Help PreviousNext

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

BA


BAAL (1)

ba'-al: (ba`al; or Baal): The Babylonian Belu or Bel, "Lord," was the title of the supreme god among the Canaanites.

I. NAME AND CHARACTER OF BAAL

II. ATTRIBUTES OF BAAL

III. BAAL-WORSHIP

IV. TEMPLES, ETC.

V. USE OF THE NAME

VI. FORMS OF BAAL

1. Baal-berith

2. Baal-gad

3. Baal-hamon

4. Baal-hermon

5. Baal-peor

6. Baal-zebub

I. Name and Character of Baal:

In Babylonia it was the title specially applied to Merodach of Babylon, which in time came to be used in place of his actual name. As the word in Hebrew also means "possessor," it has been supposed to have originally signified, when used in a religious sense, the god of a particular piece of land or soil. Of this, however, there is no proof, and the sense of "possessor" is derived from that of "lord." The Babylonian Bel-Merodach was a Sun-god, and so too was the Can Baal whose full title was Baal-Shemaim, "lord of heaven." The Phoenician writer Sanchuniathon (Philo Byblius, Fragmenta II) accordingly says that the children of the first generation of mankind "in time of drought stretched forth their hands to heaven toward the sun; for they regarded him as the sole Lord of heaven, and called him Beel-samen, which means `Lord of Heaven' in the Phoenician language and is equivalent to Zeus in Greek" Baal-Shemaim had a temple at Umm el-Awamid between Acre and Tyre, and his name is found in inscriptions from the Phoenician colonies of Sardinia and Carthage.

II. Attributes of Baal:

As the Sun-god, Baal was worshipped under two aspects, beneficent and destructive. On the one hand he gave light and warmth to his worshippers; on the other hand the fierce heats of summer destroyed the vegetation he had himself brought into being. Hence, human victims were sacrificed to him in order to appease his anger in time of plague or other trouble, the victim being usually the first-born of the sacrificer and being burnt alive. In the Old Testament this is euphemistically termed "passing" the victim "through the fire" (2 Ki 16:3; 21:6). The forms under which Baal was worshipped were necessarily as numerous as the communities which worshipped him. Each locality had its own Baal or divine "Lord" who frequently took his name from the city or place to which he belonged. Hence, there was a Baal-Zur, "Baal of Tyre"; Baal-hermon, "Baal of Hermon" (Jdg 3:3); Baal-Lebanon, "Baal of Lebanon"; Baal-Tarz, "Baal of Tarsus." At other times the title was attached to the name of an individual god; thus we have Bel-Merodach, "the Lord Merodach" (or "Bel is Merodach") at Babylon, Baal-Melkarth at Tyre, Baal-gad (Josh 11:17) in the north of Palestine. Occasionally the second element was noun as in Baal-Shemaim, "lord of heaven," Baalzebub (2 Ki 1:2), "Lord of flies," Baal-Hamman, usually interpreted "Lord of heat," but more probably "Lord of the sunpillar," the tutelary deity of Carthage. All these various forms of the Sun-god were collectively known as the Baalim or "Baals" who took their place by the side of the female Ashtaroth and Ashtrim. At Carthage the female consort of Baal was termed Pene-Baal, "the face" or "reflection of Baal."

III. Baal-Worship:

In the earlier days of Hebrew history the title Baal, or "Lord," was applied to the national God of Israel, a usage which was revived in later times, and is familiar to us in the King James Version. Hence both Jonathan and David had sons called Merib-baal (1 Ch 8:31; 9:40) and Beeliada (1 Ch 14:7). After the time of Ahab, however, the name became associated with the worship and rites of the Phoenician deity introduced into Samaria by Jezebel, and its idolatrous associations accordingly caused it to fall into disrepute. Hosea (2:16) declares that henceforth the God of Israel should no longer be called Baali, "my Baal," and personal names like Esh-baal (1 Ch 8:33; 9:39), and Beelinda into which it entered were changed in form, Baal being turned into bosheth which in Heb at any rate conveyed the sense of "shame."

IV. Temples, etc.:

Temples of Baal at Samaria and Jerusalem are mentioned in 1 Ki 1:18; where they had been erected at the time when the Ahab dynasty endeavored to fuse Israelites and Jews and Phoenicians into a single people under the same national Phoenician god. Altars on which incense was burned to Baal were set up in all the streets of Jerusalem according to Jeremiah (11:13), apparently on the flat roofs of the houses (Jer 32:29); and the temple of Baal contained an image of the god in the shape of a pillar or Bethel (2 Ki 10:26,27). In the reign of Ahab, Baal was served in Israel by 450 priests (1 Ki 18:19), as well as by prophets (2 Ki 10:19), and his worshippers wore special vestments when his ritual was performed (2 Ki 10:22). The ordinary offering made to the god consisted of incense (Jer 7:9) and burnt sacrifices; on extraordinary occasions the victim was human (Jer 19:5). At times the priests worked themselves into a state of ecstasy, and dancing round the altar slashed themselves with knives (1 Ki 18:26,28), like certain dervish orders in modern Islam.

V. Use of the Name.

In accordance with its signification the name of Baal is generally used with the definite art.; in the Septuagint this often takes the feminine form, aischane "shame" being intended to be read. We find the same usage in Rom 11:4. The feminine counterpart of Baal was Baalah or Baalath which is found in a good many of the local names (see Baethgen, Beltrage zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, 1888).

VI. Forms of Baal.

1. Baal-berith:

Baal-berith ba`al berith; Baalberith, "Covenant Baal," was worshipped at Shechem after the death of Gideon (Jdg 8:33; 9:4). In Jdg 9:46 the name is replaced by El-berith, "Covenant-god." The covenant was that made by the god with his worshippers, less probably between the Israelites and the native Canaanites.

2. Baal-gad:

Baal-gad ba`al gadh; Balagada, "Baal [lord] of good luck" (or "Baal is Gad") was the god of a town called after his name in the north of Palestine, which has often been identified with Baalbek. The god is termed simply Gad in Isa 65:11 the Revised Version, margin; where he is associated with Meni, the Assyrian Manu (King James Version "troop" and "number").

3. Baal-hamon:

Baal-hamon ba`al hamon; Beelamon is known only from the fact that Solomon had a garden at a place of that name (Song 8:11). The name is usually explained to mean "Baal of the multitude," but the cuneiform tablets of the Tell el-Amarna age found in Palestine show that the Egyptian god Amon was worshipped in Canaan and identified there with the native Baal. We are therefore justified in reading the name Baal-Amon, a parallel to the Babylonian Bel-Merodach. The name has no connection with that of the Carthaginian deity Baal-hamman.

4. Baal-hermon:

Baal-hermon ba`al chermon; Balaermon is found in the name of "the mountain of Baal-hermon" (Jdg 3:3; compare 1 Ch 5:23), which also bore the names of Hermort, Sirion and Shenir (Saniru in the Assyrian inscriptions), the second name being applied to it by the Phoenicians and the third by the Amorites (Dt 3:9). Baal-hermon will consequently be a formation similar to Baal-Lebanon in an inscription from Cyprus; according to the Phoenician writer Sanchuniathon (Philo Byblius, Fragmenta II) the third generation of men "begat sons of surprising size and stature, whose names were given to the mountains of which they had obtained possession."

5. Baal-peor:

Baal-peor ba`al pe`or; Beelphegor was god of the Moabite mountains, who took his name from Mount Peor (Nu 23:28), the modern Fa`ur, and was probably a form of Chemosh (Jerome, Comm., Isa 15). The sensual rites with which he was worshipped (Nu 25:1-3) indicate his connection with the Phoenician Baal.

6. Baal-zebub:

Baal-zebub ba`al zebhubh; Baalmuia Theos ("Baal the fly god") was worshipped at Ekron where he had famous oracle (2 Ki 1:2,3,16). The name is generally translated "the Lord of flies," the Sun-god being associated with the flies which swarm in Palestine during the earlier summer months. It is met with in Assyrian inscriptions. In the New Testament the name assumes the form of Beelzebul Beelzeboul, in King James Version: BEELZEBUB (which see).

A. H. Sayce


BAAL (2)

ba'-al ba`al, "lord," "master," "possessor"):

(1) A descendant of Reuben, Jacob's first-born son, and the father of Beerah, prince of the Reubenitcs, "whom Tiglath-pileser (1 Ch 5:5,6) king of Assyria carried away captive."

(2) The fourth of ten sons of Jeiel (King James Version "Jehiel"), father and founder of Gibeon. His mother was Maacah; his brother Kish father o� Saul (1 Ch 8:29 f; 9:35,36,39; compare 1 Sam 14:50 f). These passages identify Jeiel and Abiel as the father of Kish and thus of Baal. For study of confusions in the genealogical record, in 1 Ch 9:36,39, see KISH ;ABIEL ;JEIEL .

(3) In composition often the name of a man and not of the heathen god, e.g. Baal-hanan, a king of Edom (Gen 36:38; 1 Ch 1:49); also a royal prefect of the same name (1 Ch 27:28). Gesenius thinks that Baal in compound words rarely refers to the god by that name.

See BAAL (deity).

(4) A city of the tribe of Simeon (1 Ch 4:33).

See BAALATH-BEER .

Dwight M. Pratt


BAAL (3)

ba`al; Baal 1 Ch 4:33.

See BAALATH-BEER .


BAAL-BERITH

ba-al-be'-rith ba`al berith = "Baal of the Covenant"): An idol worshipped by the Shechemites after Gideon's death (Jdg 8:33), as protector and guardian of engagements. His temple is also referred to in Jdg 9:4.

See BAAL . (1).


BAAL-GAD

ba'-al-gad ba`al gadh; Balagada, Balgad: Joshua in his conquest reached as far north as `Baal-gad in the valley' of Lebanon, under Mount Hermon (Josh 11:17). This definitely locates it in the valley between the Lebanons, to the West or Northwest of Hermon. It must not be confused with Baal-hermon. Conder thinks it may be represented by `Ain Jedeideh.


BAAL-HAMON

ba-al-ha'-mon.

See BAAL . (1).


BAAL-HANAN

ba-al-ha'-nan ba`al chanan, "the Lord is gracious"):

(1) A king of Edom (Gen 36:38 f; 1 Ch 1:49 f).

(2) A gardener in the service of David (1 Ch 27:28).


BAAL-HAZOR

ba-al-ha'-zor ba`al chatsor; Bailasor, Bel-la-sor): A place on the property of Absalom where his sheep-shearers were gathered, beside Ephraim (2 Sam 13:23). The sheep-shearing was evidently the occasion of a festival which was attended by Absalom's brethren. Here he compassed the death of Amnon in revenge for the outrage upon his sister. The place may be identified with Tell `Asur, a mountain which rises 3,318 ft. above the sea, 4 miles Northeast of Bethel.rine Kubbet el Baul may retain the old name.


BAAL-HERMON

ba'-al-hur'-mon ba`al chermon; Baal Ermon: Baalgad under Mount Hermon is described as "toward the sunrising" in Josh 13:5. If Mount Lebanon proper is here intended the reading may be taken as correct. But in Jdg 3:3 Baal-gad is replaced by Baal-hermon. One or the other must be due to a scribal error. The Baal-hermon of 1 Ch 5:23 lay somewhere East of the Jordan, near to Mount Hermon. It may possibly be identical with Banias.


BAAL-MEON

ba'-al-me'-on ba`al me`on; Beelmeon: A town built by the children of Reuben along with Nebo, "their names being changed" (Nu 32:38), identical with Beon of Nu 32:3. As Beth-baal-meon it was given by Moses to the tribe of Reuben (Josh 13:17). Mesha names it as fortified by him (MS, L. 9). It appears in Jer 48:23 as Beth-meon, one of the cities of Moab. Eusebius, Onomasticon speaks of it as a large village near the hot springs, i.e. Callirrhoe, in Wady Zerka Ma`in, 9 miles from Heshbon. This points to the ruined site of Ma`in, about 4 miles Southwest of Madeba. The ruins now visible however are not older than Roman times.

W. Ewing


BAAL-PEOR

ba-al-pe'-or.

See BAAL . (1).


BAAL-PERAZIM

ba-al-pe-ra'-zim, ba-al-per'-azim ba`al peratsim; Baal'pharasein, "the lord of breakings through"): The spot in or near the Valley of Rephaim where David obtained a signal victory over the Philistines; it was higher than Jerusalem for David asked, "Shall I go up against the Philis?" (2 Sam 5:20; 1 Ch 14:11). The exact site is unknown, but if the Vale of Rephaim is el Beka`a, the open valley between Jerusalem and Mar Elias, then Baal-perazim would probably be the mountains to the East near what is called the "Mount of Evil Counsel" (see JERUSALEM ). The Mount Perazim of Isa 28:21 would appear to be the same spot.

E. W. G. Masterman


BAAL-SHALISHAH

ba-al-shal'-i-sha, ba-al-shale-'sha ba`al shalishah; Baithsarisa: Whence a man came to Gilgal with first-fruits (2 Ki 4:42) was probably not far from the latter place. According to the Talmud (Sanh. 12a) the fruits of the earth nowhere ripened so quickly. It is called by Eusebius Baithsarith (Jerome "Bethsalisa"), and located 15 miles North of Diospolis (Lydda). Khirbet Sirisia almost exactly fits this description. Gilgal (Jiljulieh) lies in the plain about 4 1/2 miles to the Northwest Khirbet Kefr Thilth, 3 1/2 miles farther north, has also been suggested. The Arabic Thilth exactly corresponds to the Hebrew Shalishah.

W. Ewing


BAAL-TAMAR

ba-al-ta'-mar ba`al tamar; Baal Thamar, "Baal of the palm tree"): Evidently a seat of heathen worship (Jdg 20:33) between Bethel and Gibeah (compare Jdg 20:18,31). The place was known to Eusebius (Onomasticon, which see), but trace of the name is now lost. Conder suggests that it may be connected with the palm tree of Deborah (Jdg 4:5) which was between Bethel and Ramah (HDB, under the word).


BAAL-ZEPHON

ba-al-ze'-fon ba`al tsephon; Beelsepphon; Ex 14:2,9; Nu 33:7): The name means "Lord of the North," and the place was opposite the Hebrew camp, which was between Migdol and the sea. It may have been the shrine of a Semitic deity, but the position is unknown (see EXODUS ). Goodwin (see Brugsch, Hist. Egt., II, 363) found the name Baali-Zapuna as that of a god mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus in the British Museum.


BAALAH

ba'-a-la ba`alah; "possessor," "mistress "): Three occurrences of this name:

(1) = KIRIATH-JEARIM (which see) (Josh 15:9,10; 1 Ch 13:6).

(2) A city in the Negeb of Judah (Josh 15:29). In Josh 19:3 Balah and in 1 Ch 4:29 Bilhah; perhaps also Boaloth of Josh 15:24. The site is unknown; but see PEF ,III , 26.

(3) Mount Baalah (Josh 15:11), a mountain ridge between Shikkeron (Ekron) and Jabnoel unless, as seems probable, the suggestion of M. Clermont-Ganneau (Rev. Crit, 1897, 902) is correct that for har ( = "mount"), we should read nahar ("river"). In this case the border in question would be the Nahr rubin. Here there is an annual feast held--attended by all classes and famous all over Syria--which appears to be a real survival of "Baal worship."

E. W. G. Masterman


BAALATH

ba'-a-lath ba`alath; A, Baalon):between Shikkeron (Ekron) and Jabnoel unless, as seems probable, the suggestion of M. Clermont-Ganneau (Rev. Crit, 1897, 902) is correct that for har ( = "mount"), we should read nahar ("river"). In this case the border in question would be the Nahr rubin. Here there is an annual feast held--attended by all classes and famous all over Syria--which appears to be a real survival of "Baal worship."

(1) A town on the border of Dan (Josh 19:44) associated with Eltekeh and Gibbethon--possibly Bela`in.

(2) ("Mistress-ship"): A store city of Solomon, mentioned with Beth-horon (1 Ki 9:18; 2 Ch 8:6) and possibly the same as (1).


BAALATH-BEER

ba'-a-lath-be'-er ba`alath be'er "lady (mistress) of the well"; Josh 19:8 (in 1 Ch 4:33, Baal)): In Josh this place is designated "Ramah of the South," i.e. of the Negeb, while in 1 Sam 30:27 it is described as Ramoth of the Negeb. It must have been a prominent hill (ramah = "height") in the far south of the Negeb and near a well be'er. The site is unknown though Conder suggests that the shrine Kubbet el Baul may retain the old name.


BAALBEK

bal'-bek, bal-bek'.

See AVEN ;ON .


BAALE-JUDAH

ba'-al-e-joo'-da.

See KIRIATH-JEARIM .


BAALI

ba'-a-li ba`ali, "my master"): Baal, a common name for all heathen gods, had in common practice been used also of Yahweh. Hosea (2:16,17) demands that Yahweh be no longer called Ba`ali ("my Baal" = "my lord") but 'Ishi ("my husband"), and we find that later the Israelites abandoned the use of Ba`al for Yahweh.


BAALIM

ba'-a-lim ha-be`alim: Plur. of BAAL (which see).


BAALIS

ba'-a-lis ba`lic, perhaps for Baalim, "gods"; Septuagint Beleisa, Belisa, [Baalis]; Ant, X, ix, 3, Baalimos: King of the children of Ammon, the instigator of the murder of Gedaliah (Jer 40:14). Compare Ant, X, ix, 3.


BAALSAMUS

ba-al'-sa-mus Baalsamos; the King James Version Balasamus): B. stood at the right side of Ezra, when the law was read to the people (1 Esdras 9:43). Compare Maaseiah (Neh 8:7). the Valley of Rephaim where David obtained a signal victory over the Philistines; it was higher than Jerusalem for David asked, "Shall I go up against the Philis?" (2 Sam 5:20; 1 Ch 14:11). The exact site is unknown, but if the Vale of Rephaim is el Beka`a, the open valley between Jerusalem and Mar Elias, then Baal-perazim would probably be the mountains to the East near what is called the "Mount of Evil Counsel" (see JERUSALEM ). The Mount Perazim of Isa 28:21 would appear to be the same spot.


BAALZEBUB

ba-al-ze'-bub ba`al zebhubh = "Lord of flies"; Baal-muian: A deity worshipped by the Philistines at Ekron (2 Ki 1:2,3,6,16). All that can be gathered from this one reference to him in ancient literature is that he had some fame as a god that gave oracles. Ahaziah, son of Ahab, and king of Israel, went to consult him whether he should recover of his sickness, and was therefore rebuked by Elijah, who declared that his death would be the result of this insult to Yahweh. Why he was called "lord of flies," or whether his real name has not be en corrupted and lost are matters of conjecture.

See BAAL , (1).


BAANA

ba'-a-na (Old Testament and Apocrypha; Baana; ba`ana' "son of oppression"):

(1, 2) Two commissariat-officers in the service of Solomon (1 Ki 4:12; 4:16; the King James Version "Baanah").

(3) Father of Zadok, the builder (Neh 3:4).

(4) A leader who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 5:8). Compare Bannah (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 10:27).


BAANAH

ba'-a-na ba`anah, "son of oppression"):

(1) Captain in the army of Ish-bosheth (2 Sam 4:2 ff).

(2) Father of Iteleb, one of David's mighty men (2 Sam 23:29; 1 Ch 11:30).

(3) Returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem; a leader and one who sealed the covenant (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 10:27).

See BAANA (4).


BAANI

ba'-a-ni (A, Baani; B, Baanei; the King James Version Maani =Bani [Ezr 10:34]): The descendants of Baani put away their "strange wives" (1 Esdras 9:34).


BAANIAS

ba-a-ni'as.

See BANNEAS (Apocrypha).


BAARA

ba'-a-ra ba`ara', "the burning one"): A wife of the Benjamite Shaharaim (1 Ch 8:8).


BAASEIAH

ba-a-si'a, ba-a-se'-ya ba`aseyah, "the Lord is bold"): Perhaps for ma`aseyah, after the Greek Maasai, B, Maasai, "the work of the Lord." Compare Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 293. An ancestor of Asaph, the musician (1 Ch 6:40).


BAASHA

ba'-a-sha ba`sha', "boldness"): King of Israel. Baasha, son of Ahijah, and of common birth (1 Ki 16:2), usurped the throne of Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, killed Nadab and exterminated the house of Jeroboam. He carried on a long warfare with Asa, the king of Judah (compare Jer 41:9), began to build Ramah, but was prevented from completing this work by Ben-hadad, the king of Syria. He is told by the prophet Jehu that because of his sinful reign the fate of his house would be like that of Jeroboam. Baasha reigned 24 years. His son Elah who succeeded him and all the members of his family were murdered by the usurper Zimri (1 Ki 15:16 ff; 16:1 ff; 2 Ch 16:1 ff). The fate of his house is referred to in 1 Ki 21:22; 2 Ki 9:9. Compare ASA ;ELAH ;ZIMRI .

A.L. Breslich


BABBLER

bab'-ler ba`al ha-lashon; the King James Version of Eccl 10:11 literally, "master of the tongue"; the Revised Version (British and American) CHARMER; lapistes, the King James Version of Ecclesiasticus 20:7; the Revised Version (British and American) BRAG; spermologos; the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of Acts 17:18): The latter Greek word is used of birds, such as the crow, that live by picking up small seeds (sperma, "20 seed," legein, "to gather"), and of men, for "hangers on" and "parasites" who obtained their living by picking up odds and ends off merchants' carts in harbors and markets. It carries the "suggestion of picking up refuse and scraps, and in the literature of plagiarism without the capacity to use correctly" (Ramsay). The Athenian philosophers in calling Paul a spermologos, or "ignorant plagiarist," meant that he retailed odds and ends of knowledge which he had picked up from others, without possessing himself any system of thought or skill of language--without culture. In fact it was a fairly correct description of the Athenian philosophers themselves in Paul's day.

Ramsay, Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 141 ff.

T. Rees


BABBLING

bab'-ling siach; the Revised Version (British and American) COMPLAINING): The consequence of tarrying long at the wine (Prov 23:29 the King James Version); lalia, the Revised Version (British and American) "talk" (Ecclesiasticus 19:6; 20:5 the King James Version); kenophonia, literally, "making an empty sound" (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16 the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)).


BABE

bab:

(1) na`ar; pais of a male infant 3 months old (Ex 2:6) translated elsewhere "boy" or "lad."

(2) `olel, ta`alulim, in the general sense of "child" (Ps 8:2; 17:14; Isa 3:4).

(3) brephos an unborn or newborn child (King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of Lk 1:41,44; 2:12,16; 1 Pet 2:2 and the Revised Version (British and American) of Lk 18:15 [AV "infants"]; Acts 7:19 [King James Version, "young children"] and 2 Tim 3:15 [King James Version, "child"]).

(4) nepios = Latin infans) "a child that cannot speak." (King James and the Revised Version (British and American) of Mt 11:25; 21:16; Lk 10:21; Rom 2:20; 1 Cor 3:1; Heb 5:13) the same word is translated "child," plural "children" (in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) of 1 Cor 13:11; Gal 4:1,3; Eph 4:14) the verb nepiazete is translated in the King James Version "be ye children" and in the Revised Version (British and American) "be ye babes" (1 Cor 14:20). Nepios is used metaphorically of those who are like children, of simple and single minds, as opposed to the "wise and understanding" (Mt 11:25 = Lk 10:21; compare 1 Cor 14:20). "Babes in Christ" are men of little spiritual growth, carnal as opposed to spiritual (1 Cor 3:1; compare Heb 5:13; Eph 4:14). Nepios is also used of a child as a minor or infant in the eye of the law (Gal 4:1,3).

T. Rees


BABEL, BABYLON (1)

ba'-bel, bab'-i-lon (Topographical): Babylon was the Greek name of the city written in the cuneiform script of the Babylonians, bab-ili, which means in Semitic, "the gate of god." The Hebrews called the country, as well as the city, Babhel. This name they considered came from the' root, balal, "to confound" (Gen 11:9). The name in Sumerian ideographs was written Din-tir, which means "life of the forest," and yet ancient etymologists explained it as meaning "place of the seat of life" (shubat balaTe). Ka-ding'irra, which also means "gate of god," was another form of the name in Sumerian. It was also called Su-anna (which is of uncertain meaning) and Uru-azagga, "the holy city."

Herodotus, the Greek historian, has given us a picture of Babylon in his day. He says that the city was a great square, 42 miles in circuit. Ctesias makes it 56 miles. This, he writes, was surrounded by a moat or rampart 300 ft. high, and 75 ft. broad. The earliest mention of Babylon is in the time of Sargon I, about 2700 BC. That monarch laid the foundations of the temple of Annnit, and also those of the temple of Amal. In the time of Dungi we learn that the place was sacked. The city evidently played a very unimportant part in the political history of Babylonia of the early period, for besides these references it is almost unknown until the time of Hammurabi, when its rise brought about a new epoch in the history of Babylonia. The seat of power was then transferred permanently from the southern states. This resulted in the closing of the political history of the Sumerians. The organization of the empire by Hammurabi, with Babylon as its capital, placed it in a position from which it was never dislodged dur ing the remaining history of Babylonia.

The mounds covering the ancient city have frequently been explored, but systematic excavations of the city were not undertaken until 1899, when Koldewey, the German excavator, began to uncover its ancient ruins in a methodical manner. In spite of what ancient writers say, certain scholars maintain that they grossly exaggerated the size of the city, which was comparatively small, especially when considered in connection with large cities of the present era.

In the northern part of the city there was situated what is called the North Palace on the east side of the Euphrates, which passed through the city. A little distance below this point the Arakhtu canal left the Euphrates, and passing through the southern wall rejoined the river. There was also a Middle and Southern Palace. Near the latter was located the Ishtar gate. The temple E-makh was close to the east side of the gate. Other canals in the city were called Merodach and Libilkhegala. In the southern portion of the city was located the famous temple E-sag-ila. This temple was called by the Greek historian, "the temple of Belus." Marduk or Merodach (as written in the Old Testament), the patron deity of the city, received from Enlil, as Hammurabi informs us, after he had driven the Elamites out of Babylonia, the title "bel matate," "lord of lands," not the name which Enlil of Nippur had possessed. In the past there has been a confusion. The idcogram Enlil or Ellil had been incorrectly read Bel. This necessitated speaking of the old Bel and the young Bel. Beyond being called bel, "lord," as all other gods were called; Enlil's name was not Bel. Marduk is the Bel of the Old Testament, as well as the god called Bel in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions.

The temple area included an outer, central and inner court. The shrine of Ishtar and Zamama occupied the central court, and the ziggurrat the inner court. In the temple proper, the shrine Ekua was located, in which stood the golden image of Marduk. This, the ancient writers say, was 40 ft. high. On the topmost stage there was a shrine dedicated to Marduk. It is assumed that it was 50 ft. long by 70 ft. broad and 50 ft. in height. Nabopolassar rebuilt the temple and its tower. Nebuchadrezzar enlarged and embellished the sanctuary. He raised the tower so that "its head was in the heavens," an expression found in the story of the Tower of Babel in Gen, as well as in many of the building inscriptions. See Clay,LOTB , Babel, 121 ff, and the article onBABEL ,TOWER OF . One of the chief works of Nebuchadrezzar was the building of Aiburshabu, the famous procession street of the city, which extended from the Ishtar gate to E-sag-ila. It was a great and magnificent causeway, built higher than the houses. Walls lined it on either side, which were decorated with glazed tiles, portraying lions, life size in relief. The pavement was laid with blocks of stone brought from the mountains. This procession street figured prominently on the New Year's festal day, when the procession of the gods took place.

A knowledge of the work Nebuchadrezzar did serves as a fitting commentary to the passage in Dan 4:30: "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built?" He had made the city one of the wonders of the world.

The two sieges by Darius Hystaspes and the one by Xerxes destroyed much of the beauty of the city. Alexander desired to make it again a great center and to build an immense fortress in the city; but in the midst of this undertaking he was murdered, while living in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar. The temple, though frequently destroyed, was in existence in the time of the Seleucids, but the city had long since ceased to be of any importance.

See also BABYLONIA .

A.T. Clay


BABEL, BABYLON (2)

@babhel; Assyro-Bab Bab-ili, Bab-ilani, "gate of god," or "of the gods," rendered in Sumerian as Ka-dingira, "gate of god," regarded as a folk-etymology):

See BABEL ,TOWER OF , section 14.

1. Names by Which the City Was Known

2. Probable Date of Its Foundation

3. Its Walls and Gates from Herodotus

4. Its Position, Divisions, Streets and Temple

5. The Works of Semiramis and Nitocris

6. Ctesias' Description--the Palaces and Their Decorated Walls

7. The Temple of Belus and the Hanging Gardens

8. Other Descriptions

9. Nebuchadrezzar's Account

10. Nebuchadrezzar's Architectural Work at Babylon

11. The Royal Palaces

12. Quick Building

13. The Temples Restored by Nebuchadrezzar

14. The Extent of Nebuchadrezzar's Architectural Work

15. Details Concerning the City from Contract-Tablets

16. Details Concerning Babylon from Other Sources

17. Modern Exploration

18. Description of the Ruins--the Eastern Walls

19. The Western Walls

20. The Palaces

21. The Site of Babylon's Great Tower

22. The Central and Southern Ruins

23. A Walk through Babylon

24. The Ishtar-Gate and the Middle Palace

25. The Festival-Street

26. The Chamber of the Fates

27. The Northern Palace and the Gardens

28. Historical References to Babylonian Buildings

LITERATURE

1. Names by Which the City Was Known:

The name of the great capital of ancient Babylonia, the Shinar of Gen 10:10; 14:1, other names of the city being Tin-dir, "seat of life," E (ki), probably an abbreviation of Eridu (ki) "the good city" (=Paradise), Babylonia having seemingly been regarded as the Garden of Eden (PSBA, June 1911, p. 161); and Su-anna, "the high-handed" (meaning, apparently, "high-walled," "hand" and "defense" being interchangeable terms). It is possible that these various names are due to the incorporation of outlying districts as Babylon grew in size.

2. Probable Date of Its Foundation:

According to Gen 10:9, the founder of Babylon was Nimrod, but among the Babylonians, it was Merodach who built the city, together with Erech and Niffer (Calneh) and their renowned temples. The date of its foundation is unknown, but it certainly went back to primitive times, and Babylon may even have equaled Niffer in antiquity (the American explorers of that site have estimated that its lowest strata of habitations go back to 8,000 years BC). Babylon's late assumption of the position of capital of the country would therefore be due to its rulers not having attained power and influence at an earlier period. Having once acquired that position, however, it retained it to the end, and its great god, Merodach, became the head of the Babylonian pantheon--partly through the influence of Babylon as capital, partly because the city was the center of his worship, and the place of the great Tower of Babel, concerning which many wonderful things were said.

See BABEL ,TOWER OF ;CONFUSION OF TONGUES .

3. Its Walls and Gates from Herodotus:

According to Herodotus, the city, which lay in a great plain, was square in its plan and measured 120 furlongs (stadia) each way--480 in all. Each side was therefore about 14 miles long, making a circuit of nearly 56 miles, and an area of nearly 196 square miles. As the space enclosed is so great, and traces of the walls would seem to be wanting, these figures may be regarded as open to question. Around the city, Herodotus says, there was a deep and broad moat full of water, and then came a wall 50 royal cubits thick and 200 cubits high, pierced by 100 gateways with brazen gates and lintels. Reckoning the cubit at 18 2/3 inches, this would mean that Babylon's walls were no less than 311 ft. high; and regarding the royal cubit as being equal to 21 inches, their thickness would be something like 87 ft. Notwithstanding that Babylon has been the quarry of the neighboring builders for two millenniums, it is surprising that such extensive masses of brickwork should have disappeared without leaving at least a few recognizable traces.

4. It Position, Divisions, Streets, and Temple:

The city was built on both sides of the Euphrates, and at the point where the wall met the river there was a return-wall running along its banks, forming a rampart. The houses of Babylon were of 3 and 4 stories. The roads which ran through the city were straight, and apparently intersected each other at right angles, like the great cities of America. The river-end of each of the streets leading to the river was guarded by a brazen gate. Within the great outer wall was another, not much weaker, but enclosing a smaller space. Each division of the city contained a great building, the one being the king's palace, strongly fortified around, and the other the temple of Zeus Boles--an erection with brazen gates measuring two furlongs each way. Within this sacred precinct was a solid tower measuring a furlong each way, and surmounted by other towers to the number of eight. An ascent ran around these towers, with a stopping-place about the middle where the visitor might rest. Upou the topmost tower a large cell was built, wherein was a couch and a golden table. No image was placed in the cell, and no one passed the night there, except a woman of the people, chosen by the god. In another cell below was a golden image of Zeus sitting, his seat and footstool being likewise of gold, with, near by, a large golden table. The total weight of the precious metal here was 800 talents. Upon a small golden altar outside the cell young sucklings only were sacrificed, and upon another (not of gold) full-grown animals were offered.

5. The Works of Semiramis and Nitocris:

The hydraulic works of Babylon are attributed by Herodotus to two queens, Semiramis and Nitoeris. The former made banks of earth on the plain which were worth seeing, preventing the river from flooding the plain like a sea. The second, Nitocris, altered the channel of the river in such a way that it flowed three times in its course to the village Andericca, and the traveler by water therefore took three days to pass this spot. She also raised the banks of the river, and dug a great lake above Babylon. The place which was dug out she made into a swamp, the object being to retard the course of the river. The many bends and the swamp were on the shortest route to Media, to prevent the Medes from having dealings with her kingdom and learning of her affairs. Other works were a bridge across the Euphrates, and a tomb for herself over the most frequented gate of the city.

Both Herodotus and Ctesias were eyewitnesses of the glory of Babylon, though only at the period when it had begun to wane. It is exceedingly probable, however, that their accounts will be superseded in the end, by those of the people who best knew the city, namely, the inhabitants of Babylon itself.

6. Ctesias' Description--the Palaces and Their Decorated Walls:

According to Ctesias, the circuit of the city was not 480, but. 360 furlongs--the number of the days in the Babylonian year--and somewhat under 42 miles. The East and West districts were joined by a bridge 5 furlongs or 1,080 yards long, and 30 ft. broad. At each end of the bridge was a royal palace, that on the eastern bank being the more magnificent of the two. This palace was defended by three walls, the outermost being 60 furlongs or 7 miles in circuit; the second, a circular wall, 40 furlongs (4 1/2 miles), and the third 20 furlongs (2 1/2 miles). The height of the middle wall was 300 ft., and that of its towers 420 ft., but this was exceeded by the height of the inmost wall. Ctesias states that the walls of the second and third enclosures were of colored brick, showing hunting scenes--the chase of the leopard and the lion, with male and female figures, which he regarded as Ninus and Semiramis. The other palace (that on the West bank) was smaller and less ornate, and was enclosed only by a single wall 30 furlongs (3 1/2 miles) in circuit. This also had representations of hunting scenes and bronze statues of Ninus, Semiramis and Jupiter-Belus (Bel-Merodach). Besides the bridge, he states that there was also a tunnel under the river. He seems to speak of the temple of Belus (see BABEL ,TOWER OF ) as being surmounted by three statues--Bel (Bel-Merodach), 40 ft. high, his mother Rhea (Dawkina, the Dauke of Damascius), and Bel-Merodach's spouse Juno or Beltis (Zer-panitum).

7. The Temple of Belus and the Hanging Gardens:

The celebrated Hanging Gardens he seems to describe as a square of which each side measured 400 ft., rising in terraces, the topmost of which was planted with trees of various kinds. If this was the case, it must have resembled a temple-tower covered with verdure. The Assyrian sculptures, however, indicate something different (see section 27).

8. Other Descriptions:

With regard to the size of the city as given by other authorities, Pliny copies Herodotus, and makes its circuit 480 furlongs (Nat. Hist. vi.26); Strabo (xvi.i. section 5), 385; Q. Curtius (v.i. section 26), 368; Clitarchus (apud Diod. Sic. ii.7), 365. Though the difference between the highest and the lowest is considerable, it is only what might be expected from independent estimates, for it is doubtful whether any of them are based on actual measurements. Diodorus (ii.9, end) states that but a small part of the enclosure was inhabited in his time (he was a contemporary of Caesar and Augustus), but the abandonment of the city must then have been practically completed, and the greater part given over, as he states, to cultivation--even, perhaps, within the space enclosed by the remains of walls today. It is noteworthy that Q. Curtius says (v.i. section 27) that as much as nine-tenths consisted, even during Babylon's most prosperous period, of gardens, parks, paradises, fields and orchards; and this the later contract-tablets confirm. Though there is no confirmation of the height of the walls as given by these different authorities, the name given to the city, Su-anna, "the high walled" (see above), indicated that it was renowned for the height of its defensive structures.

9. Nebuchadrezzar's Account:

Among the native accounts of the city, that of Nebuchadrezzar is the best and most instructive. From this record it would seem that there were two principal defensive structures, Imgur-Enlil and Nemitti-Enlil--"Enlil has been gracious" and "Enlil's foundation" respectively. The construction of these, which protected the inner city only, on the eastern and western sides of the Euphrates, he attributes to his father Nabonidus, as well as the digging of the moat, with the two "strong walls" on its banks, and the embankment of the Arabtu canal. He had also lined the Euphrates with quays or embankments--probably the structures to which the Greek writers refer--but he had not finished the work. Within Babylon itself he made a roadway from Du-azaga, the place where the fates were declared, to Aa-ibur-sabu, Babylon's festival-street, which lay by the gate of Beltis or Mah, for the great New-Year's festival of Merodach and the gods.

10. Nebuchadrezzar's Architectural Work at Babylon:

Nebuchadrezzar, after his accession, completed the two great walls, lined the ditches with brick, and increased the thickness of the two walls which his father had built. He also built a wall, traces of which are apparently extant, on the West side of Babylon (he apparently refers to what may be called the "city," in contradistinction to "greater Babylon"), and raised the level of Aa-ibur-sabu from the "holy gate" to the gate of Nana; together with the gateways (in consequence of the higher level of the pathway) through which it passed. The gates themselves were constructed of cedar overlaid with copper (bronze), most likely in the same manner as the gates of Imgur-Bel (Balawat) in Assyria (reign of Shalmaneser II, circa 850 BC). Probably none of Babylon's gates were of solid bronze, notwithstanding the statements of Herodotus; but the thresholds were wholly of that metal, stone being very rare, and perhaps less durable. These gates were guarded by images of bulls and giant serpents or composite dragons of the same metal. Nebuchadrezzar also built a wall on the East bank of the river, 4,000 cubits distant, "high like a mountain," to prevent the approach of an enemy. This wall also had cedar gates covered with copper. An additional defense made by him was an enormous lake, "like unto the broad sea to cross," which was kept in by embankments.

11. The Royal Palaces:

The royal palaces next claimed the great king's attention. The palace in which Nabopolassar had lived, and wherein, in all probability, Nebuchadrezzar had passed his younger days, had suffered from the floods when the river was high. The foundations of this extensive edifice, which extended from the wall called Imgur-Enlil to Libil-hegala, the eastern canal, and from the banks of the Euphrates to Aa-ibur-sabu, the festival-street, were thoroughly repaired with burnt brick and bitumen, and the doorways, which had become too low in consequence of the raising of that street, were raised to a suitable height. He caused the whole to tower aloft, as he has it, "mountainlike" (suggesting a building more than one story high). The roof of this palace was built of cedar, and the doors were of the same wood covered with bronze. Their thresholds, as in other cases, were bronze, and the interior of the palace was decorated with gold, silver, precious stones and other costly material.

12. Quick Building:

Four hundred and ninety cubits from Nemitti-Enlil lay, as the king says, the principal wall, Imgur-Enlil, and in order to guarantee the former against attack, he built two strong embankments, and an outer wall "like a mountain," with a great building between which served both as a fortress and a palace, and attached to the old palace built by his father. According to Nebuchadrezzar's account, which is confirmed by Berosus (as quoted by Josephus and Eusebius), all this work was completed in 15 days. The decorations were like those of the other palace, and blocks of alabaster, brought, apparently, from Assyria, strengthened the battlements. Other defenses surrounded this stronghold.

13. The Temples Restored by Nebuchadrezzar:

Among the temples which Nebuchadrezzar restored or rebuilt may be mentioned E-kua, the shrine of Merodach within E-sagila (the temple of Belus); the sanctuary called Du-azaga, the place of fate, where, on every New-Year's festival, on the 8th and 9th of Nisan, "the king of the gods of heaven and earth" was placed, and the future of the Babylonian monarch and his people declared. Every whit as important as E-sagila, however, was the restoration of E-temen-an-ki, called "the Tower of Babylon" (see BABEL ,TOWER OF ), within the city; and connected, as will be seen from the plan, with that structure. Among the numerous temples of Babylon which he rebuilt or restored were E-mah, for the goddess Nin-mah, near the Ishtar-gate; the white limestone temple for Sin, the Moon-god; E-ditur-kalama, "the house of the judge of the land," for Samas, the Sun-god; E-sa-tila for Gula, the goddess of healing; E-hursag-ella, "the house of the holy mountain," etc.

14. The Extent of Nebuchadrezzar's Architectural Work:

The amount of work accomplished by this king, who, when walking on the roof of his palace, lifted up with pride, exclaimed "Is not this great Babylon, which I have built?" (Dan 4:30), was, according to his own records and the Greek writers, enormous, and the claim he made fully justified. But if he boasts of the work he did, he is just in attributing much to his father Nabopolassar; though in connection with this it is to be noted that his ascribing the building of the walls of Babylon to his father is not to be taken literally in all probability he only restored them, though he may have added supplementary defenses, as Nebuchadrezzar himself did.

15. Details Concerning the City from Contract-Tablets:

Besides Nebuchadrezzar's inscriptions, various other texts give details concerning the topography of Babylon, among them being the contract-tablets, which mention various districts or quarters of the city, such as Te which is within Babylon; the city of Sula which is within Babylon; the new city which is within Babylon, upon the new canal. Within the city were also several Hussetu--perhaps "farms," such as Hussetu sa Iddina-Marduk, "Iddina-Marduk's farm," etc. The various gates are also referred to, such as the gate of Samas, the city-gate of Uras, and the gate of Zagaga, which seems to have lain in "the province of Babylon," and had a field in front of it, as had also the gate of Enlil.

16. Details Concerning Babylon from Other Sources:

According to an Assyrian and a Babylonian list of gates, the streets bore names connected with those of the gates to which they led. Thus, the street of the gate of Zagaga, one of the gods of war, was called "the street of Zagaga, who expels his enemies"; that of the gate of Merodach was "the street of Merodach, shepherd of his land"; while the street of Ishtar's gate was "the street of Ishtar, patron of her people." The city-gates named after Enlil, Addu (Hadad or Rimmon), Samas the Sun-god, Sin the Moon-god, etc., had streets similarly indicated. Certain of the streets of Babylon are also referred to on the contract-tablets, and such descriptive indications as "the broad street which is at the southern gate of the temple E-tur-kalama" seem to show that they were not in all cases systematically named. If the streets of Babylon were really, as Herodotus states, straight, and arranged at right angles, this was probably outside the walls of the ancient (inner) city, and most likely due to some wise Babylonian king or ruler. Details of the streets have been obtained at the point called Merkes (sec. 22) and elsewhere, and seem to show that the BabyIonians liked the rooms of their houses to be square. Such streets as slanted were therefore full of rectangles, and must have presented a quite peculiar appearance.

17. Modern Exploration:

It is this inner city which has most attracted the attention of explorers, both English and German, and it is on its site that the latter have carried on their systematic excavations. Indeed, it is probable that the houses of the most numerous class of the people--artisans, merchants, workmen, etc--lay outside the walls to which the Babylonian royal inscriptions refer. It may be supposed that the houses in this district were mainly low buildings of unbaked city (of which, indeed, portions of the temples and palaces were built), and these would naturally disappear more easily than if they had been built of baked brick. Even when baked, however, the brick-built ruins of Babylonia Assyria have a tendency to disappear, owing to the value which bricks, both baked and unbaked, have for the erection of new houses in the neighborhood. Concerning the extent of the exterior city much doubt naturally exists, but it may well have covered the tract attributed to it (see section 3, above). Nineveh, at the time of its prosperity, also had enormous suburbs (see NINEVEH ).

18. Description of the Ruins--The Eastern Walls:

The ruins of Babylon lie between 80 and 90 kilometers (50 miles or less) from Bagdad. The first thing seen on approaching them is the broad high ridge of Babil, which marks the site of the ruins of the Northern Palace. After some time, the ruins of the ancient walls are reached. They are still several yards high, and slope down gently to the plain. Starting to the North of Babil, the wall stretches for about 875 yds. due East, and then runs southwards for another 930 yds., taking at that point a course to the Southeast for about 2 miles 160 yds. (3,300 meters). A wide gap occurs here, after which it runs to the Southwest, and is lost in the open fields at the end of about miles (2 kilometers). "That this is the old citywall," says Weissbach, "there can be no doubt, and the name Sur, `city-wall,' given it by the Arabs, proves that they have fully recognized its nature." At the northern end it exists in its original extent, the plain out of which it rises being the old bed of the Euphrates, which, in the course of the centuries, has become filled up by the desertsand. At the period of Babylon's glory, the river had a much straighter course than at present, but it reoccupies its old bed about 600 meters (656 yds.) South of Babil, leaving it afterward to make a sharp bend to the West. From the point where the city wall first becomes recognizable on the North to its apparent southernmost extremity is about 3 miles.

19. The Western Walls:

On the West side of the river the traces of the wall are much less, the two angles, with the parts adjoining them, being all that is recognizable. Beginning on the North where the Euphrates has reached its midpoint in its course through the city, it runs westward about 547 yds. (500 meters) West-Southwest, and then, bending almost at a right angle South-Southeast, turns East again toward the Euphrates, but is lost in the plain before reaching the river. The distance of the two angles from each other is about 1 mile, 208 yds. (1,800 meters), and its distance from the Euphrates is at most 5/8 of a mile (1 kilometer). The western portion of the city therefore formed a rectangle with an area of about 1.8 miles, and the eastern quarter, with the projection on the North, 6 1/4 square miles. According to Fried. Delitzsch, the size of Babylon was about the same as Munich or Dresden. This, of course, is an estimate from the extant remains--as has been indicated above, there was probably a large suburban extension beyond the walls, which would account for the enormous size attributed to the city by the ancients.

20. The Palaces:

Among the Arabs, the northern ruin is called Babil, though it is only the remains of a palace. Its present height is 30 meters (98 feet, 5 inches), and its rectangular outline is still easily recognizable. Its sides face the cardinal points, the longest being those of the North and South. This building, which measures 100 meters (109 yds.), was well protected by the city wall on the North and East, the Euphrates protecting it on the West. Continuing to the South, the path at present leads through orchards and palm-groves, beyond which is a rugged tract evidently containing the remains of ancient structures, probably of inconsiderable height. After further palm groves, an enormous ruin is encountered, steep on the East and South, sloping on the North and West. This is the Gasr (Qasr), also called Emjellibeh (Mujellibah), "the overturned," identical with the great palace of Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadrezzar, referred to so prominently by the latter king in his records. Its longest side skirts the old Euphrates bed, and measures 300 meters (328 yds.). Its surface is very uneven, projections of 15 meters (over 49 ft.) alternating with deep depressions. On the Northwest side enormous walls of exceedingly hard yellow brick still tower to a considerable height. South of this the plain, broken only by a few inconsiderable mounds, extends for a distance of half a kilometer (5/16 mile), and terminates on the South with another enormous ruin-mound, called Ishan Amran ibn `Ali. It measures 600 meters (656 yds.) from North to South, and 400 (437 yds.) from East to West, its average height being 25 meters (82 ft.). About the middle, and close to each other, are two Moslem domed tombs, the first called Ibrahim al-Khalil ("Abraham the Friend" (of God)--probably a late addition to the name of another Abraham than the Patriarch), and the other Areran ibn `Ali, from which the ruin receives its modern name.

21. The Site of Babylon's Great Tower:

Near the South termination of the plain on which the village of Jim-jimeh lies, there is a square depression several yards deep, measuring nearly 100 meters (over 100 yds.) each way. In the middle of this depression, the sides of which do not quite face the cardinal points, there rises, to a height of about 13 ft., a platform of sun-dried brick about 60 meters (197 ft.) each way, its sides being parallel with the outer boundary of the depression. This depression, at present called Sahan, "the dish," is partly filled with foundation-water. Centered in its southern side is a rectangular hollowing-out similarly formed, about 50 meters (164 ft.) long, extending toward the ruin called Areran.

22. The Central and Southern Ruins:

East of the Qasr and Emjellibeh are several mounds bearing the name of Ehmereh, so called from the principal mound on the Southeast, named Ishan al-Oheimar, "the red ruin," from the color of its bricks. Close to the Southeast corner of the Qasr lies the ruin called Merkes, "the central-point," and to the South of that again is a long and irregularly shaped mound bearing the name of Ishan al-Aswad, "the black ruin." From this enumeration of the principal remains on the site of Babylon, it will be easily seen that public buildings in this, the most ancient quarter of the city, were exceedingly numerous. Indeed, the district was regarded as being of such importance that the surrounding walls were not thought altogether sufficient to protect it, so another seemingly isolated rampart, on the East, was built, running North and South, as an additional protection. The remains on the western side of the river are insignificant, the changed course of the river being in all probability responsible for the destruction of at least some of the buildings.

23. A Walk through Babylon:

There is much work to be done before a really complete reconstruction of the oldest quarter of Babylon can be attempted; but somc thing may be said about the sights to be seen when taking a walk through the more interesting portion, which, as we know from Herodotus' narrative, could be visited by strangers, though it is possible that permission had to be obtained beforehand. Entering by the Urash-gate, some distance to the East of the Euphrates, one found oneself in Aa-ibursabu, the Festival-street, which was a continuation of the royal roadway without the inner wall, coming from the South. This street ran alongside the Arahtu canal, on its western bank. After a time, one had the small temple of Ninip on the right (on the other side of the canal), and E-sagila, the great temple of Belus, on the left. This celebrated shrine was dedicated to Merodach and other deities associated with him, notably his spouse Zer-panitum ( = Juno), and Nebo, "the teacher," probably as the one who inculcated Merodach's faith. The shrine of Merodach therein, which was called E-kua, is said by Nebuchadrezzar to have been magnificently decorated, and into the temple itself that king had caused to be brought many costly gifts, acquired by him in the lands over which he had dominion. Connected with E-sagila on the Northwest by a causeway and probably a staircase, was the great temple-tower E-temen-an-ki, which, as is indicated above, is not now represented by a tower, but by a depression, the bricks having been employed, it is said, to repair the Hindiyeh canal. This great building was a striking monument of the city, and must have been visible for a considerable distance, its height being something over 300 ft. The stages of which it was composed are thought to have been colored like those of the similar tower laid bare by the French excavations at Khorsabad (DurSarru-ukin) in Assyria. Causeways or streets united this building with Aa-ibur-sabu, the festival-street along which the traveler is supposed to be proceeding. Continuing to the North, the visitor crossed a canal at right angles, named Libilhegalli, "may he (the god) bring fertility," and found himself immediately opposite the royal palace--the extensive building now known as the Qasr. According to Weissbach, its area occupied no less than 4 1/2 hectares (rather more than 11 acres) and it was divided, as we know from the inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar, into two parts, connected by a corridor. The building was richly decorated, as the Babylonians understood such things, the interior walls being lined with enameled brick and other material.

Passing along the eastern side of the palace, the visitor came to the Ishtar-gate--a massive doorway faced with enameled brick in Nebuchadrezzar's time, and decorated with colored enameled reliefs of the lion, the bull and the dragon of Babylon. On the right of this gateway was to be seen the temple of the goddess Nin-mah, Merodach's spouse--a temple of sun-dried brick with traces of white coloring. It was a celebrated shrine of the Babylonians, in the usual architectural style with recessed buttresses, but modest from our modern point of view. Nin-mah was the goddess of reproduction, who, under the name of Aruru, had aided Merodach to create mankind, hence the honor in which she was held by the Babylonians.

24. The Ishtar-Gate and the Middle Palace:

The Ishtar-gate was apparently a part of the more ancient fortifications of Babylon, but which portion of the primitive city it enclosed is doubtful. In the time of Nebuchadrezzar it pierced the continuation, as it were, of the wall on the western bank of the river. Passing through this gateway, the visitor saw, on the West, the "middle-palace," an enormous structure, built by Nebuchadrezzar, as he boasts, in 15 days--a statement which seems somewhat of an exaggeration, when we come to consider the massiveness of the walls, some of which have a thickness of several yards. He describes this as having been "a fortress" (duru), "mountainlike" (sadanis), and on its summit he built an abode for himself--a "great palace," which was joined with his father's palace on the South of the intervening wall. It is possibly this latter which was built in 15 days--not the whole structure, including the fortress. It was raised "high as the forests," and decorated with cedar and all kinds of costly woods, its doors being of palm, cedar, cypress, ebony(?) and ivory, framed in silver and gold, and plated with copper. The thresholds and hinges of its gates were bronze, and the cornice round its top was in (an imitation of) lapis-lazuli. It was a house for men to admire; and it is not improbable that this was the palace upon which he was regarded as having been walking when he referred to "great Babylon," which he had built.

25. The Festival-Street:

But the street Aa-ibur-sabu, along which the visitor is conceived to be walking, was also a highly decorated causeway, fitted for the pathway of the great gods. Its width varied from 11 to 22 yds., and it was paved with regularly hewn and fitted natural stones--limestone and a brownish-red stone with white veins--while its walls were provided with a covering of brick enameled in various colors with representations of lions, some of them in relief. The inscriptions which it bore were white on a rich dark-blue ground, also enameled. There were various other streets in Babylon, but these have still to be identified.

26. The Chamber of the Fates:

At the end of the Procession-street, and at right angle to it, was the Merodach canal, which communicated directly with the Euphrares. At this point also, and forming its end-portion, was the Chamber of Fates (Patak simate), where, yearly, the oracles were asked and declared. In close connection with this was the Temple of Offerings (Bit nike) or festival-house (Bit akiti). Concerning these places more information is needed, but it would seem that, before Nebuchadrezzar's time, the Chamber of Fates was simply decorated with silver--he, however, made it glorious with pure gold. It is at this point that the Procession-street is at its widest. The position of the Temple of Offerings is at present uncertain.

27. The Northern Palace and the Gardens:

What may have lain on the other side of the Arabtu-canal, which here made a bend to the Northwest, and flowed out of the Euphrates somewhat higher up, is uncertain; but in the extreme North of the city was the palace now represented by the ruin called Babil. This was likewise built by Nebuchadrezzar, but it may be doubted whether it was really founded by him. The presence of traces of wells here made Hormuzd Rassam think that this was probably the site of the Hanging Gardens, but further exploration is needed to decide the point, though it may be regarded as not unlikely that this identification is correct. In that case it would represent the palace shown in the Assyrian saloon at the British Museum--a building apparently protected by three walls, and adorned with columns resting on the backs of lions in an attitude of walking. On the adjoining slab is a representation of a small building--also with columns--on a hill. A figure of a king sculptured on a stele is seen on the left, with an altar in front of it, showing that divine honors were paid to him. The hill is thickly wooded with trees which may be olives, poplars, etc., and on the right is a series of arches on which other trees are planted. Irrigation channels stretch in a long stream to the left and in shorter streams to the right. As this belongs to the time of Ashur-bani-apli, about 650 BC, and refers to that king's operations against his brother Samas-sum-ukin, the king of Babylon, it is clear that something similar to the Hanging Gardens existed before the time of Nebuchadrezzar, and therefore, if it was his queen who had them made, before the time of their reputed founder. This would be the point first reached by the Assyrian army when advancing to the attack. Such a park as is represented here with its hills and streams, and thickly planted trees, must have made the palace in the vicinity the pleasantest, in all probability, in all Babylonia, and excited the admiration of every one who visited the sights of the city.

28. Historical References to Babylonian Buildings:

The architectural history of the city of Babylon has still to be written, but something is already known about it, especially its central point of interest, the great temple E-sagila, wherein Merodach was wor shipped. The 5th year of Sumu-la-ila was known as that in which the great fortress of Babylon was built; and his 22nd was that in which a throne of gold and silver was completed and made for Merodach's supreme abode (paramaha). Later on Abil-Sin, in his 17th year, made a throne(?) for Samash of Babylon; and Hammu-rabi, in his 3rd, 12th and 14th years, also made thrones for the gods--Nannar of Babylon (the Moon-god), Zer-panitum, Merodach's consort, and Ishtar of Babylon. Samsuiluna, his son, in his 6th year, placed a "praying statue" in E-sagila before Merodach, followed, in his 8th, by the dedication of some bright-shining object (mace?) of gold and silver, to the god; and on that occasion it is stated that he made E-sagila to shine like the stars of heaven. Passing over many other references to kings who adorned the temples of the city, the work done there by Agukakrime (circa 1480 BC) may be mentioned. This ruler, who belonged to the Kassite dynasty, not only brought back the images of Merodach and Zer-panitum to their temple, but also restored the building and its shrine, and made rich offerings thereto. Later on, after the destruction of the city by Sennacherib, his son Esarhaddon, and his grandsons Samas-sum-ukin, king of Babylon, and Ashurbani-apli, king of Assyria, all took part in the restoration of Babylon's temples and palaces. The work of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar has already been referred to. In 330 BC (reign of Alexander the Great), an attempt was made, by the tithes of the pious, to clear away the rubbish around E-sangil (E-sagila), but to all appearance no real restorations were made--or, at least, the stage at which they could have been put in hand was not reached. In the year 269 BC Antiochus Soter claims, like Nebuchedrezzar and other Babylonian kings, to have restored the temples E-sagila and E-zida (the latter at Borsippa). Though in late times the temples were more or less dilapidated, the services to all appearance continued to be performed, and may even have gone on until well in the Christian era, Babylonian religion and philosophy being still held in honor as late as the 4th century. The downfall of Babylon as a city began with the founding of Seleucia on the Tigris, in the reign of Seleucus Nicator (after 312 BC). The inhabitants of Babylon soon began to migrate to this new site, and the ruined houses and walls of the old capital ultimately became the haunts of robbers and outlaws. It is said that the walls were demolished by later (Seleucid) kings on that account, and it is not improbable that, with the walls, any houses which may have remained habitable were cleared away. Fortunately, the palaces restored by Nebuchadrezzar were too firmly built to be easily demolished, hence their preservation to the present day.

LITERATURE.

Fried. Delitzsch, Babel and Bible. 1903; French H. Weissbach, Das Stadtbild von Babylon, 1904; R. Koldeway, Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa. 1911.

T. G. Pinches


BABEL, TOWER OF

This expression does not occur in the Old Testament, but is used popularly for the tower mighdol built by the inhabitants of the world who, traveling in the East, built a city on the Plain of Shinar, with a tower "whose top may reach unto heaven"--an expression which is regarded as meaning "a very high tower."

1. General Form of Babylonian Temple-Towers:

There was a great difference, however, between a Canaanite mighdol or watchtower, and the great Tower at Babylon. The watchtower was simply a high structure, probably without any special shape or form, which depended upon the will of the architect and the nature of the ground upon which it was erected. The Tower of Babel or Babylon, however, was a structure peculiar to Babylonia and Assyria. According to all accounts, and judging from the ruins of the various erections extant in those countries, Babylonian towers were always rectangular, built in stages, and provided with an inclined ascent continued along each side to the top. As religious ceremonies were performed thereon, they were generally surmounted by a chapel in which sacred objects or images were kept.

2. Their Babylonian Name:

These erections had, with the Babylonians, a special name: ziqquratu, meaning, apparently, "peak," or the highest point of a mountain, this word being applied to the mountain-height upon which Ut-napishtim, the Babylonian Noah, offered sacrifices on coming forth from the ark (or ship) when the waters of the great Flood had sufficiently subsided. It has also been thought that they were used as observatories when the Babylonians studied the starry heavens. This is probable, but as these structures were of no great height, it is possible that, in the clear atmosphere of the Babylonian plains, there was no real necessity to go above the surface of the earth when making their observations.

3. Whereabouts of the Tower of Babel:

There has been much difference of opinion as to the geographical position of the Tower of Babel. Most writers upon the subject, following the tradition handed down by the Jews and Arabs, have identified it with the great Temple of Nebo in the city of Borsippa, now called the Birs-Nimroud (explained as a corruption of Birj Nimroud, "Tower of Nimrod"). This building, however, notwithstanding its importance, was to all appearance never regarded by the Babylonians as the Tower of Babel, for the very good reason that it was not situated in Babylon, but in Borsippa, which, though called, in later times, "the second Babylon," was naturally not the original city of that name. The erection regarded by the Babylonians as the great Tower of their ancient city was E-temen-ana-ki, "the Temple of the foundation of heaven and earth," called by Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar ziqqurat Babili, "the Tower of Babylon"--the world-renowned temple dedicated to Merodach and his consort Zer-panitum, Babylon's chief deities.

4. Its Position at Babylon:

This structure was situated in the southern portion of the city, not far from the right bank of the Euphrates, and according to Weissbach, is now represented by a depression within which is the original rectangular core of unbaked brick. From its shape, the Arabs have made this site Sahan, "the dish." These remains of the great temple-tower of Babylon, within the memory of men not so very old, towered, even in its ruined state, high above the surrounding plain. The burnt bricks of the ancient Babylonians, however, who "had brick for stone, and slime (bitumen) for mortar" (Gen 11:3), are still good and have a commercial value, so they were all cleared out, with whatever precious material in the way of antiquities they may have contained, to repair, it is said, the banks of the Hindiyeh Canal. Certain records in the shape of conical "cylinders," however, came into the market, and were acquired by the museums of Europe and America. As these refer to the restoration of the building by Nabopolassar, and the part taken by his sons Nebuchadrezzar and Nabu-sum-lisir in the ceremonies attending the rebuilding, it is very probable that they formed part of the spoils acquired.

5. A Babylonian Description of the Tower:

E-temen-ana-ki, to give the Babylonian (Sumerian) name, consisted of six stages built upon a platform, and provided with a sanctuary at the top. A tablet seemingly giving a detailed description of this building was for a time in the hands of the late George Smith in the year 1876. Unfortunately he had not time to give a translation of the document, or to publish the text, but his detailed account of it (Athenaeum, February 12, 1876) is exceedingly interesting.

First there was the outer court called the "grand court," measuring, according to G. Smith's estimate, 1,156 ft. by 900 ft., and a smaller one, called "the court of Ishtar and Zagaga," 1,056 ft. by 450 ft. Round the court were six gates admitting to the temples: (1) the grand gate; (2) the gate of the rising sun (east); (3) the great gate; (4) the gate of the colossi; (5) the gate of the canal; and (6) the gate of the tower-view.

6. The Platform:

After this came a space or platform apparently walled--a ki-gallu square in form, and measuring 3 ku each way. Its size is doubtful, as the value of the ku is unknown. The sides of this enclosure faced the cardinal points. In its walls were four gates, one on each side, and named from the points toward which they looked. Within this enclosure stood a large building measuring 10 gar (Smith: 200 ft.) each way. Unfortunately, the name of this erection was damaged, so that its nature and use are uncertain.

7. The Chapels and Shrines:

Round the base of the Tower were small temples or chapels dedicated to the various gods of the Babylonians. On the East were 16 shrines, the principal of them being dedicated to Nebo and Tasmetu, his spouse; on thee North were two temples dedicated to Ea. (Ae) and Nusku respectively; on the South was a single temple to the two great gods, Anu and Bel (Enlil?). It was on the West, however, that the principal buildings lay--a double house with a court between the wings 35 cubits (Smith: 58 ft.) wide. These two wings were not alike in dimensions, the erection on one side being 100 cubits by 20 (166 ft. by 34 ft.) and on the other 100 cubits by 65 (166 ft. by 108 ft.). In these western chambers stood the couch of the god, and the golden throne mentioned by Herodotus, with other objects of great value. The couch was stated to have measured 9 cubits by 4 (15 ft. by 6 feet 8 inches).

8. The Tower in Its First Stage:

In the center of these groups of buildings stood the great Tower in stages, called by the Babylonians "the Tower of Babel" (ziqqurat Babili). The stages decreased from the lowest upward, but each was square in plan. The first or foundation-stage was 15 gar each way by 5 1/2 gar high (300 ft. by 110 ft. high), and seems to have been decorated with the usual double recesses which are a characteristic of Assyr-Bab architecture.

9. The Remaining Stages:

The second stage was 13 gar square and 3 gar high (260 ft. by 60 ft.). A term was applied to it which G. Smith did not understand, but he notes that it probably had sloping sides. The stages from the 3rd to the 5th were all of equal height, namely, 1 gar (20 ft.), and were respectively 10 gar (200 ft.), 8 1/3 gar (170 ft.) and 7 gar (140 ft.) square. The dimensions of the 6th stage were omitted, but may be restored in accordance with the others, namely, 5 1/2 gar square (110 ft.) by 1 gar (20 ft.) high.

10. The Chapel at the Top:

On this was raised what Smith calls the 7th stage, namely, the upper temple or sanctuary of the god Bel-Merodach, 4 gar long, 3 1/2 gar broad and 2 1/2 gar high (80 ft., 60 ft., and 50 ft., respectively). He does not mention the statue of the god, but it may be supposed that it was set up in this topmost erection. The total height of the tower above its foundation was therefore 15 gar (300 ft.), the same as the breadth of its base. It cannot be said that it was by any means a beautiful erection, but there was probably some symbolism in its measurements, and in appearance it probably resembled (except the decoration) the temple tower of Calah as restored in the frontispiece to Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, 1st series, in which a step-pyramid with a similarly highbasement stage is shown.

11. Herodotus' Description:

With this detailed description, which is quite what would be expected in a Babylonian account of such a celebrated temple, the description in Herodotus (i.181 ff) agrees. He states that it was a temple square in form, two furlongs (1,213 ft.) each way, in the midst of which was built a solid tower a furlong square (nearly 607 ft.). This, however, must have been the platform, which, with the six stages and the chapel on the top, would make up the total of eight stages of which Herodotus speaks. The ascent by which the top was reached he describes as running "outside round about all the towers"--wording which suggests, though not necessarily, that it was spiral--i.e. one had to walk round the structure 7 times to reach the top. Representations on Babylonian boundary-stones suggest that this view would be correct, though a symmetrical arrangement of inclined paths might have been constructed which would have greatly improved the design. At the middle of the ascent, Herodotus says, there was a stopping-place with seats to rest upon, which rather favors this idea. At the top of the last tower there was a large cell, and in the cell a large couch was laid, well covered; and by it a golden table. There was no image there, nor did any human being spend the night there, except only a woman of the natives of the place chosen by the god, "as say the Chaldeans who are the priests of this god." These men told Herodotus that the god often came to the cell, and rested upon the couch, "but," he adds, "I do not believe them." After mentioning parallels to this at Egyptian Thebes and Patam in Lycia, he goes on to speak of another cell below (that referred to in G. Smith's tablet) wherein was a great image of Zeus (Bel-Merodach) sitting, with a footstool and a large table, all of gold, and weighing no less than 800 talents. Outside of this cell was an altar to the god, made of gold; and also another altar, whereon full-grown animals were sacrificed, the golden altar being for sucklings only. The Chaldeans also told him that there was, in the precincts of the building, a statue 12 cubits high, and of solid gold. Darius Hystaspis desired to take possession of this valuable object, but did not venture. His son Xerxes, however, was not so considerate of the feelings of the people and the priesthood, for he also killed the priest when he forbade him to meddle with it.

12. The Builders of the Tower:

The Bible record does not state who the people were who journeyed in the East and built the city and the Tower. The indefinite "they" might be taken to mean whatever people were there at the time the record was written, and probably presupposes that the reader would certainly know. As the Tower of Babel bears, in the native inscriptions, a Sumero-Akkadian name, it may be supposed that the builders referred to belonged to that race.

13. Traditions Concerning Its Destruction:

It is noteworthy that nothing is said in Gen concerning the stoppage of the erection, though they ceased to build the city. Bochart records a Jewish tradition which makes the tower to have been split through to its foundation by fire which fell from heaven--suggested probably by the condition of the tower at "the second Babylon," i.e. the Birs Nimroud. Another tradition, recorded by Eusebius (Prep. Evang., ix; Chronicon, 13; Syncel. Chron., 44) makes it to have been blown down by the winds; "but when it approached the heavens, the winds assisted the gods, and overturned the work upon its contrivers: and the gods introduced a diversity of tongues among men, who, until that time, had all spoken the same language."

14. The Meaning of "Babel":

The place where they built the Tower was called Babylon, on account of the confusion of languages. Here we have again the statement as in Gen that the meaning of Babel is "confusion." This, as is well known, is based upon the purely Hebrew etymological law, which makes balal, "to confuse," or "mingle," assume a reduplicate form; but as far as the cuneiform inscriptions, which are now very numerous, give us information, Babel, from baldlu, "to mingle" (the root in question), was an impossibility. But on the Babylonian side, that the rendering of the name as Bab-ili (-ilani), "gate of god" ("of the gods") was a folk-etymology, is undoubted, notwithstanding that the Sumero-Akkadian form Ka-dingira, with the same meaning, is far from rare. It is noteworthy, however, that one of the forms used by Nebuchadrezzar is Babilam, with the mimmation or "emming," which is a characteristic of the Babylonian language; moreover, a place-name Babalam also occurs, which may be a still earlier, and perhaps the original, form. Notwithstanding that one would like to see in Babalam, "the place of bringing together," and in Babilam, "the bringer together," the termination -am would seem to be an insurmountable difficulty.

15. The Ultimate Destruction of the Tower:

That the building of the city would have been stopped when the confusion of tongues took place is natural--the departure of the greater part of the inhabitants made this inevitable. When the population increased again, the building of the city was continued, with the result that Babylon ultimately became the greatest city of then known world. The Tower, notwithstanding what had been said as to its destruction, remained, and when, as happened from time to time, its condition became ruinous, some energetic Babylonian king would restore it. Alexander and Philip of Macedon began clearing away the rubbish to rebuild the great temple of Bclus (Bel-Merodach) connected with it and there is hardly any doubt that the Tower would have been restored likewise, but the untimely death of the former, and the deficient mental caliber of the latter for the ruling of a great empire, put an end to the work. The Tower therefore remained unrepaired--"The tower was exceedingly tall. The third part of it sank down into the ground, a second third was burned down, and the remaining third was standing until the time of the destruction of Babylon" (Rabbi Yehanan, Sanhedhrin, 109, 1).

16. No Idea of Reaching Heaven:

Concerning the reputed intention of the builders of the Tower, to carry it as high as the heavens, that, notwithstanding the Talmud and other writings, may be dismissed at once. The intention was to build a very high tower, and that is all that is implied by the words employed. That the Babylonians would have liked their tower to reach heaven may be conceded, and the idea may be taken as symbolical of Babylon's pride, the more especially as they regarded it as "the house of the foundation of heaven and earth." Though at present brought lower than the other temple-towers of Babylonia, its renown remains as one of the great glories of that renowned capital. Dedicated as it was to the gods whom they worshipped, and chiefly to the glory of Merodach, the representative of Babylonian monotheism, the Babylonians' descendants, the native Christians, have no reason to remember this erection of their forefathers with shame, but rather with pride. The rallyingpoint of nations, Babylon, while it existed, was always a great commercial center, and many are the languages which have resounded in the Tower's vicinity. The confusion of tongues led to the Jewish fiction that the air of Babylon and Borsippa caused forgetfulness, and was therefore injurious to students of the Law, causing them to forget it as the builders of the Tower had of old forgotten their speech (Rashi, Sanhedhrin, 109, 1). This, however, did not prevent the rabbis of Babylon from being more celebrated than those of the Holy Land, and even of Jerusalem itself.

See also ASTRONOMY .

T. G. Pinches


BABI

ba'-bi (Codex Alexandrinus, Babi; Codex Vaticanus, Baier = Bebai (Ezr 8:11). The descendants of Babi returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 8:37).


BABYLON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Babylon Babulon, is used in New Testament in at least two different senses:

1. Mesopotamian Babylon:

In Mt 1:11,12,17; Acts 7:43 the old Mesop city is plainly meant. These all refer to the captivity in Babylon and do not demand any further discussion.

2. Symbolic Sense:

All the references to Babylon in Rev are evidently symbolic. Some of the most important passages are Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2,10,21. In Rev. 17:5 Babylon is designated as musterion. This undoubtedly in dicates that the name is to be under stood figuratively. A few interpreters have believed that Jerusalem was the city that was designated as Babylon, but most scholars hold that Rome was the city that was meant. That interpretation goes back at least to the time of Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iii. 13). This interpretation was adopted by Jerome and Augustine and has been commonly accepted by the church. There are some striking facts which point to Rome as the city that is designated as Babylon.

(1) The characteristics ascribed to this Babylon apply to Rome rather than to any other city of that age: (a) as ruling over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18); (b) as sitting on seven mountains (Rev 17:9); (c) as the center of the world's merchandise (Rev 18:3,11-13); (d) as the corrupter of the nations (Rev 17:2; 18:3; 19:2); (e) as the persecutor of the saints (Rev 17:6).

(2) Rome is designated as Babylon in the Sibylline Oracles (5 143), and this is perhaps an early Jewish portion of the book. The comparison of Rome to Babylon is common in Jewish apocalyptic literature (see 2 Esdras and the Apocrypha Baruch).

(3) Rome was regarded by both Jews and Christians as being antagonistic to the kingdom of God, and its downfall was confidently expected, This conception is in accord with the predicted downfall of Babylon (Rev 14:8; 18:2,10-21). As Babylon had been the oppressor of Israel, it was natural that this new power, which was oppressing the people of God, should be designated as Babylon.

3. In 1 Peter:

In 5:13 Babylon is designated as the place from which 1 Pet was written. Down to the time of the Reformation this was generally under stood to mean Rome, and two cursives added "en Roma." Since the Reformation, many scholars have followed Erasmus and Calvin and have urged that the Mesopotamian Babylon is meant. Three theories should be noted:

(1) That the Egyptian Babylon, or Old Cairo; is meant. Strabo (XVII, 807) who wrote as late as 18 AD, says the Egyptian Babylon was a strong fortress founded by certain refugees from the Mesop Babylon. But during the 1st century this was not much more than a military station, and it is quite improbable that Peter would have gone there. There is no tradition that connects Peter' in any way with Egypt.

(2) That the statement is to be taken literally and that the Mesop Babylon is meant. Many good scholars hold to this view, and among these are Weiss and Thayer, but there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Babylon, or that there was even a church there during the 1st century. Mark and Silvanus are associated with Peter in the letter and there is no tradition that connects either of them with Babylon. According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ix, 5-9), the Jews at this time had largely been driven out of Babylon and were confined to neighboring towns, and it seems improbable that Peter would have made that his missionary field.

(3) That Rome was the city that was designated as Babylon. The Apocalypse would indicate that the churches would understand the symbolic reference, and it seems to have been so understood until the time of the Reformation. The denial of this position was in line with the effort to refute Peter's supposed connection with the Roman church. Ancient tradition, however, makes it seem quite probable that Peter did make a visit to Rome (see Lightfoot, Clement,II , 493 ff).

Internal evidence helps to substantiate theory that Rome was the place from which the letter was written. Mark sends greetings (1 Pet 15:13), and we know he had been summoned to Rome by the apostle Paul (2 Tim 4:11). The whole passage, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you," seems to be figurative, and that being true, it is natural that Babylon should have been used instead of Rome. The character of the letter as a whole would point to Rome as the place of writing. Ramsay thinks this book is impregnated with Roman thought beyond any other book in the Bible (see The Church in the Roman Empire, 286).

A.W. Fortune


BABYLON IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

See BABEL ,BABYLON .


BABYLONIA

bab-i-lo'-ni-a

1. Mounds

2. Explorations

3. Names

4. Semites

5. Sumerians

6. Home of the Semites

7. Immigration

8. Language

9. Script

10. Architecture

11. Art

12. Literature

13. Libraries

14. Personal Names

15. History of Kingdoms

16. Kish

17. Lagash

18. Adab

19. Nippur

20. Erech

21. Larsa

22. Shuruppak

23. Kisurra

24. Umma

25. Accad

26. Opis

27. Basime

28. Drehem

29. Urumma

30. First Dynasty of Babylon

31. Sealand Dynasty

32. Cassite Dynasty

33. Cassite Rule

34. Isin Dynasty

35. Nebuchadrezzar I

36. Sealand Dynasty

37. Bit-Bazi Dynasty

38. Other Rulers

39. Babylonian Dynasty

40. Neo-Babylonian Rulers

41. Persian Rulers of Babylon

LITERATURE

Babylonia is a plain which is made up of the alluvial deposits of the mountainous regions in the North, where the Tigris and Euphrates have their source. The land is bounded on the North by Assyria and Mesopotamia; on the East by Elam, separated by the mountains of Elam; on the South by the sea marshes, and the country Kaldu (Chaldaea); and on the West by the Syrian desert. Some of the cities of the lower country were seaport towns in the early period, but now are far inland. This land-making process continues even at the present time at the rate of about 70 ft. a year.

This plain, in the days when Babylonia flourished, sustained a dense population. It was covered with a network of canals, skillfully planned and regulated, which brought prosperity to the land, because of the wonderful fertility of the soil. The neglect of these canals and doubtless, also, the change of climate, have resulted in altered conditions in the country. It has become a cheerless waste. During some months of the year, when the inundations take place, large portions of the land are partially covered with swamps and marshes. At other times it looks like a desolate plain.

1. Mounds:

Throughout the land there are seen, at the present time, ruin-hills or mounds of accumulation of debris, which mark the site of ancient cities. Some of these cities were destroyed in a very early era, and were never rebuilt. Others were occupied for millenniums, and their history extends far into the Christian era. The antiquities generally found in the upper stratum of the mounds which were occupied up to so late a period, show that they were generally inhabited by the Jews, who lived there after the Babylonians had disappeared.

2. Explorations:

The excavations conducted at various sites have resulted in the discovery, besides antiquities of almost every character, of hundreds of thousands of inscriptions on clay and stone, but principally on the former material. At Tello more than 60,000 tablets were found, belonging largely to the administrative archives of the temple of the third millennium BC. At Nippur about 50,000 inscriptions were found, many of these also belonging to temple archives. But about 20,000 tablets and fragments found in that city came from the library of the school of the priests, which had been written in the third millennium BC. At Sippar, fully 30,000 tablets were found, many being of the same general character, also representing a library. At Delehem and Djokha, temple archives of the same period as those found at Tello have come to light in great numbers, through the illicit diggings of Arabs. Babylon, Borsippa, Kish, Erech and many other cities have yielded to the explorer and the Arab diggers inscribed documents of every period of Babylonian history, and embracing almost every kind of literature, so that the museums and libraries of America and Europe have stored up unread inscriptions numbering hundreds of thousands. Many also are in the possession of private individuals. After the work of excavating Babylonia has been completed and the inscriptions deciphered, many of the pro-Christian centuries in Babylonian history will be better known than some of those of our Christian era. The ancient history of the Babylonians will be reconstructed by the help of these original sources. Lengthy family genealogies will be known, as indeed in some instances is now the case, as well as the Babylonian contemporaries of Ezekiel, Abraham and all the other Biblical characters.

3. Names:

The Greek name of Babylonia which is in use at the present time is derived from the name of the city of Babylon, the capital and chief city of the land from the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, about 2000 BC (see BABYLON ). The name of the land in the very earliest period which is represented by antiquities, and even inscribed objects, is not known. But in a comparatively early age the northern part is called Uri, and the southern part, Engi or En-gira. The second part of the latter name is perhaps the same as in Su-gir, which is thought to be the origin of the Old Testament Shinar. Su-gir and Su-mer are names of the same country. And inasmuch as Mer and Gir were names of the same west Semitic deity, who played an important role in the early history of Babylonia, it is not improbable that the element Su is also to be identified with the ancient name of Mesopotamia. Su is also in Su-bartu, the name of the country to the North. This name is also written Su-Gir.

Subsequent to 2000 BC the ideograms read in Sumerian, Uri and Engi, were pronounced in SemBab, Accad and Sumer. The former received its name from the capital of the kingdom Accad, one of the cities mentioned in Gen 10:10. The title, "king of Accad and Sumer" was used by rulers as late as the 1st millennium BC.

The name by which the land is known in the second millennium BC is Kar-Duniash, the exact derivation of which is in doubt. Kar means "garden, land" in Semitic and Sumerian; and Duniash being preceded by the determinative for deity, has been regarded as a name of a Cassite god. A more recently advanced explanation is that Duniash is equivalent to Bel-malati, which means "lord of lands." The meaning of the name, as stated, must be regarded as undetermined.

In the time of the late Assyrian empire a nation in the extreme southern part of the land, called by the Greeks Chaldea, which is derived from the name Kaldu, came into existence. In the Assyrian historical inscriptions the land is usually called Bit-Yakin. This people seems to have issued from Aramaic Under Biblical. Merodach-baladan they ruled Babylonia for a time. The Neo-Bab Dynasty, founded by Nabopolassar, is supposed to be Chaldean in origin, in consequence of which the whole land in the Greek period was called Chaldea.

4. Semites:

Two distinct races are found occupying the land when we obtain the first glimpses of its history. The northern part is occupied by the Semites, who are closely allied to the Amorites, Arameans and Arabs; and the southern part by a non-Sem people called Sumerians. Their cultures had been originally distinct, but when they first become known to us there has taken place such an amalgamation that it is only by the knowledge of other Semitic cultures that it is possible to make even a partial differentiation of what was Sem-Bab and what was Sumerian. The Semites, it would almost seem, entered the land after the Sumerians had established themselves, but this can only be re garded as a conjecture.

5. Sumerians:

Although the earliest Sumerian settlement belongs to a remote period, few traces of the pre-historic Sumerian have been found. The archaeological remains indicate that this non-Sem race is not indigenous to the land, and that when they came into the country they had already attained to a fair degree of culture. But there is no evidence, as yet, in what part of the ancient world the elements of their culture were evolved, although various attempts have been made by scholars to locate their original home.

6. Home of the Semites:

The home of the Semites has been placed in different parts of the ancient world. A number of scholars look to Arabia and others to Africa for their original habitation, although their theories generally are not based upon much archaeological evidence. Unquestionably, the previous, if not the original home of the Semitic Babylonians, is to be found in the land of the Amorites, that is in Syria. In the earliest known period of Babylonian history, which apparently belongs to the age not very far removed from the time when the Semites entered Babylonia, Amurru was an important factor in the affairs of the nations, and it was a land which the world conquerors of Babylonia, both Sumerian and Semitic, endeavored to subjugate. This points to the fact that the culture of Amurru was then already old. Egyptian inscriptions fully substantiate this. We look to the land of the Arnorites as the home of the Semitic Babylonians, because of the important part played by the chief god of that land Amurru or Uru, in the Babylonian religion and nomenclature. In fact nearly all of the original names of the Semitic Babylonian sun-deities are derived from the names and epithets of the great Sun-god of the Amorites and Arameans (see Amurru, 108 ff). These and many other considerations point to Amurru, or the land of the Amorites, as the previous home of the Semites who migrated into Babylonia and who eventually became masters of the land.

7. Immigration:

The original settlements in Babylonia, as stated above, belong to a prehistoric time, but throughout the history of the land fresh Semitic migrations have been recognized. In the Isin and First Dynasty of Babylonia, Amorites or Canaanites seem to flood the country. In the second millennium a foreign people known as Cassites ruled Babylonia for nearly six centuries. The nomenclature of the period shows that many Hittites and Mittanaeans as well as Cassites lived in Babylonia. In the first millennium the thousands of names that appear in the contract literature indicate a veritable Babel of races: Egyptians, Elamites, Persians, Medes, Tabalites, Hittites, Cassites, Ammorites, Edomites, notably Hebrews, are among the peoples that occupied the land. The deportation of the Israelites by the Assyrian kings and of the Jews by the Babylonian kings, find confirmation besides the historical inscriptions in the names of Hebrews living in Babylonia in the corresponding periods.

8. Language:

The languages of Babylonia are Semitic and Sumerian. The latter is an agglutinative tongue like the Turkish, and belongs to that great unclassifiable group of languages, called for the sake of convenience, Turanian. It has not been shown, as yet, to be allied to any other known language. The Semitic language known as the Babylonian, with which the Assyrian is practically identical, is of the common Semitic stock. After the Semites entered the land, their language was greatly influenced by the Sumerian tongue. The Semites being originally dependent upon the Sumerian scribes, with whom the script had originated, considered in connection with the fact that the highly developed culture of the Sumerians greatly influenced that of the Semites, brought about the peculiar amalgamation known as Babylonian. The language is, however, distinctively Semitic, but it has a very large percentage of Sumerian loan-words. Not knowing the cognate tongues of the Sumerian, and having a poor understanding of the pronunciation of that language, it is impossible to ascertain, on the other hand, how much the Sumerian language was influenced by the Semites.

In the late period another Semitic tongue was used extensively in the land. It was not because of the position occupied by the Arameans in the political history of western Asia, that their language became the lingua franca of the first millennium BC. It must have been on account of the widespread migrations of the people. In the time of Sennacherib it seems to have been used as the diplomatic language in Assyria as well as among the Hebrews, as the episode in 2 Ki 18:26 would show. Then we recall the story of Belshazzar, and the edicts of the late period referred to in the Old Testament, which were in Aramaic (Ezr 4:7, etc.). In Assyria and Babylonia, many contract tablets have been found with Aramaic reference notes written upon them, showing that this was the language of those who held the documents. The Hebrews after the exile used Aramaic. This would seem to point to Babylonia as the place where they learned the language. The Babylonian language and the cuneiform script continued to be used until the 3rd or 2nd century BC, and perhaps even later, but it seems that the Aramaic had generally supplanted it, except as the literary and legal language. In short the tongue of the common people or the spoken language in all probability in the late period was Aramaic.

9. Script:

The cuneiform writing upon clay was used both by the Sumerians and the Semites. Whether this script had its origin in the land, or in the earlier home of the Sumerians, remains a question. It is now known that the Elamites had their own system of writing as early as that of the earliest found in Babylonia; and perhaps it will be found that other ancient peoples, who are at the present unknown to us, also used the cuneiform script. A writing similar to the Babylonian was in use at an early time in Cappadocia. The Hittites and other peoples of that region also employed it. The origin of the use of clay as a writing material, therefore, is shrouded in mystery, but as stated above, the system used by the Semites in Babylonian ylonia was developed from the Sumerian.

The script is not alphabetic, but ideographic and phonetic, in that respect similar to the Chinese. There are over 500 characters, each one of which has from one to many values. The combination of two or more characters also has many values. The compilation of the values of the different signs used in various periods by both the Sumerians and Assyrians numbers at the present about 25,000, and the number will probably reach 30,000.

10. Architecture:

The architecture of Babylonia is influenced by the fact that the building material, in this alluvial plain, had to be of brick, which was largely sun-dried, although in certain prosperous eras there is much evidence of kiln-dried bricks having been used. The baked brick used in the earliest period was the smallest ever employed, being about the size of the ordinary brick used at the present time. The size of the bricks in the era prior to the third millennium varied from this to about 6 x 10 x 3 inches at Nippur, Sargon and his son Naram-Sin used a brick, the largest found, about 20 inches square, and about 4 inches in thickness. Following the operations of these kings at Nippur is the work of Ur-Engur, who used a brick about 14 inches square and nearly 4 inches in thickness. This size had been used at Tello prior to Sargon's time, and was thereafter generally employed. It re mained the standard size of brick throughout the succeeding centuries of Babylonian history. Adobes, of which the greater portion of the buildings were constructed, were usually double the thickness of kiln-dried bricks. The pillar made of bricks, as well as the pilaster constructed of the same material, seems to have come into use at a very early age, as is shown by the excavations at Tello.

A large number of Babylonian builders had the brick makers employ brick stamps which gave their names and frequently their titles, besides the name of the temple for which the bricks were intended. These enable the excavator to determine who the builders or restorers were of the buildings uncovered. Naturally, in a building like the temple of Enlil at Nippur, inscribed bricks of many builders covering a period of over 2,000 years were found. These by the help of building inscriptions, which have been found, enable scholars to rewrite considerable of the history of certain Babylonian temples. The walls of the city were also built of clay bricks, principally adobes. The walls usually were of very great thickness.

Clay was also employed extensively in the manufacture of images, weights, drains, playthings, such as animals, baby rattles, etc., and of inscriptions of every kind. Pottery, with the exception of the blue glaze employed in the late period, was usually plain, although some traces of painted pottery have been found. Although every particle of stone found in Babylonia was carried into the country, either by man or by inundations, still in certain periods it was used freely for statues, steles, votive objects, and in all periods for door sockets, weights and seal cylinders. Building operations in stone are scarcely known in Babylonia until perhaps the time of the greatest of all ancient builders, Nebuchadrezzar II, who laid a pavement in the causeway of Babylon, Aa-ibur-sabu, with blocks of stone from a mountain quarry.

See BABYLON .

11. Art:

The sculpture of the Sumerians, although in most instances the hardest of materials was used, is one of the great achievements of their civilization. Enough examples have been found to trace the development of their art from comparatively rude reliefs of the archaic period to the finished sculpture of Gudea's time, third millennium BC, when it reached a high degree of excellence. The work of the sculpture of this age shows spirit and originality in many respects unique. In the earliest period the Babylonians attempted the round, giving frequently the main figures in full face. The perfection of detail, in their efforts to render true to life, makes their modeling very superior in the history of article The Sumerian seems to have been able to overcome difficulties of technique which later sculptors systematically avoided.

Practically every Babylonian had his own personal seal. He used it as the signature is used at the present time or rather as the little stamp upon which is engraved the name of the individual at the present time, in the Orient, to make an impression upon the letter which was written for him by a public scribe. Thousands of these ancient seals have been found. They were cut out of all kinds of stone and metal. The style in the early period was usually cylindrical, with a hole passing lengthwise through them. In the late period the signet was commonly used. Many of these gems were exquisitely cut by lapidists of rare ability. Some of the very best work of this art belongs to the third millennium BC. The boldness in outline, and the action displayed are often remarkable. The most delicate saws, drills and other tools must have been employed by the early lapidist. Some of his early work is scarcely surpassed in the present age.

The gold and silver smiths of the early age have left us some beautiful examples of their art and skill. A notable one is the silver vase of Entemena of Lagash, mounted on a bronze pedestal, which stands on four feet. There is a votive inscription engraved about its neck. The bowl is divided into two compartments. On the upper are engraved seven heifers, and on the lower four eagles with extended wings, in some respects related to the totem or the coat of arms of Lagash. While attention to detail is too pronounced, yet the whole is well rendered and indicates remarkable skill, no less striking than the well-known work of their Egyptian contemporaries. Bronze was also used extensively for works of art and utensils. Some remarkable specimens of this craft have been found at Tello.

In studying the magnificent remains of their art, one is thoroughly impressed with the skill displayed, and with the fact that there must have been a long period of development prior to the age to which these works belong, before such creations could have been possible. Although much of the craftsman's work is crude, there is considerable in the sculpture and engraving that is well worthy of study. And in studying these remains one is also impressed with the fact that they were produced in an alluvial plain.

12. Literature:

The literature in a narrow sense is almost entirely confined to the epics, which are of a religious character, and the psalms, hymns, incantations, omens, etc. These are the chief remains of their culture.

See BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ,RELIGION OF .

In a general sense almost every kind of literature is found among the hundreds of thousands of clay tablets unearthed in Babylonia. The inscribed votive objects are of all kinds and descriptions. The stone vase taken in booty was dedicated to the deity of the conqueror. The beautiful piece of lapis lazuli, agate, cornelian, etc., obtained, was inscribed and devoted in the same way. Slabs, tablets and cones of all shapes and sizes, were inscribed with the king's name and titles, giving the different cities over which he ruled and referring especially to the work that he had accomplished for his deity. From the decipherment of these votive objects much valuable data are gathered for the reconstruction of the ancient history of the land.

The same is true of what are known as building inscriptions, in which accounts of the operations of the kings in restoring and enlarging temples, shrines, walls and other city works are given. Canal digging and dredging, and such works by which the people benefited, are frequently mentioned in these inscriptions.

Epistolary literature, for example, the royal letters of Hammurabi, the diplomatic correspondence found in Egypt (see TELL EL-AMARNA ) or the royal letters from the Library of Ashurbanipal (seeASHURBANIPAL ), as well as the private correspondence of the people, furnishes valuable historical and philological data.

The thousands of tablets found in the school libraries of Sippar and Nippur, as well as of the library of Ashurbanipal, among which are all kinds of inscriptions used in the schools of the priests and scribes, have furnished a great deal of material for the Assyrian dictionary, and have thrown much light upon the grammar of the language. The legal literature is of the greatest importance for an understanding of the social conditions of the people. It is also valuable for comparative purposes in studying the codes of other peoples.

See CODE OF HAMMURABI .

The commercial or legal transactions, dated in all periods, from the earliest times until the latest, also throw important light upon the social conditions of the people. Many thousands of these documents have been found, by the help of which the very life that pulsated in the streets of Babylonian cities is restored.

The administrative documents from the temple archives also have their value, in that they furnish important data as regards the maintenance of the temples and other institutions; and incidentally much light on the nationality and religion of the people, whose names appear in great numbers upon them. The records are receipts of taxes or rents from districts close by the temples, and of commercial transactions conducted with this revenue. A large portion of these archives consists of the salary payments of storehouse officials and priests. There seems to have been a host of tradesmen and functionaries in connection with the temple. Besides the priest, elder, seer, seeress, sorcerer, sorceress, singer, etc., there were the farmer, weaver, miller, carpenter, smith, butcher, baker, porter, overseer, scribe, measurer, watchman, etc. These documents give us an insight into Babylonian system of bookkeeping, and show how carefully the administrative affairs of the temple were conducted. In fact the temple was provided for and maintained along lines quite similar to many of our modern institutions.

13. Libraries:

The discovery of the Library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh speaks volumes for the culture of Assyria, but that culture was largely borrowed from the Babylonians. Much that this library contained had been secured from Babylonian libraries by the scribes employed by Ashurbanipal. In every important center there doubtless existed schools and libraries in connection with the temples. At Nippur, in 1890, Dr. J.P. Peters found such a library, but unfortunately, although he termed it such, his Assyriologists did not recognize that one of the greatest discoveries of antiquity had been made. It remained for Dr. J. H. Haynes, a decade later, to discover another portion of this library, which he regarded as such, because of the large number of tablets which he uncovered. Pere Scheil, prior to Dr. Haynes' discovery, had the good fortune while at Sippar to discover a part of the school and library of that important center. Since Professor Scheil's excavations, Arabs have unearthed many inscriptions of this library, which have found their way to museums and into the hands of private individuals.

The plan of the Nippur Library, unearthed by Dr. Haynes, has been published by Mr. C. Fisher, the architect of the Nippur expedition (see Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 183). Professor Scheil, in publishing his results, has also given a plan of the school he discovered, and a full description of its arrangements, as well as the pedagogical methods that had been employed in that institution of learning. This has also been attempted by others, but in a less scientific manner. One of the striking features of these libraries is the use of the large reference cylinders, quadrangular, pentagonal and hexagonal in shape. There was a hole cut lengthwise through them for the purpose of mounting them like revolving stands. These libraries, doubtless, contained all the works the Babylonians possessed on law, science, literature and religion. There are lexical lists, paradigm tablets, lists of names, of places, countries, temples, rivers, officers, stones, gods, etc. Sufficient tablets have been deciphered to determine their general character. Also hundreds of exercise tablets have been found, showing the progress made by pupils in writing, in mathematics, in grammar, and in other branches of learning. Some tablets appear to have been written after dictation. Doubtless, the excavators found the waste heaps of the school, where these tablets had been thrown for the purpose of working them over again as raw material, for new exercises. The school libraries must have been large. Considering for instance that the ideographic and phonetic values of the cuneiform signs in use numbered perhaps 30,000, even the syllabaries which were required to contain these different values must have been many in number, and especially as tablets, unlike books made of paper, have only two sides to them. And when we take into consideration all the different kinds of literature which have been found, we must realize that these libraries were immense, and numbered many thousands of tablets.

14. Personal Names:

In modern times the meaning of names given children is rarely considered; in fact, in many instances the name has suffered so much through changes that it is difficult to ascertain its original meaning. Then also, at present, in order to avoid confusion the child is given two or more names. It was not so with the ancient Babylonian. Originally the giving of a name was connected with some special circumstance, and though this was not always the case throughout the history of Babylonia, the correct form of the name was always preserved.

The name may have been an expression of their religious faith. It may have told of the joy experienced at the birth of an heir. It may even betray the suffering that was involved at the birth of the child, or the life that the parents had lived. In short, the names afford us an intimate glimpse into the everyday life of the people.

The average Babylonian name is theophorous, and indicates one of the deities worshipped by the family, and often the city. For example, it is suggestive that persons with names compounded with Enlil and Ninib hailed from Nippur. Knowing the deities of the surrounding people we have also important evidence in determining the origin of peoples in Babylonia having foreign names. For example, if a name is composed of the Hittite deity Teshup, or the Amorite deity Amurru, or the Aramean god Dagan, or the Egyptian god Esi (Isis), foreign influence is naturally looked for from the countries represented. Quite frequently the names of foreign deities are compounded with Babylonian elements, often resulting from mixed marriages.

Theophorous names are composed of two, three, four and even five elements. Those having two or three elements predominate. Two-element names have a diety plus a verbal form or a subst.; or vice versa: for example, Nabu-na'id (Nabonidus), "Nebo is exalted," or Shulman-asharedu (Shaimaneser), "Shalman is foremost." Many different combinations are found in three-element names which are composed of the name of the deity, a subst., a verbal form, a pronominal suffix, or some other form of speech, in any of the three positions. Explanations of a few of the familiar Biblical. names follow: Sin-akhe-erba (Sennacherib), "Sin has increased the brothers"; Marduk-apal-iddin (Mero-dach-baladan), "Marduk has given a son"; Ashurakh-iddin (Esarhaddon), "Ashur has given a brother"; Ashur-bani-apal, "Ashur is creating a son"; Nabu-kudurri-usur (Nebuchadrezzar), "O Nebo, protect the boundary"; Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach), "Man of Marrink"; Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar), "O Bel, protect the king." Some Babylonian names mentioned in the Bible are really of foreign origin, for example, Amraphel and Sargon. Amraphel originally is west Semitic and is written Hammurabi (pronounced Chammu-rabi, the first letter being the Semitic cheth). Sargon was perhaps originally Aramean, and is composed of the elements shar and the god Gan. When written in cuneiform it was written Shargani, and later Sharrukin, being translated "the true king." Many names in use were not theophorous; for example, such personal names as Ululd, "the month Ulul"; names of animals, as Kalba, "dog," gentilic names, as Akkadai, "the Akkadian," names of crafts, as Pacharu, "potter," etc.

The literature abounds in hypochoristica. One element of a name was used for the sake of shortness, to which usually a hypochoristica suffix was added, like Marduka (Mordecai). That is, the ending a or ai was added to one of the elements of a longer name.

15. History of Kingdoms:

The written history of Babylonia at the present begins from about 4200 BC. But instead of finding things crude and aboriginal in this, the earliest period, the remains discovered show that the people had attained to a high level of culture. Back of that which is known there must lie a long period of development. This is attested in many ways; for instance, the earliest writing found is so far removed from the original hieroglyphs that it is only possible to ascertain what the original pictures were by knowing the values which the signs possessed. The same conclusion is ascertained by a study of the art and literature. Naturally, as mentioned above, it is not impossible that this development took place in a previous home of the inhabitants.

The history of early Babylonia is at present a conflict of the kings and patesis (priest-kings) of the different city-kingdoms, for supremacy over each other, as well as over the surrounding peoples. The principal states that figure in the early history are: Kish, Lagash, Nippur, Akkad, Umma, Erech, Ur and Opis. At the present time more is known of Lagash, because the excavations conducted at that site were more extensive than at others. This makes much of our knowledge of the history of the land center about that city. And yet it should be stated that the hegemony of Lagash lasted for a long period, and the kingdom will ultimately occupy a prominent position when the final history of the land is written. Nippur, where considerable work was also done, was not the seat of rulers, but the sacred city of the god Enlil, to whom the kings of other cities generally did obeisance. Following is a list of known rulers of the different city-kingdoms.

16. Kish:

El-Ohemir, identified as the ancient city of Kish, not far from Babylon, is one of the oldest Semitic centers of the land. No systematic excavations have been conducted at this site, but besides the inscriptions which the Arabs have unearthed, several of the rulers are known to us through votive inscriptions discovered at Nippur and elsewhere. The rulers of Kish are: Utug p. (patesi), circa 4200 BC; Mesilim k. (king), circa 4000 BC; Lugal-tarsi k.; Enbi-Ishtar k.; Manishtusu k., circa 2650 BC; Urnmush k., circa 2600; Manana k.; Sumu-ditana k. and Tanium k.

17. Lagash:

The excavations by the French under De Sarsez and Cross at Tello, the ancient city Lagash, have yielded more inscriptions of ancient Babylonian rulers than those at any other site. Lagash was destroyed about 2000 BC, and only partially rebuilt in the post-Bab period. The known rulers are: Lugal-shag-Engur patesi, circa 4000 BC, contemporary with Mesilim k. of Kish; @@Badu k.; @@En-khegal k.; Ur-Nina k.; Akurgal p.; Eannatum p. and k.; Enannatum I p.; Entemena I)-; Enannatum IIp.; Enetarzi p.; Enlitarzi p.; Lugal-anda p.; Uru-kagina k., contemporary with Lugal-zaggisi, k. of Uruk; Engilsa p., contemporary with Manishtusu k. of Kish; Lugul-ushumgal p., contemporary with Sargon of Accad; Ur-Babbar p., contemporary with Naram-Sin of Accad; Ur-E p.; Lugal-bur p.; Basha-Kama p.; Ur-Mama p.; Ug-me p.; Ur-Bau p.; Gudea p.; Nammakhini p.; Ur-gar p.; Ka-azag p.; Galu-Bau p.; Galu-Gula p.; Ur-Ninsun p.: Ur-Ningirsu p.; contemporary with Ur-Engur k. of Ur-abba p.; @@Galu-ka zal p.; @@Galuandul p.; @@Ut-Lama I p.; @@Alla, @@Ur-Lama II p.; contemporary with Dungi k. of Ur; Arad-Nannar p. Unfortunately, with the exception of about onethird of these rulers, the exact order is yet to be ascertained. (Note: Asterisk denotes unidentified forms.)

18. Adab:

The mounds of Bismaya which have been identified as Adab were partially excavated by Dr. Edgar J. Banks, for the University of Chicago. Its remains indicate that it is one of the oldest cities discovered. A ruler named Esar, circa 4200 BC, is known from a number of inscriptions, as well as a magnificent statue of the king, discovered by Dr. Banks.

19. Nippur:

The large group of mounds covering an area, the circumference of which is three miles, called in ancient times Nippur, but now Noufar, was excavated as mentioned above by Dr. Peters and Dr. Haynes for the University of Pennsylvania. While a great number of Babylonian kings and patesis are represented by inscriptions discovered at Nippur, practically all had their seats of government at other places, it being the sacred city.

20. Erech:

The mounds at the present called Warka, but representing ancient Erech (Gen 10:10), covering an area whose circumference is 6 miles, have been tentatively examined by Loftus and other explorers. Many inscriptions have also been unearthed by the Arabs at this site. The rulers of this city known to us are: Ilu-(m)a-ilu, Lugal-zaggisi k., contemporary with Uru-kagina of Lagash; Lugal-kigubnidudu k.; Lugal-kisalsi k.; Sin-gashid k., about 2200 BC, and Sin-gamil k.

21. Larsa:

Senkereh known in the Old Testament as Ellasar (Gen 14:1), and in the inscriptions as Larsa, has been explored by Loftus and others. The known rulers of the city are: Gungunu k., contemporary of Ur-Ninib k. of Isin; Sumu-ilu; Nur-Adad; Sin-iddinam; Eri-Aku (the Biblical "Arioch") circa 2000 BC, son of Kudur-Mabug k. of Elam, and Rim-Sin (or Rim-Aku), his brother.

22. Shuruppak:

The present Fara, which in ancient times was called Shuruppak, was partially excavated by the Germans under Koldewey, Andraea, and Noeldeke. It is also a very ancient city. It yielded little to the spade of the excavator. It is close by Abu-Hatab, and known as the place where the scenes of the Babylonian Deluge story occurred. Two rulers known from the inscriptions found there are Dada and ladda, belonging to a comparatively early period.

23. Kisurra:

The site now known as Abu-Hatab is the ancient Kisurra. It was partially excavated by the Germans. It flourished as a city in the third millennium BC. The two rulers of this city that are known are Idinilu p., and Itur-Shamash p. (?).

24. Umma:

The site now called Jokha lying to the Northwest of Lagash is an ancient Sumerian city known as Umma. The site has been explored by Dr. Peters and others, but more recently surveyed by Andraea and Noeldeke. It proved to be a city destroyed in the early period. Arabs have lately found thousands of documents belonging to the ancient archives of the city. Some of the rulers known are: Ush p., Enakalli and Urlumma p., contemporaries of Enannatum I of Lagash; Ill p., appointed by Entemena p., of Lagash; Kur-Shesh p., time of Manishtusu; @@Galu-Babbar p.; Ur-nesu p., contemporary of Dungi k., of Ur.

25. Accad:

The city mentioned in Gen 10:10 as Accad, one of Nimrod's cities, has not been explored, but is well known by the inscriptions of Sargon and his son Naram-Sin as well as omen-texts of later eras. Sargon was a usurper. He was born in concealment, and sent adrift in an ark of bulrushes like Moses. He was rescued and brought up by Akki, a farmer. He assumed the title "king of the city" (Shar-ali), or "king of Uri" (Shat Uri). Later he conquered the entire country, and became the "king of Accad and Sumer." In his latter years he extended his conquests to Elam, Amurru and Subartu, and earned for himself the title "king of the Four Quarters," which his son Naram-Sin inherited. The latter followed up the successes of his father and marched into Magan, in the Sinaitic peninsula. Naram-Sin, as well as his father, was a great builder. Evidences of their operations are seen in many cities. Naram-Sin was succeeded by Bingani, who apparently lost the title "king of the Four Quarters," being only called "king of the City, or Uri."

26. Opis:

The exact site of the city of Opis is still in doubt, but the city is represented by the ruler Zuzu k., who was defeated by Eannatum p., of Lagash.

27. Basime:

The city Basime also remains unidentified, but is represented by Ibalum p., a contemporary of Manishtusu k., of Kish, and son of Ilsurabi, apparently another patesi of that city.

28. Drehem:

A site not far from Nippur, called Dolehem or Drehem, which was explored by Dr. Peters, has recently yielded thousands of tablets from the Temple archives dated in the reigns of kings in the Ur Dynasty.

29. Urumma:

The extensive group of mounds lying on the west side of the Euphrates, called Mugayyar, and generally known as Ur of the Chaldees, is the ancient Urumma. It was explored by Taylor and others, and proved to have been an important capital from the middle of the third millennium BC. The dynasty which had made the city its capital is known through inscriptions discovered there and at Tello, Nippur, Drehem and Djokha. Thousands of inscriptions dated in what is commonly called the Ur Dynasty have been published. The dynasty was founded by Ur-Engur, who is conspicuous for his building operations at Nippur and other cities. A dynastic tablet of a much later period, the provenience of which is in doubt, gives the rulers of this dynasty founded about 2400 BC, and the number of years that they reigned.

URUMMA DYNASTY

Ur-Engur, 18 years

Dungi (son), 58 years

Bur-Sin (son), 9 years

Gimil-Sin (son), 7 years

Ibi-Sin (son), 25 years

Five kings, 117 years

The same tablet gives also the following list of the rulers of Isin. Ishbi-Urra, the founder, lived about 2283 BC.

ISIS DYNASTY

Ishbi-Urra, 32 years

Gimil-ilishu (son), 10 years

Idin-Dagan (son), 21 years

Ishme-Dagan (son), 20 years

Libit-Ishtar (son), 11 years

Ur-Ninib, 28 years

Bur-Sin II (son), 28 years

Iter-iqisha (son), 5 years

Urra-imitti (brother), 7 years

Sin-iqisha, 6 months

Enlil-bani, 24 years

Zambia, 3 years

----------, 5 years

Ea-------------, 4 years

Sin-magir, 11 years

Damiq-ilishu (son), 23 years

Sixteen kings, 225 years and 6 months

30. First Dynasty of Babylon:

About the time the Nisin Dynasty came to a close, and while the Larsa Dynasty was ruling, the First Dynasty of Babylon was established. Following is a list of 11 rulers of this dynasty who ruled 300 years:

I. FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON

Sumu-abum, 14 years

Sumu-la-el, 36 years

Sabium (son), 14 years

Abil-Sin (son), 18 years

Sin-muballit (son), 20 years

Hammu-rabi (son), 43 years

Samsu-iluna (son), 38 years

Abi-eshuh (son), 28 years

Ammi-Ditana (son), 37 years

Ammi-Zaduga (son), 21 years

Samsu-Ditana (son), 32 years

The First Dynasty of Babylon came into prominence in the reign of Sin-muballit who captured Nisin. Eri-Aku of the Larsa Dynasty shortly afterward took the city. When Hammurabi came to the throne he was subject to Eri-Aku (Bib. Arioch) of Larsa, the son of the Elamitc king, Kudur-Mabug. The latter informs us that he was suzerain of Amurru (Palestine and Syria), which makes intelligible the statement in Gen 14, that the kings of Canaan were subject to the king of Elam, whose name was Chedorlaomer (Kudur-Lagam ar). In his 31st year, Hammurabi, who is the Amraphel of Gen 14:1, succeeded in throwing off the Elamite yoke, and not only established his independence but also became the complete master of Babylonia by driving out the Elamites.

31. Sealand Dynasty:

In the region of the Persian Gulf, south of Babylonia, ruled a dynasty partly contemporaneously with the First Dynasty, extending over the reigns of about five of the last kings, and over several of the Cassite Dynasty, known as the Sealand Dynasty. The historian records for the latter the following list of 11 kings who ruled 368 years:

II. SEALAND DYNASTY

Ilima-ilu, 60 years

Itti-ili-nibi, 55 years

Damqi-ilishu, 36 years

Ishkibal, 15 years

Shushshi (brother), 27 years

Gulkishar, 55 years

Pesh-gal-daramash (son), 50 years

Adara-kalama (son), 28 years

Ekur-ul-anna, 26 years

Melamma-kurkura, 7 years

Ea-gamil, 9 years

32. Cassite Dynasty:

The First Dynasty of Babylon came to an end through an invasion of the Hittites. They plundered Babylon and perhaps ruled that city for a number of years. A new dynasty was then established about 1750 BC by a foreign people known as Cassites. There were 36 kings in this dynasty ruling 576 years and 9 months. Unfortunately the tablet containing the list is fragmentary.

III. CASSITE DYNASTY

Gandash, 16 years

Agum I (s), 22 years

Kashtiliash I, usurper, 22 years; born of Ulamburiash

and son of Burna-buriash

Du(?) shi (s), 8 years

Abirattash (b ?)

Tazzigurmash (s)

Agum II (s)

--------;----------Long gap

@@Kara-indash I, contemporary with Ashur-rimnisheshu,

k. of Assyria

@@Kadashman-Enlil I (s ?)

@@Kuri-Galzu I

Burna-buriash II, contemporary of Buzur-Ashur, k. of Assyria

@@Kara-Indash II, son-in-law of Ashur-uballit, k. of Assyria

@@Nazi-Bugash (usurper)

Kuri-Galzu II (s. of Burna-buriash), 23 years; contemporary

of Ashur-uballit, and Enlilnirari, kings of Assyria

Nazi-Maruttash (s), 26 years; contemporary of Adad-nirari I,

p. of Assyria.

Kadashman-Turgu (s), 17 years

Kadashman-Enlil II, 7 years

Kudur-Enlil (s), 9 years

Shagarakti-Shuriash (s), 13 years

Kashtiliash II (s), 8 years

Enlil-nadin-shum, 1 1/2 years

Kadashman-Kharbe II, 1 1/2 years

Adad-shum-iddin, 6 years

Adad-shum-usur, 30 years

Meli-Shipak (s?), 15 years

Marduk-apil-iddin (s), 13 years

Zamama-shum-iddin, 1 year

Bel-mu--, 3 years

33. Cassite Rule:

The region from which these Cassites came has not yet been determined, although it seems to be the district Northeast of Assyria. Gandash, the first king, seems to have enjoyed the all-embracing title, "King of the Four Quarters of the World." Little is known of the other rulers until Agum II, who claims the rule of the Cassites, Accad, Babel, Padan, Alman and Guti. In his inscriptions he records the conquest of Khani in Asia Minor, and the fact that he brought back to Babylon the statues of Marduk and Zarpanit, which had been carried off by the Hittites. The Cassite rule, while extending over many centuries, was not very prosperous. At Nippur the excavations showed active operations on the part of a few kings in restoring the temple and doing ob eisance to Enlil. The rulers seemed to have conformed to the religion of the land, for few foreign elements have been recognized as having been introduced into it during this era. The many Cassite names found in the inscriptions would indicate an influx from a Cassite quarter of no small proportion. And yet it should be noted that, in the same era, Hittite and Mittanean influence, as is shown by the nomenclature, is as great as the Cassite. It was during this period that Assyria rose to power and influence, and was soon to become the master of the Mesopotamian region.

34. Isin Dynasty:

IV. ISIN OR PASHE DYNASTY

11 Kings; began to rule about 1172 BC

Marduk, 17 years

Wanting, 6 years

Nebuchadrezzar I, contemporary of Ashur-resh-ishi,

k. of Assyria

Enlil-nadin-apal

Marduk-nadin-akhi, contemporary of Tiglath-pileser I,

k. of Assyria

Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, contemporary of Ashur-bel-kala,

k. of Assyria

Adad-apal-iddin, 22 years

Marduk-akh-erba, 1 1/2

Marduk-zer, 12 years

Nabu-shum-libur, 8(?) years

35. Nebuchadrezzar I:

The most famous king of this dynasty, in fact of this era, was Nebuchadrezzar I, who re-established firmly the rule of Babylon. He carried on a successful expedition into Elam as well as into Amurru where he fought against the Hittite. He also conquered the Lulubites. But in contest for supremacy with Assyria Ashur-reshishi triumphed, and he was forced to retreat ingloriously to Babylon. His successors failed to withstand the Assyrians, especially under Tiglath-pileser I, and were allowed to rule only by sufferance. The Babylonians had lost their prestige; the Assyrians had become the dominant people of the land. Few rulers of the dynasty which followed are known except by name. The dynasties with one exception were of short duration.

36. Sealand Dynasty:

V. SEALAND DYNASTY

3 Kings

Simrnash-Shipak, 18 years; about 1042 BC

Ea-mukin-shum, 6 months

Kashshu-nadin-akhi, 3 years

37. Bit-Bazi Dynasty:

VI. BIT-BAZI DYNASTY

3 Kings

Eulmash-shakin-shum, 17 years; about 1020 BC

Ninib-kudur-usur, 3 years

Shilaniln-Shuqamuna, 3 months

38. Other Rulers:

VII. An Elamitic King, whose name is not known

VIII. 13(?) kings who ruled 36 years

IX. A dynasty of 5(?) kings

X. BABYLONIAN DYNASTY

39. Babylonian Dynasty:

Following is a partial list of the 22 kings who ruled until the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib, when the Assyrian kings assumed direct control. Ashurbanipal, however, introduced a new policy and viceroys were appointed.

Shamash-mudammiq

Nabu-shar-ishkun I

Nabu-apal-iddin

Marduk-nadin-shum

Marduk-balatsu-iqbi

Bau-akh-iddin

Nabu-shum-ishkun II

Nabonassar

Nabu-nadin-zer; 747-734 BC

Nabu-shum-ishkun III; 733-732 BC

Nabu-mukin-zer; 731-729 BC

Pul (Tiglath-pilcser III); 729-727 BC

Ulula (Shalmancsar v); 727-722 BC

Merodach-baladan I; 722-710 BC.

Sargon; 710-705 BC

Sennacherib; 704-702 BC

Marduk-zakir-shum (1 month)

Merodach-baladan II (9 months)

Bel-ibni; 702-700 BC

Ashur-nadin-shum; 700-694 BC

Nergal-ushezib; 694-693 BC

Mushczib-Marduk; 692-689 BC

Sennacherib; 689-681 BC

Esarhaddon; 681-668 BC

Ashurbanipal; 668-626 BC

Shamash-shum-ukin; 668-648 BC

Kandalanu; 648-626 BC

Ashur-etil-ilani-ukin; 626-

Nabopolassar; 626-

During the time of Sennacherib, Merodach-baladan the Chaldean became a great obstacle to Assyria's maintaining its supremacy over Babylonia. Three times he gained possession of Babylon, and twice had himself proclaimed king. For thirty years he plotted against Assyria. What is learned from the inscriptions concerning him furnishes an interesting commentary on the sending of the embassy, in 704 BC, to Hezekiah (2 Ki 20:12; Isa 39:1) in order to induce him to revolt against Assyria, which he knew would help his own cause. Finally Sennacherib, in 690, after he had experienced much trouble by the repeated uprisings of the Babylonians, and the aspirations of Merodach-baladan, endeavored to obliterate Babylon from the map. His son and successor Esarhaddon, however, tried to make Babylon again happy and prosperous. One of his first acts was to send back to Babylon the statue of Bel-Merodach. He rebuilt the city, and also restored other Babylonian temples, for instance, that of Enlil at Nippur. The Babylonians solemnly declared him king. Ashurbanipal, his son and successor, followed his policy. The evidence of his operations at Nippur is everywhere seen in the shape of stamped, kiln-dried bricks.

Before Esarhaddon died, he had planned that Babylonia should become independent and be ruled by his son, Shamash-shum-ukin, while Assyria he handed down to Ashurbanipal. But when the latter came to the throne, Assyria permitted the former only to be appointed viceroy of Babylon. It seems also that even some portions of Babylonia were ruled directly by Ashurbanipal.

After fifteen years Shamash-shum-ukin rebelled and attempted to establish his independence, but Sennacherib besieged Babylon and took it, when Shamash-shum-ukin destroyed himself. Kadalanu was then appointed viceroy, and ruled over part of the country. Nabopolassar was the last viceroy appointed by Assyria. At last the time had arrived for the Babylonians to come again unto their own. Nabopolassar who perhaps was a Chaldean by origin, made an alliance with the Urnman Manda. This he strengthened by the marriage of his son Nebuchadrezzar to the daughter of Astyages, the king. Nineveh finally fell before the Umman Manda hordes, and was razed to the ground. This people took possession of Northern Assyria. The Armenian vassal states, and Southern Assyria, as well as the title to Palestine,Syria and Egypt, fell to Babylonia.

40. Neo-Babylonian Rulers:

RULERS OF NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE

Nabopolassar; 625-604 BC

Nebuchadrezzar II (s); 604-568 BC

Evil-Merodach (s); 561-560 BC

Neriglissar (brother-in-law); 559-556 BC

Labosoarchad (s); 556 BC

Nabonidus; 555-539 BC

Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 BC

Nabopolassar having established himself king of Babylon became the founder of the neo-Babylonian empire. He was succeeded by his son, Nebuchadrezzar II, who like Hammurabi and Sargon is among the greatest known characters in Babylonian history. He is the Biblical Nebuchadrezzar who carried the Jews into captivity. There are a number of lengthy records of Nebuchadrezzar concerning the buildings he erected, as well as of other public acts, but unfortunately only a fragment of a historical inscription referring to him has been found. The building inscriptions portray him as the great builder he is represented to be in the Old Testament (see BABYLON ). He transformed Babylon into the mistress of the civilized world.

Evil-Merodach, his son and successor, is also mentioned in the Old Testament. Two short reigns followed when the ruling dynasty was overthrown and Nabonidus was placed upon the throne. The king, who delighted in exploring and restoring ancient temples, placed his son at the head of the army. Nabonidus desiring to centralize the religion of Babylonia, brought to Babylon many of the images of deities from other cities. This greatly displeased the people, and excited a strong feeling against him. The priesthood was alienated, and the military party was displeased with him, for in his antiquarian pursuits he left the defense of the empire to others. So when Cyrus, king of Anshan and ruler of Persia, entered the country, he had little difficulty in defeating the Babylonians in a battle at Opis. Sippar immediately surrendered to the invader, and the gates of Babylon were thrown open to his army under Gobryas, his general. Nabonidus was imprisoned. Three months later Cyrus entered Babylon; Belshazzar, who doubtless had set up his throne after his father had been deposed, was slain a week later on the night of the eleventh of Marchesvan. This scene may have occurred in the palace built by Nebuchadrezzar. This event, told by the chronicler, is a remarkable verification of the interesting story related of Belshazzar in Dnl. The title used by the kings who follow the Babylonian Dynasty is "King of Babylon and King of Countries."

41. Persian Rulers of Babylonia:

PERSIAN RULERS OF BABYLONIA

Cyrus; 538-529 BC

Cambyses; 529-522 BC

Barzia

Nebuchadrezzar III

Darius I; 521-485 BC

Xerxes; 485-464 BC

Artaxerxes I; 464-424 BC

Xerxes II; 424-423 BC

Darius II; 423-404 BC

Artaxerxes II; 405-358 BC

Artaxerxes III (Ochos); 358-338 BC

Arses; 338-335 BC

Darius III; 335-331 BC

Alexander the Great conquered Babylonia 331 BC.

Several of the Persian rulers figured prominently in the Old Testament narratives. Cyrus in a cylinder inscription, which is preserved in a fragmentary form, endeavors to justify himself in the eyes of the people. He claims that the god Marduk raised him up to take the place of Nabonidus, and to defend the religion of the people. He tries to show how considerate he was by returning to their respective cities the gods that had been removed from their shrines; and especially by liberating foreign peoples held in bondage. While he does not mention what exiles were allowed to return to their native homes, the Old Testament informs us that the Jews were among those delivered. And the returning of the images to their respective places is also an interesting commentary on Ezr 1:7, in which we are told that the Jews were allowed to take with them their sacred vessels. The spirit manifested in the proclamation for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 1:1,4) seems also to have been in accordance with his policy on ascending the Babylonian throne. A year before his death he associated with himself Cambyses his son, another character mentioned in the Old Testament. He gave him the title "King of Babylon," but retained for himself "King of Countries." A usurper Smerdis, the Magian, called Barzia in the inscriptions, assumed the throne of Babylonia, but Darius Hystaspes, who was an Aryan and Zoroastrian in religion, finally killed Smerdis and made himself king of Babylon. But before he was acknowledged king he had to reconquer the Babylonians. By so doing the ancient tradition that Bel of Babylon conferred the legitimate right to rule that part of the world ceased to be acknowledged. Under Nidinta-Bel, who assumed the name Nebuchadrezzar III, the Babylonians regained their independence, but it was of short duration, lasting less than a year.

LITERATURE.

History: Rogers, History of Babylonian and Assyrian, 1002; Winckler, History of Babylonian and Assyrian, 1907; King, Sumer and Accad, 1910. Religion: Jastrow, Religion of Babylonian and Assyrian, 1898; Rogers, Religion of Babylonian and Assyrian, Especially in Its Relation to Israel, 1908; Sayce, The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonian, 1903. Literature: Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, in "The World's Great Books"; edited by R. F. Harper. Relation to the Old Testament: Price, The Monuments and the Old Testament, 1007; Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Records of Assyrian and Babylonian, 1902; Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 1908; Clay, Amurru, the Home of the Northern Semites, 1909.

See also "Literature" inASSYRIA .

A. T. Clay


BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, RELIGION OF

I. DEFINITION

1. First Period

2. Second Period

3. Third Period

II. THE SOURCES

III. THE HISTORY

IV. THE PANTHEON

1. Enlil, Ellil

2. Anu

3. Ea

4. Sin

5. Shamash

6. Ishtar

7. Marduk (Old Testament Merodach)

8. Nabu (Old Testament Nebo)

9. Nergal, the city god of Kutu (Old Testament Guthah)

10. Ninib

11. Ramman

12. Tammuz

13. Asshur

V. HYMNS AND PRAYERS

VI. MAGIC

1. Maqlu

2. Shurpu

VII. THE LAST THINGS

VIII. MYTHS AND EPICS

IX. THE ASTRAL THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE

X. THE RELATIONS WITH THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL

LITERATURE

I. Definition.

The religion of Babylonia and Assyria is that system of belief in higher things with which the peoples of the Tigris and Euphrates valley strove to put themselves into relations, in order to live their lives. The discoveries of the past century have supplied us with a mass of information concerning this faith from which we have been able to secure a greater knowledge of it than of any other ancient oriental religion, except that of Israel. Yet the information which is thus come into our hands is embarrassing because of its very richness, and it will doubtless be a long time before it is possible to speak with certainty concerning many of the problems which now confront us. Progress in the interpretation of the literature is however so rapid that we may now give a much more intelligible account of this religion than could have been secured even so recently as five years ago.

For purposes of convenience, the religion of Babylonia and Assyria may be grouped into three great periods.

1. First Period:

The first of these periods extends from the earliest times, about 3500 BC, down to the union of the Babylonian states under Hammurabi, about 2000 BC.

2. Second Period:

The second period extends to the rise of the Chaldean empire under Nabopolassar, 625 BC, and

3. Third Period:

The third period embraces the brief history of this Chaldean or neo-Babylonian empire under Cyrus, 538 BC.

The Assyrian religion belongs to the second period, though it extends even into the third period, for Nineveh did not fall until 607 BC.

II. The Sources.

The primary sources of our knowledge of this religion are to be found in the distinctively religious texts, such as hymns, prayers, priestly rituals and liturgies, and in the vast mass of magical and incantation literature. The major part of this religious literature which has come down to us dates from the reign of Ashurbanipal (668-625 BC) though much of it is quite clearly either copied from or based upon much older material. If, however, we relied for our picture of the Babylonian and Assyrian religion exclusively upon these religious texts, we should secure a distorted and in some places an indefinite view. We must add to these in order to perfect the picture practically the whole of the literature of these two peoples.

The inscriptions upon which the kings handed down to posterity an account of their great deeds contain lists of gods whom they invoked, and these must be taken into consideration. The laws also have in large measure a religious basis, and the business inscriptions frequently invoke deities at the end. The records of the astronomers, the state dispatches of kings, the reports of general officers from the field, the handbooks of medicine, all these and many other divisions of a vast literature contribute each its share of religious material. Furthermore, as the religion was not only the faith of the king, but also the faith of the state itself, the progress of the commonwealth to greater power oftentimes carried some local god into a new relationship to other gods, or the decadence of the commonwealth deprived a god of some of his powers or attributes, so that even the distinctively political inscriptions have importance in helping us to reconstruct the ancient literature.

III. The History.

The origin of the Babylonian religion is hid from our eyes in those ancient days of which we know little and can never hope to know much. In the earliest documents which have come down to us written in the Sumerian language, there are found Semitic words or constructions or both. It seems now to be definitely determined that a Sumerian people whose origin is unknown inhabited Babylonia before the coming of the Semites, whose original home was in Arabia. Of the Sumerian faith before a union was formed with the Semites, we know very little indeed. But we may perhaps safely say that among that ancient people, beneath the belief in gods there lay deep in their consciousness the belief in animism. They thought that every object, animate or inanimate, had a zi or spirit. The word seems originally to have meant life. Life manifests itself to us as motion; everything which moves has life. The power of motion separates the animate from the inanimate. All that moves possesses life, the motionless is lifeless or dead.

Besides this belief in animism, the early Sumerians seem to have believed in ghosts that were related to the world of the dead as the zi was related to the world of the living. The lil or ghost was a night demon of baleful influence upon men, and only to be cast out by many incantations. The lil was attended by a serving-maid (ardat lili, "maid of night") which in the later Semitic development was transformed into the feminine lilitu. It is most curious and interesting that this ghost demon of the Sumerians lived on through all the history of the Babylonian religion, and is mentioned even in one of the Old Testament prophets (Isa 34:14; Hebrew Lillith, translated "night monster"). The origin of the Semitic religion brought by the ancient Semitic people and united with this Sumerian faith is also lost in the past.

It seems to be quite clear that the gods and the religious ideas which these Semites brought with them from the desert had very little if any importance for the religion which they afterward professed in Babylonia. Some of the names of their gods and images of these they very probably brought with them, but the important thing, it must always be remembered, about the gods is not the names but the attributes which were ascribed to them, and these must have been completely changed during the long history which follows their first contact with the Sumerians. From the Sumerians there flowed a great stream of religious ideas, subject indeed to modifications from time to time down the succeeding centuries. In our study of the pantheon we shall see from time to time how the gods changed their places and how the ideas concerning them were modified by political and other movements. In the very earliest times, besides these ideas of spirits and ghosts, we find also numbers of local gods. Every center of human habitati on had its special patron deity and this deity is always associated with some great natural phenomenon. It was natural that the sun and moon should be made prominent among these gods, but other natural objects and forces were personified and deified, streams, stones and many others.

Our chief source of information concerning the gods of the first period of religious development before the days of Hammurabi is found in the historical inscriptions of the early kings and rulers. Many of these describe offerings of temples and treasures made to the gods, and all of them are religious in tone and filled with ascriptions of praise to the gods. From these early texts Professor Jastrow has extricated the names of the following deities, gods and goddesses. I reproduce his list as the best yet made, but keep in mind that some of the readings are doubtful and some were certainly otherwise read by the Babylonians or Sumerians, though we do not now know how they ought to be read. The progress of Assyrian research is continually providing corrected readings for words hitherto known to us only in ideograms. It is quite to be expected that many of these strange, not to say grotesque, names will some day prove to be quite simple, and easy to utter: En-lil (Ellil, Bel) Belit, Nin-khar-sag, Nin-gir-su, wh o also appears as Dun-gur, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Nin-dindug, Ea, Nin-a-gal, Gal-dim-zu-ab, Nin-ki, Damgal-nun-na, Nergal, Shamash, A or Malkatu, the wife of Shamash, Nannar, or Sin, Nin-Urum, Innanna, Nana, Anunit, Nina, Ishtar, Anu, Nindar-a, Gal-alim, Nin-shakh, Dun-shagga, Lugalbanda, with a consort Nin-sun, Dumu-zi-zu-ab, Dumu-zi, Lugal-Erim, Nin-e-gal and Ningal, Nin-gish-zi-da, Dun-pa-uddu, Nin-mar, Pa-sag, Nidaba, Ku(?)-anna, Shid, Nin-agid-kha-du, Ninshul-li, En-gubarra, Im-mi-khu(?), Ur-du-zi, Kadi, Nu-ku-sir-da, Ma-ma, Za-ma-ma, Za-za-ru, Impa-ud-du, Ur-e-nun-ta-ud-du-a, Khi-gir-nunna, Khi-shagga, Gur-mu, Zar-mu, Dagan, Damu, Lama, Nesu, Nun-gal, An-makh, Nin-si-na, Nin-asu. In this list great gods and goddesses and all kinds of minor deities are gathered together, and the list looks and sounds hopeless. But these are local deities, and some of them are mere duplications. Nearly every place in early times would have a sun-god or a moon-god or both, and in the political development of the country the moon-god of the conquering city displaced or absorbed the moon-god of the conquered. When we have eliminated these gods, who have practically disappeared, there remains a comparatively small number of gods who outrank all the others.

In the room of some of these gods that disappeared, others, especially in Assyria, found places. There was, however, a strong tendency to diminish the number of the gods. They are in early days mentioned by the score, but as time goes on many of these vanish away and only the few remain. As Jastrow has pointed out, Shalmaneser II (859-825 BC) had only eleven gods in his pantheon: Ashur, Anu, Bel, Ea, Sin, Shamash, Ninib, Nergal, Nusku, Belit and Ishtar. Sennacherib (704-681 BC) usually mentions only eight; namely, Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Bel (that is, Marduk), Nabu, Nergal, Ishtar of Nineveh and Ishtar of Arbela. But we must not lay much emphasis upon the smallness of this number, for in his building inscriptions at the end he invokes twenty-five deities, and even though some of these are duplicates of other gods, as Jastrow correctly explains, nevertheless the entire list is considerably increased over the eight above mentioned. In the late Babylonian period the worship seems chiefly devoted to Marduk, Nabu, Sin, Shamash and Ishtar. Often there seem little faint indications of a further step forward. Some of the hymns addressed to Shamash seem almost upon the verge of exalting him in such a way as to exclude the other deities, but the step is never taken. The Babylonians, with all their wonderful gifts, were never able to conceive of one god, of one god alone, of one god whose very existence makes logically impossible the existence of any other deity. Monotheism transcends the spiritual grasp of the Babylonian mind.

Amid all this company of gods, amid all these speculations and combinations, we must keep our minds clear, and fasten our eyes upon the one significant fact that stands out above all others. It is that the Babylonians were not able to rise above polytheism; that beyond them, far beyond them, lay that great series of thoughts about God that ascribe to him aloneness, to which we may add the great spiritual ideas which today may roughly be grouped under ethical monotheism. Here and there great thinkers in Babylonia grasped after higher ideas, and were able only to attain to a sort of pantheism of a speculative kind. A personal god, righteous and holy, who loved righteousness. and hated sin, this was not given to them to conceive.

The character of the gods changed indeed as the people who revered them changed. The Babylonians who built vast temples and composed many inscriptions emphasizing the works of peace rather than of war, naturally conceived their deities in a manner different from the Assyrians whose powers were chiefly devoted to conquests in war, but neither the Babylonians nor the Assyrians arose to any such heights as distinguish the Hebrew book of Psalms. As the influence of the Babylonians and Assyrians waned, their go ds declined in power, and none of them survived the onrush of Greek civilization in the period of Alexander.

IV. The Pantheon.

The chief gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon may now be characterized in turn.

1. Enlil, Ellil:

In the earliest times known to us the greatest of the gods is the god of Nippur whose name in the Sumerian texts is Enlil or Ellil. In the Semitic pantheon of later times he was identified with the god Bel, and it is as Belhe has been chiefly known. During the whole of the first epoch of Babylonian history up to the period of Hammurabi, he is the Lord of the World and the King of the Land. He was originally the hero of the Flood story, but in the form in which it has come down to us Marduk of Babylon has deprived him of these honors. In Nippur was his chief temple, called E-kur or "mountain house." It was built and rebuilt by the kings of Babylonia again and again from the days of Sargon I (3800 BC) onward, and no less than twenty kings are known to us who pride themselves on their work of rebuilding this one temple. He is saluted as "the Great Lord, the command of whose mouth cannot be altered and whose grace is steadfast." He would seem, judging from the name of his temple and from some of his attributes, to have been originally a god of the mountains where he must have had his original dwelling-place.

2. Anu:

The name of the god Anu was interpreted as meaning heaven, corresponding to the Sumerian word ana, "heaven," and he came thus to be regarded as the god of heaven as over against Enlil who was the god of earth, and Ea who was the god of the waters. Anu appears first among the great gods in an inscription of Lugalsaggi, and in somewhat later times he made his way to the top of the earliest triad which consists of Ann, Enlil and Ea. His chief seat of worship was Uruk, but in the Assyrian period he was associated with the god Adad in a temple in the city of Asshur. In the myths and epics he fills an important role as the disposer of all events, but he cannot be thought of as quite equal in rank with Enlil in spite of his position in the heavens. Antu or Anatu is mentioned as the wife of Ann, but hers is a colorless figure, and she may probably be regarded as little else than a grammatical invention owing to the desire of the Semites to associate the feminine with the masculine in their languages.

3. Ea:

The reading of the name of the god Ea still remains uncertain. It may perhaps have been Ae, as the Greek Aos would seem to indicate. His chief city of worship was Eridu, which in the earliest period was situated on the Persian Gulf, near the mouths of the Euphrates and the Tigris. His temple was there called E-absu, which means "house of the deeps," interpreted also as "house of wisdom." He must have been a god of great importance in early times, but was left behind by the growing influence of Ellil and in a later period retained honor chiefly because he was assumed to be the. father of the god Marduk, and so was reverenced by the people of the city of Babylon. As the lord of wisdom he filled a great role in exorcisms down to the very last, and was believed to be the god who was most ready to respond to human need in direful circumstances. Ea's wife is called Damkina.

4. Sin:

Sin was the city god of Urn (Ur of the Chaldeans in the Old Testament). He was originally a local god who came early to a lofty position in the canon because he seems always to have been identified with the moon, and in Babylon the moon was always of more importance than the sun because of its use in the calendar. His temple was called E-kishshirgal, i.e. "house of light." His worship was widespread, for at a very early date he had a shrine at Harran in Mesopotamia. His wife is called Ningal, the Great Lady, the Queen, and his name probably appears in Mt. Sinai. He is addressed in hymns of great beauty and was regarded as a most kindly god.

5. Shamash:

The Sun-god, Shamash, ranks next after Sin in the second or later triad, and there can be no doubt that he was from the beginning associated with the sun in the heavens. His seats of worship were Larsa in southern Babylonia and Sippar in northern Babylonia in both of which his temple was called E-bab-bar, "shining house." He also is honored in magnificent hymns in which he is saluted as the enemy and the avenger of evil, but as the benignant furtherer of all good, especially of that which concerns the races of men. All legislation is ascribed to him as the supreme judge in heaven. To him the Babylonians also ascribe similar powers in war to those which the Egyptians accorded to Re. From some of the texts one might have supposed that he would have come to the top of the triad, but this appears not to have been the case, and his influence extended rather in the direction of influencing minor local deities who were judged to be characterized by attributes similar to those ascribed to him in the greater hymns.

6. Ishtar:

The origin and the meaning of the name of the goddess Ishtar are still disputed, but of her rank there can be no doubt. In the very earliest inscriptions known to us she does not seem to have been associated with the planet Venus as she is in later times. She seems rather to have been a goddess of fruitfulness and of love, and in her temple at Uruk temple-prostitution was a feature. In the mythological literature she occupies a high place as the goddess of war and of the chase. Because of this later identification she became the chief goddess of the warlike Assyrians. Little by little she absorbed all the other goddesses and her name became the general word for goddess. Her chief seats of worhip were Uruk in southern Babylonia, where she was worshipped in earliest times under the name of Nana, and Akkad in northern Babylonia, where she was called Anunitu, and Nineveh and Arbela in Assyria. Some of the hymns addressed to her are among the noblest products of Babylonian and Assyrian religion and reach a considerable ethical position. This development of a sexual goddess into a goddess who severely judged the sins of men is one of the strangest phenomena in the history of this religion.

7. Marduk:

Marduk (in the Old Testament Merodach) is the city-god of Babylon where his temple was called E-sagila ("lofty house") and its tower E-teme nanki ("house of the foundation of heaven and earth"). His wife is Sarpanitu, and, as we have already seen, his father was Ea, and in later days Nabu was considered his son. The city of Babylon in the earliest period was insignificant in importance compared with Nippur and Eridu, and this city-god could not therefore lay claim to a position comparable with the gods of these cities, but after Hammurabi had made Babylon the chief city of all Babylonia its god rapidly increased in importance until he absorbed the attributes of the earlier gods and displaced them in the great myths. The speculative philosophers of the neo-Babylonian period went so far as to identify all the earlier gods with him, elevating his worship into a sort of henotheism. His proper name in the later periods was gradually displaced by the appellativc Belu "lord," so that finally he was commonly spoken of as Bel, and his consort was called Belit. He shares with Ishtar and Shamash the honor of having some of the finest hymns, which have come down to us, sung to his name.

8. Nabu:

Nabu (in the Old Testament Nebo) was the city-god of Bor-sippa. His name is clearly Semitic, and means "speaker" or "announcer." In earlier times he seems to have been a more important god than Marduk and was worshipped as the god of vegetation. His temple in Borsippa bore the name E-zida ("perpetual house") with the tower E-uriminanki ("house of the seven rulers of heaven and earth"). In later times he was identified with the planet Mercury.

9. Nergal:

Nergal, the city-god of Kutu (in the Old Testament Cuthah), was the god of the underworld and his wife Eresh-kigal was the sovereign lady of the under-world. He was also the god of plague and of fever, and in later days was associated with the planet Mars, though scholars who are attached to the astral theory (see below) think that he was identified at an earlier date with Saturn. For this view no certain proof has yet been produced.

10. Ninib:

Unfortunately the correct pronunciation of the name of the god Ninib has not yet been secured. He seems originally to have been a god of vegetation, but in the later philosophical period was associated with the planet Saturn, called Kaitaann (Kewan, Chiun, Am 5:26 the King James Version, the English Revised Version). As a god of vegetation he becomes also a god of healing and his wife Gula was the chief patroness of physicians. He comes also to be regarded as a mighty hero in war, and, in this capacity generally, he fills a great role in the Assyrian religion.

11. Ramman:

Ramman is the god of storms and thunder among the Babylonians and in the Assyrian pantheon he is usually called Adad. This form of the name is doubtless connected with the Aramaic god Hadad. In the Sumerian period his name seems to have been Ishkur. His wife is called Shala.

12. Tammuz:

The name Tammuz is derived from the Sumerian Dumuzi-zuab ("real child of the water depths"). He is a god of vegetation which is revived by the rains of the spring. Tammuz never became one of the great gods of the pantheon, but his popularity far exceeded that of the many gods who were regarded as greater than he. His worship is associated with that of Ishtar whose paramour he was, and the beautiful story of the descent of Ishtar to Hades was written to describe Ishtar's pursuit of him to the depths of the under-world seeking to bring him up again. His disappearance in the under-world is associated with the disappearance of vegetation under the midsummer heat which revives again when the rain comes and the god appears once more on the earth. The cult of Tammuz survived the decay of Babylonian and Assyrian civilization and made its way into the western world. It was similar in some respects to that of Osiris in Egypt, but was not so beautiful or so humane.

13. Asshur:

The supreme god of Assyria, Asshur, was originally the local god of the city which bears the same name. During the whole of Assyrian history his chief role is as the god of war, but the speculative philosophers of Assyria absorbed into him many of the characteristics of Ellil and Marduk, going even so far as to ascribe to him the chief place in the conflict with the sea monster Tiamat in the creation epoch.

V. Hymns and Prayers.

The religious literature of the Babylonians and Assyrians culminated in a great series of hymns to the gods. These have come down to us from almost all periods of the religious history of the people. Some of them go back to the days of the old city-kingdoms and others were composed during the reign of Nabonidus when the fall of Babylon at the hands of Cyrus was imminent. The greatest number of those that have come down to us are dedicated to Shamash, the Sun-god, but many of the finest, as we have already seen, were composed in honor of Sin, the Moon-god. None of these reached monotheism. All are polytheistic, with perhaps tendencies in the direction of pantheism or henotheism. This incapacity to reach monotheism may have been partially due to the influence of the local city whose tendency was always to hold tightly to the honor of the local god. Babylonia might struggle never so hard to lift Marduk to high and still higher position, but in spite of all its efforts he remains to the very end of the days only one god among many. And even the greatest of the Babylonian kings, Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus, continued to pay honor to Shamash in Sippar, whose temple they continually rebuilt and adorned with ever greater magnificence. Better than any description of the hymns is a specimen adequately to show their quality. Here are some lines taken from an ancient Sumerian hymn to the Moon-god which had been copied and preserved with an Assyrian translation in the library of Ashurbanipal:

O Lord, chief of the gods, who alone art exalted on earth and in heaven,

Father Nannar, Lord, Anshar, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, Lord, great Ann, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, Lord, Sin, chief of the gods,

Father Nanbar, Lord of Ur, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, Lord of E-gish-shir-gal, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, Lord of the veil, brilliant one, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, whose rule is perfect, chief of the gods,

Father Nannar, who does march in great majesty, chief of the gods,

O strong, young bull, with strong horns, perfect in muscles, with beard of lapis lazuli color, full of glory and perfection,

Self-created, full of developed fruit, beautiful to look upon, in whose being one cannot sufficiently sate himself;

Mother womb, begetter of all things, who has taken up his exalted habitation among living creatures;

O merciful, gracious father, in whose hand rests the life of the whole world,

O Lord, thy divinity is full of awe, like the far-off heaven and the broad ocean.

O creator of the land, founder of sanctuaries, proclaimer of their names,

O father, begetter of gods and men, who dost build dwellings and establish offerings,

Who dost call to lordship, dost bestow the scepter, determinest destinies for far-off days.

Much of this is full of fine religious feeling, and the exaltation of Sin sounds as though the poet could scarcely acknowledge any other god, but the proof that other gods were invoked in the same terms and by the same kings is plentiful.

Some of these hymns are connected with magical and incantation literature, for they serve to introduce passages which are intended to drive away evil demons. A very few of them on the other hand rise to very lofty conceptions in which the god is praised as a judge of righteousness. A few lines from the greatest of all the hymns addressed to Shamash, the Sun-god, will make this plain:

COLUMN II

Who plans evil--his horn thou dost destroy,

40 Whoever in fixing boundaries annuls rights. The unjust judge thou restrainest with force.

Whoever accepts a bribe, who does not judge justly--on him thou imposest sin.

But he who does not accept a bribe, who has a care for the oppressed,

To him Shamash is gracious, his life he prolongs.

45 The judge who renders a just decision

Shall end in a palace, the place of princes shall be his dwelling.

COLUMN III

The seed of those who act unjustly shall not flourish.

What their mouth declares in thy presence

Thou shalt burn it up, what they purpose wilt thou annul.

15 Thou knowest their transgressions: the declaration of the wicked thou dost cast aside.

Everyone, wherever he may be, is in thy care. Thou directest their judgments, the imprisoned dost thou liberate.

Thou hearest, O Shamash, petition, prayer, and appeal.

Humility, prostration, petitioning, and reverence.

20 With loud voice the unfortunate one cries to thee.

The weak, the exhausted, the oppressed, the lowly,

Mother, wife, maid appeal to thee.

He who is removed from his family, he that dwelleth far from his city.

There is in this hymn no suggestion of magic or sorcery. We cannot but feel how close this poet came to an appreciation of the Sun-god as a judge of men on an ethical basis. How near he was to passing through the vale into a larger religious life!

The prayers are on the whole upon a lower plane, though some of them, notably those of Nebuchadrezzar, reach lofty conceptions. The following may serve as a sufficient example:

O eternal ruler, lord of all being, grant that the name of the king that thou lovest, whose. name thou hast proclaimed. may flourish as seems pleasing to thee. Lead him in the right way. I am the prince that obeys thee, the creature of thy hand. Thou hast created me, and hast entrusted to me dominion over mankind. According to thy mercy, O Lord, which thou bestowest upon all, may thy supreme rule be merciful! The worship of thy divinity implant in my heart! Grant me what seems good to thee, for thou art he that hast fashioned my life.

VI. Magic:

Next in importance to the gods in the Babylonian religion are the demons who had the power to afflict men with manifold diseases of body or mind. A large part of the religion seems to have been given up to an agonized struggle against these demons, and the gods were everywhere approached by prayer to assist men against these demons. An immense mass of incantations, supposed to have the power of driving the demons out, has come down to us. The use of these incantations lay chiefly in the hands of the priests who attached great importance to specific words or sets of words. The test of time was supposed to have shown that certain words were efficacious in certain instances. If in any case the result was not secured, it could only be ascribed to the use of the wrong formula; hence there grew up a great desire to preserve exactly the words which in some cases had brought healing. Later these incantations were gathered into groups or rituals classified according to purpose or use. Of the rituals which have come down to us, the following are the most important:

1. Maqlu:

Maqlu, i.e. "burning," so called because there are in it many symbolic burnings of images or witches. This series is used in the delivering of sufferers from witches or sorcerers.

2. Shurpu:

Shurpu is another word for burning, and this series also deals much in symbolic burnings and for the same purposes as the former. In these incantations we make the acquaintance of a large number of strange demons such as the rabisu, a demon that springs unawares on its victims; the labartu, which attacks women and children; and the lilu and the lilitu, to which reference has been made before, and the utuku, a strong demon.

These incantations are for the most part a wretched jargon without meaning, and a sad commentary on the low position occupied by the religion which has attained such noble heights as that represented in the hymns and prayers. It is strange that the higher forms of religion were not able to drive out the lower, but these incantations continued to be carefully copied and used down to the very end of the Babylonian commonwealth.

VII. The Last Things.

In Babylonia, the great question of all the ages--"If a man die shall he live again?"--was asked and an attempt made to answer it. The answer was usually sad and depressing. After death the souls of men were supposed to continue in existence. It can hardly be called life. The place to which they have gone is called the "land of no return." There they lived in dark rooms amid the dust and the bats covered with a garment of feathers, and under the dominion of Nergal and Ereshkigal. When the soul arrived among the dead he had to pass judgment before the judges of the dead, the Annunaki, but little has been preserved for us concerning the manner of this judgment. There seems to have been at times an idea that it might be possible for the dead to return again to life, for in this underworld there was the water of life, which was used when the god Tammuz returned again to earth. The Babylonians seem not to have attached so much importance to this after-existence as did the Egyptians, but they did practice burial and not cremation, and placed often with the dead articles which might be used in his future existence. In earlier times the dead were buried in their own houses, and among the rich this custom seems to have prevailed until the very latest times. For others the custom of burying in an acropolis was adopted, and near the city of Kutha was an acropolis which was especially famous. In the future world there seem to have been distinctions made among the dead. Those who fell in battle seem to have had special favor. They received fresh water to drink, while those who had no posterity to put offerings at their graves suffered sore and many deprivations. It is to be hoped that later discoveries of religious texts may shed more light upon this phase of the religion which is still obscure.

VIII. Myths and Epics:

In ancient religions the myth fills a very important place, serving many of the functions of dogma in modern religions. These myths have come down to us associated usually with epics, or made a part of ancient stories which belong to the library of Ashurbanipal. Most of them have been copied from earlier Babylonian originals, which go back in origin to the wonderful period of intellectual and political development which began with Hammurabi. The most interesting of those which have been preserved for us are the story of Adapa and the sto ry of Gilgames. This same divine being Adapa, son of Ea, was employed in Ea's temple at Eridu supplying the ritual bread and water. One day, while fishing in the sea, the south wind swept sharply upon him, overturned his boat, and he fell into the sea, the "house of the fishes." Angered by his misfortune, he broke the wings of the south wind, and for seven days it was unable to bring the comfort of the sea coolness over the hot land. And Anu said:

"Why has the south wind for seven days not blown over the land?"

His messenger Ilabrat answered him:

"My Lord, Adapa, the son of Ea, hath broken the wing of

The south wind."

Then Anu ordered the culprit brought before him, and before he departed to this ordeal Ea gave him instructions. He is to go up to the gatekeepers of heaven, Tammuz and Gish-zida, clad in mourning garb to excite their sympathy. When they ask why he is thus attired he is to tell them that his mourning is for two gods of earth who have disappeared (that is, themselves), and then they will intercede for him. Furthermore, he is cautioned not to eat the food or drink the water that will be set before him, for Ea fears that food and water of death will be set before him to destroy him. But exactly the opposite happened. Tammuz and Gish-zida prevailed in pleading, and Anu said: "Bring for him food of life that he may eat it." They brought him food of life, but he did not eat. They brought him water of life, but he did not drink. They brought him a garment; he put it on. They brought him oil; he anointed himself with it.

Adapa had obeyed Ea literally, and by so doing had missed the priceless boon of immortality. Some of the motives in this beautiful myth are similar to those found in Gen. Food of life seems to belong to the same category as the tree of life in Gen. The Babylonian doctrine was that man, though of Divine origin, did not share in the Divine attribute of immortality. In the Gen story Adam lost immortality because he desired to become like God. Adapa, on the other hand, was already endowed with knowledge and wisdom and failed of immortality, not because he was disobedient like Adam, but because he was obedient to Ea his creator. The legend would seem to be the Babylonian attempt to explain death.

The greatest of all the Babylonian epics is the story of Gilgames, for in it the greatest of the myths seem to pour into one great stream of epic. It was written upon twelve big tablets in the library of Ashurbanipal, some of which have been badly broken. It was, however, copied from earlier tablets which go back to the First Dynasty of Babylon. The whole story is interesting and important, but its greatest significance lies in the eleventh tablet which contains a description of the great flood and is curiously parallel to the Flood story in the Book of Gen.

IX. The Astral Theory of the Universe:

We have now passed in review the main features of the Babylonian and Assyrian religion. We have come all the way from a primitive animism to a higher organized polytheism with much theological speculation ending in a hope for existence after death, and we must now ask whether there is any great organizing idea which will bring all this religion and speculation into one great comprehensive system. A theory has been propounded which owes its exposition generally to Profes sor Hugo Winckler of the University of Berlin, who in a series of volumes and pamphlets has attempted to prove that the whole of the serious thinking and writing in the realm of religion among both the Babylonians and Assyrians rests down upon a Weltanschauung, a theory of the universe. This theory of Winckler's has found acceptance and propagation at the hands of Dr. Alfred Jeremias, and portions of it have been accepted by other scholars. The doctrine is extremely complicated and even those who accept it in part decline it in other parts and the exposition of it is difficult. In the form which it takes in the writings of Winckler and Jeremias, it has been still further complicated quite recently by sundry alterations which make it still more difficult. Most of these can only be regarded as efforts to shield theory from criticisms which have been successful in pointing out its weakness.

According to Winckler and Jeremias, the Babylonians conceived of the cosmos as divided primarily into a heavenly and an earthly world, each of which is further subdivided into three parts. The heavenly world consists of (1) the northern ocean; (2) the zodiac; (3) the heavenly ocean; while the earthly world consists of (1) the heaven, i.e. the air above the earth; (2) the earth itself; (3) the waters beneath the earth. These great subdivisions were ruled by the gods Anu in the heaven above, Bel in the earth and air, and Ea in the waters beneath. More important than these is the zodiac, the twelve heavenly figures which span the heavens and through which the moon passes every month, the sun once a year, and the five great planets which are visible to the naked eye have their courses. These moving stars serve as the interpreters of the Divine will while the fixed stars, so says Jeremias, are related thereto as the commentary written on the margin of the Book of Rev. The rulers of the zodiac are Sin, Shamash and Ishtar, and according to the law of correspondence, the Divine power manifested in them is identical with the power of Anu, Bel and Ea. The zodiac represents the world-cycle in the year, and also in the world-year, one of these gods may represent the total Divine power which reveals itself in the cycle. By the side of these three, Sin, Shamash and Ishtar, which represent respectively the moon, sun and Venus, there are arranged Marduk which is Jupiter, Nabu which is Mercury, Ninib which is Mars, and Nergal which is Saturn, these being the planets known to the ancients. Now upon these foundations, according to Winckler, and his school, the ancient priests of Babylonia built a closely knit and carefully thought-out world-system of an astral character, and this world-system forms the kernel of the ancient and oriental conception of the universe. This conception of the universe as a double-sided principle is of tremendous importance. First, the heavenly world with its three divisions corresponds exactly to the earthly world with its three divisions. Everything on earth corresponds to its counterpart in heaven. The heavens are a mirror of earth, and in them the gods reveal their will and purpose. Everything which has happened is only an earthly copy of the heavenly original. It is still written in the heavens above and still to be read there. All the myths and all the legends, not only of Babylonia, but of all the rest of the ancient world, are to be interpreted in accordance with this theory; nothing even in history is to be understood otherwise. "An oriental history without consideration of the world era is unthinkable. The stars rule the changes of the times" (Jeremias). The consequences of this theory are so overpowering that it is difficult to deal with it in fairness to its authors and in justice to the enormous labor and knowledge which they have put upon it.

It is impossible within the reasonable limits which are here imposed to discuss theory in detail, and for our purpose it will be sufficient to say that to the great majority of modern scholars who have carefully considered it in its details it seems to lack evidence sufficient to support so enormous a structure. That an astrological structure similar at least to this actually did arise in the Hellenistic period is not here disputed. The sole dispute is as to the antiquity of it. Now it does not appear that Winckler and Jeremias have been able to produce proof, first, that the Babylonians had enough knowledge of astronomy before the 7th century BC to have constructed such a system; and in the second place, there is no evidence that all the Babylonian gods had an astral character in the earlier period. On the contrary, there seems, as we have already attempted to show in the discussion of the pantheon, to be good reason to believe that many of the deities had no relation whatever to the stars in early times, but were rather gods of vegetation or of water or of other natural forces visible in earthly manifestations. The theory indeed may be said to have broken down by its own weight, for Winckler and Jeremias attempted to show that this theory of the universe spread to Israel, to the Greeks and to the Romans, and that it affords the only satisfactory explanation of the religion and of the history of the entire ancient world. An attempt has been made similar to previous abortive efforts to unlock all the doors of the ancient past with one key (see an interesting example cited in Rogers, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 224-25). Instead of gaining adherence in recent times, theory would appear to have lost, and even those who have given a tentative adherence to its claims, cautiously qualify the extent of their submission.

X. The Relations with the Religion of Israel:

No question concerning the religion of Babylonia and Assyria is of so great interest and importance to students of the Bible as the question of the relation between this religion and the faith of Yahweh, as professed by Israel. It seems now to be clearly demonstrated that the religion of Israel has borrowed various literary materials from its more ancient neighbor. The stories of creation and of the flood, both of them, as far as the literary contents are concerned, certainly rest upon Babylonian originals. This dependence has, however, been exaggerated by some scholars into an attempt to demonstrate that Israel took these materials bodily, whereas the close shifting and comparison to which they have been subjected in the past few years would seem to demonstrate beyond peradventure that Israel stamped whatever she borrowed with her own genius and wove an entirely new fabric. Israel used these ancient narratives as a vehicle for a higher and purer religious faith. The material was borrowed, the spirit belonged to Israel, and the spirit was Divine. Words and literary materials were secured from Babylonia, but the religious and spiritual came from Israel and from Israel's God. The word Sabbath is Babylonian indeed, but the great social and religious institution which it represents in Israel is not Babylonian but distinctively Hebrew. The Divine name Yahweh appears among other peoples, passes over into Babylonia and afterward is used by Israel, but the spiritual God who bears the name in Israel is no Babylonian or Kenite deity. The Babylonians, during all their history and in all their speculations, never conceived a god like unto Him. He belongs to the Hebrews alone.

The gods of Babylonia are connected, as we have seen, with primitive animism or they are merely local deities. The God of Israel, on the other hand, is a God revealed in history. He brought Israel out of Egypt. He is continually made known to His people through the prophets as a God revealed in history. His religion is not developed out of Babylonian polytheism which existed as polytheism in the earliest periods and endured as polytheism unto the end. The religion of Israel, on the other hand, though some of its material origins are humble, moved steadily onward and upward until the great monotheistic idea found universal acceptance in Israel. The religions of Philistia and Phoenicia, Moab, and of Edom, were subject to the same play of influences from Babylonia and Egypt, but no larger faith developed out of them. In Israel alone ethical monotheism arose, and ethical monotheism has no roots in Babylonia. The study of the religion of Babylonia is indeed of the highest importance for the understanding of Israel's faith, but it is of less importance than some modern scholars have attempted to demonstrate.

LITERATURE.

L. W. King. Babylonian Religion and Mythology, London. 1899; M. Jastrow. Jr., The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898 (completely revised by the author and translated into German under the title Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, Giessen, appearing in parts, and soon to be completed. This is the standard book on the subject); Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Especially in Its Relation to Israel, New York, 1908; Hermann Schneider. Kultur und Denken der Babylonier und Juden, Leipzig, 1910; R. P. Dhorme, La religion assyrio-babylonienne, Paris. 1910. Detailed literature on the separate phases of the religion will be found in these books.

Robert W. Rogers


BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY

See CAPTIVITY .


BABYLONIANS

bab-i-lo'-ni-anz: The inhabitants of BABYLONIA (which see). They were among the colonists planted in Samaria by the Assyrians (Ezr 4:9). "The likeness of the Babylonians in Chaldea" (Ezek 23:15) refers to the pictures which were common on the walls of Babylonian palaces, and the reports of them being heard in Jerusalem, or copies of them seen there, awakened the nation's desire for these unknown lovers, which Judah had ample occasion to repent of (Ezek 23:17,23; compare 2 Ki 24).


BABYLONISH GARMENT

bab-i-lo'-nish gar'ment: In the King James Version, Josh 7:21, for BABYLONISH MANTLE, which see.


BABYLONISH MANTLE

man'-tl (the King James Version Babylonish Garment): One of the articles taken by Achan from the spoil of Jericho (Josh 7:21). In the Hebrew "a mantle of Shinar." Entirely gratuitous is the suggested correction of Shinar to se`ar, making "a hairy mantle." The Greek has psilen poikilen, which Josephus apparently understood to mean "a royal garment all woven out of gold" (Ant., V, i, 10). The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) calls it a "scarlet pallium," and some of the rabbinical traditions make it a purple robe. Such classical writers as Pliny and Martial speak of the weaving of embroidered stuffs as a famous industry of Babylonia. Many tablets that have been deciphered indicate that the industry was indeed widely extended, that its costly products were of great variety and that some of them were exported to distant markets; in fine, that the account in Joshua is characterized by great verisimilitude.

Willis J. Beecher


BACA

ba'-ka bakha': In the King James Version in Ps 84:6, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "the valley of Weeping," with a marginal variant which is best put in the form, "the valley of the balsam-trees." The word is elsewhere used only in the duplicated account of one of David's battles (2 Sam 5:23,24; 1 Ch 14:14,15). There the translation is "the mulberry trees," with "the balsam-trees" in the margin in the Revised Version (British and American). Conjecturally the word is, by variant spelling, of the stem which denotes weeping; the tree is called "weeper" from some habit of the trickling of its gum or of the moisture on it; the valley of weeping is not a geographical locality, but a picturesque expression for the experiences of those whose strength is in Yahweh, and who through His grace find their sorrows changed into blessings.

Willis J. Beecher


BACCHIDES

bak-i-dez: Bakchides): Bacchides, ruler over Mesopotamia and a faithful friend of both Antiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius Soter, established at the request of the latter the rulership over Judea for Aleimus, who, desiring to become high priest, had made false accusations against Judas Maccabee (1 Macc 7:8 ff; Ant, XII, x, 2). Bacchides is sent the second time to Judea after the Syrian general Nicanor was killed near Adasa and Judas Maccabee had gained control of the government (1 Macc 9:1 ff; Ant, XII, x). Bacchides after an unsuccessful battle near Bethbasi was forced to make peace with Jonathan, the brother of Judas Maccabee (1 Macc 9:58 ff; Ant, XIII, i). In 1 Macc 10:12 and 2 Macc 8:30 reference is made to the strongholds Bacchides built during his second campaign against Jerusalem (1 Macc 9:50). Compare ALCIMUS ;BETHBASI ;JONATHAN ;JUDAS MACCABAEUS ;ADASA ;NICANOR .less importance than some modern scholars have attempted to demonstrate.

A.L. Breslich


BACCHURUS

ba-ka'-rus: Bakchouros: One of the "holy singers" who put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:24). Omitted in Ezr 10.


BACCHUS

bak'-us Dionusos; later Bakchos, the Feast of Bacchus; Dionusia: The god of wine. His worship had extended over the whole Greek and Roman world centuries before the Christian era, and had degenerated into an orgy of drunkenness and unnamable immoralities, possibly under the influence of oriental Baal worship, such as the Hebrew prophets condemned. It has been surmised that Dionysus was originally not a Greek, but an oriental deity. His worship had been introduced into Egypt, perhaps by the Ptolemies, and Ptolemy Philopator (222-204 BC) had branded the Jews there with his emblem, the sign of the ivy. When Antiochus Epiphanes made his assault upon Jerusalem in the year 168 BC, he determined to extirpate the worship of Yahweh, which he recognized as the strength of the Jewish resistance, and to replace it by Greek religion. All worship of Yahweh and the observance of Jewish rites, such as the Sabbath and circumcision, were prohibited. Heathen worship was set up all over Judea, and in the temple at Jerusalem on the altar of burnt offering an altar to Jupiter was erected, "the abomination that maketh desolate" (Dan 11:31), and a swine was sacrificed upon it (see ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION ). The immoral practices associated with heathen worship in those days established themselves in the temple. When this feast of Bacchus (Dionysus) with all its revelry came round, the Jews were compelled to go in procession in honor of Bacchus (Dionysus), wearing wreaths of ivy,the emblem of the god (2 Macc 6:7). Some years later, when the worship of Yahweh had been restored, Nicanor the general of Demetrius I, in conducting the war against Judas Maceabacus, threatened the priests that, unless they delivered Judas up as a prisoner, "he would raze the temple of God even with the ground, break down the altar, and erect there a temple unto Bacchus (Dionysus) for all to see" (2 Macc 14:33).

See DIONYSIA .

LITERATURE.

Cheyne, article "Bacchus," EB; Kent, History of the Jewish People, I, 328-29; Josephus, Ant, XII, v, 4.

T. Rees


BACENOR

ba-se'-nor Bakenor: An officer in the army of Judas Maccabee engaged in war against Gorgias, governor of Idumaea (2 Macc 12:35). Compare Ant, XlI, viii, 6.


BACHRITE

bak'-rit.

See BECHER .


BACK, BACK PARTS

(1) 'achar, "back side" as in the King James Version): "He led the flock to the back of the wilderness" (Ex 3:1), i.e. "to the pasture-lands on the other side of the desert from the Midianite encampments."

(2) 'achor, "hinder part," "the West"): Used of God in an anthropomorphic sense ("Thou shalt see my back," Ex 33:23) to signify "the after-glow of the Divine radiance," the faint reflection of God's essential glory. See also Isa 38:17 and compare 1 Ki 14:9 and Neh 9:26.

(3) opisthen, "back side"): "A book written within and on the back" (Rev 5:1), "but the back of a book is not the same as the reverse side of a roll. John was struck, not only with the fact that the roll was sealed, but also with the amount of writing it contained" (HDB, I, 231). Compare Ezek 2:10.

M.O. Evans


BACKBITE

bak'-bit raghal; doloo: To slander the absent, like a dog biting behind the back, where one cannot see; to go about as a talebearer. "He that backbiteth [Revised Version, slandereth] not with his tongue" (Ps 15:3).

Backbiters bak'-bit-~rz (Greek katalaloi: Men who speak against. Vulgate, "detractors" (Rom 1:30).

Backbiting bak'-bit-ing: cether: Adj. "a backbiting tongue"; literally, "a tongue of secrecy" (Prov 25:23). katalalia: substantive "a speaking against" (2 Cor 12:20; Wisdom 1:11); "evil speaking" (1 Pet 2:1). glossa trite: "a backbiting tongue" (the King James Version of Ecclesiasticus 28:14,15); more literally translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "a third person's tongue."

T. Rees


BACKSIDE

bak'sid':

See BACK .


BACKSLIDE

bak'-slid' meshubhah; Hos 11:7; 14:4 and often in Hos and Jer, shobhabh; shobhebh, in Jer, 4 times: all meaning "turning back or away," "apostate," "rebellious." carar, in Hos 4:16 = "stubborn," "rebellious"; the Revised Version (British and American) "stubborn"): In all places the word is used of Israel forsaking Yahweh, and with a reference to the covenant relation between Yahweh and the nation, conceived as a marriage tie which Israel had violated. Yahweh was Israel's husband, and by her idolatries with other gods she had proved unfaithful (Jer 3:8,14; 14:7; Hos 14:4). It may be questioned whether Israel was guilty so much of apostasy and defection, as of failure to grow with the growing revelation of God. The prophets saw that their contemporaries fell far short of their own ideal, but they did not realize how far their predecessors also had fallen short of the rising prophetic standard in ideal and action.

See APOSTASY .

Backslider bak'-slid-er cugh lebh: "The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways" (Prov 14:14). But the Revised Version (British and American) "backslider" conveys the wrong impression of an apostate. The Hebrew expression here implies simply non-adherence to the right, "The bad man reaps the fruits of his act" (Toy, Prov, in loc.).

T. Rees


BADGER

baj'er: tachash: The word tachash occurs in the descriptions of the tabernacle in Ex 25; 26; 35; 36 and 39, in the directions for moving the tabernacle as given in Nu 4, and in only one other passage, Ezek 16:10, where Jerusalem is spoken of as a maiden clothed and adorned by her Lord. In nearly all these passages the word tachash occurs with `or, "skin," rendered: the King James Version "badgers' skins," the Revised Version (British and American) "sealskin," the Revised Version, margin "porpoise-skin," Septuagint dermata huakinthina. In all the passages cited in Ex and Nu these skins are mentioned as being used for coverings of the tabernacle; in Ezek 16:10, for shoes or sandals. The Septuagint rendering would mean purple or blue skins, which however is not favored by Talmudic writers or by modern grammarians, who incline to believe that tachash is the name of an animal. The rendering, "badger," is favored by the Talmudic writers and by the possible etymological connection of the word with the Latin taxus and the German Dachs. The main objection seems to be that badgers' skins would probably not have been easily available to the Israelites. The badger, Meles taxus, while fairly abundant in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, does not seem to occur in Sinai or Egypt.

A seal, Monachus albiventer (Arabic fukmeh), the porpoise, Phocoena comrnunis, and the common dolphin, Delphinus delphis, are all found in the Mediterranean. The dugong, Halicore dugong, inhabits the Indian Ocean and adjoining waters from the Red Sea to Australia. The Arabic tukhas or dukhas is near to tachash and is applied to the dolphin, which is also called delfin. It may be used also for the porpoise or even the seal, and is said by Tristram and others to be applied to the dugong. The statement of Gesenius (Boston, 1850, under the word "tachash") that the Arabs of Sinai wear sandals of dugong skin is confirmed by recent travelers, and is of interest with reference to Ezek 16:10, ".... shod thee with badgers' skin" (King James Version). The dugong is a marine animal from 5 to 9 ft. in length, frequenting the shore and feeding upon seaweed. It belongs to the order Sirenia. While outwardly resembling Cetacea (whales and porpoises), the Sirenia are really more allied to the Ungulata, or hoofed animals. The dugong of the Indian Ocean and the manatee of the Atlantic and of certain rivers of Africa and South America, are the only living representatives of the Sirenia. A third species, the sea-cow of Behring Sea, became extinct in the 18th century. The seal and porpoise of the Revised Version (British and American), the dolphin, and the dugong are all of about the same size and all inhabit the seas bordering on Egypt and Sinai, so that all are possible candidates for identification with the tachash. Of the four, recent opinion seems most to favor the dugong.

Mr. S. M. Perlmann has suggested (Zoologist, set. 4, XII, 256, 1908) that the okapi is the animal indicated by tachash.

Gesenius (Leipzig, 1905) cites Bondi (Aegyptiaca, i. ff) who adduces the Egyptian root t-ch-s and makes the expression `or tachash mean "soft-dressed skin." This suits the context in every passage and is very promising explanation.

Alfred Ely-Day


BAEAN

be'-an huioi Baian; the King James Version Bean; 1 Macc 5:4: A tribe mentioned only because of its malignant hatred of the Jews. Its aggressive hostility against their religion and the rebuilding of their sanctuary duplicated the conspiracy of Sanballat and his confederates against the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple in the days of Nehemiah (compare Neh 4:7,8). Utterly exterminated by Judas Maccabeus who burned alive, in towers, many of the imprisoned people.

See MAON .


BAG

Bags of various kinds are mentioned in the English Bible, but often in a way to obscure rather than tr the original.

(1) "Bag" is used for a Hebrew word which means a shepherd's "bag," rendered "wallet" in the Revised Version (British and American). This "bag" of the shepherd or "haversack" of the traveler was of a size sufficient for one or more days' provisions. It was made of the skin of animals, ordinarily undressed, as most of the other "bags" of ancient times were, and was carried slung across the shoulder. This is the "scrip for the journey" pera mentioned in Mt 10:10 and its parallel (the King James Version). ("Scrip" is Old English, now obsolete.) A unique word appears in 1 Sam 17:40,49 which had to be explained even to Hebrew readers by the gloss, "the shepherd's bag," but which is likewise rendered "wallet" by the American Standard Revised Version.

(2) "Bag" translates also a word ballantion which stands for the more finished leather pouch, or satchel which served as a "purse" (see Christ's words, Lk 10:4 King James Version: "Carry neither purse, nor scrip," and 12:33 King James Version: "Provide yourselves bags which wax not old"). The word rendered "purse" in Mt 10:9: "Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses"; Mk 6:8: "No money in their purse," is a different word entirely zone, the true rendering of which is "girdle" (Revised Version, margin). The oriental "girdle," though sometimes of crude leather, or woven camel's hair (see GIRDLE ), was often of fine material and elegant workmanship, and was either made hollow so to carry money, or when of silk or cloth, worn in folds, when the money was carried in the folds.

(3) The small "merchant's bag" often knotted in a handkerchief for carrying the weights, such as is mentioned in Dt 25:13: "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small," was another variety. This too was used as "purse," as in the case of the proposed common purse of the wicked mentioned in Prov 1:14: "We will all have one purse," and sometimes carried in the girdle (compare Isa 46:6).

(4) Then there was the "bag" tseror, rendered "bundle" in Gen 42:35) which was the favorite receptacle for valuables, jewels, as well as money, used figuratively with fine effect in 1 Sam 25:29: "The soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life"--"life's jewel-case" (see 2 Ki 12:10 where the money of the temple was said to be put up "tied up" in bags). This was a "bag" that could be tied with a string: "Behold, every man's bundle of money was in his sack," and (compare Prov 7:20) "He hath taken a bag of money with him" (compare Hag 1:6: "earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes").

A seal was sometimes put on the knot, which occasions the figure of speech used in Job (14:16,17), "Dost thou not watch over my sin? My transgression is sealed up in a bag," i.e. it is securely kept and reckoned against me (compare also 1 Sam 9:7; 21:5 where the Hebrew keli, is rendered by "vessels" and stands for receptacles for carrying food, not necessarily bags).

(5) Another Hebrew word chariT; Arabic charitat, is used, on the one hand, for a "bag" large enough to hold a talent of silver (see 2 Ki 5:23, "bound two talents of silver in two bags"), and on the other, for a dainty lady's satchel, such as is found in Isa 3:22 (wrongly rendered "crisping pins" in the King James Version). This is the most adequate Hebrew word for a large bag.

(6) The "bag" which Judas carried (see Jn 12:6 the King James Version, "He was a thief and had the bag"; compare Jn 13:29) was in reality the small "box" (Revised Version, margin) originally used for holding the mouthpieces of wind instruments (Kennedy, in the 1-volume HDB). The Hebrew 'argaz, found only here) of 1 Sam 6:8, rendered "coffer" in English Versions of the Bible and translated glossokomon, by Josephus, appears to stand for a small "chest" used to hold the gold figures sent by the Philistines as a guilt offering. It is from a word that means "to wag," "to move to and fro"; compare the similar word in Arabic meaning a bag filled with stones hung at the side of the camel to "preserve" equilibrium (Gesenius). But the same word Josephus uses is found in modern Greek and means "purse" or "bag" (Hatch). Later to "carry the bag" came to mean to be treasurer.

George B. Eager


BAGGAGE

bag'aj:

(1) keli, "the impedimenta of an army"): "David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage" (1 Sam 17:22); "at Michmash he layeth up his baggage" (Isa 10:28). The American Standard Revised Version gives baggage for "stuff" at 1 Sam 10:22; 25:13; 30:24.

(2) aposkeue: "Beside the baggage" (Judith 7:2), "a great ado and much baggage" (1 Macc 9:35,39), "the women and the children and also the baggage" (the King James Version "and other baggage"; 2 Macc 12:21).

(3) aposkeuazomai, "to make ready for leaving," "to pack up baggage"): "We took up (made ready, Revised Version margin) our baggage" (Acts 21:15, the King James Version "carriages"), i.e. what they could carry--English: "luggage"; but others understand the term of the loading of the baggage animals.

M. O. Evans


BAGO

ba'-go (Codex Alexandrinus, Bago; Codex Alexandrinus, [@Banai = Bigvai [Ezr 8:14]): The descendants of Bago returned with Ezra to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 8:40).


BAGOAS

ba-go'as Bagoas: The eunuch in charge of the household of Holofernes whom the latter engaged to bring Judith to his palace (Judith 12:11 ff; 13:1,3; 14:14). Compare JUDITH .


BAGOI

bag'-o-i (Codex Alexandrinus, Bagoi; Codex Vaticanus, Bosai = Bigvai [Ezr 2:14; Neh 7:19]): The descendants of B. returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 5:14).


BAHARUMITE; �BARHUMITE

ba-ha'-rum-it; bar-hu'-mit (1 Ch 11:33; 2 Sam 23:31): A native of BAHURIM (which see).


BAHURIM

ba-hu'-rim bachurim; Baoureim usually, but there are variants): A place in the territory of Benjamin which lay on an old road from Jerusalem to Jericho followed by David in his flight from Absalom (2 Sam 15:32 through 16:5 ff). It ran over the Mount of Olives and down the slopes to the East. The Talmud identifies it with Ale, math, the modern Almit, about a mile beyond `Anata, going from Jerusalem. If this identification is correct, Wady Farah may be the brook of water (2 Sam 17:20). Here Paltiel was parted from his wife Miehal by Abner (2 Sam 3:16). It was the home of Shimei, who ran along a ridge of the hill cursing and throwing stones at the fugitive king (2 Sam 16:5; 1 Ki 2:8). In Bahurim Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the messengers of David, were concealed in a well by a loyal woman (2 Sam 17:18 ff). Azmaveth, one of David's heroes, was a native of Bahurim. In 2 Sam 23:31 we should read, as in 1 Ch 11:33, Barahumite.

W. Ewing


BAITERUS

ba-i'-ter-us Baiterous; the King James Version Meterus): The descendants of Baiterus returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (1 Esdras 5:17). Omitted in Ezr 2 and Neh 7.


BAJITH

ba'-jith.

See BAYITH .


BAKBAKKAR

bak-bak'-ar baqbaqqar, "investigator": A Levite (1 Ch 9:15).


BAKBUK

bak'-buk baqbuq, "bottle" perhaps onomatopoetical, referring to the clucking noise created by the pouring out of the contents of a bottle = Acub, 1 Esdras 5:31): The descendants of Bakbuk returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:51; Neh 7:53).


BAKBUKIAH

bak-bu-ki'-a baqbuqyah, "the Lord pours out"):

(1) A Levite who "dwelt in Jerusalem" after the return from Babylon (Neh 11:17).

(2) A Levite who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Neh 12:9).

(3) A Levite and porter keeping "the watch at the store-houses of the gates" (Neh 12:25).


BAKEMEATS

bak'-mets: Only in Gen 40:17 the King James Version and the English Revised Version. "All manner of baked food for Pharaoh" the American Standard Revised Version. Any kind of meat baked or cooked.

See BREAD ;FOOD .


BAKING

bak'-ing.

See BREAD .


BAKING PAN

See BREAD ;PAN .


BALAAM

ba'-lam bil`am, "devourer"): The son of Beor, from a city in Mesopotamia called Pethor, a man possessing the gift of prophecy, whose remarkable history may be found in Nu 22:2 through 24:25; compare Num 31:8,16; Dt 23:4; Josh 13:22; 24:9; Neh 13:2; Mic 6:5; 2 Pet 2:15; Jude 1:11; Rev 2:14.

1. History:

When the children of Israel pitched their tents in the plains of Moab, the Moabites entered into some sort of an alliance with the Midianites. At the instigation of Balak, at that time king of the Moabites, the elders of the two nations were sent to Balaam to induce him, by means of a bribe, to pronounce a curse on the advancing hosts of the Israelites. But, in compliance with God's command Balaam, refused to go with the elders. Quite different was the result of a second request enhanced by the higher rank of the messengers and by the more alluring promises on the part of Balak. Not only did God permit Balaam to go with the men, but he actually commanded him to do so, cautioning him, however, to act according to further instructions. While on his way to Balak, this injunction was strongly impressed on the mind of Balaam by the strange behavior of his ass and by his encounter with the Angel of the Lord.

Accompanied by Balak who had gone out to meet the prophet, Balaam came to Kiriath-huzoth. On the next morning he was brought up "into the high places of Baal" commanding a partial view of the camp of the Israelites. But instead of a curse he pronounced a blessing. From there he was taken to the top of Peor, yet this change of places and external views did not alter the tendency of Balaam's parables; in fact, his spirit even soared to greater heights and from his lips fell glowing words of praise and admiration, of benediction and glorious prophecy. This, of course, fully convinced Balak that all further endeavors to persuade the seer to comply with his wishes would be in vain, and the two parted.

Nothing else is said of Balaam, until we reach Nu 31. Here in 31:8 we are told of his violent death at the hands of the Israelites, and in 31:16 we learn of his shameful counsel which brought disgrace and disaster into the ranks of the chosen people.

2. Problems:

Now, there are a number of interesting problems connected with this remarkable story. We shall try to solve at least some of the more important ones.

(1) Was Balaam a prophet of Jeh? For an answer we must look to Nu 22 through 24. Nowhere is he called a prophet. He is introduced as the son of Beor and as a man reputed to be of great personal power (compare Nu 22:6b). The cause of this is to be found in the fact that he had intercourse of some kind with God (compare Nu 22:9,20; 22:22-35; 23:4; 23:16). Furthermore, it is interesting to note how Balaam was enabled to deliver his parables. First it is said: "And Yahweh put a word in Balaam's mouth" (Nu 23:5; compare 23:16), a procedure seemingly rather mechanical, while nothing of the kind is mentioned in Nu 24. Instead we meet with the remarkable sentence: "And when Balaam saw that it pleased Yahweh to bless Israel, he went not, as at the other times, to meet with enchantments .... "(Nu 24:1), and then: "the Spirit of God came upon him" (24:2b). All this is very noteworthy and highly instructive, especially if we compare with it 24:3 the Revised Version, margin and Nu 24:4: "The man whose eye is opened saith; he saith, who heareth the words of God, who seeth the vision of the Almighty," etc. The inference is plain enough: Balaam knew the Lord, the Yahweh of the Israelites, but his knowledge was dimmed and corrupted by heathen conceptions. He knew enough of God to obey Him, yet for a long time he hoped to win Him over to his own selfish plan (compare 23:4). Through liberal sacrifices he expected to influence God's actions. Bearing this in mind, we see the import of Nu 24:1. After fruitless efforts to cajole God into an attitude favorable to his hidden purpose, he for a time became a prophet of the Lord, yielding to the ennobling influences of His spirit. Here was a chance for his better nature to assert itself permanently and to triumph over the dark forces of paganism. Did he improve this opportunity? He did not (compare Nu 31:8,16).

(2) Is the Balaam of Nu 22 through 24 identical with the person of the same name mentioned in Nu 31? Quite a number of scholars deny it, or, to be more accurate, there are according to their theory two accounts of Balaam: the one in Nu 22 through 24 being favorable to his character, and the other in Nu 31 being quite the reverse. It is claimed the two accounts could only be made to agree by modifying or eliminating Nu 24:25. Now, we believe that Nu 31:16 actually does modify the report of Balaam's return contained in Nu 24:25. The children of Israel slew Balaam with the sword (Nu 31:8). Why? Because of his counsel of Num 31:16. We maintain that the author of Nu 24:25 had this fact in mind when he wrote Nu 25:1: "And .... the people began to play the harlot," etc. Thus, he closely connects the report of Balaam's return with the narrative contained in Nu 9:5. Therefore, we regard Nu 31:8,16 as supplementary to Nu 22 through 24. But here is another question:

(3) Is the narrative in Nu 22 through 24 the result of combining different traditions? In a general way, we may answer this question in the affirmative, and only in a general way we can distinguish between two main sources of tradition. But we maintain that they are not contradictory to each other, but supplementary.

(4) What about the talking of the ass and the marvelous prophecies of Balaam? We would suggest the following explanation. By influencing the soul of Balaam, God caused him to interpret correctly the inarticulate sounds of the animal. God's acting on the soul and through it on the intellect and on the hearts of men--this truth must be also applied to Balaam's wonderful prophetic words. They are called meshaliym or sayings of a prophet, a diviner.

In the first of these "parables" (Nu 23:7-10) he briefly states his reasons for pronouncing a blessing; in the second parable (Nu 23:18-24) he again emphasizes the fact that he cannot do otherwise than bless the Israelites, and then he proceeds to pronounce the blessing at some greater length. In the 3rd (Nu 24:3-9) he describes the glorious state of the people, its development and irresistible power. In the last four parables (Nu 24:15-24) he partly reveals the future of Israel and other nations: they are all to be destroyed, Israel's fate being included in the allusion to Eber. Now, at last, Balaam is back again in his own sphere denouncing others and predicting awful disasters. (On the "star out of Jacob," Nu 24:17, see ASTRONOMY , ii, 9; STAR OF THE MAGI.)

3. Balaam's Character:

This may furnish us a clue to his character. It, indeed, remains "instructively composite." A soothsayer who might have become a prophet of the Lord; a man who loved the wages of unrighteousness, and yet a man who in one supreme moment of his life surrendered himself to God's holy Spirit; a person cumbered with superstition, covetousness and even wickedness, and yet capable of performing the highest service in the kingdom of God: such is the character of Balaam, the remarkable Old Testament type and, in a sense, the prototype of Judas Iscariot.

4. Balaam as a Type:

In 2 Pet 2:15 Balaam's example is used as a means to illustrate the pernicious influence of insincere Christian teachers. The author might have alluded to Balaam in the passage immediately preceding 2 Pet 2:15 because of his abominable counsel. This is done in Rev 2:14. Here, of course, Balaam is the type of a teacher of the church who attempts to advance the cause of God by advocating an unholy alliance with the ungodly and worldly, and so conforming the life of the church to the spirit of the flesh.

LITERATURE.

Butler's Sermons, "Balaam"; ICC, "Numbers."

William Baur


BALAC

ba'-lak.

See BALAK .


BALADAN

bal'-a-dan bal'adhan, "He (i.e. Merodach) has given a son": Baladan is said in 2 Ki 20:12 and Isa 39:1 to have been the father of Berodach (Merodach)-Baladan, king of Babylon. Some have thought that the Biblical. writer was wrong here, inasmuch as it is said in the inscriptions of Sargon (Annals, 228, 315; Pt., 122), that Merodach-Baladan was the son of Yakin. It is evident, however, from the analogy of Jehu, who is called by the Assyrian kings the son of Omri, that Yakin is to be looked upon as the founder of the dynasty or kingdom, rather than as the father of Merodach-Baladan. The Bith Yakin, over which Merodach-Baladan is said to have been king, corresponds exactly to the phrase Bith Khumria, or House of Omri, over which Jehu is said to have ruled. There is no reason, then, for supposing that there is an error in either case. There is, however, good reason for believing that the Merodach-Baladan of the Book of Kings was the son of another king of the same name. That only the latter part of the father's name is here mentioned may be compared with the Shalman of Hos 10:14 for the more fully-written Shalmaneser of 2 Ki 17:3; and with the Jareb of Hos 5:13 and 10:6, probably for Sennacherib. Such abbreviation of proper names was usual among the Assyrians and Babylonians. See Tallquist, Namenbuch, xiv-xix.

R. Dick Wilson


BALAH

ba'la balah; Bola: A place, unidentified, in the territory of Simeon (Josh 19:3), called Bilhah in 1 Ch 4:29. It may be identical with Baalah in Judah (Josh 15:29).


BALAK

ba'-ak balaq, "devastator" or "one who lays waste"): Mentioned in connection with the story of Balaam/Balak (Nu 22 through 24; compare Josh 24:9; Jdg 11:25; Mic 6:5; Rev 2:14). He was the king of Moab who hired Balaam to pronounce a curse on the Israelites.

See BALAAM .


BALAMON

bal'-a-mon Balamon; the King James Version, Balamo): In the field between Balamon and Dothaim Manasses, the husband of Judith, was buried (Judith 8:3). Compare Baal-hamon (Song 8:11).


BALANCE

bal'-ans The English word "balance" is from the Latin bilanx = "having two scales" (bi = "two" and lanx = "plate," or "scale"). It is used to render three Hebrew words: (1) mo'znayim (Lev 19:36; Job 6:2; Ps 62:9; Prov 11:1; Isa 40:12,15; Jer 32:10, etc.); (2) qaneh (Isa 46:6), and (3) pelec (Prov 16:11). It is found in the sing., e.g. "a just balance" (Prov 16:11); "a pair of balances" (Rev 6:5, etc.), as well as in the plur., e.g. "just balances" (Lev 19:36), "weighed in the balances" (Dan 5:27, etc.).

1. Balances among the Ancient Hebrews; the Parts, etc.:

(1) The "balances" of the ancient Hebrews differed little, if at all, from those used by the Egyptians (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt (1878), II, 246 f). They consisted, probably, of a horizontal bar, either pivoted on a perpendicular rod (see Erman, Aegypten, I, 615 for similar Egyptian balances), or suspended from a cord and held in the hand, the more primitive form. At the ends of the bar were pans, or hooks, from which the things to be weighed were suspended, sometimes in bags.

A good description of the more developed and final form is this: A beam with its fulcrum in the middle and its arms precisely equal. From the ends of the arms were suspended two scales, the one to receive the object to be weighed, the other the counterpoise, or weight.

(2) The weights were of stone at first and are so named in Dt 25:13 King James Version, margin. A pair of scales (the King James Version "a pair of balances") is used in Rev 6:5 by a figure of speech for the balance as a whole; only once is the beam so used, in Isa 46:6, literally, "weigh silver in the beam." Abraham, we are told (Gen 23:16), "weighed the silver."

2. Probably of Babylonian Origin:

The basis and fountain-head of all systems of weights and measurements is to be traced, it is now thought, to Babylonia; but the primitive instruments and systems were subject to many modifications as they entered other regions and passed into the derivative systems. The Roman "balance" is the same as our steelyard (vulgarly called "stillyards"). Compare the Chinese, Danish, etc.

3. The System of Weighing Liable to Fraud:

Though the "balances" in ancient times were rudely constructed, the weighing could be done quite accurately, as may be seen in the use of equally primitive balances in the East today. But the system was liable to fraud. A "false balance" might be literally one so constructed that the arms were of unequal length, when the longer arm would be intended, of course, for the article to be weighed. The system was liable, however, to various other subtle abuses then as now; hence the importance in God's sight of "true weights" and a "just balance" is enforced again and again (see Lev 19:36; Prov 11:1; 16:11; 20:23; Am 8:5; Mic 6:11, etc.).

4. "Wicked Balances" Condemned:

"A false balance is an abomination to Yahweh" (Prov 11:1; compare 20:23), and "a just balance and scales are Yahweh's" (Prov 16:11). Hos (12:7) condemns "the balances of deceit" in the hand of the wicked; Am (8:5 the King James Version) cries out upon "falsifying the balances by deceit," and Mic (6:11) denounces "wicked balances." Indeed, the righteousness of a just balance and true weights, and the iniquity of false ones are everywhere emphasized by the lawmakers, prophets and moral teachers of Israel, and the preacher or teacher who would expose and denounce such things in God's name today need be at no loss for texts and precedents.

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES .

LITERATURE.

Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt; Erman, Egypt; Lepsius, Denkmaler; and articles on "Balance." etc., in Smith, DB, EB, Jewish Encyclopedia, HDB, etc.

George B. Eager


BALANCINGS

bal'-ans-ins: "The balancings of the clouds" (Job 37:16), the manner in which they are poised and supported in the air, alike with their mysterious spreadings and motions, challenge the strongest intellect to explain.


BALASAMUS

ba-las'-a-mus.

See BAALSAMUS .


BALD LOCUST

bold lo'kust.

See LOCUST .


BALDNESS

bald'-ness qorchah: The reference in the Bible to baldness is not to the natural loss of hair, but to baldness produced by shaving the head. This was practiced as a mark of mourning for the dead (Lev 21:5; Isa 15:2; 22:12); as the result of any disaster (Am 8:10; Mic 1:16). The custom arose from the fact that the hair was regarded as a special ornament. It was the custom of the people of the land, and the Israelites were strictly forbidden to practice it (Lev 21:5; Deut 14:1). These are striking passages with reference to the knowledge the Israelites had concerning the future life. This is saying to them what Paul said to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 4:13). To call one a "bald head" was an epithet of contempt, and was sometimes applied to persons who were not naturally bald. It was the epithet applied by certain infidel young men to Elisha

(2 Ki 2:23,24). In a figurative sense it is used to express the barrenness of the country (Jer 47:5).

See HAIR ;SHAVING .

Jacob W. Kapp


BALL

bol (dur): A rare Hebrew word used in this sense only in Isa 22:18, and correctly rendered in the American Standard Revised Version "He will surely wind thee round and round, and toss thee like a ball into a large country." De Or, Bottcher, Jastrow, following Talmud, regard the noun as kaddur, but perhaps incorrectly.

See also GAMES .


BALM

bam (tseri, tsori; Septuagint rhetine): The name of an odoriferous resin said to be brought from Gilead by Ishmaelite Arabs on their way to Egypt (Gen 37:25). It is translated "balm" in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), but is called "mastic," the Revised Version, margin. In Gen 43:11 it is one of the gifts sent by Jacob to Joseph, and in Ezek 27:17 it is named as one of the exports from Judea to Tyre. The prophet Jeremiah refers figuratively to its medicinal properties as an application to wounds and as a sedative (8:22; 46:11; 51:8). The name is derived from a root signifying "to leak," and is applied to it as being an exudation. There is a sticky, honeylike gum resin prepared at the present day at Jericho, extracted from the Balanites Aegyptiaca grown in the Ghor, and sold to travelers in small tin boxes as "Balm of Gilead," but it is improbable that this is the real tscori and it has no medicinal value. The material to which the classic authors applied the name is that known as Mecca balsam, which is still imported into Egypt from Arabia, as it was in early times. This is the exudation from the Balsamodendron opobalsamum, a native of southern Arabia and Abyssinia. The tree is small, ragged-looking and with a yellowish bark like that of a plane tree, and the exudation is said to be gathered from its smaller branches. At the present day it grows nowhere in Palestine. Dr. Post and other botanists have sought for it on the Ghor and in Gilead, and have not found it, and there is no trace of it in the neighborhood of Jericho, which Pliny says is its only habitat. Strabo describes it as growing by the Sea of Galilee, as well as at Jericho, but both these and other ancient writers give inconsistent and incorrect descriptions of the tree evidently at second hand. We learn from Theophrastus that many of the spices of the farther East reached the Mediterranean shore through Palestine, being brought by Arab caravans which would traverse the indefinitely bounded tract East of Jordan to which the name Gilead is given, and it was probably thus that the balm received its local name. Mecca balsam is an orange-yellow, treacly fluid, mildly irritating to the skin, possibly a weak local stimulant and antiseptic, but of very little remedial value.

Alex. Macalister


BALM OF GILEAD

The people of Jericho today prepare for the benefit of pilgrims a "Balm of Gilead" from the zaqqum (Balanites Aegyptiaca), but this has no serious claims to be the balm of antiquity. If we are to look beyond the borders of modern Palestine we may credit the tradition which claims that Mecca balsam, a product of Balsamodendron Gileadense and B. opobalsamum, was the true "balm," and Post (HDB, I, 236) produces evidence to show that these plants were once grown in the Jordan valley. Yet another suggestion, made by Lagarde, is that the tsori = sturax, and if so then "balm" would be the inspissated juice of the Storax-tree (Stytax officinalis), a common inhabitant of Gilead.

See also BALM .

E. W. G. Masterman


BALNUUS

bal-nu'-us (Codex Alexandrinus, Balnouos; Codex Vaticanus, Balnous = Binnui (Ezr 10:30)): Balnuus put away his "strange wife" (1 Esdras 9:31).


BALSAM

bol'-sam (basam, besem; hedusmata; thumiamata): Is usually "spices" but in the Revised Version, margin (Song 5:1,13; 6:2) is rendered as "balsam." It was an ingredient in the anointing oil of the priests (Ex 25:6; 35:28). The Queen of Sheba brought it as a present to Solomon (1 Ki 10:2) in large quantity (1 Ki 10:10) and of a finer quality (2 Ch 9:9) than that brought as a regular tribute by other visitors (1 Ki 10:25). In the later monarchy Hezekiah had a treasure of this perfume (2 Ch 32:27) which he displayed to his Babylonian visitors (Isa 39:2); and after the captivity the priests kept a store of it in the temple (1 Ch 9:30). According to Ezekiel the Syrians imported it from Sheba (27:22). There is a tradition preserved in Josephus (Ant., VIII, vi, 6) that the Queen of Sheba brought roots of the plant to Solomon, who grew them in a garden of spices at Jericho, probably derived from the references to such a garden in Song 5:1,13; 6:2. This may be the source of the statements of Strabo, Trogus and Pliny quoted above ( see BALM ). It was probably the same substance as the BALM described above, but from the reference in Ex 30:7; 35:8, it may have been used as a generic name for fragrant resins. The root from which the word is derived signifies "to be fragrant," and fragrant balsams or resins are known in modern Arabic as bahasan. The trees called in 2 Sam 5:23,24 (Revised Version, margin) "balsam-trees" were certainly not those which yielded this substance, for there are none in the Shepehlah but there are both mulberry trees and terebinths in the district between Rephaim and Gezer. When used as a perfume the name basam seems to have been adopted, but as a medicinal remedy it is called tsori.

Alex. Macalister


BALTASAR

bal-ta'-sar (Baltasar; the King James Version Balthasar):

(1) The Greek of Hebrew, belTesha'tstsar, or belTe'shatstsar, perhaps corresponding to BalaT-sar-ucur, "protect the life of the king," the Babylonian cognomen of Daniel. Compare Belteshazzar (Dan 1:7; 2:26; 4:8 ff, et al.).

(2) Baltasar is also the Greek of the Hebrew belsha'tstsar, or bel'shatstsar, the name of the last king of Babylon (corresponding to the Babylonian Bel-sar-ucur; Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, III, 396; Syriac Blitshazzar; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Baltassar). Compare Baruch 1 11 and Belshazzar (Dan 5:1 ff; 7:1; 8:1).

(3) The name of one of the Magi who according to the legend visited Jesus at Bethlehem: Melchior from Nubia, Balthasar from Godolia, Caspar from Tharsis.

A. L. Breslich


BAMAH

ba'-ma, ba'-ma (bamah, "high place"): The word appears in Ezek 20:29 where reference is made to former "high-place worship," the prophet speaking with contempt of such manner of worship. Ewald suggests a play of words, ba', "come" and mah, "what," "what (mah) is the high place (ba-mah) whereunto ye come (ba')?" It is possible that reference is made to a prominent high place like the one at Gibeon (compare 1 Ki 3:4; 1 Ch 16:39; 21:29; 2 Ch 13) for which the name "Bamah" was retained after the reform mentioned by the prophet.


BAMOTH; BAMOTH-BAAL

ba'-moth, ba'-moth-ba'-al (bamoth-ba'al, "high places of Baal"): Bamoth is referred to in Nu 21:19,20, as a station in the journeyings of Israel North of the Arnon. It is probably the same place as the Bamoth-baal of Nu 22:41 (Revised Version margin), whither Balak, king of Moab, conducted Balaam to view and to curse Israel. Bamoth-baal is named in Josh 13:17 as one of the cities given to Reuben. Mesha, on the Moabite Stone, speaks of having "rebuilt" Beth-bamoth.


BAN

(A, Ban; B, Bainan; 1 Esdras 5:37 = Tobiah (Ezr 2:60; Neh 7:62); some manuscripts of the Septuagint read Boua): The descendants of Ban were not able to trace their ancestry to show "how they were of Israel."


BANAIAS

ban-a-i'-as (Banaias; 1 Esdras 9:35 = Benaiah (Ezr 10:43)): Banaias put away his "strange wife."


BAND

The English word has two generic meanings, each shading off into several specific meanings: (1) that which holds together, binds or encircles: a bond; (2) a company of men. The second sense may philologically and logically have been derived from the first, men being held together by social ties. Both meanings appear in Old Testament and New Testament representing various Hebrew and Greek words.

(1) A band (a) ('ecur): a flaxen rope (Jdg 15:14); a band of iron and brass (Dan 4:15,23); metaphorically used of a false woman's hands (Eccl 7:26). (b) (chebhel): "The bands of the wicked have robbed me" (the King James Version of Ps 119:61), where "bands" = "troops" by mistr; the Revised Version (British and American) "The cords of the wicked have wrapped me round"; plural chobhlim = "bands" = the name of the prophet's symbolic staff representing the brotherhood between Judah and Israel (Zec 11:7,14). (c) (`abhoth): "I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love" (Hos 11:4; compare Ezek 3:25; 4:8; Job 39:10). (d) (saphah): the edge of the round opening in the robe of the ephod with a band (the Revised Version (British and American) "binding") round about the hole of it (only in Ex 39:23). (e) (chartsubboth): bands (the Revised Version (British and American) "bonds") of wickedness (Isa 58:6); bands (= pains) in death (Ps 73:4); the Revised Version, margin ("pangs," Cheyne, "torments"). (f) (moTah): the cross bar of oxen's yoke, holding them together (Lev 26:13; Ezek 34:27 the King James Version; the Revised Version (British and American) "bars"). (g) (mocer): a fetter: "Who hath loosed the bonds of the swift ass?" (Job 39:5; Ps 2:3; 107:14; Isa 28:22; 52:2; Jer 2:20; all in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). The same Hebrew word (in Ps 116:16; Jer 5:5; 27:2; 30:8; Nah 1:13) is translated "bonds " in the King James Version, and in the English Revised Version of Ps 116:16, and Nah 1:13, but "bands" in the English Revised Version of Jer 5:5; 27:2; 30:8; the American Standard Revised Version has "bonds" throughout. See BOND . (h) (moshekhoth): "Canst thou .... loose the bands of Orion?" (only in Job 38:31). (i) (desmos, sundesmos): a fetter: that which binds together: of the chains of a lunatic or prisoner (Lk 8:29; Acts 16:26; 22:30 the King James Version), metaphorically of the mystic union of Christ and the church (Col 2:19). These words are often translated by "bond" in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American). (j) (zeukteria): the rudder's bands (only in Acts 27:40).

(2) A company of men (a) (gedhudh): a band of soldiers (2 Sam 4:2; 1 Ki 11:24, the King James Version; 2 Ki 6:23; 13:20,21; 24:2; 1 Ch 7:4; 12:18,21; 2 Ch 22:1). So the Revised Version (British and American) (except in 1 Ki 11:24, "troop"). (b) (ro'sh): "head" = "division": "The Chaldeans made three bands" (Job 1:17); 1 Ch 12:23 the Revised Version (British and American) translates "heads." (c) (chayil): "a band of men" the Revised Version (British and American) the "host" (only in 1 Sam 10:26). ( d) ('aghappim): "the wings of an army," only in Ezekiel, armies of the King of Judah (12:14; 17:21); of Gomer and of Togarmah (38:6); of Gog (the Revised Version (British and American) "hordes") (38:9,22; 39:4). (e) (machaneh): "camp": only in Gen 32:7,10; the Revised Version (British and American) "companies." (f) (chotsets): of locusts dividing into companies or swarms (Prov 30:27). (g) (speira): usually a "cohort" (see the Revised Version, margin) of Roman soldiers; the tenth part of a legion, about 600 men: (Mt 27:27; Mk 15:16; Acts 10:1; 21:31; 27:1). A smaller detachment of soldiers (Jn 18:3,12; compare 2 Macc 8:23; Judith 1:4:11). (h) (poiein sustrophen): "to make a conspiracy": "The Jews banded together" (Acts 23:12).

T. Rees

(3) The Augustan Band (speira Sebaste) to which Julius, the Roman centurion who had charge of Paul as a prisoner on his voyage to Rome, belonged, was a cohort apparently stationed at Caesarea at the time (Acts 27:1). Schurer (GJV, I3, 461 f) is of opinion that it was one of five cohorts mentioned by Josephus, recruited in Samaria and called Sebastenes from the Greek name of the city of Samaria (Sebaste). This particular cohort had in all likelihood for its full name Cohors Augusta Sebastenorum, Augusta being an honorific title of which examples are found in the case of auxiliary troops. Sir William Ramsay, following Mommsen (Paul the Traveler, 315, 348), thinks it denotes a body of legionary centurions, selected from legions serving abroad, who were employed by the emperor on confidential business between the provinces and Rome, the title Augustan being conferred upon them as a mark of favor and distinction. The grounds on which the views of Mommsen and Ramsay rest are questioned by Professor Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, I, 551 ff), and more evidence is needed to establish them.

See ARMY (ROMAN ).

(4) The Italian Band (speira Italike) was a cohort composed of volunteer Roman citizens born in Italy and stationed at Caesarea at this time (Acts 10:1). Schurer maintains that there could have been no Roman cohort there at this time, although he accepts the testimony of inscriptions to the presence of an Italian cohort at a later time. He accordingly rejects the story of Cornelius, holding that the author of the Acts has given in this narrative conditions belonging to a later time (GJV, I3, 462 f). In reply to Schurer, Blass asks why one of the five cohorts mentioned by Josephus may not have been composed of Roman citizens living at Caesarea or Sebaste, and bearing this name (Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 124). From a recently discovered inscription, Sir W. M. Ramsay has ascertained that there was an Italian cohort stationed in Syria in 69 AD, which heightens the probability of one actually being found in Caesarea at 41-44 AD, and he shows that even if his cohort was at the time on duty elsewhere a centurion like Cornelius might well have been at Caesarea at the time mentioned (Expositor, 5th series, IV, V, with Schurer's rejoinder). The subject of detached service in the provinces of the Roman Empire is admittedly obscure, but nothing emerges in this discussion to cast doubt upon the historical character of Luke's narrative.

See ARMY (ROMAN ).

T. Nicol.


BANDS OF RUDDER

See RUDDER .


BANDS, BEAUTY AND

See BEAUTY AND BANDS .


BANI

ba'-ni (bani, "posterity"):

(1) A Gadite, one of David's mighty men (2 Sam 23:36).

(2) A Levite whose son was appointed for service in the tabernacle at David's time (1 Ch 6:46).

(3) A Judahite whose son lived in Jerusalem after the captivity (1 Ch 9:4).

(4) The descendants of Bani (called Binnui, Neh 7:15) returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:10) and had taken "strange wives" (Ezr 10:29).

(5) Bani who had taken a "strange wife" (Ezr 10:38) mentioned with his brothers, the sons of Bani who also had taken "strange wives" (Ezr 10:34).

(6) Son of Bani, a Levite and builder (Neh 3:17).

(7) Bani, who instructed the people at Ezra's time (Neh 8:7).

(8) Three Levites mentioned in connection with the temple worship at Ezra's time (Neh 9:4,5).

(9) A Levite who sealed the covenant with Neh (Neh 10:13).

(10) A leader of the people who also signed the covenant (Neh 10:14).

(11) One whose son Uzzi was overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem (Neh 11:22).

See BINNUI .

A. L. Breslich


BANIAS (1)

ba-ni'-as (B, Banias; A, Bani; the King James Version Banid (1 Esdras 8:36)): An ancestor of Salimoth. The descendants of Banias returned with Ezra to Jerusalem. The name is omitted (Ezr 8:10), perhaps due to the oversight of a copyist or a mistaken reading of bene, "sons of," for bani.


BANIAS (2)

See CAESAREA ,PHILIPPI .


BANID

ba'-nid (1 Esdras 8:36): In the Revised Version (British and American) BANIAS, which see.


BANISHMENT

ban'-ish-ment.

See PUNISHMENTS .


BANK

bank:

(1) (saphah, "lip," "edge"): "By the bank of the Jordan" (2 Ki 2:13); "Upon the bank of the river were very many trees" (Ezek 47:7,12).

(2) (gadhah, "cuttings"): Always of banks overflowed (Josh 3:15; 4:18; Isa 8:7), as also

(3) (gidhyah, 1 Ch 12:15).

(4) (solelah, "mound," "rampart"): "Cast up a bank against the city" (2 Sam 20:15, the English Revised Version "mount," the American Standard Revised Version "mound"; compare 2 Ki 19:32; Isa 37:33). "Banks of sweet herbs" (Song 5:13); "the marginal rendering is the right one, `towers of perfumes,' i.e. plants with fragrant leaves and flowers trained on trellis-work" (Speaker's Commentary in the place cited.).

(5) ((charax, "a stake," "entrenchment"): "Thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee" (Lk 19:43 the King James Version "trench"). It is probably a military term and stands for a "palisade" (so the Revised Version, margin), i.e. probably an embankment of stakes strengthened with branches and earth, with a ditch behind it, used by the besiegers as a protection against arrows or attacking parties (Latin vallum), such, no doubt, as was employed by Titus in the siege of Jerusalem, 70 AD (Josephus, BJ, V, vi, 2).

(6) BANK, BANKING (which see).

M. O. Evans


BANK; BANKING

1. Introductory:

"Banking" in the full modern sense, of taking money on deposit and lending it out on interest, is of comparatively recent origin. A few "banks of deposit" were founded in Italy in the Middle Ages, but the earliest "banks of issue," of the modern sort, were those of Amsterdam (1609) and Hamburg (1619), beginning in the 17th century. The law of Moses forbade Israelites to charge each other interest (Ex 22:25; Lev 25:35,37; Dt 23:19), but let them lend on interest to Gentiles (Dt 23:20), though this law was often evaded or disregarded (Neh 5:10,12). Banks and banking, however, are found in operation in the Greek cities; "moneychangers ," sitting at their tables (trapezai) in the market place, both changed coins and took money on deposit, giving high interest; and banking of a sort, in its incipient stages, existed among the ancient Hebrews. But the Phoenicians are now thought to have been the inventors of the money-changing, money-lending system which is found in more or less modified and developed forms among ancient peoples and in full development and operation in the palmy days of the Roman Empire. In the Greek-Roman period, without doubt, bankers both received money on deposit, paying interest, and let it out at a higher rate, or employed it in trade, as the publicani at Rome did, in farming the revenues of a province (Plumptre).

2. Banking among the Ancient Hebrews:

(1) The Hebrew money-changer, like his modern Syrian counterpart, the saraf (see PEFS , 1904, 49 ff, where the complexity of exchange in Palestine today is graphically described), changed the large coins current into those of smaller denominations, e.g. giving denarii for tetradrachms, or silver for gold, or copper for silver.

(2) But no mean part of his business was the exchanging of foreign money, and even the money of the country of a non-Phoenician standard, for shekels and half-shekels on this standard, the latter being accepted only in payment of the temple dues (see MONEY ). The "money-changers" of Mt 21:12, as the Greek signifies, were men who made small change. Such men may be seen in Jerusalem now with various coins pried in slender pillars on a table (compare epi trapezan, Lk 19:23), ready to be used in changing money for a premium into such forms, or denominations, as would be more current or more convenient for immediate use.

(3) "Usury" in English Versions of the Bible is simply Old English for what we today call "interest," i.e. the sum paid for the use of money, Latin usura; and "interest" should take the place of it in all passages in the Old Testament and New Testament, where it has such significance.

3. Banking in New Testament Times:

The Greek word rendered (tokos), "usury" in the New Testament (see Lk 19:23 f) means literally, "what is born of money," "what money brings forth or produces." "Usury" has come to mean "exorbitant interest," but did not mean this at the time of the King James Version, 1611.

(1) In Christ's time, and immediately following, there was great need for money-changers and money-changing, especially on the part of foreign Jews whom custom forbade to put any but Jewish coins into the temple treasury (see Mk 12:41). It was mainly for the convenience of these Jews of the Dispersion, and because it was in order to a sacred use, that the people thought it proper to allow the money-changers to set up their tables in the outer court of the temple (see Mt 21:12 ff).

(2) The language of Mt 25:27, `Thou oughtest to have put my money to the bankers,' etc., would seem to indicate the recognition by Christ of the custom and propriety of lending out money on interest (compare 19:23). The "exchangers" here are "bankers" (compare Mt 25:27). The Greek (trapezitai) is from a word for "bank" or "bench" (trapeza), i.e. the "table" or "counter" on which the money used to be received and paid out. These "bankers" were clearly of a higher class than the "small-change men" of Mt 21:12, etc. (compare "changers of money," Jn 2:14, and "changers," Jn 2:15, English Versions). Christ upbraids the "slothful servant" because he had not given his pound to "the bank" (or "banker," epi trapezan, literally, "on a banker's table"), who, it is implied, would have kept it safe and paid interest for it (Lk 19:23 f). It is noteworthy that the "tenminae" of Lk 19:24 are those acquired by "the good servant" from the "one" which was first lent him. So these wealthier bankers even then in a way received money on deposit for investment and paid interest on it, after the fashion of the Greeks.

4. Interpretations, Figurative Uses, etc.:

(1) In Christ's parable (Lk 19:23 ff) "the bank" (literally, "a bank," "table") is taken by some to mean "the synagogue," by others to mean "the church" (Lange, LJ, II, 1, 414); i.e. it is thought that Christ meant to teach that the organized body, "synagogue" or "church," might use the gifts or powers of an adherent or disciple, when he himself could not exercise them (compare DCG , article "Bank").

(2) Then some have thought that Christ was here pointing to prayer as a substitute for good works, when the disciple was unable to do such. Such views seem far-fetched and unnecessary (compare Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 209 f).

(3) The "money-changers," then as now, had ever to be on guard against false money, which gives point to the oft-quoted extra-scriptural saying (agraphon) of Jesus to His disciples: "Be ye expert money-changers" (Greek ginesthai trapezitai dokimoi; see Origen, in Joam,XIX ), which was taken (Clem., Hom.,. III, 61) to mean, "Be skillful in distinguishing true doctrine from false" (HDB, 1-vol).

George B. Eager


BANNAIA

ba-na'-ya.

See SABANNEUS .


BANNAS

ban'-as (Bannos; the King James Version, Banuas): A name occurring in the list of those who returned from the captivity with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:26). Bannas and Sudias are represented by Hoodaviah in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.


BANNEAS

ban-e'-as (Bannaias; the King James Version Baanias (1 Esdras 9:26) = Benaiah (Ezr 10:25)): Banneas put away his "strange wife."


BANNER

ban'-er (ENSIGN, STANDARDS): The English word "banner" is from banderia, Low Latin, meaning a banner (compare bandum, Latin, which meant first a "band," an organized military troop, and then a "flag"). It has come to mean a flag, or standard, carried at the head of a military band or body, to indicate the line of march, or the rallying point, and it is now applied, in its more extended significance, to royal, national, or ecclesiastical "banners" also. We find it applied sometimes to a streamer on the end of a lance, such as is used by the Arab sheik today. "Banner" occurs in the following significant Old Testament passages: (1) in the singular, "Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain" (Isa 13:2 the King James Version); "a banner to them that fear thee" (Ps 60:4); and (2) in the plur., "In the name of our God we will set up our banner" (Ps 20:5); "terrible as an army with banner" (Song 6:4).

1. Military Ensigns among the Hebrews:

The Hebrews, it would seem, like the Assyrians, the Egyptians, and other ancient nations, had military ensigns. As bearing upon this question, a very significant passage is that found in Nu 2:2: "The children of Israel shall encamp every man by his own standard, with the ensigns of their fathers' houses." "Standard-bearer" in Isa 10:18 the King James Version, "They shall be as when a standard-bearer fainteth," is not a case in point, but is to be rendered as in the Revised Version, margin, "as when a si ck man pineth away."

In this noted passage a distinction seems intentionally made (another view is held by some) between "the ensigns of their fathers' houses" (literally, "signs"; compare Ps 74:4, where the reference is thought by some today to be to the standards of Antiochus' army), and "the standards" of the four great divisions of the Hebrew tribes in the wilderness (compare the "banner" of Song 2:4 and 6:4,10).

2. A Distinction with a Difference:

The relation of these to the "standard" of Nu 21:8 f (Hebrew nec, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "standard") is by no means clear. The word nec, here translated "standard," seems to have meant at first a pole set up on an eminence as a signal for mustering troops (compare "mast" Isa 30:17 the English Revised Version, margin). But it occurs frequently in the prophets both in this literal and original sense, and in the figurative or derived sense of a rallying point for God's people (see Isa 5:26; 11:10; Jer 4:21 and elsewhere). Here the rendering in English Versions of the Bible alternates between "ensign" and "banner" (see HDB , 1-vol, article "Banner").

George B. Eager


BANNUS

ban'-us (Bannous (1 Esdras 9:34) = Bani or Binnui (Ezr 10:29,30)): The sons of Bannus put away their "strange wives."


BANQUET

ban'-kwet.

1. The Ancient Hebrew Customs:

(1) "Banquet" and "banqueting" in the King James Version always include and stand for wine-drinking, not simply "feast" or "feasting" in our sense. Thus (Song 2:4), "He brought me to the banqueting-house" is literally, "the house of wine," and Est 7:2 has in the Hebrew "a banquet of wine." In the New Testament we see a reflection of the same fact in 1 Pet 4:3 the King James Version, "We walked in .... excess of wine, banquetings" (Greek "drinkings"; the Revised Version (British and American) "carousings"). Compare Amos 6:7 the King James Version, "The banquet of them that stretched themselves," where the reference seems to be to reclining at wine-drinkings.

See MEALS .

The Hebrew of Job 1:4, "make a banquet," may refer to a social feast of a less objectionable sort (compare 41:6 the King James Version), though the Hebrew for "to drink" yayin "wine," was used as synonymous with "banquet."

See SYMPOSIUM .

Music, dancing and merriment usually attended all such festivities. Certainly the ancient Hebrews, like other peoples of the ancient East, were very fond of social feasting, and in Christ's day had acquired, from contact with Greeks and Romans, luxurious and bibulous habits, that often carried them to excess in their social feasts.

2. In Christ's Teaching and Practice:

Among the Greeks the word for "feast" (doche) is from dechomai "to receive" (compare our English usage, "to receive" and "reception"). This word doche is used with poiein "to make," to signify "to make" or "give a feast." Compare Lk 5:29 where Levi "made a feast."

(1) In view of existing customs and abuses, Christ taught His followers when they gave a banquet to invite the poor, etc. (Lk 14:13), rather than, as the fashion of the day called for, to bid the rich and influential. Much in the New Testament that has to do with banquets and banquetings will be obscure to us of the West if we do not keep in mind the many marked differences of custom between the East and the West.

(2) "Banquets" were usually given in the house of the host to specially invited guests (Lk 14:15; Jn 2:2), but much more freedom was accorded to the uninvited than we of the West are accustomed to, as one finds to be true everywhere in the East today. The custom of reclining at meals (see MEALS ;TRICLINIUM , etc.) was everywhere in vogue among the well-to-do in Christ's day, even in the case of the ordinary meals, the guest leaning upon the left arm and eating with the aid of the right (compare Mt 26:20 m "reclining," and 1 Cor 11:20, "the Lord's supper").

(3) "Banquets" were considered normal parts of weddings as they are now throughout the East. Jesus and His disciples were bidden to one at Cana in Galilee, and accepted the invitation (Jn 2:2 ff), and wine-drinking was a part of the feast. The "banquet" Levi gave was in Christ's honor (Lk 5:29). There were numbers present and marked gradations in the places at table (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 14:7; 20:46). Guests were invited in advance, and then, as time-pieces were scarce, specially notified when the feast was ready, which helps to explain Christ's words (Mt 22:4), "All things are ready: come to the marriage" (compare Lk 14:17; Est 5:8; 6:14).

(4) Matthew tells us (23:6) that the Pharisees "love the chief place ("uppermost rooms" the King James Version) at feasts."

In Mt 22:3,4 "made a marriage feast," is rendered by some simply "a feast," because Greek gamos, "marriage," was used by Septuagint to translate the Hebrew for feast" in Est 1:5. But, as this is the only known example of such a use compare gamos, it is better to take it here in the literal sense of "marriage feast," as would seem to be required by the words "for his son" (Messiah). The Greek is plural (gamous) to indicate the several parts or stages of the feast (Button, 23; compare English "nuptials").

The "ruler of the feast" (architriklinos, Jn 2:8,9), was usually one of the guests, and his business was to see that wine was provided, superintend the drinking, etc. (compare Lk 22:27).

3. A Distinction Giving Rise to a Question:

(1) In Mt 22:4, "I have made ready my dinner," "dinner" in Greek is ariston (compare Lk 11:38). "Supper" (Greek deipnon) is found in Mt 23:6 and often in the New Testament. Both words are found in Lk 14:12. The question arises, What was the distinction? Thus much may be said in answer: The ariston (English Versions "dinner") was a meal usually taken about the middle of the forenoon, with variations of earlier or later; the deipnon (English Versions "supper"), the one taken at the close of the day, often after dark. In Ant, V, iv, 2 Josephus supposes Eglon's guards (Jdg 3:24) were negligent about noon, "both because of the heat and because their attention was turned to dinner" (ariston). So the "dinner" (ariston) was sometimes as late as noon. Yet Jn (21:12,15) shows, on the other hand, that the ariston was on some occasions taken shortly after dawn.

(2) Another question raised is this, Were the ancient Jews accustomed to have two or three meals a day? Vambery, quoted by Morison, gives a saying of the Turks that is in point: "There are only two meals a day, the smaller at 10 or 11 o'clock in the morning, the second and larger after sunset." There seems no evidence to sustain the view, maintained by Grimm and entertained by others, that the Jews of Christ's day were accustomed to take a separate and slight meal on rising, as the later Greeks and some of the later Romans did. There is certainly no clear evidence that the Jews of that day had more than two meals a day (see DB , article "Meals").

(3) The marriage feast of Mt 22:3 f was an ariston, somewhat like an English "wedding-breakfast"; but that in Lk 14:16 f was a deipnon, which was as usual delayed till after dark (14:17). Perhaps the ariston in this case was preliminary, while the marriage with its accompanying deipnon was after dark; such things are not unheard of today (compare Mt 26:20 and 1 Cor 11:20, "the Lord's deipnon").

George B. Eager


BANUAS

ban'-u-as (1 Esdras 5:26): A misprint for BANNAS (Revised Version), which see.


BAPTISM (LUTHERAN DOCTRINE)

|| I. THE TERM

1. The Derivation

2. The Meaning

3. The Application

4. Equivalent Terms

II. THE ORDINANCE

1. The Teaching of Scripture

(1) An Authoritative Command

(2) A Clear Declaration of the Object in View

(3) A Definite Promise

(4) A Plain Indication of the Scope

(5) A Prescribed Formula for Administering the Ordinance

2. The Biblical History of the Ordinance

3. Types of Baptism

III. DIFFICULTIES

1. Are Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 Genuine?

2. Was the Trinitarian Formula Used in New Testament Times?

3. Was Christian Baptism Really a New Ordinance?

4. Should Infants Be Baptized?

5. Why Did Paul not Baptize?

6. What Is the Baptism for the Dead?

I. The Term.

1. The Derivation:

The word "baptism" is the Anglicized form of the Greek baptisma, or baptismos. These Greek words are verbal nouns derived from baptizo, which, again, is the intensive form of the verb bapto. "Baptismos denotes the action of baptizein (the baptizing), baptisma the result of the action (the baptism)" (Cremer). This distinction differs from, but is not necessarily contrary to, that of Plummer, who infers from Mk 7:4 and Heb 9:10 that baptismos usually means lustrations or ceremonial washings, and from Rom 6:4; Eph 4:1 Pet 3:21 that baptisma denotes baptism proper (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)).

2. The Meaning:

The Greek words from which our English "baptism" has been formed are used by Greek writers, in classical antiquity, in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, with a great latitude of meaning. It is not possible to exhaust their meaning by any single English term. The action which the Greek words express may be performed by plunging, drenching, staining, dipping, sprinkling. The nouns baptisma and baptismos do not occur in the Septuagint; the verb baptizo occurs only in four places, and in two of them in a figurative sense (2 Ki 5:14; Judith 12:7; Isa 21:4; Ecclesiasticus @@31 (34):25). Wherever these words occur in the New Testament, the context or, in the case of quotations, a comparison with the Old Testament will in many instances suggest which of the various renderings noted above should be adopted (compare Mk 7:4; Heb 9:10 with Nu 19:18,19; 8:7; Ex 24:4-6; Acts 2:16,17,41 with Joel 2:28). But there are passages in which the particular form of the act of baptizing remains in doubt. "The assertion that the command to baptize is a command to immerse is utterly unauthorized" (Hodge).

3. The Application:

In the majority of Biblical instances the verbs and nouns denoting baptism are used in a lit sense, and signify the application of water to an object or a person for a certain purpose. The ceremonial washings of the Jews, the baptism of proselytes to the Jewish faith, common in the days of Christ, the baptism of John and of the disciples of Christ prior to the Day of Pentecost, and the Christian sacrament of baptism, are literal baptisms (baptismus fluminis, "baptism of the river," i.e. water). But Scripture speaks also of figurative baptisms, without water (Mt 20:22; Mk 10:38; Lk 12:50 = the sufferings which overwhelmed Christ and His followers, especially the martyrs--baptismus sanguinis, "baptism of blood"; Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16 = the outpouring of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which was a characteristic phenomenon of primitive Christianity--baptismus flaminis, "baptism of wind, breeze," i.e. "spirit"). Some even take Mt 21:25; Mk 11:30; Acts 18:25; 1 Cor 10:2 in a synecdochical sense, for doctrine of faith, baptism being a prominent feature of that doctrine (baptismus luminis, "baptism of light").

4. Equivalent Terms:

Scripture occasionally alludes to Christian baptism without employing the regular term. Thus in Tit 3:5, and Eph 5:26 we have the term loutron, "washing," instead lent terms of baptisma. From this term the Latin church derived its lavacrum (English "layer") as a designation of baptism. In Heb 10:22 we have the verbs rhantizo and louo, "sprinkle" and "wash"; in Eph 5:26 the verb katharizo, "cleanse"; in 1 Cor 6:11 the verb apolouo, "wash" are evidently synonyms of baptizo, and the act has been so denominated from its prime effect.

II. The Ordinance.

1. The Teaching of Scripture:

Christian baptism, as now practiced, is a sacred ordinance of evangelical grace, solemnly appointed by the risen Christ, prior to His entering into the state of glory by His ascension, and designed to be a means, until His second coming, for admitting men to discipleship with Him. Mt 28:18-20 and its parallel Mk 16:15,16 are the principal texts of Scripture on which the church in all ages has based every essential point of her teaching regarding this ordinance. The host of other baptismal texts of Scripture expand and illustrate the contents of these two texts. We have in these texts:

(1) An Authoritative Command

An authoritative (Mt 28:19) command, issued in plain terms: "Make disciples .... baptizing." This command declares (a) speciem actus, i.e. it indicates with sufficient clearness, by the use of the term "baptize," the external element to be employed, namely, water, and the form of the action to be performed by means of water, namely, any dipping, or pouring, or sprinkling, since the word "baptize" signifies any of these modes. On the strength of this command Luther held: "Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command"; and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Ques. 94) calls baptism "a washing with water." Water is distinctly mentioned as the baptismal element in Acts 8:38; 10:47; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22. "There is no mention of any other element" (Plummer). The phraseology of Eph 5:26, "the washing of water with the word," shows that not the external element alone, nor the physical action of applying the water, constitutes baptism; but "the word" must be added to the element and the action, in order that there may be a baptism. (Detrahe verbum, et quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, "Remove the word and what is water but water? The word is added to the element and it becomes a sacrament" Augustine). "Without the Word of God the water is simple water, and no baptism" (Luther). The command prescribes (b) exercitium actus, i.e. it enjoins a continued exercise of this function of the messengers of Christ for all time.

(2) A Clear Declaration of the Object in View.

The participle "baptizing" qualifies the imperative "make disciples," and expresses that, what the imperative states as the end, is to be attained by what the participle names as a means to that end. The participle "baptizing," again, is qualified by "teaching" (Mt 28:20). The second participle is not connected by "and" with the first, hence, is subordinate to the first (Meyer). Discipleship is to be obtained by baptizing-teaching. There is no rigid law regarding the order and sequence of these actions laid down in these words; they merely state that Christ desires His disciples to be both baptized and fully informed as to His teaching.

(3) A Definite Promise:

Salvation (Mk 16:16), i.e. complete and final deliverance from all evil, the securing of "the end of faith" (1 Pet 1:9). This is a comprehensive statement, as in 1 Pet 3:21, of the blessing of baptism. Scripture also states, in detail, particular baptismal blessings: (a) Regeneration, Tit 3:5; Jn 3:3,5. Despite Calvin and others, the overwhelming consensus of interpreters still agrees with the ancient church and with Luther in explaining both these texts of baptism. (b) Remission of sins, or justification (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22). This blessing, no doubt, is also intended in 1 Pet 3:21, where eperotema has been rendered "answer" by the King James Version while the Revised Version (British and American) renders "interrogation." The word denotes a legal claim, which a person has a right to set up (See Cremer under the word and Rom 8:1). (c) The establishment of a spiritual union with Christ, and a new relationship with God (Gal 3:26,27; Rom 6:3,4; Col 2:12). In this connection the prepositions with which baptizein in the New Testament connects may be noted. Baptizein eis, "to baptize into," always denotes the relation into which the party baptized is placed. The only exception is Mk 1:9. Baptizein en, or baptizein epi, "to baptize in" (Acts 10:48; 2:38), denotes the basis on which the new relation into which the baptized enters, is made to rest (Cremer). (d) The sanctifying gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Tit 3:5). All these blessings Scripture declares to be effects of baptism (Wirkung der Taufe, Riehm, Handworterb.). "Baptism is called `washing of regeneration,' not merely because it symbolizes it, or pledges a man to it, but also, and chiefly, because it effects it" (Holtzmann, Huther, Pfleiderer, Weiss). "Regeneration, or being begotten of God, does not mean merely a new capacity for change in the direction of goodness, but an actual change. The legal washings were actual external purifications. Baptism is actual internal purification" (Plummer). To these modern authorities Luther can be added. He says: "Baptism worketh forgiveness of sin, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe, as the words and promises of God declare" (Smaller Catech.). In Tit 3:5 the King James Version the force of the preposition dia, "by," deserves to be noted: it declares baptism to be the regenerating, renewing, justifying, glorying medium to the heirs of eternal life. The baptismal promise is supported, not only in a general way, by the veracity and sincerity of the Speaker, who is the Divine Truth incarnate, but also in a special way, by the Author's appeal to His sovereign majesty (Mt 28:18), and by the significant assurance of His personal ("I" = ego, is emphatic: Meyer) presence with the disciples in their afore-mentioned activity (Mt 28:20; compare Mk 16:20).

(4) A Plain Indication of the Scope:

"All nations," "the whole creation" (pase te ktisei to be understood as in Col 1:23 = "all men"). Baptism is of universal application; it is a cosmopolitan ordinance before which differences such as of nationality, race, age, sex, social or civil status, are leveled (compare Col 3:11 with 1 Cor 12:13). Accordingly, Christ orders baptism to be practiced "alway" (literally, "all days"), "even unto the end of the world," i.e. unto the consummation of the present age, until the Second Advent of the Lord. For, throughout this period Christ promises His cooperative presence with the efforts of His disciples to make disciples.

(5) A Prescribed Formula for Administering the Ordinance:

"Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The belief in the Trinity is fundamental to Christianity; accordingly, the sacred rite by which men are initiated into the Christian religion justly emphasizes this belief. The three Persons are mentioned as distinct from one another, but the baptismal command is issued upon their joint and coequal authority ("in the name," not "names"), thus indicating the Unity in Trinity. This ancient baptismal formula represents "the Father as the Originator, the Son as the Mediator, the Holy Ghost as the Realization, and the vital and vitalizing blessing of the promise and fulfillment," which is extended to men in this ordinance (Cremer).

2. The Biblical History of the Ordinance:

After the Lord had entered into His glory, we find that in the era of the apostles and in the primitive Christian church baptism is the established and universally acknowledged rite by which persons are admitted to communion with the church (Acts 2:38,41; 8:12 f,36,38; 9:18; 10:47 f; 16:15,33; 18:8; 22:16; Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27). Even in cases where an outpouring of the special gifts of the Holy Spirit had already taken place, baptism is still administered (Acts 10:44 ff; 11:15 f). "Thus, baptism occupied among the Gentile converts to Christianity, and later among all Christians, the same position as circumcision in the Old Covenant (Col 2:11 f; Gal 5:2). It is, essentially, part of the foundation on which the unity of the Christian society rested from the beginning (Eph 4:5; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27 f)" (Riehm, Handworterb.).

3. Types of Baptism:

In 1 Cor 10:1,2 the apostle states that the Israelites "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Farrar attempts the following solution of this type: "The passing under the cloud (Ex 14:19) and through the sea, constituting as it did their deliverance from bondage into freedom, their death to Egypt, and their birth to a new covenant, was a general type or dim shadow of Christian baptism (compare our collect, `figuring thereby Thy holy baptism'). But the typology is quite incidental; it is the moral lesson which is paramount. `Unto Moses'; rather, into. By this `baptism' they accepted Moses as their Heavensent guide and teacher" (Pulpit Comm.). In 1 Pet 3:21 the apostle calls baptism the antitupon of the Deluge. Delitzsch (on Heb 9:24) suggests that tupos and antitupon in Greek represent the original figure and a copy made therefrom, or a prophetic foretype and its later accomplishment. The point of comparison is the saving power of water in either instance. Water saved Noah and his family by floating the ark which sheltered them, and by removing from them the disobedient generation which had sorely tried their faith, as it had tried God's patience. In like manner the water of baptism bears up the ark of the Christian church and saves its believing members, by separating them from their filthy and doomed fellow-men.

III. Difficulties.

1. Are Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15,16 Genuine?:

Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f) argue that the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28:19 is spurious, and that the text in Mk belongs to a section which was added to this Gospel at a later time. The former claim had first been advanced by Conybeare, but later research by Riggenbach has established the genuineness of the Trinitarian formula in Mt. Feine still maintains his doubts, however, on subjective grounds. As to the concluding section in Mk (16:9-20), Jerome is the first to call attention to its omission in most Greek manuscripts to which he had access. But Jerome himself acknowledged Mk 16:14 as genuine. Gregory of Nyssa reports that, while this section is missing in some manuscripts, in the more accurate ones many manuscripts contain it. No doctrinal scruple can arise on account of this section; for it contains nothing that is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture in other places on the same subject; and it has always been treated as genuine by the Christian church. The question is a purely historical one (see Bengel, Apparatus Criticus, 170 f).

2. Was the Trinitarian Formula Used in New Testament Times?:

No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecost are administered "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38), "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16), "into Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the Fathers; Ambrose says: Quod verbo tacitum fuerat, expressum est fide, "What had not been expressed in word, was expressed by faith." On close inspection the difficulty is found to rest on the assumption that the above are records of baptismal formulas used on those occasions. The fact is that these records contain no baptismal formula at all, but "merely state that such persons were baptized as acknowledged Jesus to be the Lord and the Christ" (Plummer). The same can be said of any person baptized in our day with the Trinitarian formula. That this formula was the established usage in the Christian church is proven by records of baptisms in Justin (Apol., I, 61) and Tertullian (Adv. Prax., XXVI).

3. Was Christian Baptism Really a New Ordinance?:

Baptism was practiced among the Jews prior to the solemn inauguration of this ordinance by the risen Christ. The ceremonial washings of the Jews are classed with the transient forms of the Levitical worship (Heb 9:9,10), which had not been intended to endure except "until a time of reformation." They were removed when Christian baptism was erected into an abiding ordinance of the church of God (Col 2:11-13). It is erroneous to say that those ancient washings developed into Christian baptism. A shadow does not develop into a substance. Nor do we find the origin of Christian baptism in the baptism of proselytes, which seems to have been a Jewish church custom in the days of Christ. Though the rite of baptism was not unknown to the Jews, still the baptism of John startled them (Jn 1:25). Such passages as Isa 4:4 (1:16); Ezek 36:25; 37:23; Zec 13:1 had, no doubt, led them to expect a rite of purification in the days of the Messiah, which would supersede their Levitical purification. The delegation which they sent to John was to determine the Messianic character of John and his preaching and baptizing. Johannic baptism has been a fruitful theme of debate. The question does not affect the personal faith of any Christian at the present time; for there is no person living who has received Johannic baptism (Chemnitz). The entire subject and certain features of it, as the incident recorded Acts 19:1-7, will continue to be debated. It is best to fix in our minds a few essential facts, which will enable us to put the Scriptural estimate on the baptism of John. John had received a Divine commission to preach and baptize (Lk 3:2; Jn 1:33; Mt 21:25). He baptized with water (Jn 3:23). His baptism was honored by a wonderful manifestation of the holy Trinity (Mt 3:16,17), and by the Redeemer, in His capacity as the Representative of sinful mankind, the sin-bearing Lamb of God, accepting baptism at John's hand (Mt 3:13 ff; Jn 1:29 ff). It was of the necessity of receiving John's baptism that Christ spoke to Nicodemus (Jn 3:3 ff). The Pharisees invited their eternal ruin by refusing John's baptism (Lk 7:30); for John's baptism was to shield them from the wrath to come (Mt 3:7); it was for the remission of sin (Mk 1:4); it was a washing of regeneration (Jn 3:5). When Jesus began His public ministry, He took up the preaching and baptism of John, and His disciples practiced it with such success that John rejoiced (Jn 3:22,25-36; 4:1,2). All this evidence fairly compels the belief that there was no essential difference between the baptism of John and the baptism instituted by Christ; that what the risen Christ did in Mt 28:18-20 was merely to elevate a rite that had previously been adopted by an order "from above" to a permanent institution of His church, and to proclaim its universal application. The contrast which John himself declares between his baptism and that of Christ is not a contrast between two baptisms with water. The baptism of Christ, which John foretells, is a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, the Pentecostal baptism. But for the general purpose of begetting men unto a new life, sanctifying and saving them, the Spirit was also bestowed through John's baptism (Jn 3:5).

4. Should Infants Be Baptized?:

The command in Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16 is all-embracing; so is the statement concerning the necessity of baptism in Jn 3:5. After reading these statements, one feels inclined, not to ask, Should infants be baptized? but Why should they not be baptized? The onus probandi rests on those who reject infant baptism. The desire to have their infants baptized must have been manifested on the day when the first three thousand were baptized at Jerusalem, assuming that they were all adults. The old covenant had provided for their children; was the new to be inferior to the old in this respect? (See Plummer in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes).) The baptism of entire households is presumptive evidence that children and infants were baptized in apostolic times (Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16). The arguments against infant baptism imply defective views on the subject of original sin and the efficacy of baptism. Infant faith--for, faith is as necessary to the infant as to the adult--may baffle our attempts at explanation and definition; but God who extends His promises also to children (Acts 2:39), who established His covenant even with beasts (Gen 9:16,17); Christ who blessed also little children (Mk 10:13 ff), and spoke of them as believers (Mt 18:6), certainly does not consider the regeneration of a child or infant a greater task than that of an adult (compare Mt 18:3,4).

5. Why Did Paul not Baptize?:

Paul did baptize Crispus, Gaius and Stephanas with his household. These baptisms he performed at Corinth alone; we have no record of his baptisms at other places. What Paul declares in 1 Cor 1:14-17 is, that by his baptizing he could not have become the cause of the divisions in the Corinthian congregation, because he had baptized only a few persons at Corinth, and, moreover, he had not baptized in his own name, hence had attached no one to his person. The statement, "Christ sent me not to baptize," is made after the Semitic idiom, and means: "not so much to baptize as to preach" (Farrar in Pulpit Commentary). If they are taken in any other sense, it is impossible to protect Paul against the charge that he did something that he was not authorized to do, when he baptized Crispus, etc.

6. What Is the Baptism for the Dead?:

1 Cor 15:29 is sometimes taken to mean that the early Christians practiced baptism by proxy. After they had been converted to Christianity, it is held, they desired to convey the benefits of their faith to their departed friends who had died in paganism, by having themselves baptized "in their behalf," perhaps on their graves. We have no evidence from history that such a practice prevailed in the early Christian churches. Nor does the text suggest it. The Greek preposition huper expresses also the motive that may prompt a person to a certain action. In this case the motive was suggested by the dead, namely, by the dead in so far as they shall rise. The context shows this to be the meaning: If a person has sought baptism in view of the fact that the dead are to rise to be judged, his baptism is valueless, if the dead do not rise.

See BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD .

W. H. T. Dau


BAPTISM (NON-IMMERSIONIST VIEW)

|| I. THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES FOR THE RITE

II. PRE-CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

1. Baptism of Proselytes

2. Baptism of John

3. Baptism in the Pagan Mysteries

III. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

1. The administration of the Rite

2. The Mode of Using the Water

(1) Immersion

(2) Affusion

(3) Aspersion

3. Who May Perform Baptism

4. Who May Receive Baptism

(1) Baptism of Infants

(2) Baptism for the Dead

IV. THE FORMULA OF BAPTISM

V. THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM

The Doctrine of Infant Baptism

LITERATURE

Baptism (baptisma, baptismos, baptizein) has been from the earliest times the initiatory rite signifying the recognition of entrance into or of presence within the Christian church. We find the earliest mention of the ceremony in the Epistle to the Gal (3:27), written about 20 years after the death of Jesus. There and in 1 Cor (1:13; 12:13) Paul takes for granted that everyone who becomes a Christian (himself included) must be baptized. The rite seems also to have existed among the discipleship of Jesus before His death. We are told (Jn 4:1,2) that, although Jesus Himself did not baptize, His disciples did, and that their baptisms were more numerous than those of John.

I. The Scriptural Names for the Rite.

The words commonly used in the New Testament to denote the rite are the verb baptizo, and the nouns baptisma and baptismos; but none are employed in this sense alone. The verb is used to denote the ceremonial purification of the Jews before eating, by pouring water on the hands (Lk 11:38; Mk 7:4); to signify the sufferings of Christ (Mk 10:38,39; Lk 12:50); and to indicate the sacrament of baptism. It is the intensive form of baptein, "to dip," and takes a wider meaning. The passages Lk 11:38 and Mk 7:4 show conclusively that the word does not invariably signify to immerse the whole body. Some have held that baptismos invariably means ceremonial purification, and that baptisma is reserved for the Christian rite; but the distinction can hardly be maintained. The former certainly means ceremonial purification in Mk 7:4, and in 7:8 (the King James Version); but it probably means the rite of baptism in Heb 6:2. Exegetes find other terms applied to Christian baptism. It is called `the Water' in Acts 10:47: "Can any man forbid `the Water,' that these should not be baptized?"; the layer of the water in Eph 5:26 the Revised Version, margin (where baptism is compared to the bridal bath taken by the bride before she was handed over to the bridegroom); and perhaps the laver of regeneration in Tit 3:5 the Revised Version, margin (compare 1 Cor 6:11), and illumination in Heb 6:4; 10:32.

II. Pre-Christian Baptism.

1. Baptism of Proselytes:

Converts in the early centuries, whether Jews or Gentiles, could not have found this initiatory rite, in which they expressed their new-born faith, utterly unfamiliar. Water is the element naturally used for cleansing the body and its symbolical use entered into almost every cult; and into none more completely than the Jewish, whose ceremonial washings were proverbial. Besides those the Jew had what would seem to the convert a counterpart of the Christian rite in the baptism of proselytes by which Gentiles entered the circle of Judaism. For the Jews required three things of strangers who declared themselves to be converts to the Law of Moses: circumcision, baptism, and to offer sacrifice if they were men: the two latter if they were women. It is somewhat singular that no baptism of proselytes is forthcoming until about the beginning of the 3rd century; and yet no competent scholar doubts its existence. Schurer is full of contempt for those who insist on the argument from silence. Its presence enables us to see both how Jews accepted readily the baptism of John and to understand the point of objectors who questioned his right to insist that all Jews had to be purified ere they could be ready for the Messianic kingdom, although he was neither the Messiah nor a special prophet (Jn 1:19-23).

2. Baptism of John:

The baptism of John stood midway between the Jewish baptism of proselytes and Christian baptism. It differed from the former because it was more than a symbol of ceremonial purification; it was a baptism of repentance, a confession of sin, and of the need of moral cleansing, and was a symbol of forgiveness and of moral purity. All men, Jews who were ceremonially pure and Gentiles who were not, had to submit to this baptism of repentance and pardon. It differed from the latter because it only symbolized preparation to receive the salvation, the kingdom of God which John heralded, and did not imply entrance into that kingdom itself. Those who had received it, as well as those who had not, had to enter the Christian community by the door of Christian baptism (Acts 19:3-6). The Jewish custom of baptizing, whether displayed in their frequent ceremonial washings, in the baptism of proselytes or in the baptism of John, made Christian baptism a familiar and even expected rite to Jewish converts in the 1st century.

3. Baptism in the Pagan Mysteries:

Baptism, as an initiatory rite, was no less familiar to Gentileconverts who had no acquaintance with the Jewish religion. The ceremonial washings of the priests of pagan in the religions have been often adduced as something which might familiarize Gentileconverts with the rite which introduced them into the Christian community, but they were not initiations. A more exact parallel is easily found. It is often forgotten that in the earlier centuries when Christianity was slowly making its way in the pagan world pagan piety had deserted the official religions and taken refuge within the Mysteries, and that these Mysteries represented the popular pagan religions of the times. They were all private cults into which men and women were received one by one, and that by rites of initiation which each had to pass through personally. When admitted the converts became members of coteries, large or small, of like-minded persons, who had become initiated because their souls craved something which they believed they would receive in and through the rites of the cult. These initiations were secret, jealously guarded from the knowledge of all outsiders; still enough is known about them for us to be sure that among them baptism took an important place (Apuleius Metamorphoses xi). The rite was therefore as familiar to pagan as to Jewish converts, and it was no unexpected requirement for the convert to know that baptism was the doorway into the church of Christ. These heathen baptisms, like the baptism of proselytes, were for the most part simply ceremonial purifications; for while it is true that both in the cult of the Mysteries and beyond it a mode of purifying after great crimes was baptizing in flowing water (Eurip. Iph. in Tauri 167) or in the sea, yet it would appear that only ceremonial purification was thought of. Nor were ceremonial rites involving the use of water confined to the paganism of the early centuries. Such a ceremony denoted the reception of the newly-born child into pagan Scandinavian households. The father decided whether the infant was to be reared or exposed to perish. If he resolved to preserve the babe, water was poured over it and a name was given to it.

III. Christian Baptism.

1. The Administration of the Rite:

In the administration of the rite of Christian baptism three things have to be looked at: the act of baptizing; those who are entitled to perform it; and the recipients or those entitled to receive it. A complete act of baptizing involves three things: what has been called the materia sacramenti; the method of its use; and the forma sacramenti, the baptismal formula or form of words accompanying the use of the water. The materia sacramenti is water and for this reason baptism is called the Water Sacrament. The oldest ecclesiastical manual of discipline which has descended to us, the Didache, says that the water to be preferred is "living," i.e. running water, water in a stream or river, or fresh flowing from a fountain; "But if thou hast not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm" (c. 7). In those directions the prescriptions of the ceremonial for the Jewish baptism of proselytes are closely followed. The earlier canons of the church permit any kind of water, fresh or salt, provided only it be true and natural water (aqua vera et naturalis).

2. The Mode of Using the Water:

(1) Immersion.

The use of the water is called ablutio.

According to the rules of by far the largest portion of the Christian church the water may be used in any one of three ways:

Immersion, where the recipient enters bodily into the water, and where, during the action, the head is plunged either once or three times beneath the surface; affusion, where water was poured upon the head of the recipient who stood either in water or on dry ground; and aspersion where water was sprinkled on the head or on the face. It has frequently been argued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip" or immerse, and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the two other forms of affusion and aspersion or sprinkling are invalid--that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used. But the word which invariably means "to dip" is not baptizein but baptein. Baptizein has a wider signification; and its use to denote the Jewish ceremonial of pouring water on the hands (Lk 11:38; Mk 7:4), as has already been said, proves conclusively that it is impossible to conclude from the word itself that immersion is the only valid method of performing the rite. It may be admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a pool of pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin; and that complete surrounding with water suits better the metaphors of burial in Roman 6:4 and Col 2:12, and of being surrounded by cloud in 1 Cor 10:2.

(2) Affusion.

On the other hand affusion is certainly a more vivid picture of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit which is equally symbolized in baptism. No definite information is given of the mode in which baptism was administered in apostolic times. Such phrases as "coming up out of the water," "went down into the water" (Mk 1:10; Acts 8:38) are as applicable to affusion as to immersion. The earliest account of the mode of baptizing occurs in the Didache (c. 7), where it is said: "Now concerning Baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost." This seems to say that to baptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use, but that the mode of affusion was also valid and enjoined on occasions. What is here prescribed in the Didache seems to have been the practice usually followed in the early centuries of the Christian church. Immersion was in common use: but affusion was also widely practiced: and both were esteemed usual and valid forms of baptizing. When immersion was used then the head of the recipient was plunged thrice beneath the surface at the mention of each name of the Trinity; when the mode was by affusion the same reference to the Trinity was kept by pouring water thrice upon the head. The two usages which were recognized and prescribed by the beginning of the 2nd century may have been in use throughout the apostolic period although definite information is lacking. When we remember the various pools in Jerusalem, and their use for ceremonial washings it is not impossible to suppose that the 3,000 who were baptized on the day of Pentecost may have been immersed, but, when the furnishing and conditions of Palestinian houses and of oriental jails are taken into account, it is difficult to conceive that at the baptisms of Cornelius and of the jailer, the ceremony was performed otherwise than by affusion. It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence from written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the earlier Fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of the earliest pictorial representation be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual method and that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception, display baptism performed by affusion, i.e. the recipient is seen standing in water while the minister pours water on the head. It may therefore be inferred that evidence for the almost universal practice of immersion, drawn from the fact that baptisms took place in river pools (it is more than probable that when we find the names of local saints given to pools in rivers, those places were their favorite places of administering the rite), or from the large size of almost all early medieval baptisteries, is by no means so conclusive as many have supposed, such places being equally applicable to affusion. It is also interesting to remember that when most of the Anabaptists of the 16th century insisted on adult baptism (re-baptism was their name for it) immersion was not the method practiced by them. During the great baptismal scene in the market-place of the city of Munster the ordinance was performed by the ministers pouring three cans of water on the heads of the recipients. They baptized by affusion and not by immersion. This was also the practice among the Mennonites or earliest Baptists. This double mode of administering the sacrament--by immersion or by affusion--prevailed in the churches of the first twelve centuries, and it was not until the 13th that the practice of aspersio or sprinkling was almost universally employed.

(3) Aspersion.

The third method of administering baptism, namely, by aspersio or sprinkling, has a different history from the other two. It was in the early centuries exclusively reserved for sick and infirm persons too weak to be submitted to immersion or affusion. There is evidence to show that those who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised; for the nicknames clinici and grabatorii were, unworthily Cyprian declares, bestowed on them by neighbors. The question was even raised in the middle of the 3rd century, whether baptism by aspersio was a valid baptism and Cyprian was asked for his opinion on the matter. His answer is contained in his lxxvth epistle (lxix Hartel's ed.). There he contends that the ordinance administered this way is perfectly valid, and quotes in support of his opinion various Old Testament texts which assert the purifying effects of water sprinkled (Ezek 36:25,26; Nu 8:5-7; 19:8,9,12,13). It is not the amount of the water or the method of its application which can cleanse from sin: "Whence it appears that the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation .... and that where the faith of the giver and receiver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of God and by the truth of faith." His opinion prevailed. Aspersio was recognized as a valid, though exceptional, form of baptism. But it was long of commending itself to ministers and people, and did not attain to almost general use until the 13th century.

The idea that baptism is valid when practiced in the one method only of immersion can scarcely be looked on as anything else than a ritualistic idea.

3. Who May Perform Baptism:

The Scripture nowhere describes or limits the qualifications of those who are entitled to perform the rite of baptism. We find apostles, wandering preachers (Acts 8:38), a private member of a small and persecuted community (Acts 9:18) performing the rite. So in the sub-apostolic church we find the same liberty of practice. Clement of Alexandria tells us that the services of Christian women were necessary for the work of Christian missions, for they alone could have access to the gynaeceum and carry the message of the gospel there (Strom., III, 6). Such women missionaries did not hesitate to baptize. Whatever credit may be given to the Acts of Paul and Theckla, it is at least historical that Theckla did exist, that she was converted by Paul, that she worked as a missionary and that she baptized her converts. Speaking generally it may be said that as a sacrament has always been looked upon as the recognition of presence within the Christian church, it is an act of the church and not of the individual believer; and therefore no one is entitled to perform the act who is not in some way a representative of the Christian community--the representative character ought to be maintained somehow. As soon as the community had taken regular and organized form the act of baptism was suitably performed by those who, as office-bearers, naturally represented the community. It was recognized that the pastor or bishop (for these terms were synonymous until the 4th century at least) ought to preside at the administration of the sacrament; but in the early church the power of delegation was recognized and practiced, and elders and deacons presided at this and even at the Eucharist. What has been called lay-baptism is not forbidden in the New Testament and has the sanction of the early church. When superstitious views of baptism entered largely into the church and it was held that no unbaptized child could be saved, the practice arose of encouraging the baptism of all weakling infants by nurses. The Reformed church protested against this and was at pains to repudiate the superstitious thought of any mechanical efficacy in the rite by deprecating its exercise by any save approved and ordained ministers of the church. Still, while condemning lay-baptism as irregular, it may be questioned whether they would assert any administration of the rite to be invalid, provided only it had been performed with devout faith on the part of giver and receiver.

4. Who May Receive Baptism:

The recipients of Christian baptism are all those who make a presumably sincere profession of repentance of sin and of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour; together with the children of such believing parents. The requirements are set forth in the accounts given us of the performance of the rite in the New Testament, in which we see how the apostles obeyed the commands of their Master. Jesus had ordered them to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19)--to "preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned" (Mk 16:15,16). The apostle Peter said to the inquirers on the Day of Pentecost, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"; and 3,000 were added to the church through the initiatory rite of baptism. The Samaritans, who believed on Jesus through the preaching of Philip, were admitted to the Christian community through baptism; though in this case one of the baptized, Simon Magus, after his reception, was found to be still in "the bond of iniquity" (Acts 8:12,23). The jailer and all his, Lydia and her household, at Philippi, were baptized by Paul on his and her profession of faith on Jesus, the Saviour. There is no evidence in any of the accounts we have of apostolic baptisms that any prolonged course of instruction was thought to be necessary; nothing of classes for catechumens such as we find in the early church by the close of the 2nd century, or in modern missionary enterprise. We find no mention of baptismal creeds, declarative or interrogative, in the New Testament accounts of baptisms. The profession of faith in the Lord Jesus, the Saviour, made by the head of the family appears, so far as the New Testament records afford us information, to have been sufficient to secure the baptism of the "household"--a word which in these days included both servants and children.

(1) Baptism of Infants.

This brings us to the much-debated question whether infants are to be recognized as lawful recipients of Christian baptism. The New Testament Scriptures do not in so many words either forbid or command the baptism of children. The question is in this respect on all fours with the change of the holy day from the seventh to the first day of the week. No positive command authorizes the universal usage with regard to the Christian Sabbath day; that the change is authorized must be settled by a weighing of evidence. So it is with the case of infant baptism. It is neither commanded nor forbidden in so many words; and the question cannot be decided on such a basis. The strongest argument against the baptizing of infants lies in the thought that the conditions of the rite are repentance and faith; that these must be exercised by individuals, each one for himself and for herself; and that infants are incapable either of repentance or of faith of this kind. The argument seems weak in its second statement; it is more dogmatic than historical; and will be referred to later when the doctrine lying at the basis of the rite is examined. On the other hand a great deal of evidence supports the view that the baptism of infants, if not commanded, was at least permitted and practiced within the apostolic church. Paul connects baptism with circumcision and implies that under the gospel the former takes the place of the latter (Col 2:12); and as children were circumcised on the 8th day after birth, the inference follows naturally that children were also to be baptized. In the Old Testament, promises to parents included their children. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost Peter declares to his hearers that the gospel promise is "to you and to your children" and connects this with the invitation to baptism (Acts 2:38,39). It is also noteworthy that children shared in the Jewish baptism of proselytes. Then we find in the New Testament narratives of baptisms that "households" were baptized--of Lydia (Acts 16:15), of the jailer at Philippi (Acts 16:32), of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16). It is never said that the children of the household were exempted from the sacred rite. One has only to remember the position of the head of the household in that ancient world, to recollect how the household was thought to be embodied in its head, to see how the repentance and faith of the head of the household was looked upon as including those of all the members, not merely children but servants, to feel that had the children been excluded from sharing in the rite the exclusion would have seemed such an unusual thing that it would have at least been mentioned and explained. our Lord expressly made very young children the types of those who entered into His kingdom (Mk 10:14-16); and Paul so unites parents with children in the faith of Christ that he does not hesitate to call the children of the believing husband or wife "holy," and to imply that the children had passed from a state of "uncleanness" to a state of "holiness" through the faith of a parent. All these things seem to point to the fact that the rite which was the door of entance into the visible community of the followers of Jesus was shared in by the children of believing parents. Besides evidence for the baptism of children goes back to the earliest times of the sub-apostolic church. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John, and it is difficult to draw any other conclusion from his statements than that he believed that the baptism of infants had been an established practice in the church long before his days (Adv. Haer., II, 22; compare 39). The witness of Tertullian is specially interesting; for he himself plainly thinks that adult baptism is to be preferred to the baptism of infants. He makes it plain that the custom of baptizing infants existed in his days, and we may be sure from the character and the learning of the man, that had he been able to affirm that infant-baptism had been a recent innovation and had not been a long-established usage descending from apostolic times, he would certainly have had no hesitation in using what would have seemed to him a very convincing way of dealing with his opponents. Tertullian's testimony comes from the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd century. Origen, the most learned Christian writer during the first three centuries and who comes a little later than Tertullian, in his 14th Homily on Luke bears witness to the fact that the baptism of infants was usual. He argues that original sin belongs to children because the church baptizes them. At the same time it is plain from a variety of evidence too long to cite that the baptism of infants was not a universal practice in the early church. The church of the early centuries was a mission church. It drew large numbers of its members from heathendom. In every mission church the baptism of adults will naturally take the foremost place and be most in evidence. But is is clear that many Christians were of the opinion of Tertullian and believed that baptism ought not to be administered to children but should be confined to adults. Nor was this a theory only; it was a continuous practice handed down from one generation to another in some Christian families. In the 4th century, few Christian leaders took a more important place than Basil the Great and his brother Gregory of Nyssa. They belonged to a family who had been Christians for some generations; yet neither of the brothers was baptized until after his personal conversion, which does not appear to have come until they had attained the years of manhood. The whole evidence seems to show that in the early church, down to the end of the 4th century at least, infant and adult baptism were open questions and that the two practices existed side by side with each other without disturbing the unity of the churches. In the later Pelagian controversy it became evident that theory and practice of infant baptism had been able to assert itself and that the ordinance was always administered to children of members of the church.

(2) Baptism for the Dead.

Paul refers to a custom of "baptizing for the dead" (1 Cor 15:29). What this "vicarious baptism" or "baptism for the dead" was it is impossible to say, even whether it was practiced within the primitive Christian church. The passage is a very difficult one and has called forth a very large number of explanations, which are mere guesses. Paul neither commends it nor disapproves of it; he simply mentions its existence and uses the fact as an argument for the resurrection.

See BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD .

IV. The Formula of Baptism.

The Formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Mt 28:19: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr: and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. He says that Christians "receive the washing with water in the name of God, the Ruler and Father of the universe, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" (1 Apol., 61). In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 2:38); and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Acts 10:48). Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:13). The Samaritans were baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16); and the same formula (a common one in acts of devotion) was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. In some instances it is recorded that before baptism the converts were asked to make some confession of their faith, which took the form of declaring that Jesus was the Lord or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It may be inferred from a phrase in 1 Pet 3:21 that a formal interrogation was made, and that the answer was an acknowledgment that Jesus Christ was Lord. Scholars have exercised a great deal of ingenuity in trying to explain how, with what appear to be the very words of Jesus given in the Gospel of Mt, another and much shorter formula seems to have been used throughout the apostolic church. Some have imagined that the shorter formula was that used in baptizing disciples during the lifetime of our Lord (Jn 4:1,2), and that the apostles having become accustomed to it continued to use it during their lives. Others declare that the phrases "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "of the Lord Jesus" are not meant to give the formula of baptism, but simply to denote that the rite was Christian. Others think that the full formula was always used and that the narratives in the Book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place--an idea rather difficult to believe in the absence of any single reference to the longer formula. Others, again, insist that baptism in the name of one of the persons of the Trinity implies baptism in the name of the Three. While others declare that Matthew does not give the very words of Jesus but puts in His mouth what was the common formula used at the date and in the district where the First Gospel was written. Whatever explanation be given it is plain that the longer formula became universal or almost universal in the sub-apostolic church. Justin Martyr has been already. quoted. Tertullian, nearly half a century later, declares expressly that the "law of baptism has been imposed and the formula prescribed" in Mt 28:19 (De Bapt., 13); and he adds in his Adversus Praxean (c. 26): "And it is not once only, but thrice, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names." The evidence to show that the formula given by Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived. The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians "corrupted" baptism by using the name of Christ only in the formula; while injunctions to use the longer formula and punishments, including deposition, threatened to those who presumed to employ the shorter which meet us in collections of ecclesiastical canons (Apos. Canons, 43, 50), prove that the practice of using the shorter formula existed in the 5th and 6th centuries, at all events in the East.

V. The Doctrine of Baptism.

The sacraments, and baptism as one of them, are always described to be (1) signs representing as in a picture or figure spiritual benefits (1 Pet 3:21), and also (2) as seals or personal tokens and attestations corroborative of solemn promises of spiritual benefits. Hence, the sacrament is said to have two parts: "the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified." It is held, moreover, that when the rite of baptism has been duly and devoutly performed with faith on the part of both giver and receiver, the spiritual benefits do follow the performance of the rite. The question therefore arises: What are the spiritual and evangelical blessings portrayed and solemnly promised in baptism? In the New Testament we find that baptism is intimately connected with the following: with remission of sins, as in Acts 22:16 ("Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins"), and in Heb 10:22; with regeneration or the new birth, as in Tit 3:6 and Jn 3:5 (this idea also entered into the baptism of proselytes and even into the thought of baptism in the Mysteries; neophytes were taught that in the water they died to their old life and began a new one (Apuleius Meta. xi)); with engrafting into Christ, with union with Him, as in Gal 3:27--and union in definite ways, in His death, His burial and His resurrection, as in Rom 6:3-6; with entering into a new relationship with God, that of sonship, as in Gal 3:26,27; with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, as in 1 Cor 12:13; with belonging to the church, as in Acts 2:41; with the gift of salvation, as in Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5. From these and similar passages theologians conclude that baptism is a sign and seal of our engrafting into Christ and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption and life eternal; that the water in baptism represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which takes away all our sins, and also the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit against the dominion of sin and the corruption of our human nature; and that baptizing with water signifies the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin and rising from sin to newness of life by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ. Or to put it more simply: Baptism teaches that all who are out of Christ are unclean by reason of sin and need to be cleansed. It signifies that just as washing with water cleanses the body so God in Christ cleanses the soul from sin by the Holy Spirit and that we are to see in this cleansing not merely pardon but also an actual freeing of the soul from the pollution and power of sin and therefore the beginnings of a new life. The sacrament also shows us that the cleansing is reached only through connection with the death of Christ, and further that through the new life begun in us we become in a special way united to Christ and enter into a new and filial relationship with God. Probably all Christians, reformed and unreformed, will agree in the above statement of the doctrinal meaning in the rite of baptism; and also that when the sacrament is rightly used the inward and spiritual grace promised is present along with the outward and visible signs. But Romanists and Protestants differ about what is meant by the right use of the sacrament. They separate on the question of its efficacy. The former understand by the right use simply the correct performance of the rite and the placing no obstacle in the way of the flow of efficacy. The latter insist that there can be no right use of the sacrament unless the recipient exercises faith, that without faith the sacrament is not efficacious and the inward and spiritual blessings do not accompany the external and visible signs. Whatever minor differences divide Protestant evangelical churches on this sacrament they are all agreed upon this, that where there is no faith there can be no regeneration. Here emerges doctrinally the difference between those who give and who refuse to give the sacrament to infants.

The Doctrine of Infant Baptism:

The latter taking their stand on the fundamental doctrine of all evangelical Christians that faith is necessary to make any sacrament efficacious, and assuming that the effect of an ordinance is always tied to the precise time of its administration, insist that only adults can perform such a conscious, intelligent, and individually independent act of faith, as they believe all Protestants insist on scriptural grounds to be necessary in the right use of a sacrament. Therefore they refuse to baptize infants and young children.

The great majority of evangelical Protestants practice infant baptism and do not think, due explanations being given, that it in any way conflicts with the idea that faith is necessary to the efficacy of the sacrament. The Baptist position appears to them to conflict with much of the teaching of the New Testament. It implies that all who are brought up in the faith of Christ and within the Christian family still lack, when they come to years of discretion, that great change of heart and life which is symbolized in baptism, and can only receive it by a conscious, intelligent and thoroughly independent act of faith. This seems in accordance neither with Scripture nor with human nature. We are told that a child may be full of the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Lk 1:15); that little children are in the kingdom of Christ (Mt 19:14); that children of believing parents are holy (1 Cor 7:14). Is there nothing in the fact that in the New Testament as in the Old Testament the promise is "to you and your children"? Besides, the argument of those who oppose the baptism of infants, if logically carried out, leads to consequences which few of them would accept. Faith is as essential to salvation, on all evangelical theology, as it is for the right use of the sacrament; and every one of the arguments brought against the baptism of infants is equally applicable to the denial of their salvation. Nor can the Baptist position be said to be true to the facts of ordinary human nature. Faith, in its evangelical sense of fiducia or trust, is not such an abrupt thing as they make it. Their demand for such a conscious, intelligent, strictly individualist act of faith sets aside some of the deepest facts of human nature. No one, young or old, is entirely self-dependent; nor are our thoughts and trust always or even frequently entirely independent and free from the unconscious influences of others. We are interwoven together in society; and what is true generally reveals itself still more strongly in the intimate relations of the family. Is it possible in all cases to trace the creative effects of the subtle imperceptible influences which surround children, or to say when the slowly dawning intelligence is first able to apprehend enough to trust in half-conscious ways? It is but a shallow view of human nature which sets all such considerations on the one side and insists on regarding nothing but isolated acts of knowledge or of faith. With all those thoughts in their minds, the great majority of evangelical churches admit and enjoin the baptism of infants. They believe that the children of believing parents are "born within the church and have interest in the covenant of grace and a right to its seal." They explain that the efficacy of a sacrament is not rigidly tied to the exact time of administration, and can be appropriated whenever faith is kindled and is able to rest on the external sign, and that the spiritual blessings signified in the rite can be appropriated again and again with each fresh kindling of faith. They declare that no one can tell how soon the dawning intelligence may awaken to the act of appropriation. Therefore these churches instruct their ministers in dispensing the sacrament to lay vows on parents that they will train up the infants baptized "in the knowledge and fear of the Lord," and will teach them the great blessings promised to them in and through the sacrament and teach them to appropriate these blessings for themselves. They further enjoin their ministers to admonish all who may witness a baptismal service to look back on their own baptism in order that their faith may be stirred afresh to appropriate for themselves the blessings which accompany the proper use of the rite.

LITERATURE.

The literature on the subject of baptism is very extensive. It may be sufficient to select the following: J. S. Candlish, The Sacraments, 10th thousand, 1900; J. C. W. Augusti, Denkwurdigkeiten aus d. christ. Archaologie, V, 1820; Hofling, Das Sakrament der Taufe, 1846-48; J. B. Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy, 2nd edition, 1895; W. Goode, The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, 1849; W. Wall, History of Infant Baptism, 1705; E. B. Underhill, Confessions of Faith .... of Baptist Churches of England (Hanserd Knollys Soc., IX), 1854.

T. M. Lindsay


BAPTISM (THE BAPTIST INTERPRETATION)

bap'-tiz-m:

I. MEANING OF BAPTISM

1. Terminology

2. Proselyte Baptism

3. Greek Usage

4. New Testament Usage

5. The Didache

6. Baptismal Regeneration

II. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM

III. THE PRESENT OBLIGATION

LITERATURE

This article is not a discussion of the whole subject, but is merely a presentation of the Baptist interpretation of the ordinance. The origin and history of the ordinance, as a whole, do not come within the range of the present treatment.

I. Meaning of Baptism.

1. Terminology:

The verb used in the New Testament is (baptizo). The substantives baptisma and baptismos occur, though the latter is not used in the New Testament of the ordinance of baptism except by implication (Heb 6:2, "the teaching of baptisms") where the reference is to the distinction between the Christian ordinance and the Jewish ceremonial ablutions. Some documents have it also in Col 2:12 (compare Heb 9:10, "divers washings") for a reference purely to the Jewish purifications (compare the dispute about purifying in Jn 3:25). The verb baptizo appears in this sense in Lk 11:38 (margin) where the Pharisee marveled that Jesus "had not first bathed himself before breakfast" (noon-day meal). The Mosaic regulations required the bath of the whole body (Lev 15:16) for certain uncleannesses. Tertullian (de Baptismo, XV) says that the Jew required almost daily washing. Herodotus (ii.47) says that if an Egyptian "touches a swine in passing with his clothes, he goes to the river and dips himself (bapto) from it" (quoted by Broadus in Commentary on Matthew, 333). See also the Jewish scrupulosity illustrated in Sirach 34:25 and Judith 12:7 where baptizo occurs. The same thing appears in the correct text in Mk 7:4, "And when they come from the market-place, except they bathemselves, they eat not." Here baptizo is the true text. The use of rhantizo ("sprinkle") is due to the difficulty felt by copyists not familiar with Jewish customs. See also the omission of "couches" in the same verse. The couches were "pallets" and could easily be dipped into water. It is noteworthy that here rhantizo is used in contrast with baptizo, showing that baptizo did not mean sprinkle. The term baptismos occurs in Josephus (Ant., XVIII, v, 2) in connection with John's baptism (compare also Irenaeus 686B about Christ's baptism). In general, however, baptisma is the substantive found for the ordinance. The verb baptizo is in reality a frequentative or intensive of bapto ("dip"). Examples occur where that idea is still appropriate, as in 2 Ki 5:14 (Septuagint) where Naaman is said to have "dipped himself seven times in the Jordan" (ebaptisato). The notion of repetition may occur also in Josephus (Ant., XV, iii, 3) in connection with the death of Aristobulus, brother of Mariamne, for Herod's friends "dipped him as he was swimming, and plunged him under water, in the dark of the evening." But in general the term baptizo, as is common with such forms in the late Greek, is simply equivalent to bapto (compare Lk 16:24) and means "dip," "immerse," just as rhantizo, like rhaino, means simply "sprinkle."

If baptizo never occurred in connection with a disputed ordinance, there would be no controversy on the meaning of the word. There are, indeed, figurative or metaphorical uses of the word as of other words, but the figurative is that of immersion, like our "immersed in cares," "plunged in grief," etc. It remains to consider whether the use of the word for a ceremony or ordinance has changed its significance in the New Testament as compared with ancient Greek

It may be remarked that no Baptist has written a lexicon of the Greek language, and yet the standard lexicons, like that of Liddell and Scott, uniformly give the meaning of baptizo as "dip," "immerse." They do not give "pour" or "sprinkle," nor has anyone ever adduced an instance where this verb means "pour" or "sprinkle." The presumption is therefore in favor of "dip" in the New Testament.

2. Proselyte Baptism:

Before we turn directly to the discussion of the ceremonial usage, a word is called for in regard to Jewish proselyte baptism. It is still a matter of dispute whether this initiatory rite was in existence at the time of John the Baptist or not. Schurer argues ably, if not conclusively, for the idea that this proselyte baptism was in use long before the first mention of it in the 2nd century. (Compare The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div ii,II , 319 ff; also Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, appendix, xii, Baptism of Proselytes). It matters nothing at all to the Baptist contention what is true in this regard. It would not be strange if a bath was required for a Gentile who became a Jew, when the Jews themselves required such frequent ceremonial ablutions. But what was the Jewish initiatory rite called proselyte baptism? Lightfoot (Horae Hebraicae, Mt 3:7) gives the law for the baptism of proselytes: "As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to Baptism, and being placed in the water they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the Law. Which being heard, he plunges himself and comes up, and, behold, he is an Israelite in all things." To this quotation Marcus Dods (Presbyterian) HDB adds: "To use Pauline language, his old man is dead and buried in the water, and he rises from this cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would have been lost had immersion not been practiced." Lightfoot says further: "Every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body." Edersheim (op. cit.) says: "Women were attended by those of their own sex, the rabbis standing at the door outside." Jewish proselyte baptism, an initiatory ceremonial rite, harmonizes exactly with the current meaning of baptizo already seen. There was no peculiar "sacred" sense that changed "dip" to "sprinkle."

3. Greek Usage:

The Greek language has had a continuous history, and baptizo is used today in Greece for baptism. As is well known, not only in Greece, but all over Russia, wherever the Greek church prevails, immersion is the unbroken and universal practice. The Greeks may surely be credited with knowledge of the meaning of their own language. The substitution of pouring or sprinkling for immersion, as the Christian ordinance of baptism, was late and gradual and finally triumphed in the West because of the decree of the Council of Trent. But the Baptist position is that this substitution was unwarranted and subverts the real significance of the ordinance. The Greek church does practice trine immersion, one immersion for each person of the Trinity, an old practice (compare ter mergitamur, Tertullian ii.79 A), but not the Scriptural usage. A word will be needed later concerning the method by which pouring crept in beside immersion in the 2nd and later centuries. Before we turn directly to the New Testament use of bapti zo it is well to quote from the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods by Professor E. A. Sophocles, himself a native Greek. He says (p. 297): "There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks." We expect therefore to find in the New Testament "dip," as the meaning of this word in the ceremonial sense of an initiatory Christian rite. Thayer's Lexicon likewise defines the word in this ceremonial Christian use to mean "an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin."

Baptists could very well afford to rest the matter right here. There is no need to call for the testimony of a single Baptist scholar on this subject. The world of scholarship has rendered its decision with impartiality and force on the side of the Baptists in this matter. A few recent deliverances will suffice. Dr. Alfred Plummer (Church of England) in his new Commentary on Matthew (p. 28) says that the office of John the Baptist was "to bind them to a new life, symbolized by immersion in water." Swete (Church of England) in his Commentary on Mark (p. 7) speaks of "the added thought of immersion, which gives vividness to the scene." The early Greek ecclesiastical writers show that immersion was employed (compare Barnabas,XI , 11): "We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and we come up bearing fruit in the heart." For numerous ecclesiastical examples see Sophocles' Lexicon.

4. New Testament Usage:

But the New Testament itself makes the whole matter perfectly plain. The uniform meaning of "dip" for baptizo and the use of the river Jordan as the place for baptizing by John the Baptist makes inevitable the notion of immersion unless there is some direct contradictory testimony. It is a matter that should be lifted above verbal quibbling or any effort to disprove the obvious facts. The simple narrative in Mt 3:6 is that "they were baptized of him in the river Jordan." In Mk 1:9,10 the baptism is sharpened a bit in the use of eis and ek. Jesus "was baptized of John in (eis) the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of (ek) the water, he saw." So in Acts 8:38 we read: "They both went down into (eis) the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of (ek) the water, the Spirit .... caught away Philip." If one could still be in doubt about the matter, Paul sets it at rest by the symbolism used in Rom 6:4, "We were buried therefore with him through bapti sm into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." The submergence and emergence of immersion thus, according to Paul, symbolize the death and burial to sin on the one hand and the resurrection to the new life in Christ on the other. Sanday and Headlam (Church of England) put it thus in their Commentary on Romans (p. 153): "It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion = Burial (the ratification of death). Emergence = Resurrection." In Col 2:12 Paul again says: "having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." The same image is here presented. Lightfoot (Church of England) on Colossians (p. 182) says: "Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and new life."

There is nothing in the New Testament to offset this obvious and inevitable interpretation. There are some things which are brought up, but they vanish on examination. The use of "with" after baptize in the English translation is appealed to as disproving immersion. It is enough to reply that the Committee of the American Standard Revision, which had no Baptist member at the final revision, substituted "in" for "with." Thus: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance" (Mt 3:11; compare also Mk 1:8). The use of both "with" and "in" in Lk 3:16 is a needless stickling for the use of the Greek en with the locative case. In Mk 1:8 en is absent in the best manuscripts, and yet the American Revisers correctly render "in." In Acts 1:5 they seek to draw the distinction between the mere locative and en and the locative. As a matter of fact the locative case alone is amply sufficient in Greek without en for the notion of "in." Thus in Jn 21:8 the translation is: "But the other disciples came in the little boat." There is no en in the Greek, but "the boat" is simply in the locative case. If it be argued that we have the instrumental case (compare the instrumental case of en as in Rev 6:8, "kill with sword"), the answer is that the way to use water as an instrument in dipping is to put the subject in the water, as the natural way to use the boat (Jn 21:8) as an instrument is to get into it. The presence or absence of en with baptizo is wholly immaterial. In either case "dip" is the meaning of the verb The objection that three thousand people could not have been immersed in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost is superficial. Jerusalem was abundantly supplied with pools. There were 120 disciples on hand, most of whom were probably men (compare the 70 sent out before by Jesus). It is not at all necessary to suppose that the 12 (Matthias was now one of them) apostles did all the baptizing. But even so, that would be only 250 apiece. I myself have baptized 42 candidates in a half-hour in a creek where there would be no delay. It would at most be only a matter of four or five hours for each of the twelve. Among the Telugus this record has been far exceeded. It is sometimes objected that Paul could not have immersed the jailer in the prison; but the answer is that Luke does not say so. Indeed Luke implies just the opposite: "And he took (took along in the Greek, para) them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized." He took Paul and Silas along with him and found a place for the baptism, probably, somewhere on the prison grounds. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to dispute the unvarying significance of baptizo.

5. The Didache:

Appeal has been made to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which may belong to the first half of the 2nd century. Here for the first time pouring is distinctly admitted as an ordinance in place of immersion. Because of this remarkable passage it is argued by some that, though immersion was the normal and regular baptism, yet alongside of it, pouring was allowed, and that in reality it was a matter of indifference which was used even in the 1st century. But that is not the true interpretation of the facts in the case. The passage deserves to be quoted in full and is here given in the translation of Philip Schaff (Presbyterian) in his edition of the Didache (pp. 184 ff): "Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water). But if thou hast neither, pour water thrice upon the head in (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." There is thus no doubt that early in the 2nd century some Christians felt that baptism was so important that, when the real baptism (immersion) could not be performed because of lack of water, pouring might be used in its place. This is absolutely all that can be deduced from this passage. It is to be noted that for pouring another word (ekcheo) is used, clearly showing that baptizo does not mean "to po ur." The very exception filed proves the Baptist contention concerning baptizo. Now in the New Testament baptizo is the word used for baptism. Ekcheo is never so used. Harnack in a letter to C. E. W. Dobbs, Madison, Ind. (published in The Independent for February 9, 1885), under date of January 16, 1885 says: "(1) Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion (eintauchen). (2) No proof can be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament and in the most ancient Christian literature. The suggestion regarding `a sacred sense' is out of the question." This is the whole point of the Baptists admirably stated by Adolph Harnack. There is no thought of denying that pouring early in the 2nd century came to be used in place of immersion in certain extreme cases. The meaning of baptizo is not affected a particle by this fact. The question remains as to why this use of pouring in extreme cases grew up. The answer is that it was due to a mistaken and exaggerated estimate put upon the value of baptism as essential to salvation. Those who died without baptism were felt by some to be lost. Thus arose "clinic" baptisms.

6. Baptismal Regeneration:

(For the doctrine of baptismal regeneration see Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61.) Out of this perversion of the symbolism of baptism grew both pouring as an ordinance and infant baptism. If baptism is necessary to salvation or the means of regeneration, then the sick, the dying, infants, must be baptized, or at any rate something must be done for them if the real baptism (immersion) cannot be performed because of extreme illness or want of water. The Baptist contention is to protest against the perversion of the significance of baptism as the ruin of the symbol. Baptism, as taught in the New Testament, is the picture of death and burial to sin and resurrection to new life, a picture of what has already taken place in the heart, not the means by which spiritual change is wrought. It is a privilege and duty, not a necessity. It is a picture that is lost when something else is substituted in its place.

See BAPTISMAL REGENERATION .

II. The Subjects of Baptism.

It is significant that even the Teaching of the Twelve apostles with its exaggerated notion of the importance of baptism does not allow baptism of infants. It says: "Having first taught all these things." Instruction precedes baptism. That is a distinct denial of infant baptism. The uniform practice in the New Testament is that baptism follows confession. The people "confessing their sins" were baptized by John (Mt 3:6). It is frankly admitted by Paedobaptist scholars that the New Testament gives no warrant for infant baptism. Thus Jacobus (Congregationalist) in the Standard Bible Dictionary says: "We have no record in the New Testament of the baptism of infants." Scott (Presbyterian) in the 1-vol HDB says: "The New Testament contains no explicit reference to the baptism of infants or young children." Plummer (Church of England), HDB, says: "The recipients of Christian baptism were required to repent and believe." Marcus Dods (Presbyterian), DCG, says: "A rite wherein by immersion in water the participant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a past he abandons, and his new birth to a future he desires." It would be hard to state the Baptist interpretation in better terms. Thus no room is found in the New Testament for infant baptism which would symbolize what the infant did not experience or would be understood to cause the regeneration in the child, a form of sacramentalism repugnant to the New Testament teaching as understood by Baptists. The dominant Baptist note is the soul's personal relation to God apart from ordinance, church or priest. The infant who dies unbaptized is saved without baptism. The baptized individual, child (for children are often baptized by Baptists, children who show signs of conversion) or man, is converted before his baptism. The baptism is the symbol of the change already wrought. So clear is this to the Baptist that he bears continual protest against that perversion of this beautiful ordinance by those who treat it as a means of salvation or who make it meaningless when performed before conversion. Baptism is a preacher of the spiritual life. The Baptist contention is for a regenerated church membership, placing the kingdom before the local church. Membership in the kingdom precedes membership in the church. The passages quoted from the New Testament in support of the notion of infant baptism are wholly irrelevant, as, for instance, in Acts 2:39 where there is no such idea as baptism of infants. So in 1 Cor 7:14, where note husband and wife. The point is that the marriage relation is sanctified and the children are legitimate, though husband or wife be heathen. The marriage relation is to be maintained. It is begging the question to assume the presence of infants in the various household baptisms in Acts. In the case of the family of Cornelius they all spake with tongues and magnified God (Acts 10:46). The jailer's household "rejoiced greatly" (Acts 16:34). We do not even know that Lydia was married. Her household may have been merely her employes in her business. The New Testament presents no exceptions in this matter.

III. The Present Obligation.

The Baptists make one more point concerning baptism. It is that, since Jesus himself submitted to it and enjoined it upon His disciples, the ordinance is of perpetual obligation. The arguments for the late ecclesiastical origin of Mt 28:19 are not convincing. If it seem strange that Jesus should mention the three persons of the Trinity in connection with the command to baptize, one should remember that the Father and the Spirit were both manifested to Him at His baptism. It was not a mere ceremonial ablution like the Jewish rites. It was the public and formal avowal of fealty to God, and the names of the Trinity properly occur. The new heart is wrought by the Holy Spirit. Reconciliation with the Father is wrought on the basis of the work of the Son, who has manifested the Father's love in His life and death for sin. The fact that in the acts in the examples of baptism only the name of Jesus occurs does not show that this was the exact formula used. It may be a mere historical summary of the essential fact. The name of Jesus stood for the other two persons of the Trinity. On the other hand the command of Jesus may not have been regarded as a formula for baptism; while in no sense sacramental or redemptive, it is yet obligatory and of perpetual significance. It is not to be dropped as one of the Jewish excrescences on Christianity. The form itself is necessary to the significance of the rite. Hence, Baptists hold that immersion alone is to be practiced, sinc e immersion alone was commanded by Jesus and practiced in the New Testament times. Immersion alone sets forth the death to sin, and burial in the grave the resurrection to new life in Christ. Baptism as taught in the New Testament is "a mould of doctrine," a preacher of the heart of the gospel. Baptists deny the right of disciples of Jesus to break that mould. The point of a symbol is the form in which it is cast. To change the form radically is to destroy the symbolism. Baptists insist on the maintenan ce of primitive New Testament baptism because it alone is baptism, it alone proclaims the death and resurrection of Jesus, the spiritual death and resurrection of the believer, the ultimate resurrection of the believer from the grave. The disciple is not above his Lord, and has no right to destroy this rich and powerful picture for the sake of personal convenience, nor because he is willing to do something else which Jesus did not enjoin and which has no association with Him. The long years of perversion do not justify this wrong to the memory of Jesus, but all the more call upon modern disciples to follow the example of Jesus who himself fulfilled righteousness by going into the waters of the Jordan and receiving immersion at the hands of John the Baptist.

LITERATURE.

The Greek Lexicons, like Suicer, Liddell and Scott, Sophocles, Thayer, Preuschen; the Biblical Dictionaries; the Critical Commentaries on the New Testament; books of antiquities like Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities; the new Sch-Herz; Binghara's Antiquities of the Christian Church; Schaff's Creeds of Christendom; Neale's History of the Holy Eastern Church; Lives of Christ, like Edersheim's LTJM, or a survey of the customs of the Jews like Schurer's HJP; books on John the Baptist like Reynolds' John the Baptist, Feather's Last of the Prophets, Robertson's John the Loyal; special treatises on Baptism like Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Stanley's Christian Institutions, Dargan's Ecclesiology, Conant's Baptizein, Mozley's Review of the Baptismal Controversy, Christian's Immersion, Broadus' Immersion, Frost's The Moral Dignity of Baptism, Whitsitt's a Question in Baptist History, Lofton's The Baptist Reformation, Lambert's The Sacraments of the New Testament, Dale's Classic Baptism and Christian and Patristic Baptism, Kirtley's Design of Baptism, Forester's The Baptist Position, Frost's Baptist Why and Why Not, Ford's Studies in Baptism.

A. T. Robertson


BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

(baptizomai huper ton nekron).

1. Paul's Argument:

Some of the Corinthian Christians denied the resurrection of the dead, and Paul advances three arguments to convince them that the dead will be raised: (1) "If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised," but Christ is raised (1 Cor 15:13,20). (2) If the dead are not raised, why are men being baptized for the dead (1 Cor 15:29)? (3) Why should the apostle himself wage his spiritual warfare (1 Cor 15:30)? The first argument rests upon the central fact of Christianity, and the other two are appeals to the consistency of the Corinthians, and of Paul himself. Whatever "baptism for the dead" meant, it was, in Paul's opinion, as real, valid and legitimate a premise from which to conclude that the dead would rise as his own sufferings. The natural meaning of the words is obvious. Men in Corinth, and possibly elsewhere, were being continually baptized on behalf of others who were at the time dead, with a view to benefiting them in the resurrection, but if there be no resurrection, what shall they thus accomplish, and why do they do it? "The only legitimate reference is to a practice .... of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism" (Alford in the place cited.).

2. Patristic Evidence:

Tertullian believed that Paul referred to a custom of vicarious baptism (Res., 48c; Adv. Marc., 5.10). There is evidence that the early church knew such a practice. Epiphanius mentions a tradition that the custom obtained among the Cerinthians (Haer., 28 6). And Chrysostom states that it prevailed among the Marcionites.

3. Modern Views:

But commentators have offered between thirty and forty other interpretations, more or less strained, of the passage. (For a summary of different views see T. C. Edwards and Stanley, Comms., at the place) Two of the most reasonable views from recent commentators are: "What shall they do who receive baptism on account of the dead? i.e. with a view to the resurrection of the dead?" and therefore to sharing in it themselves (Canon Evans, Speaker's Comm., at the place); "that the death of Christians led to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance `for the sake of the dead' (their beloved dead), and in the hope of reunion, turn to Christ" (Findlay, Expositor's Greek Test., at the place). Both ideas may be true, but they are simply imported into this passage, and the latter also is quite irrelevant to the argument and makes Paul identify conversion with baptism.

4. The Difficulty:

But why is all this ingenuity expended to evade the natural meaning? Because (1) such a custom would be a superstition involving the principle of opus operarum; and (2) Paul could not share or even tolerate a contemporary idea which is now regarded as superstition. To reply (with Alford) that Paul does not approve the custom will not serve the purpose, for he would scarcely base so great an argument, even as an argumentum ad hominem, on a practice which he regarded as wholly false and superstitious. The retort of those who denied the resurrection would be too obvious. But why should it be necessary to suppose that Paul rose above all the limitations of his age? The idea that symbolic acts had a vicarious significance had sunk deeply into the Jewish mind, and it would not be surprising if it took more than twenty years for the leaven of the gospel to work all the Jew out of Paul. At least it serves the apostle's credit ill to make his argument meaningless or absurd in order to save him from sharing at all in the inadequate conceptions of his age. He made for himself no claim of infallibility.

T. Rees


BAPTISM OF FIRE

(en pneumati hagio kai puri): This expression is used in Mt 3:11. The copulative kai requires that the baptism "in the Holy Ghost and in fire," should be regarded as one and the same thing. It does violence to the construction, therefore, to make this statement refer to the fire Of judgment. The difficulty has always been in associating fire with the person of the Holy Ghost. But in the connection of fire with the work or influence of the Holy Ghost the difficulty disappears. The thought of John is that the Saviour would give them the Divine Sanctifier as purifying water to wash away their sins and as a refining fire to consume their dross; to kindle in their hearts the holy flame of Divine love and zeal; to illuminate their souls with heavenly wisdom. The statement, therefore, in this verse indicates the manner in which Christ will admit them to discipleship and prepare them for His service.

See BAPTISM ;FIRE .

Jacob W. Kapp


BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. The Biblical Material:

The expression "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is based on a number of predictions found in our four Gospels and in connection with these the record of their fulfillment in the Book of Acts. The passages in the Gospels are as follows: Mt 3:11: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." The last clause is autos humas baptisei en pneumati hagio kai puri. In Mk 1:8 and Lk 3:16 we have the declaration in a slightly modified form; and in Jn 1:33 John the Baptist declares that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at the baptism of the latter marked out Jesus as "he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit." Again in Jn 7:37,38 we read: "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water." Then the evangelist adds in Jn 7:39: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." These are the specific references in the four Gospels to the baptisms of the Holy Spirit. In Acts we find direct reference by Luke to the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit. In Acts 1:5 Jesus, just before the ascension, contrasts John's baptism in water with the baptism in the Holy Spirit which the disciples are to receive "not many days hence," and in Acts 1:8 power in witnessing for Jesus is predicted as the result of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. On the evening of the resurrection day Jesus appeared to the disciples and "he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (Jn 20:22). This was probably not a wholly symbolic act but an actual communication to the disciples, in some measure, of the gift of the Spirit, preliminary to the later complete bestowal.

We observe next the fulfillment of these predictions as recorded in Acts. The gift of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and the miraculous manifestations which followed are clearly the chief historical fulfillment of the prediction of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Among the manifestations of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost were first those which were physical, such as "a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting" (Acts 2:2), and the appearance of "tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them" (Acts 2:3). Secondly, there were spiritual results: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). In Acts 2:16 ff Peter declares that this bestowment of the Holy Spirit is in fulfillment of the prediction made by the prophet Joel and he cites the words in Acts 2:28 ff of Joel's prophecy.

There is one other important passage in Acts in which reference is made to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. While Peter was speaking to Cornelius (Acts 10:44) the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the word and they of the circumcision who were with Peter "were amazed" "because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." When giving the brethren at Jerusalem an account of his visit to Cornelius, Peter dec]ares that this event which he had witnessed was a baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16): "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit."

2. Significance of Baptism of the Holy Spirit:

We consider next the significance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit from various points of view.

(1) From the Point of View of Old Testament Teaching as to the Gift of the Spirit.

The prophecy of Joel quoted by Peter indicates something extraordinary in the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. The Spirit now comes in new forms of manifestation and with new power. The various classes mentioned as receiving the Spirit indicate the wide diffusion of the new power. In the Old Testament usually the Spirit was bestowed upon individuals; here the gift is to the group of disciples, the church. Here the gift is permanently bestowed, while in the Old Testament it was usually transient and for a special purpose. Here again the Spirit comes in fullness as contrasted with the partial bestowment in Old Testament times.

(2) From the Point of View of the Ascended Christ.

In Lk 24:49 Jesus commands the disciples to tarry in the city "until ye be clothed with power from on high," and in Jn 15:26 He speaks of the Comforter "whom I will send unto you from the Father," "he shall bear witness of me"; and in Jn 16:13 Jesus declares that the Spirit when He comes shall guide the disciples into all truth, and He shall show them things to come. In this verse the Spirit is called the Spirit of truth. It was fitting that the Spirit who was to interpret truth and guide into all truth should come in fullness after, rather than before, the completion of the life-task of the Messiah. The historical manifestation of Divine truth as thus completed made necessary the gift of the Spirit in fullness. Christ Himself was the giver of the Spirit. The Spirit now takes the place of the ascended Christ, or rather takes the things of Christ and shows them to the disciples. The baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost thus becomes the great historic event signalizing the beginning of a new era in the kingdom of God in which the whole movement is lifted to the spiritual plane, and the task of evangelizing the world is formally begun.

(3) The Significance of the Baptism of the Spirit from the Point of View of the Disciples.

It can scarcely be said with truth that Pentecost was the birthday of the church. Jesus had spoken of His church during His earthly ministry. The spiritual relation to Christ which constitutes the basis of the church existed prior to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But that baptism established the church in several ways. First in unity. The external bond of unity now gives place to an inner spiritual bond of profound significance. Secondly, the church now becomes conscious of a spiritual mission, and theocratic ideals of the kingdom disappear. Thirdly, the church is now endued with power for its work. Among the gifts bestowed were the gift of prophecy in the large sense of speaking for God, and the gift of tongues which enabled disciples to speak in foreign tongues. The account in the second chapter of Acts admits of no other construction. There was also bestowed power in witnessing for Christ. This was indeed one of the most prominent blessings named in connection with the promise of the baptism of the Spirit. The power of working miracles was also bestowed (Acts 3:4 ff; 5:12 ff). Later in the epistles of Paul much emphasis is given to the Spirit as the sanctifying agency in the hearts of believers. In Acts the word of the Spirit is chiefly Messianic, that is, the Spirit's activity is all seen in relation to the extension of the Messianic kingdom. The occasion for the outpouring of the Spirit is Pentecost when men from all nations are assembled in Jerusalem. The symbolic representation of tongues of fire is suggestive of preaching, and the glossolalia, or speaking with tongues which followed, so that men of various nations heard the gospel in their own languages, indicates that the baptism of the Spirit had a very special relation to the task of world-wide evangelization for the bringing in of the kingdom of God.

3. Finality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit:

The question is often raised whether or not the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred once for all or is repeated in subsequent baptisms. The evidence seems to point to the former view to the extent at least of being limited to outpourings which took place in connection with events recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Acts. The following considerations favor this view:

(1) In the first chapter of Acts Jesus predicts, according to Luke's account, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit would take place, "not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). This would seem to point to a definite and specific event rather than to a continuous process.

(2) Again, Peter's citation in Acts 2:17-21 of Joel's prophecy shows that in Peter's mind the event which his hearers were then witnessing was the definite fulfillment of the words of Joel.

(3) Notice in the third place that only one other event in the New Testament is described as the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and for special reasons this may be regarded as the completion of the Pentecostal baptism. The passage is that contained in Acts 10:1 through 11:18 in which the record is given of the following events: (a) miraculous vision given to Peter on the housetop (Acts 10:11-16) indicating that the things about to occur are of unique importance; (b) the speaking with tongues (Acts 10:45,46); (c) Peter declares to the brethren at Jerusalem that the Holy Ghost fell on the Gentiles in this instance of Cornelius and his household "as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15); (d) Peter also declares that this was a fulfillment of the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16,17); (e) the Jewish Christians who heard Peter's account of the matter acknowledged this as proof that God had also extended the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:18). The baptism of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon Cornelius and his household is thus directly linked with the first outpouring at Pentecost, and as the event which signalized the opening of the door of the gospel formally to Gentiles it is in complete harmony with the missionary significance of the first great Pentecostal outpouring. It was a turning point or crisis in the Messianic kingdom and seems designed to complete the Pentecostal gift by showing that Gentiles as well as Jews are to be embraced in all the privileges of the new dispensation.

(4) We observe again that nowhere in the epistles do we find a repetition of the baptism of the Spirit. This would be remarkable if it had been understood by the writers of the epistles that the baptism of the Spirit was frequently to be repeated. There is no evidence outside the Book of Acts that the baptism of the Spirit ever occurred in the later New Testament times. In 1 Cor 12:13 Paul says, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, .... and were all made to drink of one Spirit." But here the reference is not to the baptism of the Spirit, but rather to a baptism into the church which is the body of Christ. We conclude, therefore, that the Pentecostal baptism taken in conjunction with the baptism of the Spirit in the case of Cornelius completes the baptism of the Holy Spirit according to the New Testament teaching. The baptism of the Spirit as thus bestowed was, however, the definite gift of the Spirit in His fullness for every form of spiritual blessing necessary in the progress of the kingdom and as the permanent and abiding gift of God to His people. In all subsequent New Testament writings there is the assumption of this presence of the Spirit and of His availability for all believers. The various commands and exhortations of the epistles are based on the assumption that the baptism of the Spirit has already taken place, and that, according to the prediction of Jesus to the disciples, the Spirit was to abide with them forever (Jn 14:16). We should not therefore confound other forms of expression found in the New Testament with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Christians are enjoined to "walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:16) and "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18), or when the Spirit is described as an anointing (chrisma) as in 1 Jn 2:20-27, and as the "earnest of our inheritance" (arrabon). as in Eph 1:14, and when various other similar expressions are employed in the epistles of the New Testament, we are not to understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These expressions indicate aspects of the Spirit's work in believers or of the believer's appropriation of the gifts and blessings of the Spirit rather than the historical baptism of the Spirit.

4. Relation of Baptism of the Spirit to Other Baptisms:

Three final points require brief attention, namely, the relation of the baptism of the Spirit to the baptism in water, and to the baptism in fire, and to the laying on of hands.

(1) We note that the baptism in fire is coupled with the baptism in the Spirit in Mt 3:11 and in Lk 3:16. These passages give the word of John the Baptist. John speaks of the coming One who "shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire" (Lk 3:16). This baptism in fire is often taken as being parallel and synonymous with the baptism in the Spirit. The context however in both Matthew and Luke seems to favor another meaning. Jesus' Messianic work will be both cleansing and destructive. The "you" addressed by John included the people generally and might naturally embrace both classes, those whose attitude to Jesus would be believing and those who would refuse to believe. His action as Messiah would affect all men. Some He would regenerate and purify through the Holy Ghost. Others He would destroy through the fire of punishment. This view is favored by the context in both gospels. In both the destructive energy of Christ is coupled with His saving power in other terms which admit of no doubt. The wheat He gathers into the garner and the chaff He burns with unquenchable fire.

(2) The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not meant to supersede water baptism. This is clear from the whole of the history in the Book of Acts, where water baptism is uniformly administered to converts after the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit, as well as from the numerous references to water baptisms in the epistles. The evidence here is so abundant that it is unnecessary to develop it in detail. See Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 1:14-17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21.

(3) In Acts 8:17 and 19:6 the Holy Spirit is bestowed in connection with the laying on of the hands of apostles, but these are not to be regarded as instances of the baptism of the Spirit in the strict sense, but rather as instances of the reception by believers of the Spirit which had already been bestowed in fullness at Pentecost.

LITERATURE.

Arts. on Holy Spirit in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes) and Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels; article on "Spiritual Gifts" in Encyclopedia Biblica; Moule, Veni Creator; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit.

See also HOLY SPIRIT .

E. Y. Mullins


BAPTISM, INFANT

See BAPTISM (I),II ; (II ),III , 3, v; (III ),III , 3.


BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

bap-tiz'-mal re-jen-er-a'-shun: As indicated in the general articles on BAPTISM and SACRAMENTS, the doctrine ordinarily held by Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and also by Low-Church Episcopalians, differs from that of the Roman and Greek churches, and of High-Church Anglicans, in its rejection of the idea that baptism is the instrumental cause of regeneration, and that the grace of regeneration is effectually conveyed through the administration of that rite wherever duly performed. The teaching of Scripture on this subject is held to be that salvation is immediately dependent on faith, which, as a fruit of the operation of the Spirit of God in the soul, already, in its reception of Christ, implies the regenerating action of that Spirit, and is itself one evidence of it. To faith in Christ is attached the promise of forgiveness, and of all other blessings. Baptism is administered to those who already possess (at least profess) this faith, and symbolizes the dying to sin and rising to righteousness implicit in the act of faith (Rom 6). It is the symbol of a cleansing from sin and renewal by God's Spirit, but not the agency effecting that renewal, even instrumentally. Baptism is not, indeed, to be regarded as a bare symbol. It may be expected that its believing reception will be accompanied by fresh measures of grace, strengthening and fitting for the new life. This, however, as the life is already there, has nothing to do with the idea of baptism as an opus operatum, working a spiritual change in virtue of its mere administration. In Scripture the agency with which regeneration is specially connected is the Divine "word" (compare 1 Pet 1:23). Without living faith, in those capable of its exercise, the outward rite can avail nothing. The supposed "regeneration" may be received--in multitudes of instances is received--without the least apparent change in heart or life.

The above, naturally, applies to adults; the case of children, born and growing up within the Christian community, is on a different footing. Those who recognize the right of such to baptism hold that in the normal Christian development children of believing parents should be the subjects of Divine grace from the commencement (Eph 6:4); they therefore properly receive the initiatory rite of the Christian church. The faith of the parent, in presenting his child for baptism, lays hold on God's promise to be a God to him and to his children; and he is entitled to hope for that which baptism pledges to him. But this, again, has no relation to the idea of regeneration through baptism.

James Orr

ANGLICAN (HIGH-CHURCH) DOCTRINE

Regeneration, the initial gift of life in Christ, is, in the church's normal system, associated with the sacrament of baptism. The basis for this teaching and practice of the church is found primarily in our Lord's discourse to Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-8) wherein the new birth is associated not only with the quickening Spirit but with the element of water. The Saviour's words, literally translated, are as follows: "Except one be born (out) of water and Spirit (ex hudatos kai pneumatos gennaomai), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (That it is the impersonal aspect of the Divine Spirit, i.e. as equivalent to "spiritual life" which is here presented, is indicated by the absence of the article in the Greek of Jn 3:5.) Entrance into the kingdom of God implies entrance into the church as the outward and visible embodiment of that kingdom. our Lord, in the passage above cited, does not limit the possibility or the need of "new birth" to those who have arrived at adult age, or "years of discretion," but uses the general pronoun tis, "anyone." The Anglican church does not, however, teach that baptism is unconditionally necessary, but only that it is "generally" necessary to salvation (compare the language of the Church Catechism with the qualification mentioned in the Prayer-Book "Office for the Baptism of Those of Riper Years," "Whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be had"). It is not taught that the grace of God is absolutely or unconditionally bound to the external means, but only that these sacramental agencies are the ordinary and normal channels of Divine grace.

The typical form of baptism is that appropriate to the initiation of adults into the Christian body. Justin Martyr in his First Apology (chapter lxi) no doubt testifies to what was the general view of Christians in the 2nd century (circa 150 AD): "As many as are persuaded and believe that the things taught and said by us are true, and, moreover, take upon them to live accordingly, are taught to pray and ask of God with fasting for forgiveness of their former sins; .... and then they are brought to a place of water, and there regenerated after the same manner with ourselves; for they are washed in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." For the due administration of this sacrament, personal faith and repentance on the part of the candidate are prerequisite conditions. However, "the baptism of young children" (i.e. of infants) "is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ" (XXXIX Articles, Art. XXVII, sub fin.). In the service "For the Baptism of Infants," repentance and faith are promised for the children by their "sureties" (ordinarily known as "sponsors" or "godparents"), "which promise, when they come to age (the children) themselves are bound to perform."

The person, whether adult or infant, receives in his baptism a real forgiveness; a washing away of all sins, whether original or actual. He also receives, at least in germ, the beginnings of new life in Christ; which life, however, must be developed and brought to perfection through his personal cooperation with the grace of God. But regeneration, as such, is not conversion; it is not even faith or love, strictly speaking. These latter, while they are conditions, or effects, or evidences of regeneration, are not regeneration itself, which is purely the work of God, operating by His creative power, through the Holy Ghost. The moral test of the existence of spiritual life is the presence in heart and conduct of the love of God and of obedience to His commandments (see 1 Jn passim).

It may be added that the bestowment of the gifts of spiritual strength--of the manifold graces and of the fullness of the Holy Spirit--is primarily associated with the laying on of hands (confirmation) rather than with baptism proper; the rite of confirmation was, however, originally connected with the baptismal service, as an adjunct to it. The newly-made Christian is not to rest content with the initial gift of life; he is bound to strive forward unto perfection. Confirmation is, in a sense, the completion of baptism. "The doctrine of laying on of hands" is accordingly connected with "the doctrine of baptisms," and both are reckoned by the author of the Epistle to the He as among "the first principles of Christ" (Heb 6:1,2 the King James Version).

LITERATURE.

For the Anglican doctrine on the subject of regeneration in baptism the following authorities may be consulted: Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, V, lix, lx; Waterland, The Doct. Use of Christian Sacraments; Regeneration; Wall, Infant Baptism; R. I. Wilberforce, The Doctrine of Holy Baptism; Darwell Stone, Holy Baptism, in "The Oxford Library of Practical Theology"; A. J. Mason, The Faith of the Gospel. For patristic teaching on this subject, compare Tertullian, De Baptismo.

William Samuel Bishop

LUTHERAN DOCTRINE

1. Definition of Terms:

Regeneration is here taken in its strict meaning to denote that internal spiritual change, not of the substance, but of the qualities, of the intellect and will of natural man, by which blindness, darkness in regard to spiritual matters, especially the gospel, is removed from the former, and spiritual bondage, impotency, death from the latter (2 Cor 3:5; Acts 26:18; Phil 2:13), and the heart of the sinner is made to savingly know and appropriate the Lord Jesus Christ and the merits of His atoning sacrifice, as its only hope for a God-pleasing life here in time and a life in glory hereafter. Regeneration in the strict sense signifies the first spiritual movements and impulses in man, the beginning of his thinking Divine thoughts, cherishing holy desires and willing God-like volitions. But it does not signify the radical extinction of sin in man; for evil concupiscence remains also in the regenerate as a hostile element to the new life (Rom 7:23-25; Gal 5:16,17). Peccatum tollitur in baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut non obsit--Augustine. "Sin is removed in baptism, not that it may not be, but that it may not hurt." Reduced to its lowest terms, regeneration in the strict sense may be defined as the kindling of saving faith in the heart of the sinner; for according to 1 Jn 5:1, "whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." Such terms as new creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15 margin), spiritual quickening, or vivification (Eph 2:5; Rom 6:11), spiritual resurrection (Eph 2:6; Col 3:1), are true synonyms of regeneration in the strict sense. In the point of time justification coincides with regeneration in the strict sense; for it is by faith, too, that the sinner is justified. But these two spiritual events must not be confounded; for justification affects, not the internal conditions of the sinner's heart, but his legal standing with God the righteous Judge. Regeneration is called baptismal regeneration in so far as it occurs in the event and as an effect of the application of the Christian baptism.

See BAPTISM (I), I, 6.

2. Scriptural Basis of This Doctrine:

The two leading texts of Scripture which declare in plain terms that baptism is a means for effecting regeneration in the strict sense are Jn 3:5 and Tit 3:5. But this doctrine is implied in Acts 2:38; Eph 5:26; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21. In Jn 3:7 it is immaterial whether anothen gennethenai is rendered "to be born from above" or "to be born a second time." For the second birth is never of the flesh (Jn 1:13; 3:4,5); hence, is always of divine origin, "from above." It is ascribed to the agency of the entire Trinity: the Father (Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3); the Son (Jn 1:12); and the Spirit (Tit 3:5). But by appropriation it is generally attributed to the Spirit alone, whose particular function is that of Quickener (see Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Worterb., 9th edition, under the word "pneuma," 894 f). Baptism is an instrument by which the Holy Spirit effects regeneration. "Water and the Spirit" (Jn 3:5) is a paraphrastic description of baptism: "water," inasmuch as the man is baptized therewith (1 Jn 5:7,8; Eph 5:26) for the forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:33; 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11), and "Spirit," inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is given to the person baptized in order to his spiritual renewal and sanctification; "both together--the former as causa medians, the latter as causa efficiens--constitute the objective and causative element out of which (compare Jn 1:13) the birth from above is produced (ek)" (Meyer). In Tit 3:5 "the expression to loutrou palingenesias, literally, `bath of regeneration,' has been very arbitrarily interpreted by some expositors, some taking loutron as a figurative name for the regeneration itself, or for the praedicario evangelii, `preaching of the gospel' or for the Holy Spirit, or for the abundant imparting of the Spirit. From Eph 5:26 it is clear that it can mean nothing else than baptism; compare too, Heb 10:22; 1 Cor 6:11; Acts 22:16." Of this laver of regeneration Paul says that through it (dia), i.e. by its instrumentality, men are saved. Meyer is right when, correcting a former view of his, he states: "According to the context, Paul calls baptism the bath of the new birth, not meaning that it pledges us to the new birth (`to complete the process of moral purification, of expiation and sanctification,' Matthies), nor that it is a visible image of the new birth (De Wette), for neither in the one sense nor in the other could it be regarded as a means of saving. Paul uses that name for it as the bath by means of which God actually brings about the new birth." The application of baptism and the operation of the Spirit must be viewed as one undivided action. Thus the offense of Spurgeon, Weiss and others at "regeneration by water-baptism" can be removed.

3. Faith in Baptism:

Baptism does not produce salutary effects ex opere operato, i.e. by the mere external performance of the baptismal action. No instrument with which Divine grace works does. Even the preaching of the gospel is void of saving results if not "mixed with faith" (Heb 4:2 the King James Version). Luther correctly describes the working of baptism thus: "How can water do such great things? It is not the water indeed that does them, but the Word of God which is in and with the water (God's giving hand), and faith which trusts such word of God in the water (man's receiving hand)." But this faith, which is required for a salutary use of the gospel and baptism, is wrought by these as instruments which the Holy Spirit employs to produce faith; not by imparting to them a magical power but by uniting His Divine power with them (Rom 10:17; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 5:26).

4. Infants and Adults:

The comprehensive statements in Jn 3:6; Eph 2:3 ("by nature") show that infants are in need of being regenerated, and Mt 18:3,6, that they are capable of faith. It is not more difficult for the Holy Spirit to work faith in infants by baptism, than in adults by the preaching of the gospel. And infant faith, though it may baffle our attempts at exact definition, is nevertheless honored in Scripture with the word which denotes genuine faith, pisteuein, i.e. trustfully relying on Christ (Mt 18:6; compare 2 Tim 3:15; 1:5). In the case of adults who have received faith through hearing and reading the gospel (Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 Cor 4:15), baptism is still "the washing of regeneration," because it is a seal to them of the righteousness which these people have previously obtained by believing the gospel (Rom 4:11-13; Gal 3:7); and it reminds them of, and enables them to discharge, their daily duty of putting away the old and putting on the new man (Eph 4:22,24), just as the Word is still the regenerating word of truth (Jas 1:18) though it be preached to persons who are regenerated a long time ago. Accordingly, Luther rightly extends the regenerating and renewing influences of baptism throughout the life of a Christian, when he says "Baptizing with water signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die, with all sins and evil lusts; and, again, a new man should come forth and arise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever" (Smaller Catechism).

W. H. T. Dau


BAPTIST

bap'-tist.

See JOHN THE BAPTIST .


BAR (1)

bar (prefix): Aramaic for the Hebrew ben, "son." Compare Aramaic sections of Ezra and Daniel. In the Old Testament the word is found three times in Prov 31:2 and once in Syriac Ps 2:12 (Hier. translates "pure"). In the New Testament "Bar" is frequently employed as prefix to names of persons. Compare Barabbas; Bar-Jesus; Bar-Jonah; Barnabas; Barsabbas; Bartholomew; Bartimeus.

See BEN .


BAR (2)

bar (substantive):

(1) beriach = "a bolt" (Ex 26:26-29; 35:11; 36:31-34; 39:33; 40:18; Nu 3:36; 4:31; Dt 3:5; Jdg 16:3; 1 Sam 23:7; 1 Ki 4:13; 2 Ch 8:5; 14:7; Neh 3:3,6,13-15; Job 38:10 "bars and doors" for the sea (the bank or shore of the sea); Ps 107:16; 147:13 "the bars of thy gates": the walls of the city were now rebuilt and its gates only closed and barred by night (see Neh 7:3); Prov 18:19, "bars of a castle"; Isa 45:2; Jer 49:31; 51:30; Lam 2:9; Ezek 38:11): meaning "a rock in the sea" (Jon 2:6).

(2) moT = "a staff," "stick," "pole" (Nu 4:10,12 margin); "strong fortification and great impediment" (Isa 45:2; Am 1:5, "the bolt of Damascus": no need here to render prince, as some do (G. A. Smith in the place cited.)).

(3) badh = "staff," "part of body," "strength" (Job 17:16, "bars of Sheol": the gates of the world of the dead; compare Isa 38:10; some read, "Will the bars of Sheol fall?").

(4) meTil = "something hammered out, a (forged) bar" (Job 40:18).

See DOOR ;GATE ;HOUSE .

Frank E. Hirsch


BAR-JESUS

bar-je'-zus (Bariesous): "A certain sorcerer (Greek magos), a false prophet, a Jew" whom Paul and Silas found at Paphos in Cyprus in the train of Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul (Acts 13:6 ff). The proconsul was "a man of understanding" (literally, a prudent or sagacious man), of an inquiring mind, interested in the thought and magic of his times. This characteristic explains the presence of a magos among his staff and his desire to hear Barnabas and Saul. Bar-Jesus was the magician's Jewish name. Elymas is said to be the interpretation of his name (Acts 13:8). It is the Greek transliteration of an Aramaic or Arabic word equivalent to Greek magos. From Arabic `alama, "to know" is derived `alim, "a wise" or "learned man." In Koran, Sur note 106, Moses is called Sachir `alim, "wise magician." Elymas therefore means "sorcerer" (compare Simon "Magus").

The East was flooding the Roman Empire with its new and wonderful religious systems, which, culminating in neo-Platonism, were the great rivals of Christianity both in their cruder and in their more strictly religious forms. Superstition was extremely prevalent, and wonder-workers of all kinds, whether imposters or honest exponents of some new faith, found their task easy through the credulity of the public. Babylonia was the home of magic, for charms are found on the oldest tablets. "Magos" was originally applied to the priests of the Persians who overran Babylonia, but the title degenerated when it was assumed by baser persons for baser articles Juvenal (vi.562, etc.), Horace (Sat. i.2.1) and other Latin authors mention Chaldean astrologers and impostors, probably Babylonian Jews. Many of the Magians, however, were the scientists of their day, the heirs of the science of Babylon and the lore of Persia, and not merely pretenders or conjurers (see MAGIC ). It may have been as the representative of some oriental system, a compound of "science" and religion, that Bar-Jesus was attached to the train of Sergius Paulus.

Both Sergius and Elymas had heard about the teaching of the apostles, and this aroused the curiosity of Sergius and the fear of Elymas. When the apostles came, obedient to the command of the proconsul, their doctrine visibly produced on him a considerable impression. Fearing lest his position of influence and gain would be taken by the new teachers, Elymas "withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith" (Acts 13:8). Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, worked a wonder on the wonder-worker by striking him blind with his word, thus revealing to the proconsul that behind him was Divine power. Sergius Paulus believed, "being astonished at the teaching of the Lord" (Acts 13:12).

S. F. Hunter


BAR-JONAH

bar-jo'-na (Bar-ionas): Simon Peter's patronymic (Mt 16:17). Bar is Aramaic for "son" (compare Bar-timaeus, Bartholomew, etc.), and corresponds to Hebrew ben. Thus we are to understand that Peter's father's name was Jonah. But in Jn 1:42; 21:15-17, according to the best reading, his name is given as John (so the Revised Version (British and American), instead of the King James Version Jona, Jonas). There are two hypotheses to account for this difference: (1) Ionas (Jonah) in Mt 16:17 may be simply a contraction of Ioanes (John); (2) Peter's father may have been known by two names, Jonah and John.

D. Miall Edwards


BARABBAS

ba-rab'-as (Barabbas): For Aramaic Bar-abba = literally, "son of the father," i.e. of the master or teacher. Abba in the time of Jesus was perhaps a title of honor (Mt 23:9), but became later a proper name. The variant Barrabban found in the Harclean Syriac would mean "son of the rabbi or teacher." Origen knew and does not absolutely condemn a reading of Mt 27:16,17, which gave the name "Jesus Barabbas," but although it is also found in a few cursives and in the Aramaic and the Jerusalem Syriac versions in this place only, it is probably due to a scribe's error in transcription (Westcott-Hort, App., 19-20). If the name was simply Barabbas or Barrabban, it may still have meant that the man was a rabbi's son, or it may have been a purely conventional proper name, signifying nothing. He was the criminal chosen by the Jerusalem mob, at the instigation of the priests, in preference to Jesus Christ, for Pilate to release on the feast of Passover (Mk 15:15; Mt 27:20,21; Lk 23:18; Jn 18:40). Matthew calls him "a notable (i.e. notorious) prisoner" (27:16). Mk says that he was "bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder" (15:7). Luke states that he was cast into prison "for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder" (23:19; compare Acts 3:14). John calls him a "robber" or "brigand" (18:40). Nothing further is known of him, nor of the insurrection in which he took part. Luke's statement that he was a murderer is probably a deduction from Mark's more circumstantial statement, that he was only one of a gang, who in a rising had committed murder. Whether robbery was the motive of his crime, as Jn suggests, or whether he was "a man who had raised a revolt against the Roman power" (Gould) cannot be decided. But it seems equally improbable that the priests (the pro-Roman party) would urge the release of a political prisoner and that Pilate would grant it, especially when the former were urging, and the latter could not resist, the execution of Jesus on a political charge (Lk 23:2). The insurrection may have been a notorious case of brigandage. To say that the Jews would not be interested in the release of such a prisoner, is to forget the history of mobs. The custom referred to of releasing a prisoner on the Passover is otherwise unknown. "What Matthew (and John) represents as brought about by Pilate, Mark makes to appear as if it were suggested by the people themselves. An unessential variation" (Meyer). For a view of the incident as semi-legendary growth, see Schmiedel in Encyclopedia Biblica. See also Allen, Matthew, and Gould, Mark, at the place, and article "Barabbas" by Plummer in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes).

T. Rees


BARACHEL

bar'-a-kel (barakh'el, "God blesses"): Barachel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was the father of Elihu, who was the last one to reason with Job (Job 32:2,6). Compare BUZ ;RAM .


BARACHIAH

bar-a-ki'-a (Barachias; the King James Version Barachias; Mt 23:35): Father of Zachariah who was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. It is possible that reference is made to Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (2 Ch 24:20 ff), whom Matthew by mistake calls "Z., the son of Barachiah." Lk 11:51 omits the name of the father of Z. (compare Zahn's Kommentar, 649, note).


BARACHIAS

bar-a-ki'-as.

See BARACHIAH .


BARAK

ba'-rak (baraq, "lightning flash"): The name occurs in Sabeanbarqac, in Palmyrene baraq, and in Punic Barcas, as surname of Hamilcar; and as Divine name in Assyrian Ramman-Birqu and Gibil-Birqu (Del. Assyrian, HWB, 187). Barak was the son of Abinoam of Kedesh, a refuge city in Mt. Naphtali. He was summoned by the prophetess Deborah to lead his countrymen to war against the Canaanites under the leadership of Sisera. From the celebrated ode of Deborah we gather that Israel suffered at the hand of the enemy; the caravan roads were in danger, traffic almost ceased; the cultivated country was plundered (Jdg 5:6,7). The fighting men in Israel were disarmed, a shield was not to be seen nor a spear among forty thousand men (Jdg 5:8). The prophetess raised the signal of struggle for independence. Soon Barak came to her aid. With an army of 10,000 men--according to Jdg 4:10 they were all drawn from Zebulun and Naphtali, whereas Jdg 5:13-18 adds Benjamin, Machir and Issachar to the list of faithful tribes--Barak, accompanied by Deborah, rushed to the summit of Mt. Tabor. This location was very favorable to the rudely armed Israelites in warding off the danger of the well-armed enemy. The wooded slopes protected them against the chariots of the Canaanites. In addition they were within striking distance should the enemy expose himself on the march. Under the heavy rainfall the alluvial plain became a morass, in which the heavy-armed troops found it impossible to move. Soon the little stream Kishon was filled with chariots, horses and Canaanites. Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. Barak pursued him and found him murdered by Jael in her tent. This completed the victory. See BEDAN ; Moore, "Judges," at the place.

Samuel Cohon


BARBARIAN; BARBAROUS

bar-ba'-ri-an, bar'-ba-rus (barbaros): A word probably formed by imitation of the unintelligible sounds of foreign speech, and hence, in the mouth of a Greek it meant anything that was not Greek, language, people or customs. With the spread of Greek language and culture, it came to be used generally for all that was non-Greek. Philo and Josephus sometimes called their own nation "barbarians," and so did Roman writers up to the Augustan age, when they adopted Greek culture, and reckoned themselves with the Greeks as the only cultured people in the world. Therefore Greek and barbarian meant the whole human race (Rom 1:14).

In Col 3:11, "barbarian, Scythian" is not a classification or antithesis but a "climax" (Abbott) = "barbarians, even Scythians, the lowest type of barbarians." In Christ, all racial distinctions, even the most pronounced, disappear.

In 1 Cor 14:11 Paul uses the term in its more primitive sense of one speaking a foreign, and therefore, an unintelligible language: "If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me." The speaking with tongues would not be a means of communication. The excited inarticulate ejaculations of the Corinthian revivalists were worse than useless unless someone had the gift of articulating in intelligible language the force of feeling that produced them (dunamis tes phones, literally, "the power of the sound").

In Acts 28:2,4 (in the King James Version of Acts 28:2 "barbarous people" = barbarians) the writer, perhaps from the Greek-Roman standpoint, calls the inhabitants of Melita barbarians, as being descendants of the old Phoenician settlers, or possibly in the more general sense of "strangers." For the later sense of "brutal," "cruel," "savage," see 2 Macc 2:21; 4:25; 15:2.

T. Rees


BARBER

bar'-ber:

(1) The English word "barber" is from Latin barba, "beard" = a man who shaves the beard. Dressing and trimming the hair came to be added to his work. "Barber" is found only once English Versions of the Bible, in Ezek 5:1, "Take thee a sharp sword; as a barber's razor shalt thou take it unto thee, and shalt cause it to pass upon thy head and upon thy beard" (compare Chaghigha' 4b, Shab, section 6).

(2) In Gen 41:14 we probably have a case of conformity to Egyptian, rather than Palestinian custom, where Joseph "shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh." It is known that Egyptians of the higher classes shaved the beard regularly and completely (as the Hittites, Elamites and early Babylonians seem to have done), except that fashion allowed, as an exception to the rule, a small tuft, or "goatee," under the chin.

(3) We learn from various Scriptural allusions, as well as from other sources (compare W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, 296 ff), that the business of the oriental barber included, besides ceremonial shaving, the trimming and polling of the hair and the beard. Compare 2 Sam 19:24 where it appears that the moustache (Hebrew sapham; the King James Version "beard") received regular trimming; and 1 Sam 21:14, where the neglect of the beard is set down as a sign of madness.

That men wore wigs and false beards in ancient days, the latter showing the rank of the wearer, appears from Herodotus ii.36; iii.12; and Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt, II, 324, etc. Josephus, Vita, II, gives one case where false hair appears to have been used as an intentional disguise. See also Polyb. iii.78.

(4) The business of the barber (see Ezek 5:1, "as a barber's razor shalt thou take it unto thee, and shalt cause it to pass upon thy head and upon thy beard"), outside of ceremonial shaving, may have consisted in trimming and polling the beard and the hair of the head. Of other nations with whom Israel of old came in contact, the Hittites and Elamites, it is now known, shaved the beard completely, as the earliest Babylonians also seem to have done.

(5) The prohibition enjoined in the Mosaic law upon "the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok" (Ezek 44:15,20) forbidding either "shaving the head," or "suffering their locks to grow long," or shaving off the corners of their beard (Lev 21:5), was clearly, in a sense peculiar to the priests, etc.: "They (the priests) shall only cut off," i.e. trim, not shave, "the hair of their heads" (Ezek 44:20b). But in the Apostolical Constitutions, I, 3, insistence is laid upon the Biblical prohibition as applicable to all as regards the removal of the beard (compare Clement of Alexandria, Paed., III, edition Migne, I, 580 f). Jerome on Ezek 44:20 and some of the Jewish sages find the basis of this prohibition in the fact that God gave a beard to man to distinguish him from the woman--so, they reasoned, it is wrong thus to go against Nature (compare Bahya, on Lev 19:27).

(6) In the Palestine of the Greek period, say in the 3rd century BC, when there was a large infusion of Hellenic population and influence, clipping of the beard prevailed in some circles, being omitted only in times of mourning, etc. The common people, however, seem to have seen little distinction between clipping the beard and shaving. But see pictures of captive Jews with clipped beard in the British Museum.

LITERATURE.

Benzinger, heb. Arch., 110; Nowack, Lehrbuch der Heb. Arch., 134; W. Max Muller, Asien und Europa, 296 ff.

George B. Eager


BARCHUS

bar'-kus (Codex Vaticanus, Bachous; Codex Alexandrinus, Barchoue; the King James Version Charchus, from Aldine edition, Charkous; 1 Esdras 5:32 = Barkos (Ezr 2:53; Neh 7:55)): The descendants of Barchus (temple-servants) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem.


BAREFOOT

bar'-foot.

1. Introductory:

The word is found in the following passages: English Versions of the Bible, "He went barefoot" (2 Sam 15:30); "(Isaiah) did so, walking .... barefoot" (Isa 20:2); and like the Egyptians, "naked and barefoot" (Isa 20:3,4). It seems that David in his flight before Absalom "went barefoot," not to facilitate his flight, but to show his grief (2 Sam 15:30), and that Micah (1:8) makes "going barefoot" a sign of mourning (Septuagint: "to be barefoot"; the King James Version "stripped"). The nakedness and bare feet of the prophet Isaiah (20:2) may have been intended to symbolize and express sympathy for the forlorn condition of captives (compare Job 12:17,19, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "spoiled," but some authorities give as the true translation "barefoot").

Jastrow, in article on "Tearing the Garments" (Jour. of the Am. Oriental Soc., XXI, 23-39) presents a view worth considering of going barefoot as a sign of mourning and then of grief in general (compare also Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Barefoot"). All these passages seem to imply the discomfort or going barefoot on long journeys, over stony roads or hot sands; but then, as now, in the Orient sandals seem to have been little worn ordinarily in and around the house.

See SHOE .

2. An Ancient Oriental Custom:

The "shoes" of the ancients, as we know from many sources, were "sandals," i.e. simply soles, for the most part of rawhide, tied to the feet to protect them against the gravel, stones or thorns of the road. Shoes of the modern sort, as well as socks and stockings, were unknown. In ancient times it was certainly a common custom in Bible lands to go about in and around one's house without sandals. The peasantry, indeed, like the fellaheen of today, being hardened to it, often went afield barefoot. But for a king, or a prophet, a priest or a worshipper, to go barefoot, was another matter, as it was also for a mourner, for one in great distress, to be found walking the streets of a city, or going any distance in bare feet. Here we come again to customs peculiar to the Orient, and of various significance. For instance, it was considered then, as it is now in the Moslem world, profane and shocking, nothing short of a desecration, to enter a sanctuary, or walk on "holy ground," with dust-covered shoes, or unwashed feet. Moses and Joshua were commanded to take off their shoes when on "holy ground" (Ex 3:5; Josh 5:15). "No one was allowed to walk on the temple ground with shoes on, or with dust on his feet" (Ber., IX, 5; compare Jamblichus, Pythagoras, section 105). No one in the East today is allowed to enter any mosque with shoes on, or without first putting slippers furnished for the purpose over his shoes. As a rule, too, the feet must be cleansed by ablution in every such case, as well as hands and feet before each meal.

3. Priests on Duty Went Barefoot:

The priests of Israel, as would seem true of the priests in general among the ancients, wore no shoes when ministering (see Silius Italicus,III , 28; compare Theodoret on Ex 3, questio 7; and Yer. Shet., 5, 48d). In ancient times, certainly the priests of Israel, when going upon the platform to serve before the ark, in Tabernacle or temple, as later in the synagogue to bless the congregation, went barefoot; though today strange to say, such ministering priests among the Jews wear stockings, and are not supposed to be barefoot (CoTah, 40a; RH, 316; Shulchan 'Arukh, 'Orach Chayyim, 128, 5; see Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Barefoot").

4. Reasons for the Ancient Custom:

The reason or reasons for the removal of the shoes in such cases as the above, we are not at a loss to divine; but when it comes to the removal of the shoes in times of mourning, etc., opinions differ. Some see in such customs a trace of ancestor-worship; others find simply a reversion or return to primitive modes of life; while others still, in agreement with a widely prevalent Jewish view, suggest that it was adopted as a perfectly natural symbol of humility and simplicity of life, appropriate to occasions of grief, distress and deep solemnity of feeling.

The shoes are set aside now by many modern Jews on the Day of Atonement and on the Ninth of Ab.

LITERATURE.

Winer, Robinson, Biblical Researches, under the word "Priester und Schuhe"; Riehm, Handworterbuch des bib. Alt., under the word "Schuhe."

George B. Eager


BARHUMITE

bar-hu'-mit.

See BAHARUMITE .


BARIAH

ba-ri'-ah (bariach, "fugitive"): Bariah was a descendant of David in the line of Solomon (1 Ch 3:22).


BARKOS

bar'-kos (barqoc, "party-colored'' (?): compare Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 68, note 2): The descendants of Barkos returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:53; Neh 7:55). Compare Barchus (1 Esdras 5:32).


BARLEY

bar'-li (se`orah):

(1) In the Bible, as in modern times, barley was a characteristic product of Palestine--"a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees," etc. (Dt 8:8), the failure of whose crop was a national disaster (Joel 1:11). It was, and is, grown chiefly as provender for horses and asses (1 Ki 4:28), oats being practically unknown, but it was, as it now is, to some extent, the food of the poor in country districts (Ruth 2:17; 2 Ki 4:42; Jn 6:9,13). Probably this is the meaning of the dream of the Midianite concerning Gideon: "Behold, I dreamed a dream; and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian, and came unto the tent, and smote it so that it fell, and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat. And his fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the son of Joash, a man of Israel" (Jdg 7:13 f). Here the barley loaf is type of the peasant origin of Gideon's army and perhaps, too, of his own lowly condition.

Barley was (Ezek 4:9) one of the ingredients from which the prophet was to make bread and "eat it as barley cakes" after having baked it under repulsive conditions (Ezek 4:12), as a sign to the people. The false prophetesses (Ezek 13:19) are said to have profaned God among the people for "handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread."

Barley was also used in the ORDEAL OF JEALOUSY (s.v.). It was with five barley loaves and two fishes that our Lord fed the five thousand (Jn 6:9,10).

(2) Several varieties of barley are grown in Palestine The Hordeum distichum or two-rowed barley is probably the nearest to the original stock, but Hordeum tetrastichum, with grains in four rows, and Hordeum hexastichum, with six rows, are also common and ancient; the last is found depicted upon Egyptian monuments.

Barley is always sown in the autumn, after the "early rains," and the barley harvest, which for any given locality precedes the wheat harvest (Ex 9:31 f), begins near Jericho in April--or even March--but in the hill country of Palestine is not concluded until the end of May or beginning of June.

The barley harvest was a well-marked season of the year (see TIME ) and the barley-corn was a well-known measure of length.

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES .

E. W. G. Masterman


BARN

barn (meghurah, "a granary," "fear," Hag 2:19; acam, "a storehouse," Prov 3:10; mammeghurah, "a repository," Joel 1:17; apotheke, Mt 6:26; 13:30; Lk 12:18,24): A place for the storing of grain, usually a dry cistern in the ground, covered over with a thick layer of earth. "Grain is not stored in the East until it is threshed and winnowed. The apotheke in Roman times was probably a building of some kind. But the immemorial usage of the East has been to conceal the grain, in carefully prepared pits or caves, which, being perfectly dry, will preserve it for years. It thus escaped, as far as possible, the attentions of the tax-gatherer as well as of the robber--not always easily distinguished in the East; compare Jer 41:8" (Temple Dictionary, 215).

Figurative of heaven (Mt 13:30).

See AGRICULTURE ;GARNER .

M. O. Evans


BARNABAS

bar'-na-bas (Barnabas, "son of exhortation," or possibly "son of Nebo"): This name was applied to the associate of Paul, who was originally called Joses or Joseph (Acts 4:36), as a testimony to his eloquence. Its literal meaning is "son of prophecy" (bar, "son"; nebhu'ah, "prophecy"). Compare word for prophet in Gen 20:7; Dt 18:15,18, etc. This is interpreted in Acts 4:36 as "son of exhortation" the Revised Version (British and American), or "son of consolation" the King James Version, expressing two sides of the Greek paraklesis, that are not exclusive. The office of a prophet being more than to foretell, all these interpretations are admissible in estimating Barnabas as a preacher. "Deismann (Bibelstudien, 175-78) considers Barnabas the Jewish Grecized form of Barnebous, a personal Semitic name recently discovered in Asia Minor inscriptions, and meaning "son of Nebo" (Standard Bible Dictionary in the place cited.).

He was a Levite from the island of Cyprus, and cousin, not "nephew" (the King James Version), of the evangelist Mark, the word anepsios (Col 4:10), being used in Nu 36:11, for "father's brothers' sons." When we first learn of him, he had removed to Jerusalem, and acquired property there. He sold "a field," and contributed its price to the support of the poorer members of the church (Acts 4:36 ff). In Acts 11:24 he is described as "a good man and full of the Holy Spirit" (compare Isa 11:2; 1 Cor 12:8,11) "and of faith," traits that gave him influence and leadership. Possibly on the ground of former acquaintanceship, interceding as Paul's sponsor and surety, he removed the distrust of the disciples at Jerusalem and secured the admission of the former persecutor into their fellowship. When the preaching of some of the countrymen of Barnabas had begun a movement toward Christianity among the Greeks at Antioch, Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem to give it encouragement and direction, and, after a personal visit, recognizing its importance and needs, sought out Paul at Tarsus, and brought him back as his associate. At the close of a year's successful work, Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem with contributions from the infant church for the famine sufferers in the older congregation (Acts 11:30). Ordained as missionaries on their return (Acts 13:3), and accompanied by John Mark, they proceeded upon what is ordinarily known as the "First Missionary Journey" of Paul (Acts 13:4,5). Its history belongs to Paul's life. Barnabas as well as Paul is designated "an apostle" (Acts 14:14). Up to Acts 13:43, the precedency is constantly ascribed to Barnabas; from that point, except in 14:14 and 15:12,25, we read "Paul and Barnabas," instead of "Barnabas and Saul." The latter becomes the chief spokesman. The people at Lystra named Paul, because of his fervid oratory, Mercurius, while the quiet dignity and reserved strength of Barnabas gave him the title of Jupiter (Acts 14:12). Barnabas escaped the violence which Paul suffered at Iconium (Acts 14:19).

Upon their return from this first missionary tour, they were sent, with other representatives of the church at Antioch, to confer with the apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem concerning the obligation of circumcision and the ceremonial law in general under the New Testament--the synod of Jerusalem. A separation from Paul seems to begin with a temporary yielding of Barnabas in favor of the inconsistent course of Peter (Gal 2:13). This was followed by a more serious rupture concerning Mark. On the second journey, Paul proceeded alone, while Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus. Luther and Calvin regard 2 Cor 8:18,19 as meaning Barnabas by "the brother whose praise is spread through all the churches," and indicating, therefore, subsequent joint work. The incidental allusions in 1 Cor 9:6 and Gal 2:13 ("even Barnabas") show at any rate Paul's continued appreciation of his former associate. Like Paul, he accepted no support from those to whom he ministered.

Tertullian, followed in recent years by Grau and Zahn, regard him as the author of the Epistle to the He. The document published among patristic writings as the Epistle of Barnabas, and found in full in the Codex Sinaiticus, is universally assigned today to a later period. "The writer nowhere claims to be the apostle Barnabas; possibly its author was some unknown namesake of 'the son of consolation' " (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 239 f).

H. E. Jacobs


BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF

See APOCRYPHAL EPISTLES .


BARNABAS, GOSPEL OF

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .


BARODIS

ba-ro'-dis (Barodeis, 1 Esdras 5:34): The descendants of Barodis (sons of the servants of Solomon) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem. Omitted in Ezr 2 and Neh 7.


BARREL

bar'-el: The word "barrel" in the King James Version (see 1 Ki 17:12,14,16; 18:33: "The barrel of meal," "fill four barrels with water," etc.) stands for the large earthenware jar (so the American Standard Revised Version) used in the East for carrying water from the spring or well, and for storing grain, etc., according to a custom that still persists. It is elsewhere (EV) more fitly rendered "pitcher."

See HOUSE ;PITCHER , etc.


BARREN; BARRENNESS

bar'-en, bar'-en-nes tsiyah; melehah; shakhol; `aqar; steiros; argos):

(1) Of land that bears no crop, either (a) because it is naturally poor and sterile: tsiyah "dry" (Joel 2:20), melechah, "salt" (Job 39:6 the King James Version), shakhol, "miscarrying" (2 Ki 2:19,21), or (b) because it is, under God's curse, turned into a melechah or salt desert, for the wickedness of the people that dwell therein (Ps 107:34 the King James Version; compare Gen 3:17,18).

(2) Of females that bear no issue: `aqar: Sarah (Gen 11:30); Rebekah (Gen 25:21); Rachel (Gen 29:31); Manoah's wife (Jdg 13:2,3); Hannah (1 Sam 2:5); steiros: Elisabeth (Lk 1:7,36).

In Israel and among oriental peoples generally barrenness was a woman's and a family's greatest misfortune. The highest sanctions of religion and patriotism blessed the fruitful woman, because children were necessary for the perpetuation of the tribe and its religion. It is significant that the mothers of the Hebrew race, Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel, were by nature sterile, and therefore God's special intervention shows His particular favor to Israel. Fruitfulness was God's special blessing to His people (Ex 23:26; Dt 7:14; Ps 113:9). A complete family is an emblem of beauty (Song 4:2; 6:6). Metaphorically, Israel, in her days of adversity, when her children were exiled, was barren, but in her restoration she shall rejoice in many children (Isa 54:1; Gal 4:27). The utter despair and terror of the destruction of Jerusalem could go no farther than that the barren should be called blessed (Lk 23:29).

(3) Argos is translated in the King James Version "barren," but in the Revised Version (British and American) more accurately "idle" (2 Pet 1:8).

T. Rees


BARSABAS; BARSABBAS

bar'-sa-bas, bar-sab'-as.

See JOSEPH BARSABBAS ;JUDAS BARSABBAS .


BARTACUS

bar'-ta-kus (Bartakos; Josephus Rhabezdkes; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Bezazes (1 Esdras 4:29)): The father of Apame. He is called "the illustrious," probably because of rank and merits. The family seems to be of Persian origin since the name Bartacus (Syriac, ) in the form of Artachaeas is mentioned by Herodotus (vii.22.117) as a person of rank in the Persian army of Xerxes and the name of his daughter Apame is identical with that of a Persian princess who married Seleucus I, Nicator, and became the mother of Antiochus I. Apamea, a city in Asia Minor founded by Seleucus I, is named in honor of his wife Apame. Compare APAME ;ILLUSTRIOUS .


BARTHOLOMEW

bar-thol'-o-mu (Bartholomaios, i.e. "son of Tolmai or Tolmai"): One of the Twelve Apostles (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). There is no further reference to him in the New Testament. According to the "Genealogies of the Twelve Apostles" (Budge, Contendings of the Apostles, II, 50) "Bartholomew was of the house of Naphtali. Now his name was formerly John, but our Lord changed it because of John the son of Zebedee, His beloved." A "Gospel of Bartholomew" is mentioned by Hieronymus (Comm. Proem ad Matth.), and Gelasius gives the tradition that Bartholomew brought the Hebrew gospel of Matthew to India. In the "Preaching of Bartholomew in the Oasis" (compare Budge,II , 90) he is referred to as preaching probably in the oasis of Al Bahnasa, and according to the "Preaching of Andrew and Bartholomew" he labored among the Parthians (Budge,II , 183). The "Martyrdom of Bartholomew" states that he was placed in a sack and cast into the sea.

From the 9th century onward, Bartholomew has generally been identified with Nathanael, but this view has not been conclusively established.

See NATHANAEL .

C. M. Kerr


BARTHOLOMEW, GOSPEL OF

See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS ;BARTHOLOMEW .


BARTIMAEUS

bar-ti-me'-us (Bartimaios): A hybrid word from Aramaic bar = "son," and Greek timaios = "honorable." For the improbability of the derivation from bar-tim'ai = "son of the unclean," and of the allegorical meaning = the Gentiles or spiritually blind, see Schmiedel in Encyclopedia Biblica. In Mk (10:46-52) Bartimeus is given as the name of a blind beggar, whose eyes Jesus Christ opened as He went out from Jericho on His last journey to Jerusalem. An almost identical account is given by Lk (18:35-43), except that the incident occurred "as he drew nigh unto Jericho," and the name of the blind man is not given. Again, according to Mt (20:29-34), "as they went out from Jericho" (like Mk) two blind men (unlike Mk and Lk) receive their sight. It is not absolutely impossible that two or even three events are recorded, but so close is the similarity of the three accounts that it is highly improbable. Regarding them as referring to the same event, it is easy to understand how the discrepancies arose in the passage of the story from mouth to mouth. The main incident is clear enough, and on purely historical grounds, the miracle cannot be denied. The discrepancies themselves are evidence of the wide currency of the story before our Gospels assumed their present form. It is only a most mechanical theory of inspiration that would demand their harmonization.

T. Rees


BARUCH

ba'-ruk, bar'-uk (baruk; Barouch, "blessed"):

(1) Son of Neriah and brother of Seraiah, King Zedekiah's chamberlain (Jer 51:59). He was the devoted friend (Jer 32:12), the amanuensis (36:4 ff,32) and faithful attendant (36:10 ff; Josephus, Ant, X, vi, 2) of the prophet Jeremiah. He seems to have been of noble family (see Ant, X, ix, 1; compare Jer 51:59; Baruch 1:1). He was also according to Josephus a man of unusual acquirements (Ant., X, ix, 1). He might have risen to a high position and seemed conscious of this, but under Jeremiah's influence (see Jer 45:5) he repressed his ambition, being content to throw in his lot with the great prophet whose secretary and companion he became. Jeremiah dictated his prophecies to Baruch, who read them to the people (Jer 36). The king (Jehoiakim) was greatly angered at these prophecies and had Baruch arrested and the roll burnt. Baruch however rewrote the prophet's oracles. In the final siege of Jerusalem Baruch stood by his master, witnessing the purchase by the latter of his ancestral estate in Anathoth (Jer 32). According to Josephus (Ant., X, ix, 1) he continued to reside with Jeremiah at Mizpah after the fall of Jerusalem. Subsequent to the murder of Gedaliah, he was accused of having unduly influenced Jeremiah when the latter urged the people to remain in Judah--a fact which shows how great was the influence which Baruch was believed to have had over his master (Jer 43:3). He was carried with Jeremiah to Egypt (Jer 43:6; Ant, X, ix, 6), and thereafter our knowledge of him is merely legendary. According to a tradition preserved by Jerome (on Isa 30:6 f) he died in Egypt soon after reaching that country. Two other traditions say that he went, or by Nebuchadnezzar was carried, to Babylon after this king conquered Egypt. The high character of Baruch and the important part he played in the life and work of Jeremiah induced later generations still further to enhance his reputation, and a large number of spurious writings passed under his name, among them the following: (a) The APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH (which see); (b) the Book of Baruch; (c) the Rest of the Words of Baruch; (d) the Gnostic Book of Baruch; (e) the Latin Book of Baruch, composed originally in Latin; (f) a Greek Apocalypse of Baruch belonging to the 2nd century of our era; (g) another Book of Baruch belonging to the 4th or 5th century.

(2) A son of Zabbai who aided Nehemiah in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:20).

(3) One of the priests who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (10:6).

(4) The son of Colhozeh, a descendant of Perez, the son of Judah (Neh 11:5).

T. Witton Davies


BARUCH, APOCALYPSE OF

See APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE .


BARUCH, BOOK OF

One of the Apocryphal or Deutero-canonical books, standing between Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Septuagint, but in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) after these two books.

I. Name.

See underBARUCH for the meaning of the word and for the history of the best-known Biblical. personage bearing the name. Though Jewish traditions link this book with Jeremiah's amanuensis and loyal friend as author, it is quite certain that it was not written or compiled for hundreds of years after the death of this Baruch. According to Jer 45:1 it was in the 4th year (604 BC) of the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597 BC) that Baruch wrote down Jeremiah's words in a book and read them in the ears of the nobles (English Versions, "princes," but king's sons are not necessarily meant; Jer 36). The Book of Baruch belongs in its present form to the latter half of the 1st century of our era; yet some modern Roman Catholic scholars vigorously maintain that it is the work of Jeremiah's friend and secretary.

II. Contents.

This book and also the Epistle of Jeremy have closer affinities with the canonical Book of Jer than any other part of the Apocrypha. It is probably to this fact that they owe their name and also their position in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) The book is apparently made up of four separate parts by independent writers, brought together by an editor, owing it is very likely to a mere accident--each being too small to occupy the space on one roll they were all four written on one and the same roll. The following is a brief analysis of the four portions of the book:

1. Historical Introduction:

Historical Introduction, giving an account of the origin and purpose of the book (Baruch 1:1-14). Baruch 1:1 f tell us that Baruch wrote this book at Babylon "in the fifth month (not "year" as the Septuagint) in the seventh day of the month, what time as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire" (see 2 Ki 25:8 ff). Fritzsche and others read: "In the fifth year, in the month Sivan (see 1:8), in the seventh day of the month," etc. Um gives the date of the feast Pentecost, and the supposition is that the party who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem did so in order to observe that feast. According to 1:3-14, Baruch read his book to King Jehoiachin and his court by the (unidentified) river Sud. King and people on hearing the book fell to weeping, fasting and praying. As a result money was collected and sent, together with Baruch's book, to the high priest Jehoiakim, (NOTE: So spelled in the canonical books; but it is Joacim or Joachim in Apocrypha the King James Version, and in the Apocrypha the Revised Version (British and American) it is invariably Joakim.) to the priests and to the people at Jerusalem. The money is to be used in order to make it possible to carry on the services of the temple, and in particular that prayers may be offered in the temple for the king and his family and also for the superior lord King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Baltasar (= the Belshazzar of Dan 5).

2. Confession and Prayer:

Confession and prayer (Baruch 1:15 through 3:8) (1) of the Palestinian remnant (Baruch 1:15 through 2:15). The speakers are resident in Judah not in Babylon (Baruch 1:15; compare 2:4), as J. T. Marshall and R. H. Charles rightly hold. This section follows throughout the arrangement and phraseology of a prayer contained in Dan 9:7-15. It is quite impossible to think of Daniel as being based on Baruch, for the writer of the former is far more original than the author or authors of Baruch. But in the present section the original passage in Dan is altered in a very significant way. Thus in Dan 9:7 the writer describes those for whom he wrote as `the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel(ites): those near and those far off, in all the lands (countries) whither thou hast driven them on account of their unfaithfulness toward thee.' The italicized words are omitted from Baruch 1:15, though the remaining part of Dan 9:7 is added. Why this difference? It is evident, as Marshall has ably pointed out, that the editor of the section intends to put the confession and prayer of Baruch 1:15 through 2:5 into the mouths of Jews who had not been removed into exile. Ewald (History, V, 208, 6) holds that Dan 9:7-9 is dependent on Baruch 1:15 through 2:17. The section may thus be analyzed:

(a) Baruch 1:15-22:

Confession of the sins of the nation from the days of Moses down to the exile. The principle of solidarity (see Century Bible, "Psalms,"II , 21, 195, 215) so governed the thoughts of the ancient Israelites that the iniquities of their forefathers were in effect their own.

(b) Baruch 2:1-5:

God's righteous judgment on the nation in humbling and scattering them.

Confession and prayer (2) of the exiles in Babylon Baruch 2:16 through 3:8. That the words in this section are supposed to be uttered by Babylonian exiles appears from 2:13 f; 3:7 f and from the general character of the whole. This portion of the book is almost as dependent on older Scriptures as the foregoing. Three sources seem in particular to have been used.

(a) The Book of Jeremiah has been freely drawn upon.

(b) Deuteronomic phrases occur frequently, especially in the beginning and end. These are perhaps taken second-hand from Jeremiah, a book well known to the author of these verses and deeply loved by him.

(c) Solomon's prayer as recorded in 1 Ki 8 is another quarry from which our author appears to have dug.

This section may be thus divided:

(i.) Baruch 2:6-12: Confession, opening as the former (see 1:15) with words extracted from Dan 9:7.

(ii.) Baruch 2:13 through 3:8: Prayer for restoration.

Baruch 3:1-8 shows more independence than the rest, for the author at this point makes use of language not borrowed from any original known to us. As such these verses are important as a clue to the writer's position, views and character.

In Baruch 3:4 we have the petition: "Hear now the prayer of the dead Israelites," etc., words which as they stand involve the doctrine that the dead (Solomon, Daniel, etc.) are still alive and make intercession to Goal on behalf of the living. But this teaching is in opposition to 2:17 which occurs in the same context. Without making any change in the Hebrew consonants we can and should read for "dead (methe) Israelites" "the men of (methe) Israel." The Septuagint confuses the same words in Isa 5:13.

3. The Praise of Wisdom:

The praise of "Wisdom," for neglecting which Israel is now in a strange land. God alone is the author of wisdom, and He bestows it not upon the great and mighty of this world, but upon His own chosen people, who however have spurned the Divine gift and therefore lost it (Baruch 3:9 through 4:4).

The passage, Baruch 3:10-13 (Israel's rejection of "Wisdom" the cause of her exile), goes badly with the context and looks much like an interpolation. The dominant idea in the section is that God has made Israel superior to all other nations by the gift of "wisdom," which is highly extolled. Besides standing apart from the context these four verses lack the rhythm which characterize the other verses. What is so cordially commended is described in three ways, each showing up a different facet, as do the eight synonyms for the Divine word in each of the 22 strophes in Ps 119 (see Century Bible, "Psalms,"II , 254).

(1) It is called most frequently "Wisdom."

(2) In Baruch 4:1 it is described as the Commandments of God and as the Law or more correctly as authoritative instruction. The Hebrew word for this last (torah) bears in this connection, it is probable, the technical meaning of the Pentateuch, a sense which it never has in the Old Testament. Compare Dt 4:6, where the keeping of the commandments is said to be "wisdom" and understanding.

4. The Dependence of This Wisdom Section:

(1) The line of thought here resembles closely that pursued in Job 28, which modern scholars rightly regard as a later interpolation. Wisdom, the most valuable of possessions, is beyond the unaided reach of man. God only can give it--that is what is taught in these parts of both Baruch and Job with the question "Where shall wisdom be found?" (Job 28:12; compare Baruch 3:14 f, where a similar question forms the basis of the greater portion of the section of Job 38 f). Wisdom is not here as in Proverbs hypostatized, and the same is true of Job 28. This in itself is a sign of early date, for the personifying of "wisdom" is a later development (compare Philo, John 1).

(2) The language in this section is modeled largely on that of Deuteronomy, perhaps however through Jeremiah, which is also especially after chapter 10 Deuteronomic in thought and phraseology. See anteII , 2 (2 1b).

The most original part of this division of the book is where the writer enumerates the various classes of the world's great ones to whom God had not given "wisdom": princes of the heathen, wealthy men, silversmiths, merchants, theologians, philosophers, etc. (Baruch 3:16 ff).

See WISDOM .

5. Words of Cheer to Israel:

The general thought that pervades the section, Baruch 4:5 through 5:9, is words of cheer to Israel (i.e. Judah) in exile, but we have here really, according to Rothstein, a compilation edited so skillfully as to give it the appearance of a unity which is not real. Earlier Biblical writings have throughout been largely drawn upon. Rothstein (Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen, etc., 213-15) divides the section in the following manner:

(1) Baruch 4:5-9a:

Introductory section, giving the whole its keynote--"Be of good cheer," etc.; 4:7 f follows Dt 32:15-18.

(2) Baruch 4:9b-29:

A song, divisible into two parts.

(a) Personified Jerusalem deplores the calamities of Israel in exile (Baruch 4:9b-16).

(b) She urges her unfortunate children to give themselves to hope and prayer, amending their ways so that God may bring about their deliverance (Baruch 4:17-29).

(c) Baruch 4:30 through 5:9: A second song, beginning as the first with the words, "Be of good cheer," and having the same general aim, to comfort exiled and oppressed Israel.

In all three parts earlier Scriptures have been largely used, and in particular Deutero-Isaiah has had much influence upon the author. But there do not seem to the present writer reasons cogent enough for concluding, with Rothstein, that these three portions are by as many different writers. There is throughout the same recurring thought "Be of good cheer," and there is nothing in the style to suggest divergent authorship.

(3) The Relation between Baruch 4:36 through 5:9 and Psalter of Solomon 11.

It was perhaps Ewald (Geschichte, IV, 498) who first pointed out the similarity of language and viewpoint between Baruch 4:36 through 5:9 and Psalter of Solomon 11, especially 11:3-8. The only possible explanation is that which makes Baruch 4:36 ff an imitation of Psalter of Solomon 11. So Ewald (op. cit.); Ryle and James (Ps Sol, lxx, ii ff).

Ps Sol were written originally in Hebrew, and references to Pompey (died 48 BC) and to the capture of Jerusalem (63 BC) show that this pseudepigraphical Psalter must have been written in the first half of the 1st century BC. Bar, as will be shown, is of much later date than this. Besides it is now almost certain that the part of Baruch under discussion was written in Greek (see below,IV ) and that it never had a Hebrew original. Now it is exceedingly unlikely that a writer of a Hebrew psalm would copy a Greek original, though the contrary supposition is a very likely one.

On the other hand A. Geiger (Psalt. Sol., XI, 137-39, 1811), followed by W. B. Stevenson (Temple Bible), and many others argue for the priority of Baruch, using this as a reason for giving Baruch an earlier date than is usually done. It is possible, of course, that the Pseudo-Solomon and the Pseudo-Baruch have been digging in the same quarry; and that the real original used by both is lost.

III. Language.

For our present purpose the book must be divided into two principal parts: (1) Baruch 1 through 3:8; (2) 3:9 through 5:9. There is general agreement among the best recent scholars from Ewald downward that the first portion of the book at least was written originally in Hebrew. (1) In the Syro-Hex. text there are margin notes to 1:17 and 2:3 to the effect that these verses are lacking in the Hebrew, i.e. in the original Hebrew text.

(2) There are many linguistic features in this first part which are best explained on the supposition that the Greek text is from a Hebrew original. In Baruch 2:25 the Septuagint English Versions of the Bible apostole at the end of the verse means "a sending of." The English Versions of the Bible ("pestilence") renders a Hebrew word which, without the vowel signs (introduced late) is written alike for both meanings (d-b-r). The mistake can be explained only on the assumption of a Hebrew original. Similarly the reading "dead Israelites" for "men of Israel" (= Israelites) in 3:4 arose through reading wrong vowels with the same consonants, which last were alone written until the 7th and 8th centuries of our era.off, in all the lands (countries) whither thou hast driven them on account of their unfaithfulness toward thee.' The italicized words are omitted from Baruch 1:15, though the remaining part of Dan 9:7 is added. Why this difference? It is evident, as Marshall has ably pointed out, that the editor of the section intends to put the confession and prayer of Baruch 1:15 through 2:5 into the mouths of Jews who had not been removed into exile. Ewald (History, V, 208, 6) holds that Dan 9:7-9 is dependent on Baruch 1:15 through 2:17. The section may thus be analyzed:

Frequently, as in Hebrew, sentences begin with Greek kai (= "and") which, without somewhat slavish copying of the Hebrew, would not be found. The construction called parataxis characterizes Hebrew; in good Greek we meet with hypotaxis.

The Hebrew way of expressing "where" is put literally into the Greek of this book (Baruch 2:4,13,29; 3:8). Many other Hebrew idioms, due, it is probable, to the translator's imitations of his original, occur: in "to speak in the ears of" (Baruch 1:3); the word "man" (anthropos) in the sense "everyone" (Baruch 2:3); "spoken by thy servants the prophets" is in Greek by "the hand of the servants," which is good Hebrew but bad Greek Many other such examples could be added.

There is much less agreement among scholars as to the original language or languages of the second part of the book (Baruch 3:9 through 5:9). That this part too was written in Hebrew, so that in that case the whole book appeared first in that language, is the position held and defended by Ewald (op. cit.), Kneucker (op. cit.), Konig (Ein), Rothstein (op. cit.) and Bissell (Lange). It is said by these writers that this second part of Baruch equally with the first carries with it marks of being a translation from the Hebrew. But one may safely deny this statement. It must be admitted by anyone who has examined the text of the book that the most striking Hebraisms and the largest number of them occur in the first part of the book. Bissell writes quite fully and warmly in defense of the view that the whole book was at first written in Hebrew, but the Hebraisms which he cites are all with one solitary exception taken from the first part of the book. This one exception is in Baruch 4:15 where the Greek conjunction holi is used for the relative ho, the Hebrew 'asher having the meaning of both. There seems to be a Hebraism in 4:21: "He shall deliver thee from .... the hand of your enemies," and there are probably others. But there are Hebraisms in Hellenistic Greek always--the present writer designates them "Hebraisms" or "Semiticisms" notwithstanding what Deismann, Thumb and Moulton say. In the first part of this book it is their overwhelming number and their striking character that tell so powerfully in favor of a Hebrew original.

(3) The following writers maintain that the second part of the book was written first of all in Greek: Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Schurer, Gifford, Cornill and R. H. Charles, though they agree that the first part had a Hebrew original. This is probably the likeliest view, though much may be written in favor of a Hebrew original for the whole book and there is nothing quite decisively against it. J. Turner Marshall (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 253) tries to prove that Baruch 3:9 through 4:4 was written first in Aramaic, the rest of the book (4:5 through 5:9) in Greek But though he defends his case with great ability he does not appear to the present writer to have proved his thesis. Ewald (op. cit.), Hitzig (Psalmen2, II, 119), Dillmann, Ruetschi, Fritzsche and Bissell were so greatly impressed by the close likeness between the Greek of Baruch and that of the Septuagint of Jeremiah, that they came to the conclusion that both books were translated by the same person. Subsequently Hitzig decided that Baruch was not written until after 70 AD, and therefore abandoned his earlier opinion in favor of this one--that the translator of Baruch was well acquainted with the Septuagint of Jeremiah and was strongly influenced by it.

IV. Date or Dates.

It is important to distinguish between the date of the completion of the entire book in its present form and the dates of the several parts which in some or all cases may be much older than that of the whole as such.

1. The Historical Introduction:

Baruch 1:1-14 was written after the completion of the book expressly to form a prologue or historical explanation of the circumstances under which the rest of the book came to be written. To superficial readers it could easily appear that the whole book was written by one man, but a careful examination shows that the book is a compilation. One may conclude that the introduction was the last part of the book to be composed and that therefore its date is that of the completion of the book. Reasons will be given (see below) for believing that 4:5 through 5:9 belongs to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70AD . This is still more true of this introduction intended as a foreword to the whole book.

2. Confession and Prayer:

The following points bear on the date of the section Baruch 1:15 through 3:8, assuming it to have one date:

(1) The generation of Israelites to which the writer belonged were suffering for the sins of their ancestors; see especially Baruch 3:1-8.

(2) The second temple was in existence in the writer's day. Baruch 2:26 must (with the best scholars) be translated as follows: "And thou hast made the house over which thy name is called as it is this day," i.e. the temple--still in being--is shorn of its former glory. Moreover though Dan 9:7-14 is largely quoted in Baruch 1:15 through 2:12, the prayer for the sanctuary and for Jerusalem in Dan 9:16 is omitted, because the temple is not now in ruins.

(3) Though it is implied (see aboveII , 2, (1)) that there are Jews in Judah who have never left their land there are a large number in foreign lands, and nothing is said that they were servants of the Babylonian king.

(4) The dependence of Baruch 2:13 through 3:8 on Deuteronomy, Jer and 1 Ki 8 (Solomon's prayer) shows that this part of the book is later than these writings, i.e. later than say 550 BC. Compare Baruch 2:13 with Dt 28:62 and Jer 42:2.

(5) The fact that Dan 9:7-14 has influenced Baruch 1:15 through 2:12 proves that a date later than Daniel must be assumed for at least this portion of Baruch. The temple is still standing, so that the book belongs somewhere between 165 BC, when Daniel was written, and 71 AD, when the temple was finally destroyed.

Ewald, Gifford and Marshall think that this section belongs to the period following the conquest of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I (320 BC). According to Ewald the author of Baruch 1:1 through 3:8 (regarded as by one hand) was a Jew living in Babylon or Persia. But Daniel had not in 320 BC been written. Fritzsche, Schrader, Keil, Toy and Charles assign the section to the Maccabean age--a quite likely date. On the other hand Hitzig, Kneucker and Schurer prefer a date subsequent to 70 AD. The last writer argues for the unity of this section, though he admits that the middle of chapter 1 comports ill with its context.

3. The Wisdom Section Baruch 3:9 through 4:4:

It has been pointed out (see above,II , 3) that Baruch 3:10-13 does not belong to this section, being manifestly a later interpolation. The dependence of this Wisdom portion on Job 28 and on Deuteronomy implies a post-exilic date. The identification of Wisdom with the Torah which is evidently a synonym for the Pentateuch, argues a date at any rate not earlier than 300 BC. But how much later we have no means of ascertaining. The reasons adduced by Kneucker and Marshall for a date immediately before or soon af ter the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD have not convinced the present writer.

4. Words of Cheer Baruch 4:5 through 5:9:

The situation implied in these words may be thus set forth:

(1) A great calamity has happened to Jerusalem (Baruch 4:9 f). Nothing is said proving that the whole land has shared the calamity, unless indeed this is implied in Baruch 4:5 f.

(2) A large number of Jerusalemites have been transported (Baruch 4:10).

(3) The nation that has sacked Jerusalem and carried away many of its inhabitants is "shameless," having "a strange language, neither reverencing old men nor pitying children" (Baruch 4:15).

(4) The present home of the Jerusalemites is a great city (Baruch 4:32-35), not the country.

Now the above details do not answer to any dates in the history of the nation except these two: (a) 586 BC, when the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians; (b) 71 AD, when the temple was finally destroyed by the Romans. But the date 586 BC is out of the question, and no modern scholar pleads for it. We must therefore assume for this portion of the book a date soon after 70 AD. In the time of Pompey, to which Graetz assigns the book, neither Jerusalem nor the temple was destroyed. Nor was there any destruction of either during the Maccabean war. In favor of this date is the dependence of Baruch 4:36 ff on Psalter of Solomon 11 (see above,II , 5, (3)).

Rothstein (in Kautzsch) says that in this section there are at least three parts by as many different writers. Marshall argues for four independent parts. But if either of these views is correct the editor has done his work exceedingly well, for the whole harmonizes well together.

Kneucker, author of the fullest Commentary, endeavors to prove that the original book consisted of Baruch 1:1 f plus 3a (the heading) plus 3:9 through 5:9, and that it belongs to the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). The confession and prayer in 1:15 through 3:8 were written, he says, somewhat earlier and certainly before 71 AD, and as a separate work, being inserted in the book by the scribe who wrote 1:4-14.

V. Versions.

The most important versions are the following. It is assumed in the article that the Greek text of the book up to Baruch 3:8 is itself a translation from a Hebrew text now lost. The same remark may be true of the rest of the book or of a portion of it (see above,III ).

1. Latin:

There are two versions in this language: (1) The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) which is really the Old Latin, since Jerome's revision was confined to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Apocrypha being therefore omitted in this revision. This version is a very literal one based on the Greek It is therefore for that reason the more valuable as a witness to the Greek text. (2) There is a later Latin translation, apparently a revision of the former, for its Latinity is better; in some cases it adopts different readings and in a general way it has been edited so as to bring it into harmony with the Vatican uncial (B). This Latin version was published in Rome by J. Maria Caro (died circa 1688) and was reprinted by Sabatier in parallel columns with the pre-Jeromian version noticed above (see Bibliotheca Casinensis, I, 1873).

2. Syriac:

There are also in this language two extant versions: (1) The Peshitta, a very literal translation, can be seen in the London (Walton's) Polyglot and most conveniently in Lagarde's Libr. Apocrypha. Syriac., the last being a more accurate reproduction. (2) The Hexapla Syriac translation made by Paul, bishop of Telle, near the beginning of the 7th century AD. It has been published by Ceriani with critical apparatus in his beautiful photograph-lithographed edition of the Hexapla Syriac Bible.

3. Arabic:

There is a very literal translation to be found in the London Polyglot, referred to above.

LITERATURE.

For editions of the Greek text see underAPOCRYPHA . Of commentaries the fullest and best is that by Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (1879), who gives an original German rendering based on a restored Hebrew original. Other valuable commentaries are those by Fritzsche (1851); Ewald, Die Propheten2, etc. (1868), III, 251-82 (Eng. translation); The Prophets of the Old Testament, V, 108-37, by Reusch (1855); Zockler (1891) and Rothstein (op. cit.); and in English, Bissell (in Lange's series edited by D. S. Schaff, 1880); and Gifford (Speaker's Comm., 1888). The S.P.C.K. has a handy and serviceable volume published in the series of popular commentaries on the Old Testament. But this commentary, though published quite recently (my copy belongs to 1894, "nineteenth thousand"), needs strengthening on the side of its scholarship.

Arts. dealing with introduction occur in the various Bible Dictionaries (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Westcott and Ryle; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), J. T. Marshall, able and original; Encyclopedia Biblica, Bevan, rather slight). To these must be added excellent articles in Jewish Encyclopedia (G. F. Moore), and Encyclopedia Biblica (R. H. Charles).

T. Witton Davies


BARZILLAI

bar-zil'-a-i, bar-zil'-i (barzillay; Berzelli, "man of iron" (BDB, but compare Cheyne, Encyclopedia Biblica)):

(1) A Gileadite of Rogelim who brought provisions to David and his army to Mahanaim, in their flight from Absalom (2 Sam 17:27-29). When David was returning to Jerusalem after Absalom's defeat, Barzillai conducted him over Jordan, but being an old man of 80 years of age, he declined David's invitation to come to live in the capital, and sent instead his son Chimham (2 Sam 19:31-39). David before his death charged Solomon to "show kindness unto the sons of Barzillai." (1 Ki 2:7). Cheyne in Encyclopedia Biblica, without giving any reason, differentiates this Barzillai from Barzillai the Gileadite (Ezr 2:61 = Neh 7:63). See (2) below.

(2) The father of a family of priests who in Ezra's time, after the return of the exiles, could not trace their genealogy. "Therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood." This Barzillai had taken "a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite," and had adopted his wife's family name (Ezr 2:61,62 = Neh 7:63,64). His original name is given as Jaddus (the King James Version Addus) (1 Esdras 5:38). (See ZORZELLEUS ; the Revised Version, margin "Phaezeldaeus.")

(3) Barzillai the Meholathite, whose son Adriel was married to Saul's daughter, either Michal (2 Sam 21:8) or Merab (1 Sam 18:19).

T. Rees


BASALOTH

bas'-a-loth (A, Baaloth; B, Basalem; 1 Esdras 5:31 = Bazluth (Ezr 2:52) and Bazlith (Neh 7:54)): The descendants of Basaloth (temple-servants) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem.


BASCAMA

bas'-ka-ma (Baskama (1 Macc 13:23)): A town located in the country of Gilead, where Tryphon slew Jonathan, the son of Absalom. Compare JONATHAN (Apocrypha).


BASE

bas:

(1) Substantive from Latin basis, Greek basis, a foundation. (a) (mekhonah): the fixed resting-place on which the lavers in Solomon's temple were set (1 Ki 7:27-43; 2 Ki 16:17; 25:13,16; 2 Ch 4:14; Jer 27:19; 52:17,20; compare Ezr 3:3; Zec 5:11 the American Revised Version, margin). (b) (ken): pedestal in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) (1 Ki 7:29,31) and in the Revised Version (British and American) only (Ex 30:18,28; 31:9; 35:16; 38:8; 39:39; 40:11; Lev 8:11) of

the base of the laver of the tabernacle (the King James Version "foot"). (c) (yarekh): "base of candlestick" (the Revised Version (British and American) of Ex 25:31; 37:17) the King James Version "shaft." (d) (yecodh): the Revised Version (British and American) "base of altar"; the King James Version "bottom" (Ex 29:12; 38:8; Lev 4:7,18,25,30,34; 5:9; 8:15; 9:9). (e) (gabh): the Revised Version (British and American) "elevation," i.e. basement of altar; the King James Version "higher place" (Ezek 43:13).

(2) Adjective from French bas--low, or Welsh bas--"shallow": of lowly birth or station, of voluntary humility and of moral depravity. (a) (shaphal, shephal): of David's self-humiliation (2 Sam 6:22): "a modest unambitious kingdom" (Ezek 17:14; 29:14,15 (BDB); Dan 4:17 (the American Standard Revised Version "lowest")): compare shephelah = "lowland." (b) (qalah): men of humble birth and station as opposed to the nobles (Isa 3:5). (c) (beli-shem): "nameless," "of no account": "children of fools, yea, children of base men" (Job 30:8). (d) the King James Version men, sons, daughters, children of Belial; literally "worthless persons"; in the American Standard Revised Version "base," except 1 Sam 1:16 "wicked woman"; also the English Revised Version of Dt 13:13, "base," which elsewhere retains the King James Version rendering. (e) (tapeinos): "lowly," "humble or abject" (2 Cor 10:1); the Revised Version (British and American), "lowly"; so Paul's enemies said he appeared when present in the church at Corinth. (f) (agenes): "of low birth," "of no account" (1 Cor 1:28): "base things of the world." (g) (agoraios): " belonging to the market-place," loafers, worthless characters (Acts 17:5): "certain lewd fellows of the baser sort"; the Revised Version (British and American) "certain vile fellows of the rabble."

T. Rees


BASEMATH; BASHEMATH; BASMATH

bas'-e-math, bash'-e-math, bas'-math (basemath, "fragrant"):

(1) Basemath, one of the wives of Esau, a daughter of Elon, the Hittite (Gen 26:34; the King James Version Bashemath), probably identical with or a sister of Adah whom he also married (Gen 36:2). Compare ADAH .

(2) Basemath (the King James Version Bashemath), another wife of Esau, a daughter of Ishmael and a sister of Nebaioth (Gen 36:3,4,10,13,17). This wife is also called Mahalath (Gen 28:9), and is of the house of Abraham. Esau married her because his father was not pleased with his other wives who were daughters of Canaan. Compare MAHALATH .

(2) Basemath (the King James Version Basmath), the daughter of Solomon, and wife of Ahimaaz, a commissariat-officer in the service of Solomon (1 Ki 4:15).

A. L. Breslich


BASHAN

ba'-shan (ha-bashan, "the Bashan"; Basan): This name is probably the same in meaning as the cognate Arabic bathneh, "soft, fertile land," or bathaniyeh (batanaea), "this land sown with wheat" ("wheatland").

1. Boundaries:

It often occurs with the article, "the Bashan," to describe the kingdom of Og, the most northerly part of the land East of the Jordan. It stretched from the border of Gilead in the South to the slopes of Hermen in the North. Hermon itself is never definitely included in Bashan, although Og is said to have ruled in that mountain (Josh 12:5; 13:11). In Dt 3:10 Salecah and Edrei seem to indicate the East and West limits respectively. This would agree with Josh 12:5; 13:11, which seem to make Geshur and Maacath the western boundary of Bashan. If this were so, then these unconquered peoples literally "dwelt in the midst of Israel." On the other hand Dt 4:47 may mean that the Jordan formed the western boundary; while Dt 33:22 makes Bashan extend to the springs of the Jordan. If Golan lay in the district in which its name is still preserved (el Jaulan), this also brings it to the lip of the Jordan valley (Dt 4:43). "A mountain of summits," or "protuberances" (Ps 68:15,16: Hebrew), might describe the highlands of the Jaulan, with its many volcanic hills as seen from the West. "A mountain of God" however does not so well apply to this region. Perhaps we should, with Wetzstein (Das batanaische Giebelgebirge) take these phrases as descriptive of Jebel Chauran, now usually called Jebel ed-Druze, with its many striking summits. This range protected the province from encroachment by the sands of the wilderness from the East. On the South Bashan marched with the desert steppe, el-Chamad, and Gilead. Of the western boundary as we have seen there can be no certainty. It is equally impossible to draw any definite line in the North.

2. Characteristics:

Bashan thus included the fertile, wooded slopes of Jebel ed-Druze, the extraordinarily rich plain of el-Chauran (en-Nuqrah--see HAURAN ), the rocky tract of el-Leja', the region now known as el-Jedur, resembling the Chauran in character, but less cultivated; and, perhaps, the breezy uplands of el-Jaulan, with its splendid reaches of pasture land. It was a land rich in great cities, as existing ruins sufficiently testify. It can hardly be doubted that many of these occupy sites of great antiquity. We may specially note Ashtaroth and Edrei, the cities of Og; Golan, the city of refuge, the site of which is still in doubt; and Salecah (Calkhad), the fortress on the ridge of the mountain, marking the extreme eastern limit of Israel's possessions.

The famous oaks of Bashan (Isa 2:13; Ezek 27:6) have their modern representatives on the mountain slopes. It seems strange that in Scripture there is no notice of the wheat crops for which the country is in such repute today. Along with Carmel it stood for the fruitfulness of the land (Isa 33:9 etc.); and their languishing was an evident mark of God's displeasure (Nah 1:4). The "bulls of Bashan" represent blatant and brutal strength (Ps 22:12, etc.). It is long since the lion deserted the plateau (Dt 33:22); but the leopard is still not unknown among the mountains (Song 4:8).

3. History:

In pre-Israelite days Bashan was ruled by Og the Amorite. His defeat at Edrei marked the end of his kingdom (Nu 21:33 ff; Josh 13:11), and the land was given to the half tribe of Manasseh (Josh 13:30, etc.). In the Syrian wars Bashan was lost to Israel (1 Ki 22:3 ff; 2 Ki 8:28; 10:32 f), but it was regained by Jeroboam II (2 Ki 14:25). It was incorporated in the Assyrian empire by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Ki 15:29). In the 2nd century BC it was in the hands of the Nabateans. It formed part of the kingdom of Herod the Great, and then belonged to that of Philip and Agrippa II.

W. Ewing


BASHAN-HAVVOTH-JAIR

ba'-shan-hav'-oth-ja'-ir (bashan chawwoth ya'ir).

See HAVVOTH-JAIR .


BASHEMATH

bash'-e-math.

See BASEMATH .


BASILISK

baz'-i-lisk (tsepha`, tsiph`oni, from obsolete root tsapha`, "to hiss": Isa 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; Jer 8:17; Prov 23:32 m. In Prov 23:32, the King James Version has "adder," margin "cockatrice"; in the other passages cited the King James Version has "cockatrice," margin "adder" (except Jer 8:17, no margin)): The word is from basiliskos, "kinglet," from basileus, "king," and signifies a mythical reptile hatched by a serpent from a cock's egg. Its hissing drove away other serpents. Its look, and especially its breath, was fatal. According to Pliny, it was named from a crown-like spot on its head. It has been identified with the equally mythical COCKATRICE (which see). In all the passages cited, it denotes a venomous serpent (see ADDER ;SERPENT ), but it is impossible to tell what, if any, particular species is referred to. It must be borne in mind that while there are poisonous snakes in Palestine, there are more which are not poisonous, and most of the latter, as well as some harmless lizards, are commonly regarded as deadly. Several of the harmless snakes have crownlike markings on their heads, and it is quite conceivable that the basilisk myth may have been founded upon one of these.

Alfred Ely Day


BASIN; BASON

ba'-s'-n.

1. The Terms Used and Their Meaning:

The American Standard Revised Version has "basin," the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "bason," the preferred spelling of the English revisers. In the Appendix to the Revised Old Testament the American Revisers (section viii) say, "The modern spelling is preferred for the following words"; then follow among others "basin" for "bason"; but no similar statement appears in the Appendix to the Revised New Testament. The Hebrew word so rendered in English Versions of the Bible is chiefly used for the large bowl of bronze (the King James Version "brass") employed by the priests to receive the blood of the sacrificial victims (Ex 27:3; compare 29:16; 1 Ki 7:45, etc.). It is found only once in secular use (Am 6:6, "drink wine in bowls"), if the text there is correct; the Septuagint has it otherwise. See BOWL . The "basins" of Ex 12:22; 2 Sam 17:28 were probably of earthenware.

2. Of Various Materials and Forms:

While the priests' bowls were of bronze, similar bowls or basins of silver were presented by the princes of the congregation, according to Nu 7:13 ff; and those spoken of in 1 Ki 7:50 as destined for Solomon's temple were of gold (compare 1 Ch 28:17).

3. The Typical Ewer of the East:

(1) The well-known eastern mode of washing the hands was and is by pouring water on the hands, not by dipping them in water, an act, of course, calling for the aid of an attendant. Elisha "poured water on the hands of Elijah" (2 Ki 3:11; see Kitto's note in Pictorial Bible 2,II , 330). A disciple came to be known as "one who poured water on the hands of another." Such was beyond question the prevailing custom among the ancient Hebrews, as it was, and is, among eastern peoples in general. They incline to look with disgust, if not with horror, upon our western practice of washing face and hands in water retained in a basin.

(2) The typical vessel of the East used in such ablutions has a long spout, not unlike our large coffee-pot (see Kitto, Pict. Biblical, II, 331, note). While the English Versions of the Bible unfortunately often suggests nothing like such pouring, the Hebrew expresses it, e.g. in 1 Sam 25:41, where we have the Qal of rachats compare Kennedy in 1-vol HDB, and HDB, articles "Bath," "Bathing." Kennedy shows that "affusion," "pouring on" of water, was meant in many cases where we read "bathe" or "wash" in Enoch glish Versions. Lane (Mod. Egypt, chapter v) says: "A servant brings him a basin and ewer (called Tsisht and ibreek) of tinned copper or brass. The first has a cover with holes, with a raised receptacle for the soap; and the water is poured upon the hands and passes through the ewer into the space below; so that when the basin is brought to a second person the water with which the former has washed is not seen."

4. A Basin of a Unique Sort:

(1) A wash-basin of a special sort was used by Jesus for washing the disciples' feet (see Jn 13:5). The Greek is nipter eita ballei hudor eis ton niptera, translated the Revised Version (British and American), "then he poureth water into the basin." This word nipter is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint, nor, indeed, in Greek profane literature. But fortunately the general sense is here made plain by the context and by comparison of the cognate verbs niptein and n izein. It evidently denotes an article, not necessarily a vessel, specifically suited to the use of washing a part of the body, e.g. the hands or the feet, and hence is used with the article, "the basin," the Revised Version (British and American). It is doubtful, therefore, if "basin," or "bason," conveys a true idea of either the oriental article here meant or the scene portrayed. The fact that, according to the custom of the day, the position of the disciples here was reclining, precludes the possibility of the use of a "basin" of our sort, in the way we are accustom edition to, i.e. for immersing the feet in the water, in whole or in part.

(2) So it is likely that the nipter was a jug, or ewer, with a dish, saucer, or basin placed under it and combined with it to catch the dripping water. We know from other sources that such a vessel was kept in the Jewish house regularly for ordinary handwashings, etc. (see Mt 15:2; Mk 7:3), and for ceremonial ablutions. Hence, it would naturally be ready here in the upper room as a normal part of the preparation of the "goodman of the house" for his guests (the King James Version Mk 14:14; Lk 22:12), and so it is distinguished by the Greek article ton. Jesus Himself used the nipter, standing, doubtless, to impress upon His disciples the lessons of humility, self-abasement and loving service which He ever sought to impart and illustrate.

(3) Our conclusion, we may say with George Farmer in DCG, article "Bason," is that nipter was not simply one large basin, but the set of ewer and basin combined, such a set as was commonly kept in the Jewish house for the purpose of cleansing either the hands or the feet by means of affusion. The Arabic Tisht, authorities tell us, is the exact rendering of nipter, and it comes from a root which means "to pour," or "rain slightly." (See Anton Tien, reviser of the Arabic prayer-book, author of Arabic an d Mod. Greek Grammars, etc., quoted in DCG, article "Bason.")

George B. Eager


BASKET

bas'-ket: Four kinds of "baskets" come to view in the Old Testament under the Hebrew names, dudh, Tene', cal and kelubh. There is little, however, in these names, or in the narratives where they are found, to indicate definitely what the differences of size and shape and use were. The Mishna renders us some help in our uncertainty, giving numerous names and descriptions of "baskets" in use among the ancient Hebrews (see Kreugel, Dasse Hausgerat in der Mishna, 39-45). They were variously m ade of willow, rush, palm-leaf, etc., and were used for various purposes, domestic and agricultural, for instance, in gathering and serving fruit, collecting alms in kind for the poor, etc. Some had handles, others lids, some both, others neither.

1. Meaning of Old Testament Terms:

(1) Dudh was probably a generic term for various kinds of baskets. It was probably the "basket" in which the Israelites in Egypt carried the clay for bricks (compare Ps 81:6, where it is used as a symbol of Egyptian bondage), and such as the Egyptians themselves used for that purpose (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, I, 379), probably a large, shallow basket, made of wicker-work. It stood for a basket that was used in fruit-gathering (see Jer 24:1), but how it differed from Amos' "basket of summer fruit" (Am 8:1) we do not know. Dudh is used for the "pot" in which meat was boiled (1 Sam 2:14), showing probably that a pot-shaped "basket" was known by this name. Then it seems to have stood for a basket tapering toward the bottom like the calathus of the Romans. So we seem forced to conclude that the term was generic, not specific.

(2) The commonest basket in use in Old Testament times was the cal. It was the "basket" in which the court-baker of Egypt carried about his confectionery on his head (Gen 40:16). It was made in later times at least of peeled willows, or palm leaves, and was sometimes at least large and flat like the canistrum of the Romans, and, like it, was used for carrying bread and other articles of food (Gen 40:16; Jdg 6:19). Meat for the meat offerings and the unleavened bread, were placed in it (Ex 29:3; Lev 8:2; Nu 6:15). It is expressly required that the unleavened cakes be placed and offered in such a "basket." While a "basket," it was dish-shaped, larger or smaller in size, it would seem, according to demand, and perhaps of finer texture than the dudh.

(3) The Tene' was a large, deep basket, in which grain and other products of garden or field were carried home, and kept (Dt 28:5,17), in which the first-fruits were preserved (Dt 26:2), and the tithes transported to the sanctuary (Dt 26:2 f). It has been thought probable that the chabya, the basket of clay and straw of the Palestine peasantry of today, is a sort of survival or counterpart of it. It has the general shape of a jar, and is used for storing and keeping wheat, barley, oats, etc. At the top is the mouth into which the grain is poured, and at the bottom is an orifice through which it can be taken out as needed, when the opening is again closed with a rag. The Septuagint translates Tene' by kartallos, which denotes a basket of the shape of an inverted cone.

(4) The term kelubh, found in Am 8:1 for a "fruit-basket," is used in Jer 5:27 (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "cage") for a bird-cage. But it is not at all unreasonable to suppose that a coarsely woven basket with a cover would be used by a fowler to carry home his feathered captives.

2. Meaning of New Testament Terms:

In the New Testament interest centers in two kinds of "basket," distinguished by the evangelists in their accounts of the feeding of the 5,000 and of the 4,000, called in Greek kophinos and spuris (Westcott-Hort sphuris).

(1) The kophinos (Mt 14:20; Mk 6:43; Lk 9:17; Jn 6:13) may be confidently identified with the kuphta' of the Mishna which was provided with a cord for a handle by means of which it could be carried on the back with such provisions as the disciples on the occasions under consideration would naturally have with them (of Kreugel, and Broadus, Commentary in the place cited.). The Jews of Juvenal's day carried such a specific "provision-basket" with them on their journeys regularly, and the Latin for it is a transliteration of this Greek word, cophinus (compare Juvenal iii.14, and Jastrow, Dictionary, article "Basket"). Some idea of its size may be drawn from the fact that in CIG, 1625, 46, the word denotes a Beotian measure of about two gallons.

(2) The sphuris or spuris (Mt 15:37; Mk 8:8) we may be sure, from its being used in letting Paul down from the wall at Damascus (Acts 9:25, etc.), was considerably larger than the kophinos and quite different in shape and uses. It might for distinction fitly be rendered "hamper," as Professor Kennedy suggests. Certainly neither the Greek nor ancient usage justifies any confusion.

(3) The sargane (2 Cor 11:33) means anything plaited, or sometimes more specifically a fish-basket.

George B. Eager


BASMATH

bas'-math.

See BASEMATH .


BASON

ba'-s'-n.

See BASIN .


BASSA

bas'-a.

See BASSAI .


BASSAI

bas'-a-i, bas'-i (Bassai, Bassa; the King James Version Bassa; 1 Esdras 5:16; Bezai (Ezr 2:17; Neh 7:23)): The sons of Bassai returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem.


BASTAI

bas'-ta-i.

See BASTHAI .


BASTARD

bas'-tard (mamzer; nothos): In Dt 23:2 probably the offspring of an incestuous union, or of a marriage within the prohibited degrees of affinity (Lev 18:6-20; 20:10-21). He and his descendants to the tenth generation are excluded from the assembly of the Lord. (See Driver, at the place). Zechariah (9:6), after prophesying the overthrow of three Philistine cities, declares of the fourth: "And a bastard (the Revised Version, margin "a bastard race") shall dwell in Ashdod," meaning probably that a "mixed population" (BDB) of aliens shall invade and settle in the capital of the Philistines. In Heb (12:8) in its proper sense of "born out of wedlock," and therefore not admitted to the privileges of paternal care and responsibility as a legitimate son.

T. Ress


BASTHAI

bas'-tha-i, bas'-thi (Basthai; the King James Version Bastai; 1 Esdras 5:31 = Besai (Ezr 2:49; Neh 7:52)): The descendants of Basthai (temple-servants) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem.


BAT

(`aTaleph; Lev 11:19; Dt 14:18; Isa 2:20): Bats are the most widely distributed of mammals, reaching even the oceanic islands, and modern science has revealed the existence of an astonishing number of species, nearly twenty being recorded from Palestine. These include both fruit-eating and insect-eating bats, the latter being the smaller. It has not always been realized that they are mammals, and so it is not surprising that they should be mentioned at the end of the list of unclean birds in Lev 11:19 and Dt 14:18. It may, however, be significant that they are at the end of the list and not in the middle of it. The fruit bats are a pest to horticulturists and often strip apricot and other trees before the fruit has ripened enough to be picked. On this account the fruit is often enclosed in bags, or the whole tree may be surrounded with a great sheet or net. They commonly pick the fruit and eat it on some distant perch beneath which the seeds and the ordure of these animals are scattered. The insect bats, as in other countries, flit about at dusk and through the night catching mosquitoes and larger insects, and so are distinctly beneficial.

The reference in Isa 2:20, "cast .... idols .... to the moles and to the bats" refers of course to these animals as inhabitants of dark and deserted places. As in the case of many animal names the etymology of `aTaleph is doubtful. Various derivations have been proposed but none can be regarded as satisfactory. The Arabic name, waTwaT, throws no light on the question.

Alfred Ely Day


BATANAEA

bat-a-ne'-a: The name used in Greek times for BASHAN (which see), Josephus, Life, II; Ant, XV, x, 1; XVII, ii, 1, "toparchy of Butanea."


BATH

(bath): A liquid measure equal to about 9 gallons, English measure. It seems to have been regarded as a standard for liquid measures (Ezek 45:10), as in the case of the molten sea and the lavers in Solomon's temple (1 Ki 7:26,38), and for measuring oil and wine (2 Ch 2:10; Ezr 7:22; Isa 5:10; Ezek 45:14). Its relation to the homer is given in Ezek 45:11,14).

See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES .


BATH KOL

bath'-kol, bath kol (bath qol, "the daughter of the voice"): Originally signifying no more than "sound," "tone," "call" (e.g. water in pouring gives forth a "sound," bath qol, while oil does not), sometimes also "echo." The expression acquired among the rabbis a special use, signifying the Divine voice, audible to man and unaccompanied by a visible Divine manifestation. Thus conceived, bath qol is to be distinguished from God's speaking to Moses and the prophets; for at Sinai the voice of God was part of a larger theophany, while for the prophets it was the resultant inward demonstration of the Divine will, by whatever means effected, given to them to declare (see VOICE ). It is further to be distinguished from all natural sounds and voices, even where these were interpreted as conveying Divine instruction. The conception appears for the first time in Dan 4:28 (English Versions 31)--it is in the Aramaic portion--where, however, qal = qol, "voice" stands without berath = bath, "daughter": "A voice fell from heaven." Josephus (Ant., XIII, x, 3) relates that John Hyrcanus (135-104 BC) heard a voice while offering a burnt sacrifice in the temple, which Josephus expressly interprets as the voice of God (compare Babylonian SoTah 33a and Jerusalem SoTah 24b, where it is called bath qol). In the New Testament mention of "a voice from heaven" occurs in the following passages: Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22 (at the baptism of Jesus); Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35 (at His transfiguration); Jn 12:28 (shortly before His passion); Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14 (conversion of Paul), and 10:13,15 (instruction of Peter concerning clean and unclean). In the period of the Tannaim (circa 100 BC-200 AD) the term bath qol was in very frequent us and was understood to signify not the direct voice of God, which was held to be supersensible, but the echo of the voice (the bath being somewhat arbitrarily taken to express the distinction). The rabbis held that bath qol had been an occasional means of Divine communication throughout the whole history of Israel and that since the cessation of the prophetic gift it was the sole means of Divine revelation. It is noteworthy that the rabbinical conception of bath qol sprang up in the period of the decline of Old Testament prophecy and flourished in the period of extreme traditionalism. Where the gift of prophecy was clearly lacking--perhaps even because of this lack--there grew up an inordinate desire for special Divine manifestations. Often a voice from heaven was looked for to clear up matters of do ubt and even to decide between conflicting interpretations of the law. So strong had this tendency become that Rabbi Joshua (circa 100 AD) felt it to be necessary to oppose it and to insist upon the supremacy and the sufficiency of the written law. It is clear that we have here to do with a conception of the nature and means of Divine revelation that is distinctly inferior to the Biblical view. For even in the Biblical passages where mention is made of the voice from heaven, all that is really essential to the revelation is already present, at least in principle, without the audible voice.

LITERATURE.

F. Weber, System der altsynagogalen palastinischen Theologie, 2nd edition, 1897, 194 ff; J. Hamburger, Real-Enc des Judentums, II, 1896; W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten and Agada der palast. Amoraer (see Index); Jewish Encyclopedia,II , 588 ff; "Bath Kol" inTSBA ,IX , 18; P. Fiebig, Rel. in Gesch. und Gegenwart, I, under the word

J. R. Van Pelt


BATH-RABBIM, THE GATE OF

bath-rab'-im, (sha`ar bath-rabbim; Septuagint en pulais thugatros pollon, literally "in the gates of the daughter of the many." The gate of Heshbon near which were the pools compared to the Shulammite's eyes (Song 7:4). Guthe would translate "by the gate of the populous city." Cheyne would amend the passage and read

"Thine eyes are like Solomon's pools,

By the wood of Beth-cerem,"

and transfer the scene to the pools of Solomon, S. of Bethlehem (EB, under the word). But this is surely very violent. One of the pools of Heshbon still survives, measuring 191 ft. X 139 ft., and is 10 ft. deep. The walls however have been rent by earthquakes, and now no longer retain the water.

W. Ewing


BATH-SHEBA

bath-she'-ba, bath'-she-ba (bath-shebha`, "the seventh daughter," or "the daughter of an oath," also called Bathshua bath-shua`, "the daughter of opulence" (1 Ch 3:5); the Septuagint however reads Bersabee everywhere; compare BATHSHUA ;HPN , 65, 67, 77, 206 for Bath-sheba, and 67, 69, note 3, for Bathshua): Bath-sheba was the daughter of Eliam (2 Sam 11:3) or Ammiel (1 Ch 3:5); both names have the same meaning. She was the beautiful wife of Uriah the Hittite, and because of her beauty was forced by David to commit adultery (2 Sam 11:2 ff; Ps 51). Her husband Uriah was treacherously killed by the order of David (2 Sam 11:6 ff). After the death of her husband David made her his wife and she lived with him in the palace (2 Sam 11:27). Four sons sprang from this marriage (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Ch 3:5), after the first child, the adulterine, had died (2 Sam 12:14 ff). With the help of the prophet Nathan she renders futile the usurpation of Adonijah and craftily secures the throne for her son Solomon (1 Ki 1:11 ff). Later Adonijah succeeds in deceiving Bath-sheba, but his plan is frustrated by the king (1 Ki 2:13 ff). According to Jewish tradition, Prov 31 is written by Solomon in memory of his mother. In the genealogy of Jesus (Mt 16) Bath-sheba is mentioned as the former wife of Uriah and the mother of Solomon by David.

See ADONIJAH ;AMMIEL ;BATHSHUA ;DAVID ;ELIAM ;NATHAN ;SOLOMON .

A. L. Breslich


BATH-ZACHARIAS

bath-zak-a-ri'-as.

See BETH-ZACHARIAS .


BATH; BATHING

bath, bath'-ing.

1. Ordinary Bathing:

Bathing in the ordinary, non-religious sense, public or private, is rarely met with in the Scriptures. We find, however, three exceptional and interesting cases: (1) that of Pharaoh's daughter, resorting to the Nile (Ex 2:5); (2) that of Bath-sheba, bathing on the house-top (2 Sam 11:2 the Revised Version (British and American)); (3) the curious case mentioned in 1 Ki 22:38. (To wash with royal blood was supposed to be beneficial to the complexion.)

The dusty, limestone soil of Palestine and the open foot-gear of the Orient on stockingless feet, called for frequent washing of the feet (Gen 24:32; 43:24; Jdg 19:24; 1 Sam 25:41; 2 Sam 11:8; Song 5:3, etc.), and bathing of the body for refreshment; but the chief concern of the writers of Scripture was with bathing of another sort. Indeed, something of the religious sense and aspect of bathing, in addition to that of bodily refreshment, seems to have entered into the ordinary use of water, as in the washing of the hands before meals, etc. (see Gen 18:4; 19:2; Lk 7:44).

2. Bathing Resorts:

The streams and ponds, when available, were the usual resorts for bathing (Ex 2:5; 2 Ki 5:10, etc.), but the water-supply of large cities, stored up in great pools or large cisterns, was certainly available at times to some degree for bathing (2 Sam 11:2); though, as Benzinger says, no traces of bathrooms have been found in old Hebrew houses, even in royal palaces. In Babylon, it would seem from Susanna 15, there were bathing pools in gardens, though this passage may refer simply to bathing in the open air. Certainly public baths as now known, or plunge-baths of the Greek type, were unknown among the Hebrews until they were brought in contact with the Greek civilization. Such baths first come into view during the Greek-Roman period, when they are found to be regularly included in the gymnasia, or "places of exercise" (1 Macc 1:14). Remains of them, of varying degrees of richness and architectural completeness, may be seen today in various parts of the East, those left of the cities of the Decapolis, especially at Gerash and Amman, being excellent examples (compare also those at Pompeii). A remarkable series of bath-chambers has recently been discovered by Mr. R. A. S. Macalister at Gezer in Palestine, in connection with a building supposed to be the palace built by Simon Maccabeus. For an interesting account of it see PEFS , 1905, 294 f.

3. Greek versus Semitic Ideas:

When we consider that in Palestine six months of the year are rainless, and how scarce and pricelessly valuable water is during most of the year, and in many places all the year round; and when we recall how the Bedouin of today looks on the use of water for cleansing in such times and places of scarcity, viewing it as a wanton waste (see Benzinger, Hebrew. Arch., 108, note), the rigid requirement of it for so many ritual purposes by the Mosaic law is, to say the least, remarkable (see ABLUTION ;CLEAN ;UNCLEANNESS , etc.). Certainly there was a marked contrast between the Greek idea of bathing and that of the Hebrews and Asiatics in general, when they came in contact. But when Greek culture invaded Palestine under Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 168 BC), it brought Greek ideas and Greek bathing establishments with it; and under Herod (40-44 BC) it was given the right of way and prevailed to no mean degree (see Anecdote of GamalielII in Schurer,HJP ,II , i, 18, 53).

4. Ceremonial Purification:

But "bathing" in the Bible stands chiefly for ritual acts--purification from ceremonial uncleanness, from contact with the dead, with defiled persons or things, with "holy things," i.e. things "devoted," or "under the ban," etc. (see CLEAN ;UNCLEANNESS , etc.). The Hebrew of the Old Testament does not sharply distinguish between bathing and partial washing--both are expressed by rahats, and the Revised Version (British and American) rightly renders "wash" instead of "bathe" in some cases. Talmudic usage simply codified custom which had been long in vogue, according to Schurer. But Kennedy grants that the "bath" at last became, even for the laity, "an important factor in the religious life of Israel." We read of daily bathing by the Essenes (Josephus, BJ, II, viii, 5). Then later we find John, the Baptizer, immersing, as the record clearly shows the apostles of Christ did also (Acts 8:38; Rom 6:3 f); compare Lk 11:38 where baptizo, in passive = "washed."

5. Bathing for Health:

In Jn 5:2-7 we have an example of bathing for health. There are remains of ancient baths at Gadara and at Callirrhoe, East of the Jordan, baths which were once celebrated as resorts for health-seekers. There are hot baths in full operation today, near Tiberias, on the southwestern shore of the Lake of Galilee, which have been a health resort from time immemorial. It is probably true, however, as some one has said, that in Old Testament times and in New Testament times, the masses of the people had neither privacy nor inclination for bathing.

George B. Eager


BATHSHUA

bath'-shu-a (bath-shua`, "the daughter of opulence" or "the daughter of Shua"; compare BATH-SHEBA ; for derivation seeHPN , 67, 69, note 3):

(1) In Gen 38:2 and 1 Ch 2:3, where the name is translated "Shua's daughter," the wife of Judah.

(2) In 1 Ch 3:5, the daughter of Ammiel and wife of David.

See BATH-SHEBA .


BATTERING-RAM

bat'-er-ing-ram.

See SIEGE .


BATTLE

See WAR .


BATTLE-AXE

bat'-'-l-ax.

See ARMOR ,ARMS ,III , 1;AX (AXE ).


BATTLE-BOW

bat'-'-l-bo: Found in the striking Messianic prophecy: "The battle bow shall be cut off" (Zec 9:10). The prophet is predicting the peace that shall prevail when Zion's king cometh, "just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass." The words convey their full significance only when read in the light of the context: "I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace unto the nations" (compare Zec 10:4). The battle-bow was sometimes made of tough wood, sometimes of two straight horns joined together (Hom. II. iv.105-11), and sometimes of bronze. In Ps 18:34 the Revised Version (British and American) we find "bow of brass," but it probably should be of "bronze" (nechosheth), a metal very different from our brass, which is a mixture of copper and zinc. The point of the passage in this connection ("He teacheth my hands to war; so that mine arms do bend a bow of bronze"), as well as of that in 2 Ki 9:24 ("And Jehu drew his bow with his full strength") is that it required great strength to bend the battle-bow.

See ARCHERY ;ARMOR .

George B. Eager


BATTLEMENT

bat'-'-l-ment.

See FORTIFICATION ;HOUSE .


BAVAI

bav'-a-i.

See BAVVAI .


BAVVAI

bav'-a-i (bawway; Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus, Benei; Codex Vaticanus, Bedei; the King James Version Bavai, "wisher" (?) (Neh 3:18)): Perhaps identical with or a brother of Binnui (Neh 3:24). See BINNUI . Bavvai, "the son of Henadad, the ruler of half the district of Keilah," was of a Levitical family. He is mentioned as one of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem after the return from Babylon (Neh 3:17 f).


BAY (1)

ba.

See COLORS .


BAY (2)

ba (lashon, literally "tongue"; kolpos): The word occurs in the sense of inlet of the sea in the Old Testament only in Josh 15:2,5; 18:19, and in New Testament only in Acts 27:39 (of Malta, the King James Version "creek").


BAY TREE

ba'-tre' (the King James Version only; Ps 37:35; 'ezrach): The word means "native," "indigenous," and the Revised Version (British and American) translations "a green tree in its native soil."


BAYITH

ba'-yith (bayith; the King James Version Bajith, "house" (Isa 15:2)): A town in the country of Moab. The reading of the Revised Version, margin, "Bayith and Dibon are gone up to the high places to weep," seems to be the proper rendering of this passage. Duhm et al., by changing the text, read either "house of" or "daughter of." The construct of this word beth is frequently used in compound words.

See BETH .


BAZLITH; BAZLUTH

baz'-lith, baz'-luth (batslith, Neh 7:54; batsluth, Ezr 2:52; Basaloth, 1 Esdras 5:31, "asking"): The descendants of Bazlith (temple-servants) returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem.



Placed in the public domain by SpiritAndTruth.org
Report corrections to contact@SpiritAndTruth.org
(Produced: Thu Nov 30 09:08:50 2000)

Help PreviousNext