodiless hand came forth and wrote the words of doom upon the wall of the banqueting-room, the armies of Cyrus ... were already in possession of the palace gates when Belshazzar and his princes were drinking wine from the vessels of Jehovah and praising the gods of gold and silver and stone, and that great feast of boasting and of blasphemy was the last ceremonial of the Chaldean kings.—“Night Scenes in the Bible,” Rev. Daniel March, D. D., pp. 289-294. Philadelphia: Zeigler, McCurdy & Co., 1869. SBBS 56.2
Babylon, Belshazzar as Co-Ruler.—Though there is no clear statement in his records to this effect, it seems almost certain that the great concerns of state were left to his son, Bel-shar-usur (“Bel, protect the king,” the biblical Belshazzar), who was a sort of regent during probably a large part of the reign. That the position of Bel-shar-usur was unusual appears quite clearly from the manner of the allusions to him in Nabonidus’s inscriptions. At the end of some of them his name is coupled in the prayers with that of Nabonidus, and blessings are especially invoked upon him. 5 SBBS 56.3
No such usage as this appears in any other text, and there must be a specific reason for it, which it is simplest to find in his regency. This is supported, likewise, by the otherwise inexplicable conduct of Nabonidus during the most threatening situation in all the history of Babylon. When the army of Cyrus, as will be shown later, was approaching the city, he remained in retirement at Tema, and gave over the control and leadership completely to Bel-shar-usur. By this regency of Belshazzar is also explained the origin of the Jewish tradition preserved in the book of Daniel, which makes Belshazzar, and not Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon. Daniel 5:1, 30, 31.—“History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Ph. D., Vol. II, pp. 554, 555, 6th edition. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1915. SBBS 56.4
Babylon, Belshazzar as Second Ruler.—Oaths were never sworn by the names of any men except kings.... [The writer then quotes a tablet of the 12th year of Nabonidus]: SBBS 56.5
“Ihi-Amurru, son of Nuranu, has sworn by Bel, Nebo, the lady of Erech, and Nana, the oath of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, and Belshazzar, the king’s son, that, on the 7th day of the month Adar of the 12th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, I will go to Erech,” etc. SBBS 56.6
The importance of this inscription is that it places Belshazzar practically on the same plane as Nabonidus, his father, five years before the latter’s deposition, and the bearing of this will not be overlooked. Officially, Belshazzar had not been recognized as king, as this would have necessitated his father’s abdication, but it seems clear that he was in some way associated with him on the throne, otherwise his name would hardly have been introduced into the oath with which the inscription begins. We now see that not only for the Hebrews but also for the Babylonians, Belshazzar held a practically royal position. The conjecture as to Daniel’s being made the third ruler in the kingdom because Nabonidus and Belshazzar were the first and second, is thus confirmed, and the mention of Belshazzar’s third year in Daniel 8:1 is explained.—T. G. Pinches, in Expository Times, Vol. XXVI, April, 1915; cited in “Studies in the Book of Daniel,” R. D. Wilson, footnote, p. 102. SBBS 56.7
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. SBBS 57.1
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 Nebuchadrezzar 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. SBBS 57.2
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 Marches-van, 1. 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.—Id., pp. 377-379. SBBS 57.3
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. SBBS 57.4
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. SBBS 57.5
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,” Charles H. H. Wright, p. 130. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. SBBS 58.1
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.—Id., pp. 119, 120. SBBS 58.2
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. SBBS 58.3
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 afterwards spoken of as governor of Babylon. SBBS 58.4
Dr. Pinches has, therefore, with considerable probability, conjectured that Gobryas was “Darius the Mede.” ... Cyrus, of course, retained his position of “king of kings” or “king of countries.” The book of Daniel states that after the death of Belshazzar, “Darius the Median received ([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.”-Id., p. 136. SBBS 58.5
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. SBBS 59.1
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. SBBS 59.2
Babylon, Its Glory Ended.—The glory of Babylon is ended. The long procession of princes, priests, and kings has passed by. No city so vast had stood on the world before it. No city with a history so long has even yet appeared. From the beginnings of human history it had stood. It was in other hands now, and it would soon be a shapeless mass of ruins, standing alone in a sad, untilled desert.—“History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Ph. D., Vol. II, p. 576, 6th edition. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1915. SBBS 59.3
Babylon, Desolations of, in First Century.—No one would hesitate to apply to it what one of the comic writers said of Megalopolita, in Arcadia, “The great city is a great desert.”-“The Geography of Strabo,” book 16, chap. 1, sec. 5 (Vol. III, p. 145). London: Henry G. Bohn, 1857. SBBS 59.4
Babylon, Desolations of, in Fifth Century.—Cyril of Alexandria says that at the beginning of the fifth century Babylon was changed into a swamp in consequence of the bursting of the canal banks.—“The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East,” Jeremias, Vol. I, p. 294. SBBS 59.5
Babylon, Its Ruins, in Twelfth Century.—The ruins of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar are still to be seen [twelfth century], but people are afraid to venture among them on account of the serpents and scorpions with which they are infested.—Benjamin of Tudela, quoted in “History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Robert W. Rogers, Vol. I, p. 109. SBBS 59.6
Babylon, Become “Heaps.”—Shapeless heaps of rubbish cover for many an acre the face of the land.... On all sides, fragments of glass, marble, pottery, and inscribed brick are mingled with that peculiar nitrous and blanched soil, which, bred from the remains of ancient habitations, checks or destroys vegetation, and renders the site of Babylon a naked and a hideous waste. Owls [which are of a large gray kind, and often found in flocks of nearly a hundred] start from the scanty thickets, and the foul jackal skulks through the furrows.—“Discoveries Among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon,” A. Henry Layard, chap. 21, p. 413 (Layard’s first visit, 1845). SBBS 59.7
Babylon, Its Ruins Fulfil the Prophecy.—When we turn from this picture of the past to contemplate the present condition of the localities, we are at first struck with astonishment at the small traces which remain of so vast and wonderful a metropolis. “The broad walls of Babylon” are “utterly broken” down, and her “high gates burned with fire.” Jeremiah 51:58. “The golden city hath ceased.” Isaiah 14:4. God has swept “it with the besom of destruction.” Isaiah 14:23. “The glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency,” is become “as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” Isaiah 13:19.... The whole country is covered with traces of exactly that kind which it was prophesied Babylon should leave. (Jeremiah 51:37: “And Babylon shall become heaps.” Compare 50:26.) Vast “heaps” or mounds, shapeless and unsightly, are scattered at intervals over the entire region.—“The Five Great Monarchies,” George Rawlinson, M. A., Vol. II, pp. 520, 521; “The Fourth Monarchy,” chap. 4. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. SBBS 59.8
Babylon, a Recent Look over Its Ruins.—When we gaze today [book written in 1912] over the wide area of ruins, we are involuntarily reminded of the words of the prophet Jeremiah 50:39: “Therefore the wild beasts of the desert, with the wild beasts of the islands, shall dwell there, and the owls shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited forever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.”-“The Excavations at Babylon,” Robert Koldeway, p. 314. London, 1914. SBBS 60.1
Babylon, Compared with Rome as Religious Capital.—From now on [days of “first empire,” about time of Hammurabi, when southern Babylonia was united with northern, Babylon the capital.—Eds.] the “kingdom of Babylon” is the province Kar-duniash, as it was later called, with Babilu, the holy city of the god Marduk (Merodach), the seat of authority in the Babylonian world of culture. In the history of the world Rome alone can be compared with Babylon, when we consider the important rôle which this city of Marduk played in Western Asia. As in the Middle Ages Rome exercised its power over men’s minds and, through its teaching, dominated the world, so did Babylon from this time on in the ancient Orient. Just as the German kings strove to gain for themselves world sovereignty in papal Rome, as the heiress of world power, so shall we find later a similar claim by the kings of Assyria who look back to Babylon.—“The History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Hugo Winckler, Ph. D., translation by J A. Craig, pp. 61, 62. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907. SBBS 60.2
Babylon, Ancient and Modern.—We must not neglect the historical parallel between Babylon and Rome. Babylon had been and was the Queen of the East in the age of the Hebrew prophets; and Rome was the Mistress of the West when St. John wrote. Babylon was called the Golden City, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency. She claimed eternity and universal supremacy. She said in her heart, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I shall be a lady forever. I am, and none else beside me: I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children.” In these respects also, Babylon was imitated by Rome. She also called herself the Golden City, the Eternal City. SBBS 60.3
Again: the king of Babylon was the rod of God’s anger, and the staff of his indignation against Jerusalem for its rebellion against him. Babylon was employed by God to punish the sins of Sion, and to lay her walls in the dust. So, in St. John’s own age, the imperial legions of Rome had been sent by God to chastise the guilty city which had crucified his beloved Son. SBBS 60.4
Again: the sacred vessels of God’s temple at Jerusalem were carried from Sion to Babylon, and were displayed in triumph on the table at the royal banquet in that fatal night, when the fingers of a man’s hand came forth from the wall and terrified the king. SBBS 60.5
So, the sacred vessels of the Jewish temple, which were restored by Cyrus, and the book of the law, and the golden candlestick, and the table of showbread were carried captive in triumphal procession to the Roman capitol: and even now their effigies may be seen at Rome, carved in sculpture on one of the sides of the triumphal Arch of Titus, the imperial conqueror of Jerusalem.—“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 6-8. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 61.1
Babylon, Identified as Rome.—That Babylon was an accredited name for Rome, both among the Jews and Christians, in the early period of the Christian era, and was so used by the apostles Peter and John, rests upon numerous testimonies. And the use of this name for Rome may be easily accounted for. Rome was in many respects the successor of Babylon. It was the chief city of the empire that succeeded that of which Babylon had been the capital. It stood in the same relation to the Jews, after the destruction of the second temple, as Babylon had done. And the use of this name for Rome enabled the apostles and early Christians to speak more freely of the end that awaited it. To foretell the destruction of Rome under its ordinary name, would have been suicidal to them. SBBS 61.2
Some testimonies that the ancient Jews called Rome Babylon may be found in Schoettgen. The reason for its being so called probably was, as Schoettgen observes (Hor. Hebr., Vol. I, p. 1050), that Rome performed the same part towards the Jews under the second temple as Babylon did to them under the first. SBBS 61.3
So Augustine says that Babylon was as it were the first Rome, and Rome as it were the second Babylon. SBBS 61.4
Jerome testifies that some of the early Christian expositors maintained that the Old Testament prophecies referring to Babylon would have a further fulfilment in Rome, and presignified the fate that awaited it. SBBS 61.5
And when speaking of the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the Fathers from the earliest period with one voice unhesitatingly assert it to be Rome. SBBS 61.6
Thus in two places Tertullian says, “Babylon, in our John, is a figure of the city of Rome.” SBBS 61.7
So Victorinus, bishop of Petau, towards the close of the third century, interprets the ruin of Babylon as the ruin of Rome, and the woman sitting on the seven mountains (Revelation 17:9), as meaning “the city of Rome,” and the kings in verse 10 are the Roman emperors; and he holds that the prophecies of Isaiah relating to Babylon, refer to the same Babylon as that spoken of in the Apocalypse, the name being so applied as meaning the city of confusion. SBBS 61.8
So also Jerome, commenting on Isaiah 47:1, et seq., says that “the city of Rome,” “in the Apocalypse of John and the epistle of Peter, is specially called Babylon.” SBBS 61.9
And in the letter of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, urging her to quit Rome and join them at Bethlehem, occurring in the works of Jerome, she is thus exhorted: “Read the Apocalypse of John, and see what is said of the woman clothed in purple, and blasphemy written on her forehead, the seven hills, the many waters, and the end of Babylon. ‘Go out of her, my people, saith the Lord, etc.’ [Revelation 18:4]. Reverting also to Jeremiah, consider what is written, ‘Fly out of the midst of Babylon, etc.’ [Jeremiah 51:6].” SBBS 61.10
The identity of Rome with the Babylon of St. John is here taken for granted. SBBS 61.11
Primasius, in his “Commentary on the Revelations,” seems also to take the same view. SBBS 62.1
And Andrew of Casarea, in his “Commentary on the Revelations,” though he does not himself hold the view, admits that “the ancient doctors of the church” understood Babylon in the Revelations to mean Rome. SBBS 62.2
St. Peter also apparently uses the name Babylon for Rome, when he says, at the end of his first epistle, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you.” 1 Peter 5:13. For— SBBS 62.3
1. This is the unopposed testimony of several of the Fathers. SBBS 62.4
Thus, Eusebius tells us that it was said that Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, and that he signified this by calling the city figuratively Babylon, in the words, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you.” His words leave it somewhat doubtful to whom he refers as bearing this testimony; but the names of Clement of Alexandria and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, occur in the previous context in a way which has led some to suppose that his reference is to them. SBBS 62.5
St. Jerome also twice asserts that St. Peter meant Rome when he spoke of Babylon in his first epistle. SBBS 62.6
In like manner Ocumenius says, without hesitation, that by Babylon St. Peter means Rome. SBBS 62.7
2. Several MSS. add at the end of the first epistle of St. Peter, that “it was written from Rome.” SBBS 62.8
And one MS. is mentioned by Griesbach and Scholz which has “Rome” in the margin opposite “Babylon.” SBBS 62.9
3. There is nothing to lead us to suppose that St. Peter was ever at Babylon in Assyria, still less at Babylon in Egypt. SBBS 62.10
Now, it is difficult to understand that there should be this general agreement among the early Fathers that the apostles thus used the name Babylon for Rome, unless there was good ground for the statement.—“Fulfilled Prophecy,” Rev. W. Goode, D. D., F. S. A., 2nd edition, pp. 189-192. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 62.11
To sum up the evidence on this portion of the inquiry: We have in our hands a book, dictated by the Holy Spirit to St. John, the beloved disciple, the blessed evangelist, the last surviving apostle,-a book predicting events from the day in which it was written even to the end of time; a book designed for the perpetual warning of the church, and commended to her pious meditation in solemn and affectionate terms. In it we behold a description, traced by the divine finger, of a proud and prosperous power, claiming universal homage, and exercising mighty dominion: a power enthroned upon many waters, which are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues: a power arrogating eternity by calling herself a queen forever: a power whose prime agent, by his lamblike aspect, bears a semblance of Christian purity, and yet, from his sounding words and cruel deeds, is compared to a dragon: a power beguiling men from the pure faith, and trafficking in human souls, tempting them to commit spiritual adultery, alluring them to herself by gaudy colors and glittering jewels, and holding in her hand a golden cup of enchantments, by which she intoxicates the world, and makes it reel at her feet. SBBS 62.12
This power, so described in the Apocalypse, is identified in this divinely inspired book with- SBBS 62.13
(1) a great city; and that city is described as SBBS 62.14
(2) seated on seven hills. It is also characterized as SBBS 62.15
(3) that great city, which reigned over the kings of the earth in the time of St. John. And (4) it is called Babylon. SBBS 62.16
Having contemplated these characteristics of this prophetic description, we pause, and consider what city in the world corresponds to it? SBBS 63.1
It cannot be the literal Babylon, for she was not built on seven hills, nor was she the queen of the earth in St. John’s age. It is some great city which then existed, and would continue to exist to our age. Among the very few great cities which then were, and still survive, one was seated on seven hills. She was universally recognized in St. John’s age as the Seven-hilled City. She is described as such by the general voice of her own most celebrated writers for five centuries; and she has ever since continued to be so characterized. She is represented as such on her own coinage, the coinage of the world. This same city, and no other, then reigned over the kings of the earth. She exercised universal sovereignty, and boasted herself eternal. This same city resembled Babylon in many striking respects,-in dominion, in wealth, in physical position, and in historical acts, especially with regard to the ancient church and people of God. This same city was commonly called Babylon by St. John’s own countrymen, and by his disciples. And, finally, the voice of the Christian church, in the age of St. John himself, and for many centuries after it, has given an almost unanimous verdict on this subject,-that the Seven-hilled City, that great city, the queen of the earth, Babylon the Great of the Apocalypse, is the city of Rome.—“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 13, 14. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 63.2
It has been known all along that popery was baptized paganism; but God is now making it manifest that the paganism which Rome has baptized is, in all its essential elements, the very paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the two-leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron.—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 2. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1907. SBBS 63.3
The church which has its seat and headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called “Babylon,” inasmuch as it is the chief seat of idolatry under the New Testament, as the ancient Babylon was the chief seat of idolatry under the Old.—Ibid. SBBS 63.4
Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is characterized by the name of “Mystery,” so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean “mysteries,” that formed so essential a part of that system.—Id., p. 4. SBBS 63.5
Babylon, Luther Identifies It with the Papacy.—I now know and am sure that the Papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Here, moreover, that all may go prosperously with my friends, I entreat the booksellers, and entreat my readers, to burn all that I have published on this subject, and to hold to the following proposition: The Papacy is the mighty hunting of the Bishop of Rome.—“Luther’s Primary Works,” Henry Wace, D. D., and C. A. Buchheim, Ph. D., p. 295. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. SBBS 63.6
Babylon the Great.—“Rome” ... is a Greek word meaning “strength” or “power,” and as the Greeks obtained their letters from the same source as their religion, it is evidently a cognate term of the Chaldee Roma. SBBS 63.7
If then Rome means the great, or powerful, it is the distinctive epithet applied to both ancient Babylon and the mystical Babylon of the Apocalypse. “Is not this,” said Nebuchadnezzar, “Great Babylon, or Babylon the Great, that I have builded?” So likewise the Babylon of the Apocalypse is called “Babylon the Great,” i. e., “Babylon Roma,” “that great city which ruleth over the kings of the earth.” Hence Rome is not only Babylonish in origin and name, but “the city Rome” is “the great city.” ... SBBS 64.1
Hence we see that there was good reason for entitling the seven-hilled city of papal Rome, “Babylon Roma” or “Babylon the Great.” Moreover, although the actual city of Rome is the center and seat of that vast organization which for centuries “ruled over the kings of the earth,” and over “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues,” yet “the great city” includes all, in every place, who can claim to be its citizens, all who are subject to its laws and ordinances, who bow to its authority, or are morally identified with it. Just as the citizens of pagan Rome included multitudes who had never seen Rome but who claimed to be its citizens, bowed to its laws and authority, and were entitled to its privileges.—“The True Christ and the False Christ,” J. Garnier, Vol. II, pp. 94-96. London: George Allen, 1900. SBBS 64.2
She is called “Babylon the Great.” What symbolical title could better describe papal Rome; for has she not been the worldly, idolatrous, proud, persecuting power in the history of the Christian church which the literal Babylon was in the history of apostate Israel? What could better symbolize the idolatrous and persecuting Church of Rome than that Babylon which in the days of Jewish apostasy filled Jerusalem with bloodshed, and drank to her idol gods out of the golden vessels of Jehovah’s sanctuary?-“Key to the Apocalypse,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., p. 75. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899. SBBS 64.3
Babylon, Type and Antitype.—The gigantic system of moral corruption and idolatry described in this passage under the emblem of a woman with a “golden cup in her hand” (Revelation 17:4), “making all nations drunk with the wine of her fornication” (Revelation 17:2; 18:3), is divinely called “Mystery, Babylon the Great” (Revelation 17:5). That Paul’s “mystery of iniquity,” as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, has its counterpart in the Church of Rome, no man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the subject, can easily doubt. Such was the impression made by that account on the mind of the great Sir Matthew Hale, no mean judge of evidence, that he used to say that if the apostolic description were inserted in the public Hue and Cry, any constable in the realm would be warranted in seizing, wherever he found him, the Bishop of Rome as the head of that “mystery of iniquity.” SBBS 64.4
Now, as the system here described is equally characterized by the name of “mystery,” it may be presumed that both passages refer to the same system. But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the reader cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon of the ancient world. As the Apocalyptic woman has in her hand a cup, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was it with the Babylon of old. Of that Babylon, while in all its glory, the Lord thus spake, in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: “Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.” Jeremiah 51:7. Why this exact similarity of language in regard to the two systems? The natural inference surely is, that the one stands to the other in the relation of type and antitype.—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 4. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1907. SBBS 64.5
Babylon, the Apostate Church.—There is a marked and intentional contrast in the Apocalypse between the two cities Babylon and Jerusalem, which is overlooked by the papal interpretation. Babylon, in the Apocalypse, is a city and a harlot; Jerusalem, in the same book, is a city and a bride. The former is the corrupt associate of earthly kings; the latter, the chaste bride of the heavenly King. But the latter is a church; the former then is no mere heathen metropolis. The contrast is between church and church; the faithful church and the apostate church.... SBBS 65.1
Read this wonderful prophecy concerning “Babylon the Great” in the clear and all-revealing light of history. I ask those of you who have read the history of the last eighteen centuries, Did not Rome Christian become a harlot? Did not papal Rome ally itself with the kings of the earth? Did it not glorify itself to be as a queen, and call itself the mistress of the world? Did it not ride upon the body of the beast, or fourth empire, and govern its actions for centuries? Did not papal Rome array itself in purple and scarlet, and deck itself with gold and precious stones and pearls? Is not this its attire still? SBBS 65.2
We appeal to facts. Go to the churches and see. Look at the priests; look at the cardinals; look at the popes; look at the purple robes they wear; look at their scarlet robes; see the encrusted jewels; look at the luxurious palaces in which they live; look at the eleven thousand halls and chambers in the Vatican, and the unbounded wealth and glory gathered there; look at the gorgeous spectacles in St. Peter’s at Rome, casting even the magnificence of royalty into the shade. Go and see these things, or read the testimony of those who have seen them. Shamelessly Rome wears the very raiment, the very hues and colors, portrayed on the pages of inspired prophecy. You may know the harlot by her attire, as certainly as by the name upon her brow.—“Romanism and the Reformation,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., F. R. A. S., pp. 99-101. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1891. SBBS 65.3
Babylon, Antiquity of Interpretation of.—The interpretation which identifies the church of Rome with the Apocalyptic Babylon, does not date from the Reformation; the truth is, that it was prior to the Reformation, and did much to produce the Reformation. SBBS 65.4
In the seventh and following centuries, the Church of Rome was united with the city of Rome, by the junction of the temporal and spiritual powers in the person of the Roman Pontiff; and when the Church of Rome began to put forth her new dogmas, and to enforce them as necessary to salvation, then it was publicly affirmed by many (although she burnt some who affirmed it), that she was fulfilling the Apocalyptic prophecies concerning Babylon. And though the destruction of heathen Rome by the Goths in the fifth century was a most striking event, yet not a single witness of any antiquity can be cited in favor of the exposition of Bossuet and his coreligionists, who see a fulfilment of the predictions of the Apocalypse, concerning the destruction of Babylon, in the fall of heathen Rome by the sword of Alaric. SBBS 65.5
Indeed, that exposition is a modern one; it is an after-thought; and has been devised by Bossuet and others to meet the other, which they call the Protestant interpretation. The identification of the Apocalyptic Babylon with ancient heathen Rome, as its adequate antitype, is an invention of modern papal Rome.—“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 19, 20. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 65.6
Babylon, Cup of.—In 1825, on the occasion of the jubilee, Pope Leo XII struck a medal, bearing on the one side his own image, and on the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolized as a “woman,” holding in her left hand a cross and in her right a cup, with the legend around her, “Sedet super universum” (The whole world is her seat).—“The Two Babylons,” Rev. Alexander Hislop, p. 6. London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1907. SBBS 65.7
[Graphic Of MEDAL Struck by Pope Leo XII in 1825] SBBS 66.1
Babylon, a Mystery.—Heathen Rome doing the work of heathenism in persecuting the church was no mystery. But a Christian church, calling herself the Mother of Christendom, and yet drunken with the blood of saints-this is a mystery. A Christian church boasting herself to be the bride, and yet being the harlot; styling herself Sion, and being Babylon-this is a mystery. A mystery indeed it is, that, when she says to all, “Come unto me,” the voice from heaven should cry, “Come out of her, my people.” A mystery indeed it is, that she who boasts herself the city of saints, should become the habitation of devils: that she who claims to be infallible should be said to corrupt the earth: that a self-named “Mother of Churches,” should be called by the Holy Spirit the “Mother of Abominations:” that she who boasts to be indefectible, should in one day be destroyed, and that apostles should rejoice at her fall: that she who holds, as she says, in her hands the keys of heaven, should be cast into the lake of fire by him who has the keys of hell. All this, in truth, is a great mystery. SBBS 66.2
Nearly eighteen centuries have passed away since the Holy Spirit prophesied, by the mouth of St. John, that this mystery would be revealed in that city which was then the queen of the earth, the city on seven hills,-the city of Rome. SBBS 66.3
The mystery was then dark, dark as midnight. Man’s eye could not pierce the gloom. The fulfilment of the prophecy seemed improbable, almost impossible. Age after age rolled away. By degrees, the mists which hung over it became less thick. The clouds began to break. Some features of the dark mystery began to appear, dimly at first, then more clearly, like mountains at daybreak. Then the form of the mystery became more and more distinct. The seven hills, and the woman sitting upon them, became more and more visible. Her voice was heard. Strange sounds of blasphemy were muttered by her. Then they became louder and louder. And the golden chalice in her hand, her scarlet attire, her pearls and jewels were seen glittering in the sun. Kings and nations were displayed prostrate at her feet, and drinking her cup. Saints were slain by her sword, and she exulted over them. And now the prophecy became clear, clear as noonday; and we tremble at the sight, while we read the inscription, emblazoned in large letters, “Mystery, Babylon the Great,” written by the hand of St. John, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, on the forehead of the Church of Rome.—“Union with Rome,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., pp. 61-63. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. SBBS 66.4
Babylon, Transfer of Religion of, to Pergamos (Revelation 2:13).—The Chaldean Magi enjoyed a long period of prosperity at Babylon. A pontiff appointed by the sovereign ruled over a college of seventy-two hierophants. They were also established at Memphis and at Tibet, where the costume is preserved by the priests to this day; they also extended their influence and doctrines into Etruria. When the Medes and Persians overthrew the reigning power at Babylon, they put down the old mythology, and set up their own religion. The Chaldeans, to recover their lost influence, brought in one of their own number, Smerdis, the Magian, as king; but the imposture was detected, and he was slain. After this they revolted in the absence of the Persian king, and set up a Babylonian of their own choice; but Xerxes returned, the city was taken and sacked, and the people slaughtered (b. c. 487). The defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor, and fixed their central college at Pergamos, and took the palladium of Babylon, the cubic stone, with them. Here, independent of state control, they carried on the rites of their religion, and plotted against the peace of the Persian Empire, caballing with the Greeks for that purpose.—“Lares and Penates,” William B. Barker, pp. 232, 233. London: Ingram, Cooke & Co., 1853. SBBS 67.1
Babylon.—See Idolatry, 215, 216; Medo-Persia. SBBS 67.2
Babylonish Captivity of Papacy.—See Papacy, 338. SBBS 67.3
Balaam.—See Seven Churches, 489. SBBS 67.4
Balkan States.—See Eastern Question, 150. SBBS 67.5
Bamfield, Francis.—See Sabbath, 469. SBBS 67.6
Baptism, Mode of.—“Baptism [says Calvin] was administered by John and Christ, by the submersion of the whole body.” Tertullian, the great Latin Father, a. d. 200, also says: “Nor is there any material difference between those whom John dipped in the Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber.” So Lightfoot: That the baptism of John was by the immersion of the body, seems evident from those things which are related concerning it; namely, that he baptized in the Jordan, and in Anon, because there was much water, and that Christ being baptized went up out of the water.” MacKnight says the same thing: “Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again.” Olshausen agrees with these interpreters, for he says: “John, also, was baptizing in the neighborhood, because the water there being deep, afforded conveniences for submersion.” De Wette bears the same testimony: “They were baptized, immersed, submerged. This is the proper meaning of the frequentative form of bapto, to immerse.” And Alford, on Matthew 3:6, says: “The baptism was administered in the daytime by immersion of the whole person.” SBBS 67.7
These authorities abundantly show that our Lord, in requiring the first act of obedience on the part of his new disciple, employed a Greek word in common use for expressing the most familiar acts of everyday life. And the testimony of the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, completed b. c. 285, harmonizes exactly with this use. When quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, Jesus and his apostles generally used this version. Here the Greek word ebaptisato is used to translate the Hebrew word taval (2 Kings 5:14), where the English version also renders it by the word “dipped,” to express the act of Naaman in the river Jordan. The word taval is used fifteen times in the Old Testament, and is rendered in our common English version fourteen times by “dip,” and once (Job 9:31) by “plunge.” In Genesis 37:31, the Jewish scholars who made the Septuagint Version rendered moluno, to stain, the effect of dipping, as in dyeing, this being the chief thought which the translator would express. It is also worthy of note that the preposition en is rendered “in” before Jordan in all the commonly received versions of the English New Testament (Matthew 3:6); namely, in that of Wiclif, 1380; Tyndal, 1534; Cranmer, 1539; Geneva, 1557; Rheims, 1582; and King James, 1611. In the last named “with” was afterward substituted for “in,” but it is restored by the late Anglo-American revisers, in various passages of the Gospels.—“A History of the Baptists,” Thomas Armitage, D. D., LL. D., p. 35. New York: Bryan, Taylor & Co., 1887. SBBS 67.8
Baptism by Water.—The law and history of the Jews abound with illustrations and baptisms of different sorts. Moses enjoined the people to wash their garments, and to purify themselves, by way of preparation for the reception of the law. Exodus 19:10. The priests and Levites, before they exercised their ministry, washed themselves. Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 8:6. All legal pollutions were cleansed by baptism, or by plunging into water. Certain diseases and infirmities, natural to men and to women, were to be purified by bathing. To touch a dead body, to be present at funerals, etc., required purification. But these purifications were not uniform: generally, people dipped themselves entirely under the water, and this is the most simple notion of the word “baptize.”-Dictionary of the Holy Bible, Calmet, revised by Edward Robinson, art. “Baptism,” p. 142. New York: N. Tibbals & Sons, 1832. SBBS 68.1
Baptism, Conybeare and Howson on Immersion.—It is needless to add that baptism was (unless in exceptional cases) administered by immersion, the convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water.—“The Life and Epistles of the Apostle Paul,” Conybeare and Howson, (1 vol. edition) p. 361. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. SBBS 68.2
Baptism, as Originally Instituted.—In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original institution and the original import of the symbol, performed by immersion.—“General History of the Christian Religion and Church,” Dr. Augustus Neander, translation by Joseph Torrey, Vol. I, p. 310, 7th edition. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1854. SBBS 68.3
Baptism, Luther on Meaning of Word.—Baptism is a Greek word; in Latin it can be translated immersion, as when we plunge something into water that it may be completely covered with water.—Luther, “Opera Lutheri,” “De Sac.,” Bap. 1, p. 319 (Baptist Encyclopedia, art. “Baptism”). SBBS 68.4
Baptism, Cardinal Pullus (12th Century) on Meaning of.—Whilst the candidate for baptism in water is immersed, the death of Christ is suggested; whilst immersed and covered with water, the burial of Christ is shown forth; whilst he is raised from the waters, the resurrection of Christ is proclaimed.—Patrol. Lat., Vol. CXXX, p. 315 (Baptist Encyclopedia, art. “Baptism”). SBBS 68.5
Baptism, John Wesley on Ancient Practice.—“Buried with him,” alluding to the ancient practice of baptizing by immersion.—“Notes on New Testament,” John Wesley, on Romans 6:4. SBBS 69.1
Baptism, Calvin on Meaning of Word.—The very word “baptize,” however, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was observed by the ancient church.—“Calvin’s Institutes,” lib. 4, cap. 15 (Baptist Encyclopedia, art. “Baptism”). SBBS 69.2
Baptism, Definition of Term in Lexicons.— SBBS 69.3
[Greek word, transliterated “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. SBBS 69.4
[Greek word, transliterated “bapto”]: ... To dip, plunge, immerse: to dye or stain; ... to temper, by dipping in water; ... to wash; ... to fill by drawing up; ... to bat he 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. SBBS 69.5
[Greek word, transliterated “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. 1 100), E. A. Sophocles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900. SBBS 69.6
[Greek words, transliterated “baptisma” (“baptizo”)], a word peculiar to the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers, immersion, submersion.... 1. Used trop ically 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, revised, and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, D. D., Hon. Litt. D., Dublin, late professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity School of Harvard University, 4th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901. SBBS 69.7
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. SBBS 69.8
Baptism, Dean Stanley on Change in Practice.—For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is the very meaning of the word “baptize,”-that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practice is still, as we have seen, continued in Eastern churches. In the Western church it still lingers amongst Roman Catholics in the solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan; amongst Protestants in the numerous sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the Middle Ages.... But since the beginning of the seventeenth century, the practice has become exceedingly rare. With the few exceptions just mentioned, the whole of the Western churches have now substituted for the ancient bath the ceremony of letting fall a few drops of water on the face.... Not by any decree of council or parliament, but by the general sentiment of Christian liberty, this remarkable change was effected. Beginning in the thirteenth century, it has gradually driven the ancient catholic usage out of the whole of Europe.—“Christian Institutions,” Dean Stanley, of Westminster, pp. 21, 22. SBBS 69.9
Baptism, Infant, Not an Apostolic Institution.—Originally baptism was administered to adults; nor is the general spread of infant baptism at a later period any proof to the contrary; for even after infant baptism had been set forth as an apostolic institution, its introduction into the general practice of the church was but slow. Had it rested on apostolic authority, there would have been a difficulty in explaining its late approval, and that even in the third century it was opposed by at least one eminent Father of the church. Paul’s language, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, is also against its apostolic origin, where he aims at proving that a Christian woman need not fear living in wedlock with a heathen, since the unbeliever would be sanctified by the believing wife; as a proof of this he adds, otherwise the children of Christians would be unclean, but now are they holy, therefore, the children of Christian parents are called holy, on account of the influence of Christian fellowship. Had infant baptism been practised at that time, the argument would have had no force; for they would have been holy by means of their baptism. Infant baptism, therefore, cannot be regarded as an apostolic institution.—“Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas,” Dr. Augustus Neander, Vol. I, pp. 229, 230. London: George Bell & Sons, 1882. SBBS 70.1
Whereas, in the early ages, adult baptism was the rule, and infant baptism the exception, in later times infant baptism is the rule, and adult baptism the exception. What is the justification of this almost universal departure from the primitive usage? There may have been many reasons, some bad, some good. One, no doubt, was the superstitious feeling already mentioned which regarded baptism as a charm, indispensable to salvation. and which insisted on imparting it to every human being who could be touched with water, however unconscious.—“Christian Institutions,” Dean Stanley, p. 24. SBBS 70.2
Baptism.—See Justification, 278. SBBS 70.3
Baptist Missionary Society.—See Two Witnesses, 575. SBBS 70.4
Bavarians.—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 442. SBBS 70.5
Belisarius.—See Papal Supremacy, 359, 360, 361; Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 445, 447-449, 457; Ten Kingdoms, 555. SBBS 70.6
Belshazzar.—See Babylon, 54-58. SBBS 70.7
Bible, the Writers of Its Sixty-six Books.—The authorship of this book is wonderful. Here are words written by kings, by emperors, by princes, by poets, by sages, by philosophers, by fishermen, by statesmen; by men learned in the wisdom of Egypt, educated in the schools of Babylon, trained up at the feet of rabbis in Jerusalem. It was written by men in exile, in the desert, in shepherds’ tents, in “green pastures” and beside “still waters.” Among its authors we find the tax-gatherer, the herdsman, the gatherer of sycamore fruit; we find poor men, rich men, statesmen, preachers, exiles, captains, legislators, judges; men of every grade and class are represented in this wonderful volume, which is in reality a library, filled with history, genealogy, ethnology, law, ethics, prophecy, poetry, eloquence, medicine, sanitary science, political economy, and perfect rules for the conduct of personal and social life. It contains all kinds of writing; but what a jumble it would be if sixty-six books were written in this way by ordinary men!-“Will the Old Book Stand?” H. L. Hastings, p. 19. Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1916. SBBS 70.8
Bible, About Forty Penmen Used in Its Writing.—Altogether about forty persons, in all stations of life, were engaged in the writing of these oracles, the work of which was spread over a period of about 1,600 years, viz., from about 1500 b. c., when Moses commenced to write the Pentateuch amid the thunders of Sinai, to about a. d. 97, when the apostle John, himself a son of thunder (Mark 3:17), wrote his Gospel in Asia Minor.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, pp. 11, 12. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 9th edition. SBBS 71.1
Bible, Its Authorship.— SBBS 71.2
Hast thou ever heard
Of such a book? The Author, God himself;
The subject, God and man, salvation, life
And death-eternal life, eternal death-
Dread words! whose meaning has no end, no bounds.
Most wondrous Book! bright candle of the Lord!
Star of eternity! the only star
By which the bark of man could navigate
The sea of life, and gain the coast of bliss
Securely! only star which rose on time,
And on its dark and troubled billows, still,
As generation, drifting swiftly by,
Succeeded generation, threw a ray
Of heaven’s own light, and to the hills of God,
The eternal hills, pointed the sinner’s eye.
By prophets, seers, and priests, and sacred bards,
Evangelists, apostles, men inspired,
And by the Holy Ghost anointed, set
Apart, and consecrated to declare
To earth the counsels of the Eternal One
This Book, this holiest, this sublimest Book,
Was sent. Heaven’s will, heaven’s code of laws entire,
To man, this Book contained; defined the bounds
Of vice and virtue, and of life and death;
And what was shadow, what was substance taught.
SBBS 71.3
This Book, this holy Book, on every line
Marked with the seal of high divinity,
On every leaf bedewed with drops of love
Divine, and with the eternal heraldry
And signature of God Almighty stamped
From first to last, this ray of sacred light,
This lamp, from off the everlasting throne,
Mercy took down, and, in the night of time
Stood, casting on the dark her gracious bow;
And evermore beseeching men, with tears
And earnest sighs, to read, believe, and live.
SBBS 71.4
-“The Course of Time,” Robert Pollok, book 2, pars. 17, 19. SBBS 71.5
Bible, the Pentateuch Written by Moses.—The unanimous tradition of the Jews ascribes the Pentateuch to Moses, and among Christians the Mosaic authorship was not called into question until a comparatively recent period. The evidence of the genuineness of the Pentateuch rests on direct testimony. If it had perished, most of its ordinances could have been gathered from the later books of the Bible; and the chain of evidence is completed by the testimony of Christ and his apostles, who without hesitation ascribe the composition of the Pentateuch to Moses.—“The Bible and Its Transmission,” Walter Arthur Copinger, p. 10. London: Henry Sotheran & Co., 1897.* SBBS 71.6
Bible, Its Inspiration and Authenticity.—On what ground do we believe that the Bible is inspired? Some will give the ready answer. “We believe that the Bible is inspired because the church says so.” ... Others there are who, when asked why they believe the Bible to be inspired, would reply, “It is because we have found it to be so practically; by reading it we found our way to God; by searching it the will of God has become clearer to us; by living according to its precepts we have proved that they are divine; and now its words move us as no other words do: other books delight us, instruct us, thrill us, but this book is a prophetic voice discoursing about eternity and the unseen in the same breath that it speaks with a demonstrable truthfulness concerning the temporal and the seen.” ... The people who answer in this way certainly seem to render a more solid reason than those who found their assertion about inspiration upon the tradition of an authoritative church.—“Inspiration and the Bible,” Robert F. Horton, M. A., pp. 2, 4, 5. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1891. SBBS 72.1
There are, it is well known, many theories of inspiration. But whatever view or theory of inspiration men may hold, plenary, verbal, dynamical, mechanical, superintendent, or governmental, they refer either to the inspiration of the men who wrote, or to the inspiration of what is written. In one word, they imply throughout the work of God the Holy Ghost, and are bound up with the concomitant ideas of authority, veracity, reliability, and truth divine.—Canon Dyson Hague, M. A., in “The Fundamentals,” Vol. I, p. 105. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company. SBBS 72.2
The present Hebrew text is admitted by the most able scholars of the day to be substantially accurate, the great majority of the errors discovered being of a trivial description, such as the misspelling or transposing of words, the omission of insignificant particles or their insertion, and errors of the like description. The variations of the MSS. of the New Testament are very much more numerous than those which have been discovered in the Old, and yet we have the authority of two of the greatest textual critics of the New Testament (Drs. Westcott and Hort) for saying that the New Testament variations of any importance, if all put together, would not exceed one thousandth part of the whole text.—“The Bible and Its Transmission,” Walter Arthur Copinger, pp. 4, 5. London: Henry Sotheran & Co., 1897.* SBBS 72.3
Inspiration is not affected by minor differences in various narratives. While God used men as media of communication, they were not mere machines, but were left to use their faculties in individual freedom. Hence arose peculiarities, not only of style, but of treatment, according as the same utterances or occurrences might impress each observer or narrator. But this, instead of impairing, rather increases the trustworthiness of the record, as it proves that there could have been no prior agreement or conspiracy among the various writers. SBBS 72.4
Most so-called discrepancies or disagreements disappear when the various records are regarded as partial, rather than complete, as each of the four Gospel narratives may present some feature not found in the rest, but capable of being combined with the others in one full statement. For example, the complete inscription over the cross was, “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Of this inscription of ten words, Matthew records eight, Mark five, Luke seven, and John eight, and not the same in any two cases; but the full inscription includes all the words found in any record. There is, therefore, no antagonism or contradiction.—“Knowing the Scriptures,” Dr. Arthur T. Pierson, p. 18. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910. SBBS 72.5
The revelations of prophecy are facts which exhibit the divine omniscience. So long as Babylon is in heaps; so long as Nineveh lies empty, void, and waste; so long as Egypt is the basest of kingdoms; so long as Tyre is a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; so long as Israel is scattered among all nations; so long as Jerusalem is trodden underfoot of the Gentiles; so long as the great empires of the world march on in their predicted course,-so long we have proof that one Omniscient Mind dictated the predictions of that book, and “prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.”-“Will the Old Book Stand?” H. L. Hastings, p. 19. Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1916. SBBS 73.1
Respecting the particular manner of divine inspiration, there are two opinions extant: SBBS 73.2
1. That the Spirit of God inspired the thoughts; but that the writers were left to express themselves in their own words and phrases, but they were so guided that they were kept from theological errors. SBBS 73.3
2. That every word was suggested to them by the Spirit of God, and that the writers did nothing but write. This is verbal inspiration.... Both views secure the Scriptures from all error.—“Theological Compend,” Improved, Amos Binney, pp. 21, 22. New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1902. SBBS 73.4
Bible, History in, Differs from Other Histories.—Niebuhr says that the Old Testament history is the only exception to ancient history, in that it is free from what he calls all “national patriotic falsehood.” ... In other histories we see the great tendency to hero worship. The historian has some favorite character. He wants to show what a grand man that was. The Bible never wants to show what a grand man anybody was. There is no hero worship in the Bible.—“The Divine Unity of Scripture,” Adolph Saphir, pp. 213, 214. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1804. SBBS 73.5
Bible, Credibility of.—The main facts of the history they [books of the Pentateuch] contain have received strong confirmation from Egyptian and Eastern research.—“The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture,” Wm. E. Gladstone, pp. 14, 15. London: Wm. Isbister, 1890. SBBS 73.6
It is of no use to say that Christ, as exhibited in the Gospels, is not historical-who among his disciples or among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee, as certainly not St. Paul.—“Essays.” John Stuart Mill, p. 233; quoted in “The Bible, Its Origin and Nature,” Marcus Dods, D. D., p. 208. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905. SBBS 73.7
Bible, Credibility of: Archeological and Geographical Confirmations.—This is the century of romance,-romance in exploration, in discovery, in invention, in thought, and in life.... Through a series of marvelous discoveries and romantic events we have been let into the secrets of wonderful centuries of hitherto unknown peoples and events.... Now through the co-operation of explorer, archeologist, and linguist, we are the heirs of what was formerly regarded as prehistoric times.... These marvelous revelations from the archives of the nations of the past have painted for us a new background, in fact, our first background, of the Old Testament.—“The Monuments and the Old Testament,” Ira Maurice Price, Ph. D., pp. 17, 18. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1899. SBBS 73.8
Almost every year ancient records are brought to light which confirm some statement of the Old Testament which the scholars supposed to be a mistake. One of the most familiar is that with reference to the location of Ur of the Chaldees. Scholars knew of only one Ur, and it was at Oorfah, six hundred miles away from Chaldea. So they said the Bible must be mistaken. But Lenormant and Smith have identified Mughier as the site of the home of Terah and Abraham. The scholars were wrong because they did not have the facts in hand. When the facts came to light, the Scriptures proved to be exactly correct. The more light men bring to bear upon the Old Testament, the more certain becomes the accuracy of its historic statements.—“Scientific Faith,” Howard Agnew Johnston, pp. 117, 118. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910. SBBS 74.1
Bible, St. Basil (329-379) on.—Without doubt it is a most manifest fall from faith, and a most certain sign of pride, to introduce anything that is not written in the Scriptures, our blessed Saviour having said, “My sheep hear my voice, and the voice of strangers they will not hear;” and to detract from Scripture, or to add anything to the faith that is not there, is most manifestly forbidden by the apostle, saying, “If it be but a man’s testament, no man addeth thereto.”-“De Fide,” Garnier’s edition, Vol. II, p. 313; quoted in “The Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, D. D., pp. 143, 144. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914. SBBS 74.2
Bible, St. Jerome (340-420) on.—As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written.—On Matthew 23:35; quoted in “The Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, p. 147. SBBS 74.3
Bible, Pope Pius VI (1778-1799) on.—At a time when a great number of bad books ... are circulated among the unlearned, ... you judge exceedingly well that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Bible; for this is the most abundant source which ought to be left open to every one to draw from it purity of morals and doctrine.... This you have seasonably effected ... by publishing the Bible in the language of your country [viz., Italian] suitable to every one’s capacity.—Quoted in “The Catholic Church and the Bible” (pamphlet), p. 1. Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society.* SBBS 74.4
Bible, Pope Pius VII on Bible Societies, 1816.—We have been truly shocked at this most crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are undermined: and having, because of the great importance of the subject, convened for consultation our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, we have, with the utmost care and attention, deliberated upon the measures proper to be adopted by our Pontifical authority, in order to remedy and abolish this pestilence as far as possible.—Letter of Pope Pius VII, June 29, 1816, to the Archbishop of Gnezn, Primate of Poland; cited in “A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets of the Apocalypse,” William Cuninghame, Esq., Preface, p. xiii. London: 1843. SBBS 74.5
Bible, Pope Leo XIII (1898) Proclaims Indulgence for Reading.—His Holiness Leo XIII, at an audience on Dec. 13, 1898, with the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation of Indulgences and Relics, made known that he grants to all the faithful who shall have devoutly read the Scriptures for at least a quarter of an hour, an indulgence of three hundred days, to be gained once a day, provided that the edition of the Gospel has been approved by legitimate authority.—Quoted in “The Catholic Church and the Bible” (pamphlet), p. 2. Brooklyn: International Catholic Truth Society.* SBBS 74.6
Bible, Cardinal Wiseman on Reading of, by Common People.—Years of experience, and observation not superficial, have only strengthened our conviction that this course must be fearlessly pursued. We must deny to Protestantism any right to use the Bible, much more to interpret it.—“The Catholic Doctrine on the Use of the Bible,” Cardinal Wiseman, p. 11. London. SBBS 75.1
It is not too much to say, that God, who could have given us a Bible as easy to read as a child’s primer, a Bible in words of two syllables, has, on the contrary, chosen to give us a work more difficult to understand than any other perhaps in existence.—Id., p. 13. SBBS 75.2
We answer, therefore, boldly, that we give not the Word of God indiscriminately to all, because God himself has not so given it. He has not made reading an essential part of man’s constitution, nor a congenital faculty, nor a term of salvation, nor a condition of Christianity. But hearing he has made such, and then has told us that “faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God.” Romans 10:16, 17. He has not made paper and ink (2 John 12) the badges of his apostles’ calling, but the keys of his kingdom.—Id., p. 20. SBBS 75.3
In Catholic countries, such as can read, or do read, have access to the Latin Version without restraint.... But though the Scriptures may be here permitted [in Great Britain, with notes] we do not urge them on our people; we do not encourage them to read them; we do not spread them to the utmost among them. Certainly not.—Id., p. 26. SBBS 75.4
Bible, Catholic Editor on Substitute for Old Testament.—Bible histories drawn up by skilled theologians, and giving the substance of the Bible narrative, are just as useful for the practical effect as the original words, and have the advantage of greater conciseness in the narratives they select.—Editorial in The Month (London), December, 1888 (Vol. LXIV, p. 485). SBBS 75.5
Bible, Catholic Encyclopedia on Circulation of, by Bible Societies.—The attitude of the church toward the Bible societies is one of unmistakable opposition. Believing herself to be the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ, she cannot without turning traitor to herself, approve the distribution of Scripture “without note or comment.” The fundamental fallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed by the Bible societies. It is the impelling motive of their work. But it would be likewise the violation of one of the first principles of the Catholic faith-a principle arrived at through observation as well as by revelation-the insufficiency of the Scriptures alone to convey to the general reader a sure knowledge of faith and morals. Consequently, the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, after expressly condemning all interpretations of the sacred text which contradict the past and present interpretation of the church, orders all Catholic publishers to see to it that their editions of the Bible have the approval of the bishop. SBBS 75.6
Besides this and other regulations concerning Bible reading in general, we have several acts of the Popes directed explicitly against the Bible societies. Perhaps the most notable of these are contained in the Encyclical Ubi Primum of Leo XII, dated 5 May, 1824, and Pius IX’s Encyclical Qui Pluribus, of 9 November, 1846. Pius VIII in 1829 and Gregory XVI in 1844, spoke to similar effect. It may be well to give the most striking words on the subject from Leo XII and Pius IX. To quote the former (loc. cit.): SBBS 76.1
“You are aware, venerable brothers, that a certain Bible society is impudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the traditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavoring to translate, or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernacular of all nations.... It is to be feared that by false interpretation, the gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or still worse, the gospel of the devil.” SBBS 76.2
The Pope then urges the bishops to admonish their flocks that owing to human temerity, more harm than good may come from indiscriminate Bible reading. SBBS 76.3
Pius IX says (loc. cit.): “These crafty Bible societies, which renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their Bibles upon all men, even the unlearned,-their Bibles, which have been translated against the laws of the church, and often contain false explanations of the text. Thus, the divine traditions, the teaching of the Fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected, and every one in his own way interprets the words of the Lord, and distorts their meaning, thereby falling into miserable errors.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, art. “Bible Societies,” p. 545. SBBS 76.4
Bible, Greek Church on.—III. Everything necessary to salvation is stated in the Holy Scriptures with such clearness, that every one, reading it with a sincere desire to be enlightened, can understand it.—“Russia: or, Miscellaneous Observations on the Past and Present State of That Country and Its Inhabitants,” Robert Pinkerton, D. D., pp. 42, 43; chap. 3, section on “Comparison of the Differences in the Doctrines of Faith Betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches,” by Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow. London: Seeley & Sons, 1833. SBBS 76.5
Bible, The French Confession of Faith (a. d. 1559) on.—Art. V. We believe that the Word contained in these books has proceeded from God.... It is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it. Whence it follows that no authority, whether of antiquity, or custom, or numbers, or human wisdom, or judgments, or proclamations, or edicts, or decrees, or councils, or visions, or miracles, should be opposed to these Holy Scriptures.—“The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches,” Philip Schaff, p. 362. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. SBBS 76.6
Bible, The Belgic Confession (a. d. 1561) on.—Art. VII. We believe that these Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation, is sufficiently taught therein.—Id., pp. 387, 388. SBBS 76.7
Bible, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) on.—VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the spirit, or traditions of men.—Id., p. 603. SBBS 76.8
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.—Id., p. 605. SBBS 77.1
Bible, The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England on.—VI. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.—Id., p. 489. SBBS 77.2
XX. It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.—Id., p. 500. SBBS 77.3
Bible, The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (a. d. 1833) on.—We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried. SBBS 77.4
[This confession was drawn up by the Rev. John Newton Brown, D. D., of New Hampshire (b. 1803, d. 1868), about 1833, and has been adopted by the New Hampshire Convention and widely accepted by Baptists, especially in the Northern and Western States, as a clear and concise statement of their faith, in harmony with the doctrines of older confessions, but expressed in milder form. The text is taken from the “Baptist Church Manual,” published by the American Baptist Publication Society, Philadelphia.]-Id., p. 742. SBBS 77.5
Bible, Confession of the Freewill Baptists (a. d. 1834, 1868) on the Holy Scriptures.—These are the Old and New Testaments; they were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and contain God’s revealed will to man. They are a sufficient and infallible guide in religious faith and practice. SBBS 77.6
[This confession was adopted and issued by the General Conference of the Freewill Baptists of America in 1834, revised in 1848, and again in 1865, and 1868. The text is taken from the “Treatise on the Faith and Practice of the Freewill Baptists,” written under the direction of the General Conference, Dover, N. H.]-Id., p. 749. SBBS 77.7
Bible, Methodist Articles of Religion (1784) on.—V. The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.... SBBS 77.8
VI. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth, yet, notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.—Id., p. 808. SBBS 77.9
Bible, Congregationalists on.—Standing by the rock where the Pilgrims set foot upon these shores, upon the spot where they worshiped God, and among the graves of the early generations, we, elders and messengers of the Congregational churches of the United States in National Council assembled-like them acknowledging no rule of faith but the Word of God-do now declare our adherence to the faith and order of the apostolic and primitive churches.—Declaration of Faith of the National Council of the Congregational Churches, held at Boston, Mass., June 14-24, 1865, par. 1; cited in “The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches,” Philip Schaff, p. 734. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. SBBS 78.1
Bible, St. Chrysostom (a. d. 347-407) on Ignorance of.—And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, “Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7).... From this it is that our countless evils have arisen-from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out.—“Homilies on Romans,” preface; “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. XI, p. 335. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899. SBBS 78.2
Bible, Pope Gregory the Great on Study of.—What is Sacred Scripture but a kind of epistle of Almighty God to his creature? And surely, if Your Glory were resident in any other place, and were to receive letters from an earthly emperor, you would not loiter, you would not rest, you would not give sleep to your eyes, till you had learned what the earthly emperor had written. SBBS 78.3
The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and angels, has sent thee his epistles for thy life’s behoof; and yet, glorious son, thou neglectest to read these epistles ardently. Study them, I beseech thee, and daily meditate on the words of thy Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that thou mayest sigh more ardently for the things that are eternal.—“Epistle to Theodorus,” book 4, epistle 31; “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. XII, p. 156. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895. SBBS 78.4
Bible, St. Chrysostom on Rule of Doctrine.—“For doctrine.” For thence [from the Scriptures] we shall know whether we ought to learn or to be ignorant of anything. And thence we may disprove what is false.... SBBS 78.5
“That the man of God may be perfect.” For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldst learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!-“Homilies on Timothy,” Homily 9, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. XIII, p. 510. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905. SBBS 78.6
Bible, Declared Rule of Faith in the “Protest of the Princes,” at Spires (1529).—Moreover, ... as the new edict declares that the ministers shall preach the gospel, explaining it according to the writings accepted by the Holy Christian church; we think that, for this regulation to have any value, we should first agree on what is meant by the true and holy church. Now, seeing that there is great diversity of opinion in this respect; that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the Word of God; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine; that each text of the Holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts; and that this Holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness: we are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as it is contained in the Biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, whilst all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God. SBBS 78.7
For these reasons, most dear lords, uncles, cousins, and friends, we earnestly entreat you to weigh carefully our grievances and our motives. If you do not yield to our request, we Protest by these presents, before God, our only Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Saviour, and who will one day be our Judge, as well as before all men and all creatures, that we, for us and for our people, neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed decree, in anything that is contrary to God, to his Holy Word, to our right conscience, to the salvation of our souls, and to the last decree of Spires.—“History of the Reformation,” J. H. Merle D’Aubigné, D. D., book 13, chap. 6, pars. 13, 14. SBBS 79.1
Bible, Chillingworth’s Famous Statement Concerning.—The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants! ... I for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of “the true way to eternal happiness,” do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only. SBBS 79.2
I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are popes against popes, councils against councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against themselves, a consent of the Fathers of one age against a consent of the Fathers of another age.... SBBS 79.3
There is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon. This, therefore, and this only, I have reason to believe: this I will profess; according to this I will live, and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only willingly, but even gladly, lose my life, though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me anything out of this Book, and require whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this: God hath said so, therefore it is true.—“The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,” William Chillingworth, M. A., p. 463. London: Bell and Daldy, 1870. SBBS 79.4
Bible, Reform and Revival Synchronize with Its Study.—History showed that the periods of reform and revival synchronized with the increase of attention to the Word of God.—Sir George Smith, in London Times, March 8, 1904; quoted in “All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 44. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 9th edition. SBBS 79.5
Bible, Old Testament Recognized as Authority.—The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man.—Article VII of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England; quoted in “The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches,” Philip Schaff, p. 491 (American Revision, 1801). London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. SBBS 79.6
It is a very strange thing that there are not a few who, professing to believe in the Scriptures of the New Testament, regard the Old Testament with a feeling of perplexity and doubt, not to say of antipathy; and the objections which are brought forward by them against the Old Testament, I endeavored to show, were rooted in their insufficient understanding of the teaching of the New Testament.—“The Divine Unity of Scripture,” Adolph Saphir, pp. 160, 161. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909. SBBS 80.1
There is a persistent attempt in some quarters to depreciate the Old Testament, with the lamentable result that it is comparatively neglected. Yet the New Testament itself unmistakably teaches the organic unity of the two Testaments, and in various ways exhibits their mutual relations.—“Knowing the Scriptures,” Arthur T. Pierson, p. 53. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910. SBBS 80.2
Bible, Eulogies of.— SBBS 80.3
John Quincy Adams: So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens to their country and respectable members of society.—Quoted in “Biblical Authenticity,” L. L. Shearer, p. 68. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.* SBBS 80.4
Dr. Adam Clarke: This Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, are the only complete guide to everlasting blessedness: men may err, but the Scripture cannot; for it is the word of God himself, who can neither mistake, deceive, nor be deceived. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. SBBS 80.5
From this word all doctrines must be derived and proved; and from it every man must learn his duty to God, to his neighbor, and to himself. Isaiah 8:20.—“Clavis Biblica” (“The Preacher’s Manual”), p. 64. New York: Carlton and Lanahan, 1820. SBBS 80.6
Samuel Taylor Coleridge: For more than a thousand years the Bible, collectively taken, has gone hand in hand with civilization, science, law,-in short, with the moral and intellectual cultivation of the species, always supporting, and often leading the way.—“Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit,” Letter VI, p. 100. Boston: James Munroe & Co., 1841.* SBBS 80.7
Benjamin Franklin: Young man, my advice to you is that you cultivate an acquaintance with and firm belief in the Holy Scriptures, for this is your certain interest. I think Christ’s system of morals and religion, as he left them with us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.—“The Fundamentals,” Vol. II, p. 120. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company. SBBS 80.8
W. E. Gladstone: Revelation [the Scripture] not only illuminates, but binds. Like the credentials of an earthly ambassador, it is just and necessary that the credentials of that revelation should be tested. But if it be found genuine, if we have proofs of its being genuine equal to those of which, in the ordinary concerns of life, reason acknowledges the obligatory character, then we find ourselves to be not independent beings engaged in an optional inquiry, but the servants of a Master, the pupils of a Teacher, the children of a Father.—“The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scriptures,” pp. 293, 294. London: Wm. Isbister, 1890. SBBS 80.9
U. S. Grant: Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor of our liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. SBBS 80.10
To the influence of this Book we are indebted for the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.—Quoted in “Biblical Authenticity,” L. L. Shearer, p. 68. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.* SBBS 81.1
J. R. Green, English Historian: As a mere literary monument the English version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the English tongue, while its perpetual use made it, from the instant of its appearance, the standard of our language.—“Short History of the English People,” book 7, chap. 1, par. 6. SBBS 81.2
St. Gregory: The Bible changes the heart of him who reads, drawing him from worldly desires, to embrace the things of God.—Mag. Moral. 1. 20, c. 1; quoted in “The Catholic Church and the Bible” (pamphlet), p. 4. Brooklyn: The International Catholic Truth Society. SBBS 81.3
Patrick Henry: There is a Book worth all other books that were ever published.—Quoted in “Biblical Authenticity,” L. L. Shearer, p. 68. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.* SBBS 81.4
Sir John Herschel: All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths contained in the sacred Scriptures.—Quoted in “Bible Criticism and the Average Man,” Howard Agnew Johnston, p. 26. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1902. SBBS 81.5
Thomas Jefferson: I have said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.—Quoted in “The Fundamentals,” Vol. II, p. 120. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company. SBBS 81.6
Dr. Howard A. Kelley: I believe the Bible to be God’s Word, because, as I use it day by day as spiritual food, I discover in my own life, as well as in the lives of those who likewise use it, a transformation correcting evil tendencies, purifying affections, giving pure desires, and teaching that concerning the righteousness of God which those who do not so use it can know nothing of. It is as really food for the spirit as bread is for the body. SBBS 81.7
Perhaps one of my strongest reasons for believing the Bible is that it reveals to me, as no other book in the world could do, that which appeals to me as a physician, a diagnosis of my spiritual condition. It shows me clearly what I am by nature-one lost in sin and alienated from the life that is in God. I find in it a consistent and wonderful revelation, from Genesis to Revelation, of the character of God, a God far removed from any of my natural imaginings. SBBS 81.8
It also reveals a tenderness and nearness of God in Christ which satisfies the heart’s longings, and shows me that the infinite God, Creator of the world, took our very nature upon him that he might in infinite love be one with his people to redeem them. I believe in it because it reveals a religion adapted to all classes and races, and it is intellectual suicide knowing it not to believe it.—Id., Vol. I, p. 125. SBBS 81.9
Abraham Lincoln: In regard to the Great Book, I have only this to say: It is the best gift which God has given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world is communicated through this Book. But for this Book we could not know right from wrong. All those things desirable to man are contained in it.—Quoted in “Biblical Authenticity,” L. L. Shearer, p. 71. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.* SBBS 81.10
Dr. C. B. McAfee: From the literary point of view the Bible stands as an English classic, indeed, as the outstanding English classic. To acknowledge ignorance of it is to confess oneself ignorant of our greatest literary possession.—“The Greatest English Classic,” pp. 93, 94. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1912. SBBS 82.1
Sir Isaac Newton: I account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy.—Quoted in “Biblical Authenticity,” L. L. Shearer, p. 67. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1899.* SBBS 82.2
Daniel Webster: If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.—Quoted in “The Fundamentals,” Vol. II, p. 120. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company. SBBS 82.3
If there be aught of eloquence in me, it is because I learned the Scripture at my mother’s knee.—Quoted in “The Fascination of the Book,” Rev. E. W. Work, p. 150. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1906. SBBS 82.4
Woodrow Wilson: I have a very simple thing to ask of you. I ask of every man and woman in this audience that from this night on they will realize that part of the destiny of America lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations-that if they would see America free and pure, they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Scripture.—Extract from address of Hon. Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, in the Auditorium at Denver, Colo., on the occasion of the Tercentenary Celebration of the Translation of the Bible into the English Language, May 7, 1911; quoted in the Congressional Record, Aug. 13, 1912. SBBS 82.5
Bible, Methods of Studying.—No investigation of Scripture, in its various parts and separate texts, however important, must impair the sense of the supreme value of its united witness. There is not a form of evil doctrine or practice that may not claim apparent sanction and support from isolated passages; but nothing erroneous or vicious can even find countenance from the Word of God when the whole united testimony of Scripture is weighed against it. Partial examination will result in partial views of truth which are necessarily imperfect; only careful comparison will show the complete mind of God.—“Knowing the Scriptures,” Arthur T. Pierson, p. 214. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910. SBBS 82.6
Bible, Not to Be Studied as Other Books.—So there never was or will be another book that combines the human and divine elements as this Book does. When therefore we are told that it must be studied just as other books are, that is exactly what we may deny. It must be studied as no other book is, because it constitutes a class by itself, and can be classed with no others.—“The Bible and Spiritual Criticism,” Arthur T. Pierson, p. 14. New York: The Baker and Taylor Co., 1905.* SBBS 82.7
Bible, Correct Attitude Toward.—Look not into the Bible for what God never put in it-look not there for mathematics or mechanics, for metaphysical distinctions or the abstruse sciences; but look there simply for the way of spiritual life and salvation, and you will find enough, an abundance for all your spiritual needs.—“Origin and History of the Books of the Bible,” Prof. C. E. Stowe, D. D., pp. 32, 33. Hartford Publishing Company, 1867. SBBS 82.8
Bible, Not an Arsenal, but a Temple.—I use the Scripture, not as an arsenal to be resorted to only for arms and weapons to defend this party or defeat its enemies, but as a matchless temple, where I delight to be, to contemplate the beauty, the symmetry, and the magnificence of the structure, and to increase my awe and excite my devotion to the Deity there preached and adored.—“The Works of the Hon. Robert Boyle” (6 vol. edition, Vol. II, p. 277), art. “Some Considerations Touching the Style of the Holy Scriptures,” 3rd Obj., 8. London: Johnson & Others, 1772. SBBS 83.1
Bible, Consoles in Trouble.—Weary human nature lays its head on the bosom of the Divine Word, or it has nowhere to lay its head, Tremblers on the verge of the dark and terrible valley, which parts the land of the living from the untried hereafter, take this hand of human tenderness, yet of godlike strength, or they totter into the gloom without prop or stay. They who look their last upon the beloved dead, listen to this voice of soothing and peace, or else death is ... an infinite tragedy, maddening and sickening, a blackness of darkness forever.—Quoted in “Origin and History of the Books of the Bible,” Prof. C. E. Stowe, D. D., p. 35. Hartford Publishing Company, 1867. SBBS 83.2
Bible, Safety Where It Is Found.—Years ago, a young infidel was traveling in the West with his uncle, a banker, and they were not a little anxious for their safety when they were forced to stop for a night in a rough wayside cabin. There were two rooms in the house; and when they retired for the night, they agreed that the young man should sit with his pistols and watch until midnight, and then awaken his uncle, who should watch until morning. Presently they peeped through the crack, and saw their host, a rough-looking old man, in his bearskin suit, reach up and take down a book-a Bible; and after reading it awhile, he knelt and began to pray; and then the young infidel began to pull off his coat and get ready for bed. The uncle said, “I thought you were going to sit up and watch.” But the young man knew there was no need of sitting up, pistol in hand, to watch all night long in a cabin that was hallowed by the Word of God and consecrated by the voice of prayer. Would a pack of cards, a rum bottle, or a copy of the “Age of Reason,” have thus quieted this young infidel’s fears?-“Will the Old Book Stand?” H. L. Hastings, pp. 8-10. Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1916. SBBS 83.3
Bible, the Reading of It Makes for Liberty.—Up to the time of the translation of the Bible into English, it was a book for long ages withheld from the perusal of the peoples of other languages and of other tongues, and not a little of the history of liberty lies in the circumstance that the moving sentences of this book were made familiar to the ears and the understanding of those peoples who have led mankind in exhibiting the forms of government and the impulses of reform which have made for freedom and for self-government among mankind. SBBS 83.4
For this is a book which reveals men unto themselves, not as creatures in bondage, not as men under human authority, not as those bidden to take counsel and command of any human source. It reveals every man to himself as a distinct moral agent, responsible not to men, not even to those men whom he has put over him in authority, but responsible through his own conscience to his Lord and Maker. Whenever a man sees this vision, he stands up a free man, whatever may be the government under which he lives, if he sees beyond the circumstances of his own life.—Extract from address of Hon. Woodrow Wilson, on the occasion of the Tercentenary Celebration of the Translation of the Bible into the English Language, Denver, Colo., May 7, 1911; quoted in the Congressional Record, Aug. 13, 1912. SBBS 83.5
Bible Interpretation, Literal Meaning of.—Theologians are right ... when they affirm the literal sense, or that which is derived from the knowledge of words, to be the only true one; for that mystical sense, which indeed is incorrectly called a sense, belongs altogether to the thing and not to the words.... In fact, there is but one and the same method of interpretation common to all books, whatever be their subject. And the same grammatical principles and precepts ought to be the common guide in the interpretation of all.—“Biblical Repertory,” Charles Hodge, editor, Vol. III, pp. 128, 136, article by Prof. J. A. Ernesti. New York: G. & C. Carvill, 1827.* SBBS 84.1
Let the Christian reader’s first object always be to find out the literal meaning of the Word of God; for this, and this alone, is the whole foundation of faith and of Christian theology. It is the very substance of Christianity.... Allegories are often of a doubtful nature, depending on human conjecture and opinion; for which reason Jerome and Origen, and other Fathers of the same stamp, nay, I may add, all the old Alexandrian school, should be read with the greatest caution. An excessive esteem for these has gradually introduced a most mischievous taste among later writers; who have gone such lengths as to support the most extravagant absurdities by Scriptural expressions.—From Luther’s Exposition of Deuteronomy; given in “The History of the Church of Christ,” Rev. Joseph Milner, A. M., (5 vols.) Vol. V, p. 263. Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong and Crocker & Brewster, 1822. SBBS 84.2
The words and sentences of the Bible are to be translated, interpreted, and understood according to the same code of laws and principles of interpretation by which other ancient writings are translated and understood; for when God spoke to man in his own language, he spoke as one person converses with another, in the fair, stipulated, and well-established meaning of the terms. This is essential to its character as a revelation from God; otherwise it would be no revelation, but would always require a class of inspired men to unfold and reveal its true sense to mankind.—“The Christian System,” A. Campbell, pp. 15, 16. Pittsburgh: Forrester and Campbell, 1839.* SBBS 84.3
Metaphors and parables prove nothing; they only illustrate, and are never allowed to be produced in support of any doctrine. This is a maxim in theology to which all polemic divines are obliged to bow.—“A Letter to a Preacher” (“The Preacher’s Manual”), Adam Clarke, p. 90. New York: Carlton and Lanahan, 1820. SBBS 84.4
Bible, To be Understood by All.—VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.—Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, chap. 1, “Of Holy Scripture;” cited in “The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches,” Philip Schaff, p. 604. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1877. SBBS 84.5
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.—Id., p. 605. SBBS 84.6
Bible, Its Own Interpreter.—To know in what specific sense words and terms are employed by any writer, is to have, so far, keys to unlock his meaning. It pleases the author of Holy Scripture to provide, in the Bible itself, the helps to its understanding and interpretation. If all doors to its secret chambers are not left open, the keys are to be found; and part of the object of leaving some things obscure, instead of obvious, is to incite and invite investigation, to prompt us to patient and prayerful search. Its obscurities awaken curiosity and inquiry, and study is rewarded by finding the clew to what was before a maze of perplexity.—“Knowing the Scriptures,” Arthur T. Pierson, p. 106. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910. SBBS 85.1
Bible, Roman Catholic Church Claims Sole Right to Interpret.—No one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 11; The Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546, in the “Decree Concerning the Edition and the Use of the Sacred Books.” New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912. SBBS 85.2
If any one has the interpretation of the Church of Rome concerning any text of Scripture, although he does not understand how the interpretation suits the text, yet he possesses the identical word of God.—Cardinal Hosius, “De Expresso Verbo Dei,” p. 623, edition 1584; quoted in “The Novelties of Romanism,” C. H. Collette, p. 22. London: Wm. Penny, 1869. SBBS 85.3
Bible, Best Understood Now.—The apostle Paul declares in his epistle to the Romans that all these things happened for our example, and were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world have come. Seeing, therefore, that we have the fulness of the gospel light, and that there have been manifested to us these histories, it is for us to enter into the consideration of Moses and the prophets, in the full assurance and expectation that the Holy Ghost has there treasured up for us all that is profitable and needful for our instruction and guidance, in connection with that fuller development of history and teaching which we now possess.—“The Divine Unity of Scripture,” Adolph Saphir, p. 200. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904. SBBS 85.4
Bible, Era of Composition.—About the close of the first two thousand years, God called Abram out from the idolatrous surroundings of his native home (Genesis 12:1; Joshua 24:2, 15), changed his name to Abraham (Genesis 17:5; Nehemiah 9:7), and constituted him the head of a people (Genesis 12:2; 15:5), known as the Hebrews or Jews, whom he was pleased to call his own peculiar possession (Deuteronomy 14:2), and whom he specially fitted and prepared during many generations, that they might in due time become the depositaries of a revelation committed to writing (Romans 3:2), which would at once be more permanent in its nature and less liable to be either forgotten or corrupted.... SBBS 85.5
Accordingly, about five hundred years after the call of Abram-i. e., about 1500 b. c.—the time came to have this written revelation accomplished, which was to embody a history of the preceding 2,500 years, including an account of the creation, together with God’s laws, precepts, promises, prophecies, etc.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 6. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 9th edition. SBBS 85.6
Bible, Dates of the Composition of the Books of the New Testament.—The precise time when the several books of the New Testament were written, cannot in every case be determined certainly, but the following table will show the facts with a very close approximation to the true state of the case: SBBS 86.1
| Yrs. after Christ | A. D. | |
| Matthew | 6 | 39 |
| Mark | 10 | 43 |
| 1 Peter | 19 | 52 |
| 1 Thessalonians | 19 | 52 |
| 2 Thessalonians | 19 | 52 |
| Luke | 23 | 56 |
| Galatians | 23 | 56 |
| 1 Corinthians | 24 | 57 |
| 2 Corinthians | 24 | 57 |
| Romans | 24 | 57 |
| Philippians | 29 | 62 |
| Philemon | 29 | 62 |
| Colossians | 29 | 62 |
| Ephesians | 29 | 62 |
| Hebrews | 29 | 62 |
| Acts | 30 | 63 |
| 1 Timothy | 30 | 63 |
| 2 Timothy | 30 | 63 |
| Titus | 30 | 63 |
| 2 Peter | 30 | 63 |
| James | 33 | 66 |
| Jude | 33 | 66 |
| Revelation | 61 | 94 |
| John | 63 | 96 |
| 1 John | 65 | 98 |
| 2 John | 65 | 98 |
| 3 John | 65 | 98 |
-“The Revised New Testament and History of Revision,” Isaac H. Hall, pp. 17, 18. San Francisco: J. Dewing & Co. * SBBS 86.2
Bible, Original Languages of.—The Old Testament-at least, almost the whole of it-was written in Hebrew. The following three small sections, however, were written in Chaldean, viz., Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4 to 7:28; and Ezra 4:8 to 6:18.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 22. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 9th edition. SBBS 86.3
Bible, How the Hebrew Language was Written.—The Hebrew language was originally written, not only entirely in consonants, without any vowels at all (thus Jehovah was simply written JHVH), but there was no spacing to divide one word from another, as if we should write the Lord’s prayer thus: SBBS 86.4
RFTHRWHCHRTNHVNHLLWDBTHNM, etc. 6 SBBS 86.5
It was not until after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity that words were divided from one another, and the Hebrew Old Testament generally was arranged into verses and paragraphs.... The vowel points were introduced very much later-about a. d. 500 or 600.—Id., p. 16. SBBS 86.6
Bible, Quotations from the Old Testament in the New.—A considerable difference of opinion exists among some learned men, whether evangelists and other writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament from the Hebrew, or from the venerable Greek version, usually called the Septuagint. Others, however, are of opinion that they did not confine themselves exclusively to either; and this appears most probable. The only way by which to determine this important question, is to compare and arrange the texts actually quoted.—“Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Home, Vol. I, p. 293. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1854. SBBS 86.7
Westcott and Hort, in their edition of the Greek New Testament, have done a great service by indicating in capitals the quotations of sentences and phrases from the Old Testament in the New. They have traced more than fifteen hundred such in the twenty-seven New Testament books. It is both a curious and significant fact that frequently these citations are in the very center of some paragraph and are a sort of turning point of the whole argument or mark the heart of the treatment, as in Paul’s great portrait of charity, in 1 Corinthians 13, where the phrase, “Thinketh no evil,” from Zechariah 8:17, marks the central feature in the portrait.—“Knowing the Scriptures,” Arthur T. Pierson, pp. 54, 55. New York: Gospel Publishing House, 1910. SBBS 87.1
Bible, Free Oriental Style of Language.—The Rev. James Neil, an experienced Eastern resident, in his “Strange Scenes,” says, in relation to what are sometimes looked upon as coarse or immodent statements: SBBS 87.2
“No Eastern could possibly see any objection on this score. They still, as in ancient times, use the greatest plainness of speech throughout Syria. As soon as one acquires a knowledge of common Arabic the ear is assailed by a plain speaking on the most delicate subjects which is extremely embarrassing, until such time as one learns to become accustomed to it. Things that are never mentioned among us, are spoken of publicly in the East, even by ladies of the highest class, and of the greatest respectability, refinement, and purity. SBBS 87.3
“This explains at once the naturalness and innocency of the use of expressions and the mention of matters in the Bible which our translators have softened down in some instances, and public readers have tacitly, and as I believe wrongly, agreed to omit in others. The purestminded Eastern woman would smile at an objection to the Bible on this score!”-“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, pp. 146, 147. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. SBBS 87.4
Bible, No Vital Doctrine Rests on Disputed Readings.—No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading, such as the plan of this book necessitates, might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain.—“Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” Frederic G. Kenyon, M. A., Litt. D., p. 10. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1903. SBBS 87.5
The Bible is a book which has been refuted, demolished, overthrown, and exploded more times than any other book you ever heard of.... They overthrew the Bible a century ago, in Voltaire’s time-entirely demolished the whole thing. In less than a hundred years, said Voltaire, Christianity will have been swept from existence, and will have passed into history.... But the Word of God “liveth and abideth forever.”-“Will the Old Book Stand?” H. L. Hastings, p. 5. Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1916. SBBS 87.6
Bible, Unity of.—The Bible is characterized by the unity of its theme. It unfolds a series of acts, all contributing to one design or end. This is the more remarkable on account of the variety in its authorship. SBBS 87.7
Had the Bible been written in one age, or by one person, its unity might not so much surprise us. But the Bible is a collection of books which were written by different persons, in different languages, in different lands, and at different times. Seventeen centuries were employed in its composition. The subjects it embraces are so numerous as to give it a cyclopedic character. Yet from first to last that marvelous collection of books is occupied with one subject, animated by one Spirit, directed to one object or end.—“Creation Centred in Christ,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., p. 84. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896. SBBS 88.1
On the whole, the unity of Scripture has been universally recognized. Moreover, this unity is obviously not designed and artificial; it is not even conscious; the writers of the several parts had no intention to contribute nor any idea that they were contributing to one whole.... And yet when these various writings are drawn together, their unity becomes apparent.—“The Bible: Its Origin and Nature,” Marcus Dods, D. D., p. 18. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905. SBBS 88.2
Here is a book coming from all quarters, written by men of all classes, scattered through a period of fifteen hundred years; and yet this book is fitted together as a wondrous and harmonious whole. How was it done? “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” One mind inspired the whole book, one voice speaks in it all, and it is the voice of God speaking with resurrection power.—“Will the Old Book Stand?” H. L. Hastings, p. 20. Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1916. SBBS 88.3
Bible, Multitude of Manuscripts.—There are in existence today many thousands of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, which have been copied from earlier manuscripts by Jewish scribes, etc., from time to time. These are the documents generally referred to when the “originals” are now spoken of.... SBBS 88.4
For the sake of simplicity, however, these existing manuscripts may be divided thus: SBBS 88.5
1. Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament; the earliest of these date back to the eighth century of the Christian era. SBBS 88.6
2. Greek manuscripts of the New Testament; the earliest of these date back to the fourth century. SBBS 88.7
3. Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint), translated from the Hebrew about 277 b. c.; these also date back to the fourth century. SBBS 88.8
4. Early translations of the Scriptures, or parts thereof, in Syriac, Latin, German, and other languages, of various dates.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 14. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. SBBS 88.9
Bible, Oldest Greek Manuscripts.—a Codex Sinaiticus, found by Tischendorf (1844 and 1859) in the Convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai, now pr eserved in St. Petersburg. Forty-three leaves of the Old Testament portion of the manuscript, known as the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, are in the library of Leipsic University. Besides twentysix books of the Old Testament, of which five form the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, the manuscript contains the entire New Testament without the least break, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the first third of the Shepherd of Hermas-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Bible Text,” p. 103. SBBS 88.10
A: Codex Alexandrinus, now in the British Museum, presented in 1628 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles 1. The SBBS 88.11
New Testament begins with Matthew 25:6, and contains the whole except John 6:50-8:52, and 2 Corinthians 4:13-12:6, with the First Epistle of Clement and part of the Second.—Ibid. SBBS 89.1
B 1 : Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209, in the Vatican Library. The manuscript contains, besides the Old Testament, the entire New Testament, with the exception of Hebrews 9:14 to end and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.—Ibid. SBBS 89.2
B 2 : Codex Vaticanus 2066 (eighth century), formerly Basilian Codex 105, contains Revelation.—Ibid. SBBS 89.3
C: Codex Ephraemi (fifth century), now No. 9 in the National Library at Paris; its text was altered in the sixth century and again in the ninth. In the twelfth century the original writing was washed off to make room for the Greek text of several ascetic works of Ephraem Syrus (d. 373). Pierre Allix, at about the close of the seventeenth century, noticed the traces of the old writing under the later characters. Wetstein in 1716 collated the New Testament part so far as it was legible. In 1834 and 1835 the librarian Carl Hase revived the original writing by the application of the Giobertine tincture (prussiate of potash). Tischendorf, after great labor, brought out in 1843 an edition of the New Testament part of the manuscript, and in 1845, of the Old Testament fragments, representing the manuscript line for line, in facsimile. The codex contains portions of the Old Testament on sixtyfour leaves, and five eighths of the New Testament.—Idem, pp. 103, 104. SBBS 89.4
Bible, Ancient Versions.—The principal ancient versions which illustrate the Scriptures are the Chaldee Paraphrases, generally called Targums, the Septuagint, or Alexandrian Greek version, and the Vulgate, or Latin version.—“Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis,” George Bush, Vol. I, p. ix of Introduction. New York: Mark H. Newman, 1843. SBBS 89.5
Targums: The Chaldee word [Chaldee word](targum) signifies in general any version or explanation; but the appellation is more particularly restricted to the versions or paraphrases of the Old Testament, executed in the East Aramean or Chaldee dialect, as it is usually called.... There are at present extant ten of these Chaldee paraphrases on different parts of the Old Testament, three of which, and those by far the most important, comprise the Pentateuch, viz. (1) The Targum of Onkelos; (2) That falsely ascribed to Jonathan, and usually cited as the Targum of the Pseudo-Johanthan; (3) The Jerusalem Targum.—Id., pp. ix, x. SBBS 89.6
Septuagint: The early Greek version was probably termed “the Septuagint” because it was looked upon with favor, and possibly officially recognized, by the Jewish Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, which was composed of seventy persons. In later times, when the Jews of Palestine and Egypt became estranged from one another, and when the Greek version had become interwoven with the religious life of the Egyptian Jews, an attempt was made to claim divine sanction for the Greek translation. The name “Septuagint” was then expounded as containing a reference to the number of the supposed translators, who, according to the legend, were divinely assisted in their task. Those translators are said each to have produced a translation identical in phraseology, although they had been carefully secluded and shut off from intercourse with one another during the performance of the work.—“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Charles H. H. Wright, pp. 59, 60. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906. SBBS 89.7
The autograph or original copy of the Septuagint Version, was, most probably, consumed in the fire which destroyed the Alexandrian Library, in the time of Julius Casar, about fifty years before the Christian era; but the translation was preserved by the numerous transcripts taken for the use of the different synagogues in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, and which were sure to be copied with the utmost accuracy and care.—“Illustrations of Biblical Literature,” Rev. James Townley, D. D., Vol. I, p. 64. New York: Lane and Scott, 1852. SBBS 90.1
Samaritan: The version of the Old Testament which possesses the longest pedigree is that which owes its existence to the Samaritans. Strictly speaking, it is not a version at all, as it is in the Hebrew tongue, though written [probably in the second century b. c.] in a different character from that of the extant Hebrew MSS.—“Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts,” Frederic G. Kenyon, M. A., Litt. D., p. 44. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1903. SBBS 90.2
Peshitto, or Syriac: This is the great standard version of the ancient Syriac Church, made not later than the third century (those scholars who hold it older than the Curetonian would say the second), and certainly current and in general use from the fourth century onwards. The name means “simple” or “common,” but the origin of it is unknown.—Id., p. 157. SBBS 90.3
Palestinian Syriac: There is yet another version of the New Testament in Syriac, known to us only in fragments, in a different dialect of Syriac from all the other versions. It is believed to have been made in the fifth or sixth century, and to have been used exclusively in Palestine.—Id., p. 159. SBBS 90.4
Coptic: [Dating probably from the middle of the third century.] The two most important of the Coptic versions are (a) the Memphitic or Bohairic Version, current in Lower or Northern Egypt; and (b) the Thebaic or Sahidic Version, current in Upper or Southern Egypt [probably neither earlier than the fourth century]. Of these the Bohairic alone is complete, having been ultimately adopted as the standard Bible for all Egypt.—Id., p. 76. SBBS 90.5
Old Latin or Italic: The importance of the Old Latin Version, as it is called, to distinguish it from the later version of St. Jerome, is much greater in the New Testament than in the Old. In the former, it is the earliest translation of the original Greek which we possess, and is an important evidence for the state of the text in the second century. In the latter it is only a version of a version, being made from the Septuagint, not from the original Hebrew.—Id., pp. 77, 78. SBBS 90.6
Vulgate Versions: The Latin Vulgate [was] made by St. Jerome from the older Latin, Hebrew, and Greek versions about the year 400. This version of St. Jerome, called the Vulgate, was declared by the Council of Trent [1563] to be authentic. It was revised by Pope Sixtus V (1585) and by Pope Clement VIII (1593).—“Catholic Belief,” Joseph Faa Di Bruno, p. 16. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1884. SBBS 90.7
English Versions: About the year 1320, John Wycliffe, the great Reformer, was born. He was the first to translate the whole Bible into the English language; this translation, which occupied about twenty-two years, was made from the Latin Vulgate; the Hebrew and Greek originals being then practically unknown.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 32. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. SBBS 90.8
In 1525, William Tyndale, one of the great Protestant Reformers, and a contemporary of Luther, made another English translation from Erasmus’s Greek, ... and was the first to publish an English New Testament in print. This was done under great difficulties, partly at Cologne and partly at Worms, in exile, poverty, and distress; as he found it impossible to carry out this work in England, owing to Romish opposition.—Id., pp. 33, 34. SBBS 91.1
In 1535 the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, was for the first time printed in English by Miles Coverdale, who made his translation from the German and Latin. This contained also the apocryphal books.—Id., p. 35. SBBS 91.2
The first English Bible printed in England was the translation of John Hollybushe, which was issued in 1538 by John Nicholson, in Southwark. The great Cranmer Bible was printed between 1539 and 1541, the funds for its publication being supplied by Cranmer and Cromwell.—“The Censorship of the Church of Rome,” George Haven Putnam, Litt. D., Vol. II, p. 31. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906. SBBS 91.3
The English New Testament was translated by the English College at Rheims, France, in 1582; and the Old Testament by the English College, Douay, France, in 1609. Both, as revised in the last century by Bishop Challoner and others, have been republished, with notes, from time to time, with the approbation of the Catholic bishops. This version is commonly called the Douay Bible.—“Catholic Belief,” Joseph Faa Di Bruno, p. 16. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1884. SBBS 91.4
Hebrew New Testament: In 1876 Professor Delitzsch completed his translation of the New Testament into Hebrew. It has been his dream to produce such a text as the apostles themselves might have penned, had they written in the “language of Canaan.”-“A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society,” William Canton, Vol. III, pp. 151, 152. London: John Murray, 1910.* SBBS 91.5
Bible, Modern Vernacular Translations.—One of the most important phases of the work of the American Bible Society is the work of translating and revising the Scriptures, either in co-operation with other Bible societies and missionary organizations, or acting independently when necessary. This task is fundamental and of the utmost importance. It is estimated that the Scriptures are circulated today in over 500 languages. The Bible or some portion of it has, therefore, been translated into all of the great languages of the world: and it is estimated that “seven out of every ten of the human population have had provided for them the gospel story in their own tongue,” but it is probable that there are still 1,000 minor languages or dialects spoken by a limited number of people into which no portion of the Bible has yet been translated. In British India, according to the census of 1911, 147 languages are spoken, and in Africa it is said there are about 850 languages or dialects in use. Into some of the minor languages it will not be necessary to translate the Scriptures, as many tribal, unwritten dialects will gradually disappear or be combined with others. When these facts are borne in mind, one realizes how great a task still confronts the Bible societies of the world.—“Story of the American Bible Society,” pp. 10-12. Published in 1914. SBBS 91.6
Bible, Compared with Sacred Books of the East.—These sacred books are, roughly speaking, five in number, 1. e., they are the only ones worth taking into consideration. All others are extremely insignificant and unimportant. SBBS 92.1
I. The Veda of the Brahmans or Hindus. SBBS 92.2
II. The Zend-Avesta of the Parsees or Zoroastrians. SBBS 92.3
III. The King, or Confucian Texts, of the Chinese. SBBS 92.4
IV. The Tripitaka, or three collections, of Buddhist writings. SBBS 92.5
V. The Koran, the code of Islam, or Mohammedanism. SBBS 92.6
Translations of these were published some few years ago by the University of Oxford in forty stately volumes, but these are, of course, not within reach of the multitude.—“All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, pp. 289, 290. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 9th edition. SBBS 92.7
Veda is a Sanscrit word meaning “knowledge,” or “sacred science.” The writings consist of four collections of hymns, detached verses, and sacrificial formula; viz., (1) the Rigveda, or Veda, of praises or hymns, of which there are 1,028; (2) the Samaveda, or Veda of chants or tunes; (3) the Yajurveda, or Veda of prayers, of which there are only a few preserved; and (4) the Atharvaveda, or Veda of the Atharvians, consisting of about twenty books of hymns to certain divine powers, and incantations against evil powers.—Id., p. 290. SBBS 92.8
Avesta means “text” or “lore,” and represents the original writings; Zend means “commentary,” and represents the comments which have grown around the original writings, just as the Brahmana commentaries grew around the original Sanhita of the Veda. SBBS 92.9
Zoroaster, the celebrated sage of ancient Persia, was the supposed founder or reformer of the religion embodied in the Zend-Avesta. He flourished, according to the Parsees (who are about the only representatives of ancient Persia) about 500 b. c. He probably, however, lived-if, indeed, he lived at all-many centuries earlier. For “not only has his date been much debated; but the very fact of his historical existence has been denied.” However, some of the oldest writings of the Zenda-Avesta are said to date some 700 or 800 b. c.—Id., pp. 294, 295. SBBS 92.10
In addition to the actual writings of Confucius there are what are called the Confucian Analects, or Extracts, compiled soon after his death from the reminiscences of his disciples. SBBS 92.11
Confucianism inculcates the worship of no God, and can scarcely, therefore, be called a religion.... There is no confession of sin; no seeking of forgiveness; no communion with God.... One of his tenets, not often referred to-viz., that it was right to tell lies on certain occasions-has left its terrible mark on the four hundred millions of China.—Id., pp. 297, 298. SBBS 92.12
Buddha is said to have lived about 500 or 600 b. c., was a prince of one of the ruling military tribes of India, but was of Persian origin. His personal name was Gautama, the title “Buddha” being a Sanscrit word, meaning the “Enlightened One.” He early discovered that all that life could offer was vanity and vexation of spirit; that ignorance was the cause of all suffering and misery, as it was the ultimate cause of existence itself. SBBS 92.13
He therefore separated himself from his family and friends, and gave himself up to years of lonely contemplation. At length, while sitting under a tree near Gaya Town in Bengal, he professed to attain perfect wisdom by the extinction of all desires and passions of every kind, whether good or bad.... First, extinction of all desires and passions; and secondly, extinction of individual existence-complete annihilation. This is the highest state it is possible for a Buddhist to reach.... SBBS 93.1
He himself wrote nothing. In course of time, however, his teaching ... was, however, ultimately committed to writing by his disciples, and approved by various councils long after his death. These writings are called the “Tripitaka” = triple basket, or three collections.—Id., pp. 298, 299. SBBS 93.2
Muhammad (the Praised One), commonly called Mohammed, the celebrated false prophet of Arabia, was born at Mecca a. d. 570. He claimed to teach his followers the doctrines of Islam, i. e., resignation or entire submission to the will of God, as a successor to Abraham, Moses, and Christ, of whom he claimed to be the greatest.... SBBS 93.3
At the age of forty he had his first “divine” communication. In this, and later visions at Mecca and Medina, extending over a period of twenty-three years, he received those “revelations” which are contained in the Koran, the sacred book of the Mohammedans, who believe that it has been in existence, like God, from all eternity.—Id., pp. 306, 307. SBBS 93.4
Bible, Teaching of, Compared with Other Sacred Books.—The one keynote, the one diapason, the one refrain which is found running through all those sacred books, is salvation by works. They all declare that salvation must be purchased, must be bought with a price, and that the sole price, the sole purchase-money, must be our own works and deservings.—Sir M. Monier-Williams: quoted in “All About the Bible,” Sidney Collett, p. 313. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. SBBS 93.5
Bible. -See Rule of Faith; Scriptures; Tradition; Two Witnesses. SBBS 93.6
Bible Societies. -See Bible, 74-76; Increase of Knowledge, 233; Two Witnesses, 576. SBBS 93.7
Bishop, Universal, Views of Gregory I.—Writing to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, St. Gregory says: “This name ‘Universal’ was offered during the Council of Chalcedon to the Pontiff of the Apostolic See.... But no one of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a title, plainly because if a single patriarch be called Universal, the name of patriarch is taken from the rest.... Wherefore presume not ever to give or receive letters with this title Universal.” (Ep. v. 43.) SBBS 93.8
To the Patriarch of Alexandria he writes again: “You are my brother in rank, my father in character, and I said that you were not to write any such thing to me or to any one else; ... and behold, in the very heading of your letter, directed to me, the very person who forbade it, you set that haughty title, calling me Universal Bishop, which I beg Your Holiness to do no more.” (Ep. viii. 30.) SBBS 93.9
To the Patriarch of Antioch he says that this title is “profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate; ... and that if one bishop be called Universal, the whole church falls if he fall.” (Ep. vii. 27.) SBBS 93.10
To the emperor Maurice he writes twice: “St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle.... The whole church falls from its place when he who is called Universal falls.... But far from Christian hearts be that blasphemous name.... I confidently affirm that whoso calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, in his pride goes before Antichrist.” (Ep. v. 20; 7:33.) SBBS 94.1
It is important to add that the offer of this title during the Council of Chalcedon was not made by that synod itself, nor with its authority, though often cited as if such were the case. It was the private and unofficial act of certain Alexandrian petitioners (one priest and two deacons) against Dioscorus, who endeavored thus to conciliate the favor of the Roman legates. (See Baron. “Ann.” 451, lxxxi.)-“Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome,” Richard Frederick Littledale, LL. D., D. C. L., pp. 176, 177. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1905. SBBS 94.2
Bishop of Rome.—See Antichrist; Little Horn; Papacy; Papal Supremacy; Pope. SBBS 94.3
Boniface VIII.—See Indulgences, 236; Infallibility, 250; Papacy, Builders of, 337, 338, 340, 353-355; Pope, 382. SBBS 94.4
Book of Enoch.—See Azazel, 44. SBBS 94.5
Borgias, The.—See Papacy, 338-340. SBBS 94.6
Bottomless Pit.—See Two Witnesses, 573. SBBS 94.7
Brownists.—See Sunday Laws, 541. SBBS 94.8
Buddha.—See Bible, 92. SBBS 94.9
Burgundians.—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 442, 443; Ten Kingdoms, 552. SBBS 94.10