113 lines
244 KiB
HTML
113 lines
244 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
|
|
<html><head>
|
|
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
|
isbe = [];
|
|
|
|
isbe[1401]='Beth-Car`beth\'-kar (beth-kar; Baithchor, Belchor): "And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah, and pursued the Philistines, and smote them, Until they came under Beth-car" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,11);">1Sa 7:11</a>). \'Ain Karem has been suggested; if Mizpah is nebi Samwil then this identification is probable, as the pursuit would be along the deep Wady beit Hannineh—a natural line of retreat for the Philistines to take.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+HACCHEREM">BETH-HACCHEREM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1402]='Beth-Dagon`beth-da\'-gon (bethdaghon; Bethdagon):<P>(1) A town in the Shephelah of Judah named with Gederoth, Naamah, and Makkedah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,41);">Jos 15:41</a>). It may be represented by the modern Beit Dijan, about 6 miles southeast of Jaffa. This however is a modern site, and not in the Shephelah. Nearly 2 miles to the south is Khirbet Dajan, a Roman site. The connection in which it occurs leads us to expect a position farther southeast<P>(2) A city on the border of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,27);">Jos 19:27</a>) which Conder would identify with Tell D\'auk, near the mouth of the Belus, in the plan of Acre.<P>The name seems to have been of frequent occurrence. There is a Beit Dejan about 6 miles east of Nablus, and Josephus speaks of a fortress called Dagon above Jericho (Ant., XII, viii, 1; BJ, I, ii, 3). This would seem to indicate a widespread worship of Dagon. But the name may mean "house of corn."``54';
|
|
isbe[1403]='Beth-Diblathaim`beth-dib-la-tha\'-im (beth dibhlathayim; oikos Deblaithaim, literally, "house of Diblathaim"): A town in Moab mentioned with Dibon and Nebo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,22);">Jer 48:22</a>). It is probably identical with Almondiblathaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,46);">Nu 33:46</a>f). Mesha claims to have fortified it along with Mehedeba and Ba\'al-me\'on (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MOABITE+STONE">MOABITE STONE</a>). The place is not yet identified.``1';
|
|
isbe[1404]='Beth-Eden`beth-e\'-den (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,5);">Am 1:5</a> King James Version, margin; English Versions of the Bible "house of Eden").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+EDEN">CHILDREN OF EDEN</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1405]='Beth-Emek`beth-e\'-mek (beth ha-\'emeq; Bethaemek, "house of the valley"): A town in the territory of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,27);">Jos 19:27</a>). It has not been identified, but must be sought somewhere east of Acre, not far from Kabul, the ancient Cabul.``1';
|
|
isbe[1406]='Beth-Ezel`beth-e\'-zel (beth ha-\'etsel; oikos echomenous autes; literally, "adjoining house"): A place named along with other cities in the Philistine plain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,11);">Mic 1:11</a>). The site has not been identified. By some it is thought to be the same as Azel of <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,5);">Zec 14:5</a>;`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AZEL">AZEL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1407]='Beth-Gader`beth-ga\'-der (bethgadher; Baithgedor, or (Codex Vaticanus) Baithgaidon): The name occurs between those of Bethlehem and Kiriath-jearim in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,51);">1Ch 2:51</a>. It is possibly identical with Geder of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,13);">Jos 12:13</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[1408]='Beth-Gamul`beth-ga\'-mul (beth gamul; oikos Gaimol; Codex Sinaiticus, Gamola): A city in Moab named with Dibon, Kiriathaim and Beth-meon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,23);">Jer 48:23</a>). Conder places it at Umm el-Jamal, toward east of the plateau, south of Medeba (HDB, under the word). Others (Guthe, Kurz. bib. Worterbuch, under the word; Buhl, GAP, 268, etc.) favor Jemeil, a site 6 miles east of Dhiban. Since the town is not mentioned among the cities of Israel Buhl doubts if it should be sought north of the Arnon.``1';
|
|
isbe[1409]='Beth-Gilgal`beth-gil\'-gal (beth ha-gilgal; Bethaggalgal; the King James Version house of Gilgal): The Gilgal which lay in the plain east of Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,29);">Ne 12:29</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GILGAL">GILGAL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1410]='Beth-Haccherem`beth-ha-ke\'-rem, beth-hak\'-e-rem (the King James Version Beth-haccerem; beth ha-kerem; Bethachcharma (see DB), "place of the vineyard"): A district (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,14);">Ne 3:14</a>) ruled over by one, Malchijah; mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,1);">Jer 6:1</a> as a suitable signal station. From its association with Tekoa (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,1);">Jer 6:1</a>) and from the statement by Jerome that it was a village which he could see daily from Bethlehem, the Frank mountain (Herodium) has been suggested. It certainly would be a unique place for a beacon. More suitable is the fertile vineyard country around \'Ain Karem (the "spring of the vineyard"). On the top of Jebel \'Ali, above this village, are some remarkable cairns which, whatever their other uses, would appear to have been once beacons. \'Ain Karem appears as Carem in the Septuagint (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,59);">Jos 15:59</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+CAR">BETH-CAR</a>`117';
|
|
isbe[1411]='Beth-Haggan`beth-hag\'-an (beth-ha-gan, "house of the garden"). The place where Ahaziah was slain by Jehu (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,27);">2Ki 9:27</a>). The words are rendered in English Versions of the Bible "the garden house," but some take them to be a proper name. The location is doubtful.``1';
|
|
isbe[1412]='Beth-Hanan; Elon-Beth-Hanan`beth-ha\'-nan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,9);">1Ki 4:9</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELON">ELON</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1413]='Beth-Haram`beth-ha\'-ram (beth haram; Baitharan; Codex Alexandrinus, Baitharra; the King James Version wrongly, Beth-Aram): An Amorite city taken and fortified by the Gadites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,36);">Nu 32:36</a>; in the latter passage the name appears as Beth-haran, probably the original form). It corresponds to Bethramphtha of Josephus (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1), which, according to Eusebius, was the name used by the Syrians. Here was a palace of Herod (Ant., XVII, x, 6; BJ, II, iv, 2). Eusebius, Onomasticon says it was called Livias. Josephus says it was fortified by Herod Antipas, who called it Julias for the wife of Augustus (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; BJ, II, ix, 1). The name would be changed to Julias when Livia, by the will of the emperor, was received into the Gens Julia. It is represented by Tell er-Rameh in Wady Chesban, about 6 miles east of Jordan.``54';
|
|
isbe[1414]='Beth-Haran`beth-ha\'-ran (beth haran): A fenced city east of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,36);">Nu 32:36</a>) identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-HARAM">BETH-HARAM</a>, which see.``1';
|
|
isbe[1415]='Beth-Hoglah`beth-hog\'-la (beth-choghlah; Septuagint Baithaglaam, "house of partridge"): Mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,6);">Jos 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,19);">18:19</a>, identified with Ain Haijab ("partridge spring") lying between Jericho and the Jordan, where in 1874 there was still a ruined Greek monastery called Kasr Hajlah, dating from the 12th century. The ruins are now destroyed. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,5);">Jos 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,19);">18:19</a> it is said to be at the mouth of the Jordan on a Tongue (Lisan) of the Salt Sea. But it is now several miles inland, probably because the Jordan has silt edition up a delta to that extent.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA">DEAD SEA</a>`198';
|
|
isbe[1416]='Beth-Horon`beth-ho\'-ron (beth-choron (other Hebrew forms occur); Bethoron, probably the "place of the hollow"; compare Hauran, "the hollow"):<P>1. The Ancient Towns:<P>The name of two towns, Beth-horon the Upper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,5);">Jos 16:5</a>) and Beth-horon the Lower (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,3);">Jos 16:3</a>), said to have been built (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,24);">1Ch 7:24</a>) by Sheerah, the daughter of Beriah. The border line between Benjamin and Ephraim passed by the Beth- horons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,5);">Jos 16:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,22);">21:22</a>), the cities belonging to the latter tribe and therefore, later on, to the Northern Kingdom. Solomon "built Beth-horon the upper, and Beth-horon the nether, fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,5);">2Ch 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,17);">1Ki 9:17</a>).<P>From Egyptian sources (Muller, As. und Europa, etc.) it appears that Beth-horon was one of the places conquered by Shishak of Egypt from Rehoboam. Again, many centuries later, Bacchides repaired Beth-horon, "with high walls, with gates and with bars and in them he set a garrison, that they might work malice upon ("vex") Israel" (1Macc 9:50,51), and at another time the Jews fortified it against Holofernes (Judith 4:4,5).<P>2. The Modern Beit Ur el foqa and el tachta:<P>These two towns are now known as Beit Ur el foqa (i.e. "the upper") and Beit Ur el tachta (i.e. "the lower"), two villages crowning hill tops, less than 2 miles apart; the former is some 800 ft. higher than the latter. Today these villages are sunk into insignificance and are off any important lines of communication, but for many centuries the towns occupying their sites dominated one of the most historic roads in history.<P>3. The Pass of the Beth-horons:<P>When (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,10);">Jos 10:10</a>) Joshua discomfited the kings of the Amorites "he slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the \'Ascent of Beth-horon.\' " When the Philistines were opposing King Saul at Michmash they sent a company of their men to hold "the way of Beth-horon."<P>This pass ascends from the plain of Ajalon (now Yalo) and climbs in about 3/4 hr. to Beit Ur el tachta (1,210 ft.); it then ascends along the ridge, with valleys lying to north and south, and reaches Beit Ur el foqa (2,022 ft.), and pursuing the same ridge arrives in another 4 1/2 miles at the plateau to the north of el Jib (Gibeon). At intervals along this historic route traces of the ancient Roman paving are visible. It was the great highroad into the heart of the land from the earliest times until about three or four centuries ago. Along this route came Canaanites, Israelites, Philistines, Egyptians, Syrians, Romans, Saracens and Crusaders. Since the days of Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,10);">Jos 10:10</a>) it has frequently been the scene of a rout. Here the Syrian general Seron was defeated by Judas Maccabeus (1Macc 3:13-24), and six years later Nicanor, retreating from Jerusalem, was here defeated and slain (1Macc 7:39ff; Josephus, Ant, XII, x, 5). Along this pass in 66 AD the Roman general Cestius Gallus was driven in headlong flight before the Jews.<P>Now the changed direction of the highroad to Jerusalem has left the route forsaken and almost forgotten. See PEF, III, 86, Sh XVII.``117';
|
|
isbe[1417]='Beth-Horon, the Battle of`1. The Political Situation<P>2. Joshua\'s Strategy<P>3. Joshua\'s Command to the Sun and Moon<P>4. The Astronomical Relations of the Sun and Moon<P>5. The "Silence" of the Sun<P>6. "Yahweh Fought for Israel"<P>7. The Afternoon\'s March<P>8. The Chronicle and the Poem Independent Witnesses<P>9. Date of the Events<P>10. The Records Are Contemporaneous with the Events<hr /><P>1. The Political Situation:<P>The battle which gave to the Israelites under Joshua the command of Southern Palestine has always excited interest because of the astronomical marvel which is recorded to have then taken place.<P>In invading Palestine the Israelites were not attacking a single coherent state, but a country occupied by different races and divided, like Greece at a later period, into a number of communities, each consisting practically of but a single city and the cultivated country around it. Thus Joshua destroyed the two cities of Jericho and Ai without any interference from the other Amorites. The destruction of Jericho gave him full possession of the fertile valley of the Jordan; the taking of Ai opened his way up to the ridge which forms the backbone of the country, and he was able to lead the people unopposed to the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim for the solemn reading of the Law. But when the Israelites returned from this ceremony a significant division showed itself amongst their enemies. Close to Ai, Joshua\'s most recent conquest, was Beeroth, a small town inhabited by Hivites; and no doubt because in the natural order of events Beeroth might look to be next attacked, the Hivites determined to make terms with Israel. An embassy was therefore sent from Gibeon, their chief city, and Joshua and the Israelites, believing that it came from a distant land not under the Ban, entered into the proposed alliance.<P>The effect on the political situation was immediate. The Hivites formed a considerable state, relatively speaking; their cities were well placed on the southern highland, and Gibeon, their capital, was one of the most important fortresses of that district, and only 6 miles distant from Jerusalem, the chief Amorite stronghold. The Amorites recognized at once that, in view of this important defection, it was imperative for them to crush the Gibeonites before the Israelites could unite with them, and this they endeavored to do. The Gibeonites, seeing themselves attacked, sent an urgent message to Joshua, and he at the head of his picked men made a night march up from Gilgal and fell upon the Amorites at Gibeon the next day and put them to flight.<P>2. Joshua\'s Strategy:<P>We are not told by which route he marched, but it is significant that the Amorites fled by the way of Beth-horon; that is to say, not toward their own cities, but away from them. A glance at the map shows that this means that Joshua had succeeded in cutting their line of retreat to Jerusalem. He had probably therefore advanced upon Gibeon from the south, instead of by the obvious route past Ai which he had destroyed and Beeroth with which he was in alliance. But, coming up from Gilgal by the ravines in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, he was exposed to a great danger, for the Amorites might have caught him before he had gained a footing on the plateau, and have taken him at a complete disadvantage. It was thus that the eleven tribes suffered such terrible loss at the hands of the Benjamites in this very region during the first inter-tribal war, and probably the military significance of the first repulse from Ai was of the same character; the forces holding the high ground being able to overwhelm their opponents without any fear of reprisals.<P>It would seem possible, therefore, that Joshua may have repeated, on a larger scale, the tactics he employed in his successful attack upon Ai. He may have sent one force to draw the Amorites away from Gibeon, and when this was safely done, may have led the rest of his army to seize the road to Jerusalem, and to break up the forces besieging Gibeon. If so, his strategy was successful up to a certain point. He evidently led the Israelites without loss up to Gibeon, crushed the Amorites there, and cut off their retreat toward Jerusalem. He failed in one thing. In spite of the prodigious efforts which he and his men had made, the greater part of the Amorite army succeeded in escaping him and gained a long start in their flight, toward the northwest, through the two Beth-horons.<P>3. Joshua\'s Command to the Sun and Moon:<P>It was at this point that the incident occurred upon which attention has been chiefly fixed. The Book of Jashar (which seems to have been a collection of war songs and other ballads) ascribes to Joshua the command: "Sun, be thou silent upon (be) Gibeon (compare Revised Version margin); And thou, Moon, in (be) the valley of Aijalon. And the Sun was silent, And the Moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies." (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,12,23);">Jos 10:12, 23</a>). And the prose narrative continues, "The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."<P>4. The Astronomical Relations of the Sun and Moon:<P>In these two, the ballad and the prose chronicle, we have several distinct astronomical relations indicated. The sun to Joshua was associated with Gibeon, and the sun can naturally be associated with a locality in either of two positions: it may be overhead to the observer, in which case he would consider it as being above the place where he himself was standing; or on the other hand, he might see the locality on the skyline and the sun rising or setting just behind it. In the present instance there is no ambiguity, for the chronicle distinctly states that the sun was in "the midst of heaven"; literally, in the halving of the heaven, that is to say overhead. This is very important because it assures us that Joshua must have been at Gibeon when he spoke, and that it must have been noonday of summer when the sun in Southern Palestine is only about 8 degrees or 12 degrees from the exact zenith. Next, the moon appeared to be associated with the valley of Aijalon; that is, it must have been low down on the horizon in that direction, and since Aijalon is Northwest of Gibeon it must have been about to set, which would imply that it was about half full, in its "third quarter," the sun being, as we have seen, on the meridian. Thirdly, "the sun hasted not to go down," that is to say, it had already attained the meridian, its culmination; and henceforward its motion was downward. The statement that it was noonday is here implicitly repeated, but a further detail is added. The going down of the sun appeared to be slow. This is the work of the afternoon, that is of half the day, but on this occasion the half-day appeared equal in length to an ordinary whole day. There is therefore no question at all of the sun becoming stationary in the sky: the statement does not admit of that, but only of its slower progress.<P>5. The "Silence" of the Sun:<P>The idea that the sun was fixed in the sky, in other words, that the earth ceased for a time to rotate on its axis, has arisen from the unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew verb dum, "be silent," by "stand thou still." It is our own word "dumb," both being onomatopoetic words from the sound made when a man firmly closes his lips upon his speech. The primary meaning of the word therefore is "to be silent," but its secondary meaning is "to desist," "to cease," and therefore in some cases "to stand still. "<P>From what was it then that Joshua wished the sun to cease: from its moving or from its shining? It is not possible to suppose that, engaged as he was in a desperate battle, he was even so much as thinking of the sun\'s motion at all. But its shining, its scorching heat, must have been most seriously felt by him. At noon, in high summer, the highland of Southern Palestine is one of the hottest countries of the world. It is impossible to suppose that Joshua wished the sun to be fixed overhead, where it must have been distressing his men who had already been 17 hours on foot. A very arduous pursuit lay before them and the enemy not only had a long start but must have been fresher than the Israelites. The sun\'s heat therefore must have been a serious hindrance, and Joshua must have desired it to be tempered. And the Lord hearkened to his voice and gave him this and much more. A great hailstorm swept up from the west, bringing with it a sudden lowering of temperature, and no doubt hiding the sun and putting it to "silence."<P>6. "Yahweh Fought for Israel":<P>And "Yahweh fought for Israel," for the storm burst with such violence upon the Amorites as they fled down the steep descent between the Beth-horons, that "they were more who died with the hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,11);">Jos 10:11</a>). This was the culminating incident of the day, the one which so greatly impressed the sacred historian. "There was no day like that before it or after it, that Yahweh hearkened unto the voice of a man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,14);">Jos 10:14</a>). It was not the hailstorm in itself nor the veiling of the sun that made the day so remarkable. It was that Joshua had spoken, not in prayer or supplication, but in command, as if all Nature was at his disposal; and the Lord had hearkened and had, as it were, obeyed a human voice: an anticipation of the time when a greater Joshua should command even the winds and the sea, and they should obey Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,\'23-27\');">Mt 8:23-27</a>).<P>7. The Afternoon\'s March:<P>The explanation of the statement that the sun "hasted not to go down about a whole day" is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,10);">Jos 10:10</a>, in which it is stated that the Lord discomfited the Amorites before Israel, "and he slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah." The Israelites had of course no time-keepers, no clocks or watches, and the only mode of measuring time available to them was the number of miles they marched. Now from Gibeon to Makkedah by the route indicated is some 30 miles, a full day\'s march for an army. It is possible that, at the end of the campaign, the Israelites on their return found the march from Makkedah to Gibeon heavy work for an entire day. Measured by the only means available to them, that afternoon seemed to be double the ordinary length. The sun had "hasted not to go down about a whole day."<P>8. The Chronicle and the Poem Independent Witnesses:<P>Joshua\'s reference to the moon in connection with the Valley of Aijalon appears at first sight irrelevant, and has frequently been assumed to be merely inserted to complete the parallelism of the poem. But when examined astronomically it becomes clear that it cannot have been inserted haphazard. Joshua must have mentioned the moon because he actually saw it at the moment of speaking. Given that the sun was "in the midst of heaven," above Gibeon, there was only a very restricted arc of the horizon in which the moon could appear as associated with some terrestrial object; and from Gibeon, the Valley of Aijalon does lie within that narrow arc. It follows therefore that unless the position assigned to the moon had been obtained from actual observation at the moment, it would in all probability have been an impossible one. The next point is especially interesting. The ballad does not expressly state whether the sun was upon Gibeon in the sense of being upon it low down on the distant horizon, or upon it, in the sense of being overhead both to Joshua and to that city. But the moon being above the Valley of Aijalon, it becomes clear that the latter is the only possible solution. The sun and moon cannot both have been setting—though this is the idea that has been generally held, it being supposed that the day was far spent and that Joshua desired it to be prolonged—for then sun and moon would have been close together, and the moon would be invisible. The sun cannot have been setting, and the moon rising; for Aijalon is west of Gibeon. Nor can the sun have been rising, and the moon setting, since this would imply that the time of year was either about October 30 of our present calendar, or about February 12. The month of February was already past, since the Israelites had kept the Feast of the Passover. October cannot have come; for, since Beeroth, Gibeon and Jerusalem were so close together, it is certain that the events between the return of the Israelites to Gilgal and the battle of Beth-horon cannot have been spread over several months, but must have occupied only a few days. The poem therefore contains implicitly the same fact that is explicitly stated in the prose narrative—that the sun was overhead—but the one statement cannot, in those days, have been inferred from the other.<P>9. Date of the Events:<P>A third point of interest is that the position of the moon gives an indication of the time of the year. The Valley of Aijalon <span class="noTag">is</span> 17 degrees north of west of from Gibeon, of which the latitude <span class="noTag">is</span> 31</a> degrees 51 minutes North. With these details, and assuming the time to be nearly noon, the date must have been about the 21st day of the 4th month of the Jewish calendar, corresponding to July 22 of our present calendar, with a possible uncertainty of one or two days on either side. The sun\'s declination would then be about 21 degrees North, so that at noon it was within 11 degrees of the zenith. It had risen almost exactly at 5 AM and would set almost exactly at 7 PM. The moon was now about her third quarter, and in North latitude, about 5 degrees. It had risen about 11 o\'clock the previous night, and was now at an altitude of under 7 degrees, and within about half an hour of setting. The conditions are not sufficient to fix the year, since from the nature of the luni-solar cycle there will always be one or two years in each cycle of 19 that will satisfy the conditions of the case, and the date of the Hebrew invasion of Palestine is not known with sufficient certainty to limit the inquiry to any particular cycle.<P>10. The Records Are Contemporaneous with the Events:<P>It will be seen however that the astronomical conditions introduced by the mention of the moon are much more stringent than might have been expected. They supply therefore proof of a high order that the astronomical details, both of the poem and prose chronicle, were derived from actual observation at the time and have been preserved to us unaltered. Each, therefore, supplies a strictly contemporaneous and independent record.<P>This great occurrence appears to be referred to in one other passage of Scripture—the Prayer of Habakkuk. Here again the rendering of the English versions is unfortunate, and the passage should stand: "The sun and moon ceased (to shine) in their habitation; At the light of Thine arrows they vanished, And at the shining of Thy glittering spear. Thou didst march through the land in indignation, Thou didst thresh the nations in anger" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,11,12);">Hab 3:11-12</a>).``119';
|
|
isbe[1418]='Beth-Jeshimoth`beth-jesh\'-i-moth (beth ha-yeshimoth; Codex Vaticanus, Haisimoth; Codex Alexandrinus, Asimoth, and other variants (see DB, under the word)): Mentioned as the point in the south from which the camp of Israel stretched to Abel-shittim in the plains of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,49);">Nu 33:49</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,3);">Jos 12:3</a> the way to Beth-jeshimoth is described as south of the Arabah, near the Dead Sea. It was in the lot assigned to Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,20);">Jos 13:20</a>), At what times and how long it was actually held by Israel we do not know; but it appears in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',25,9);">Eze 25:9</a> as belonging to Moab. It may be identical with Khirbet es-Suweimeh, where there are some ruins and a well, about 3 miles east of the mouth of the Jordan.``54';
|
|
isbe[1419]='Beth-Leaphrah`beth-le-af\'-ra (beth le\'aphrah; Septuagint ex oikou kata gelota, "house of dust"): The name of a place found only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,10);">Mic 1:10</a>. From the connection in which it is used it was probably in the Philistine plain. There seems to be a play upon the name in the sentence, "at Beth le-\'apharah have I rolled myself in the dust," \'aphrah meaning "dust," and possibly another on Philistine in rolled, hith-palldshithi (see G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, called Minor, in the place cited.).``1';
|
|
isbe[1420]='Beth-Lebaoth`beth-le-ba\'-oth, beth-leb\'-aoth (beth lebha\'oth; Baithalbath, "house of lionesses"): A town in the territory of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,6);">Jos 19:6</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,31);">1Ch 4:31</a> the name is given as Beth-birei: the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-BIRI ">BETH-BIRI</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[1421]='Beth-Lehemite`beth\'-le-hem-it (beth ha-lachmi): An inhabitant of Bethlehem, a town in Judah, 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Jesse is so named in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,18);">1Sa 16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,58);">17:58</a>, and Elhanan in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>. The children of Bethlehem are referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,21);">Ezr 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,26);">Ne 7:26</a>; 1Esdras 5:17.``1';
|
|
isbe[1422]='Beth-Lomon`beth-lo\'-mon (Baithlomon; Codex Vaticanus, Rhagethlomon): The inhabitants of this city are mentioned as returning with Zerubbabel from Babylon (1Esdras 5:17). It is the city of Bethlehem in Judah, the modern Beit Lachm (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,21);">Ezr 2:21</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1423]='Beth-Maacah`beth-ma\'-a-ka.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABEL-BETH-MAACAH">ABEL-BETH-MAACAH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1424]='Beth-Marcaboth`beth-mar\'-ka-both (beth ha-markabhoth; Baithmachereb, "the house of chariots"): Mentioned along with Hazar-susah, "the station of horses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,5);">Jos 19:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,31);">1Ch 4:31</a>) as cities in the Negeb near Ziklag. It is tempting to connect these stations with "the cities for his chariots, and the cities for his horsemen" which Solomon built (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,19);">1Ki 9:19</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,26);">1Ki 10:26</a>). The site of Beth-marcaboth has not been identified, but Guerin (La Terre Sainte. Jerusalem et le Nord de la Judee, II, 230) suggests Khan Yunas, southwest of Gaza, as a suitable chariot city.``117';
|
|
isbe[1425]='Beth-Meon`beth-me\'-on: A city of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,23);">Jer 48:23</a>), identical with <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAAL-MEON">BAAL-MEON</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[1426]='Beth-Merhak`beth-mer\'-hak (beth ha-merchaq; en oiko to makran, literally "a place (house) that was far off" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,17);">2Sa 15:17</a> the Revised Version, margin "the Far House")): A place mentioned in the account of David\'s flight from Absalom. No town of this name is known on the route which he followed. Some scholars think the name denotes simply the outermost of the houses of the city.``1';
|
|
isbe[1427]='Beth-Millo`beth-mil\'-o.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1428]='Beth-Nimrah`beth-nim\'-ra (beth nimrah, "house of leopard," <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,36);">Nu 32:36</a>, but in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,3);">Nu 32:3</a> it is simply Nimrah): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a> the full name appears. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,6);">Isa 15:6</a> the name appears as Nimrim, identified as Tell Nimrim, between Jericho and the mountains on the east, where there is a fountain of large size. The city was assigned to Gad. In the 4th century AD it was located as five Roman miles north of Livias. Eusebius calls it Bethamnaram (SEP, I, Tell Nimrin).``1';
|
|
isbe[1429]='Beth-Palet`beth-pa\'-let.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+PELET">BETH-PELET</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1430]='Beth-Pazzez`beth-paz\'-ez (beth patstsets; Bersaphes, Baithphrasee): A town in the territory of Issachar, named with En-gannim and En- haddah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,21);">Jos 19:21</a>). The site has not been discovered; it probably lay near the modern Jenin.``1';
|
|
isbe[1431]='Beth-Pelet`beth-pe\'-let (beth-pelet; Baithphaleth, "house of escape"; the King James Version Beth-palet; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,27);">Jos 15:27</a>, Beth-phelet, the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,26);">Ne 11:26</a>): One of "the uttermost cities of the tribe of the children of Judah toward the border of Edom in the (Negeb) south" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,21,27);">Jos 15:21, 27</a>). Site unknown.``1';
|
|
isbe[1432]='Beth-Peor`beth-pe\'-or (beth pe\'or; oikos Phogor; in Joshua (Vaticanus), Baithphogor, or beth-):" Over against Beth-peor" the Israelites were encamped, "beyond the Jordan, in the valley," when Moses uttered the speeches recorded in Deuteronomy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,29);">De 3:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,46);">4:46</a>). "In the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor" Moses was buried (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',34,6);">De 34:6</a>). Beth-peor and the slopes of Pisgah (the King James Version "Ashdoth-pisgah") are mentioned in close connection in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,20);">Jos 13:20</a>. According to Eusebius, Onomasticon, Beth-peor was situated near Mt. Peor (Fogor) opposite Jericho, 6 miles above Livias. Mt. Peor is the "top" or "head" of Peor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',23,28);">Nu 23:28</a>). Some height commanding a view of the plain east of the river in the lower Jordan valley is clearly intended, but thus far no identification is possible. "The slopes of Pisgah" are probably the lower slopes of the mountain toward Wady \'Ayun Musa. Somewhere north of this the summit we are in search of may be found. Conder suggested the cliff at Minyeh, south of Wady Jedeideh, and of Pisgah; and would locate Beth-peor at el-Mareighat, "the smeared things," evidently an ancient place of worship, with a stone circle and standing stones, about 4 miles east, on the same ridge. This seems, however, too far south, and more difficult to reach from Shittim than we should gather from <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,1);">Nu 25:1</a>ff.``54';
|
|
isbe[1433]='Beth-Phelet`beth-fe\'-let.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+PELET">BETH-PELET</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1434]='Beth-Rapha`beth-ra\'-fa (beth rapha\'; B, ho Bathraia, Bathrepha): The name occurs only in the genealogical list in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,12);">1Ch 4:12</a>. It does not seem possible now to associate it with any particular place or clan.``1';
|
|
isbe[1435]='Beth-Rehob`beth-re\'-hob (beth-rechobh; ho oikos Rhaab): An Aramean town and district which, along with Zobah and Maacah, assisted Ammon against David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,6,8);">2Sa 10:6, 8</a>, Rehob). It is probably identical with Rehob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,21);">Nu 13:21</a>), the northern limit of the spies\' journey. Laish-Dan (probably Tell el-Kadi) was situated near it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,28);">Jud 18:28</a>). The site of the town is unknown. It has been conjecturally identified with Hunin, west of Banias, and, more plausibly, with Banias itself (Thomson, The Land and the Book (2), 218; Buhl, Geog., 240; Moore, ICC, Judges, 399).``172';
|
|
isbe[1436]='Beth-Shean; Beth-Shan`beth-she\'-an, beth\'-shan (beth-shan, or [beth-she\'an]; in Apocrypha Baithsan or Bethsa): A city in the territory of Issachar assigned to Manasseh, out of which the Canaanites were not driven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,11);">Jos 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,27);">Jud 1:27</a>); in the days of Israel\'s strength they were put to taskwork (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,28);">Jud 1:28</a>). They doubtless were in league with the Philistines who after Israel\'s defeat on Gilboa exposed the bodies of Saul and his sons on the wall of the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,7);">1Sa 31:7</a>ff), whence they were rescued by the men of Jabesh, who remembered the earlier kindness of the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,7);">1Sa 31:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,12);">2Sa 21:12</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,12);">1Ki 4:12</a> the name applies to the district in which the city stands. It was called Scythopolis by the Greeks. This may be connected with the invasion of Palestine by the Scythians who, according to George Syncellus, "overran Palestine and took possession of Beisan." This may be the invasion noticed by Herodotus, circa 600 BC (i.104-6). Here Tryphon failed in his first attempt to take Jonathan by treachery (1Macc 12:40). It fell to John Hyrcanus, but was taken from the Jews by Pompey. It was rebuilt by Gabinius (Ant., XIV, v, 3), and became an important member of the league of the "ten cities" (BJ, III, ix, 7). The impiousness of the inhabitants is painted in dark colors by Josephus (Vita, 6; BJ, II, xviii, 3); and the Mishna speaks of it as a center of idol worship (\'Abhodhah Zarah, i.4). Later it was the seat of a bishop.<P>It is represented by the modern Beisan, in the throat of the Vale of Jezreel where it falls into the Jordan valley, on the southern side of the stream from \'Ain Jalud. The ruins of the ancient city are found on the plain, and on the great mound where probably stood the citadel. Between the town and the stretch of marsh land to the south runs the old road from east to west up the Vale of Jezreel, uniting in Esdraelon with the great caravan road from north to south.``54';
|
|
isbe[1437]='Beth-Shemesh`beth-she\'-mesh, beth\'-shemesh (beth-shemesh; Baithsamus, "house of the sun"): This name for a place doubtless arose in every instance from the presence of a sanctuary of the sun there. In accordance with the meaning and origin of the word, it is quite to be expected that there should be several places of this name in Bible lands, and the expectation is not disappointed. Analysis and comparison of the passages in the Bible where a Beth-shemesh is mentioned show four places of this name.<P>1. Beth-shemesh of Judah:<P>The first mention of a place by this name is in the description of the border of the territory of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,10);">Jos 15:10</a>) which "went down to Beth-Shemesh." This topographical indication "down" puts the place toward the lowlands on the east or west side of Palestine, but does not indicate which. This point is clearly determined by the account of the return of the ark by the Philistine lords from Ekron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,\'9-19\');">1Sa 6:9-19</a>). They returned the ark to Beth-shemesh, the location of which they indicated by the remark that if their affliction was from Yahweh, the kine would bear the ark "by the way of its own border." The Philistines lay along the western border of Judah and the location of Beth-Shemesh of Judah is thus clearly fixed near the western lowland, close to the border between the territory of Judah and that claimed by the Philistines. This is confirmed by the account of the twelve officers of the commissariat of King Solomon. One of these, the son of Dekar, had a Beth-shemesh in his territory. By excluding the territory assigned to the other eleven officers, the territory of this son of Dekar is found to be in Judah and to lie along the Philistine border (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,9);">1Ki 4:9</a>). A Philistine attack upon the border- land of Judah testifies to the same effect (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,18);">2Ch 28:18</a>). Finally, the battle between Amaziah of Judah and Jehoash of Israel, who "looked one another in the face" at Beth-shemesh, puts Beth-Shemesh most probably near the border between Judah and Israel, which would locate it near the northern part of the western border of Judah\'s territo ry. In the assignment of cities to the Levites, Judah gave Beth-shemesh with its suburbs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,16);">Jos 21:16</a>). It has been identified with a good degree of certainty with the modern \'Ain Shems.<P>It may be that Ir-shemesh, "city of the sun," and Har-cherec, "mount of the sun," refer to Beth-shemesh of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,10);">Jos 15:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'41-43\');">19:41-43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,9);">1Ki 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,33);">Jud 1:33c</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,35);">35</a>). But the worship of the sun was so common and cities of this name so many in number that it would be hazardous to conclude with any assurance that because these three names refer to the same region they therefore refer to the same place.<P>2. Beth-shemesh of Issachar:<P>In the description of the tribal limits, it is said of Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,22);">Jos 19:22</a>), "And the border reached to Tabor, and Shahazumah, and Beth-shemesh; and the goings out of their border were at the Jordan." The description indicates that Beth- shemesh was in the eastern part of Issachar\'s territory. The exact location of the city is not known.<P>3. Beth-shemesh of Naphtali:<P>A Beth-shemesh is mentioned together with Beth-anath as cities of Naphtali (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,38);">Jos 19:38</a>). There is no clear indication of the location of this city. Its association with Beth-anath may indicate that they were near each other in the central part of the tribal allotment. As at Gezer, another of the cities of the Levites the Canaanites were not driven out from Beth- shemesh.<P>4. Beth-shemesh "that is in the Land of Egypt":<P>A doom is pronounced upon "Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,13);">Jer 43:13</a>). The Seventy identify it with Heliopolis. There is some uncertainty about this identification. If Beth-shemesh, "house of the sun," is here a description of Heliopolis, why does it not have the article? If it is a proper name, how does it come that a sanctuary in Egypt is called by a Hebrew name? It may be that the large number of Jews in Egypt with Jeremiah gave this Hebrew name to Heliopolis for use among themselves, Beth-shemesh. being a translation of Egyptian Perra as suggested by Griffith. Otherwise, Beth- shemesh. cannot have been Heliopolis, but must have been some other, at present unknown, place of Semitic worship. This latter view seems to be favored by Jeremiah\'s double threat: "He shall also break the pillars of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of Egypt shall he burn with fire" (save place). If Beth-shemesh were the "house of the sun," then the balancing of the state ment would be only between "pillars" and "houses," but it seems more naturally to be between Beth-shemesh, a Semitic place of worship "that is in the land of Egypt" on the one hand, and the Egyptian place of worship, "the houses of the gods of Egypt," on the other.<P>But the Seventy lived in Egypt and in their interpretation of this passage were probably guided by accurate knowledge of facts unknown now, such as surviving names, tradition and even written history. Until there is further light on the subject, it is better to accept their interpretation and identify this Beth-shemesh with Heliopolis.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ON">ON</a>`93';
|
|
isbe[1438]='Beth-Shemite`beth-she\'-mit beth-shimshi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,14,20);">1Sa 6:14, 20</a>): An inhabitant of Beth-shemesh in Judah (compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-SHEMESH">BETH-SHEMESH 1</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1439]='Beth-Shittah`beth-shit\'-a (beth ha-shittah, "house of the acacia"): A place on the route followed by the Midianites in their flight before Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,22);">Jud 7:22</a>). It is probably identical with the modern Shutta, a village in the Vale of Jezreel, about 6 miles Northwest of Beisan.``1';
|
|
isbe[1440]='Beth-Tappuah`beth-tap\'-u-a (beth-tappuach; Beththapphoue, "place of apples" (see however <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APPLE">APPLE</a>)); A town in the hill country of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,53);">Jos 15:53</a>), probably near Hebron (el Tappuah, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,43);">1Ch 2:43</a>), possibly the same as Tephon (1Macc 9:50). The village of Tuffuch, 3 1/2 miles Northwest of Hebron, is the probable site; it stands on the edge of a high ridge, surrounded by very fruitful gardens; an ancient highroad runs through the village, and there are many old cisterns and caves. (See PEF, III, 310, 379, Sh XXI.)``117';
|
|
isbe[1441]='Beth-Zacharias`beth-zak-a-ri\'-as (Baith-zacharia): Here Judas Maccabeus failed in battle with Antiochus Eupator, and his brother Eleazar fell in conflict with an elephant (1Macc 6:32ff; the King James Version "Bathzacharias"). It was a position of great strength, crowning a promontory which juts out between two deep valleys. It still bears the ancient name with little change, Beit Zakaria. It lies about 4 miles southwest of Bethlehem (BR, III, 283ff; Ant, XII, ix, 4).``1';
|
|
isbe[1442]='Beth-Zur`beth\'-zur (beth-tsur; Baith-sour, "house of rock"; less probably "house of the god Zur"):<P>(1) Mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,58);">Jos 15:58</a>) as near Halhul and Gedor in the hill country of Judah; fortified by Rehoboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,7);">2Ch 11:7</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,16);">Ne 3:16</a> mention is made of "Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district of Beth-zur." During the Maccabean wars it (Bethsura) came into great importance (1Macc 4:29,61; 6:7,26,31,49,50; 9:52; 10:14; 11:65; 14:7,33). Josephus describes it as the strongest place in all Judea (Ant., XIII, v, 6). It was inhabited in the days of Eusebius and Jerome.<P>(2) It is the ruined site Belt Cur, near the main road from Jerusalem to Hebron, and some 4 miles north of the latter. Its importance lay in its natural strength, on a hilltop dominating the highroad, and also in its guarding the one southerly approach for a hostile army by the Vale of Elah to the Judean plateau. The site today is conspicuous from a distance through the presence of a ruined medieval tower. (See PEF, III, 311, Sh XXI).``117';
|
|
isbe[1443]='Bethabara`beth-ab\'-a-ra beth\'abharah; (Bethabara, "house of the ford"): According to the King James Version (following Textus Receptus of the New Testament) the place where John baptized (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,28);">Joh 1:28</a>). the Revised Version (British and American) (with Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek following Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi) reads <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETHANY">BETHANY</a>. It is distinguished from the Bethany of Lazarus and his sisters as being "beyond the Jordan." The reading "Bethabara" became current owing to the advocacy of Origen. Various suggestions have been made to explain the readings. G. A. Smith (HGHL) suggests that Bethany ("house of the ship") and Bethabara ("house of the ford") are names for the same place. Bethabara has also been identified with Bethbarah, which, however, was probably not on the Jordan but among the streams flowing into it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,24);">Jud 7:24</a>). It is interesting to note that LXXB reads Baithabara for Massoretic Text Beth-\'arabhah, one of the cities of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,22);">Jos 18:22</a>). If this be correct, the site is in Judea.<P>Another solution is sought in the idea of a corruption of the original name into Bethany and Bethabara, the name having the consonants n, b and r after Beth. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a> (Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus) we find Baithanabra for Bethnimrah (Massoretic Text), and Sir George Grove in DB (arts. "Bethabara" and "Beth-nimrah") identifies Bethabara and Beth-nimrah. The site of the latter was a few miles above Jericho (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-NIMRAH">BETH-NIMRAH</a>), "immediately accessible to Jerusalem and all Judea" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,5);">Mt 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,5);">Mr 1:5</a>, and see article "Bethany" in EB). This view has much in its favor.<P>Then, again, as Dr. G. Frederick Wright observes: "The traditional site is at the ford east of Jericho; but as according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,29,35,43);">Joh 1:29, 35, 43</a> it was only one day\'s journey from Cana of Galilee, while according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,40);">Joh 10:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,3,6,27);">11:3, 6, 27</a> it was two or three days from Bethany, it must have been well up the river toward Galilee. Conder discovered a well-known ford near Beisan called Abarah, near the mouth of the valley of Jezreel. This <span class="noTag">is</span> 20 miles from Cana and 60 miles from Bethany, and all the conditions of the place fit in with the history."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETHANY">BETHANY</a>`78';
|
|
isbe[1444]='Bethany`beth\'-a-ni (Bethania):<P>(1) A village, 15 furlongs from Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,18);">Joh 11:18</a>), on the road to Jericho, at the Mount of Olives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,1);">Mr 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,29);">Lu 19:29</a>), where lived "Simon the leper" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,3);">Mr 14:3</a>) and Mary, Martha and Lazarus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,18);">Joh 11:18</a>f). This village may justifiably be called the Judean home of Jesus, as He appears to have preferred to lodge there rather than in Jerusalem itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,17);">Mt 21:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,11);">Mr 11:11</a>). Here occurred the incident of the raising of Lazarus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,\'1-\');">Joh 11</a>) and the feast at the house of Simon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,\'1-13\');">Mt 26:1-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'3-9\');">Mr 14:3-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,\'36-50\');">Lu 7:36-50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,\'1-8\');">Joh 12:1-8</a>). The Ascension as recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,\'50-51\');">Lu 24:50-51</a> is thus described: "He led them out until they were over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven."<P>Bethany is today el \'Azareyeh ("the place of Lazarus"—the L being displaced to form the article). It is a miserably untidy and tumble-down village facing east on the southeast slope of the Mount of Olives, upon the carriage road to Jericho. A fair number of fig, almond and olive trees surround the houses. The traditional tomb of Lazarus is shown and there are some remains of medieval buildings, besides rock-cut tombs of much earlier date (PEF, III, 27, Sheet XVII).<P>(2) "Bethany beyond the Jordan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,28);">Joh 1:28</a>; the King James Version Bethabara; Bethabara, a reading against the majority of the manuscripts, supported by Origen on geographical grounds): No such place is known. Grove suggested that the place intended is <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-NIMRAH">BETH-NIMRAH</a> (which see), the modern Tell nimrin, a singularly suitable place, but hard to fit in with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,28);">Joh 1:28</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,1);">Joh 2:1</a>. The traditional site is the ford east of Jericho.``117';
|
|
isbe[1445]='Betharam`beth-a\'-ram (beth haram).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+HARAM">BETH-HARAM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1446]='Bethasmoth`beth-az\'-moth (the King James Version Bethsamos; Baithasmoth (1Esdras 5:18); corresponds to Beth-azmaveth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,28);">Ne 7:28</a>): A town in the territory of Benjamin, and may be identified with the modern el-Hizmeh.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AZMAVETH">AZMAVETH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1447]='Bethbasi`beth-ba\'-si (Baithbasi): The name may mean "place of marshes" = Hebrew beth-betsi. According to G. A. Smith there is a Wady el-Bassah east of Tekoa in the wilderness of Judea. The name means "marsh," which Dr. Smith thinks impossible, and really "an echo of an ancient name." Jonathan and Simon repaired the ruins of the fortified place "in the desert" (1Macc 9:62,64). Josephus reads Bethalaga, i.e. Beth-hoglah (Ant., XIII, i, 5). Peshitta version reads Beth-Yashan (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESHANAH">JESHANAH</a>), which Dr. Cheyne thinks is probably correct. Thus the origin of the name and the site of the town are merely conjectural.``78';
|
|
isbe[1448]='Bethel`beth\'-el (beth-\'el; Baithel and oikos theou, literally, "house of God"):<P>(1) A town near the place where Abraham halted and offered sacrifice on his way south from Shechem.<P>1. Identification and Description:<P>It lay west of Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">Ge 12:8</a>). It is named as on the northern border of Benjamin (the southern of Ephraim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,2);">Jos 16:2</a>), at the top of the ascent from the Jordan valley by way of Ai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,13);">Jos 18:13</a>). It lay south of Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,19);">Jud 21:19</a>). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 12 Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Neapolis. It is represented by the modern Beitin, a village of some 400 inhabitants, which stands on a knoll east of the road to Nablus. There are four springs which yield supplies of good water. In ancient times these were supplemented by a reservoir hewn in the rock south of the town. The surrounding country is bleak and barren, the hills being marked by a succession of stony terraces, which may have suggested the form of the ladder in Jacob\'s famous dream.<P>2. The Sanctuary:<P>The town was originally called Luz (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">Ge 28:19</a>, etc.). When Jacob came hither on his way to Paddan-aram we are told that he lighted upon "the place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,11);">Ge 28:11</a>. Hebrew). The Hebrew maqom, like the cognate Arabic maqam, denotes a sacred place or sanctuary. The maqom was doubtless that at which Abraham had sacrificed, east of the town. In the morning Jacob set up "for a pillar" the stone which had served as his pillow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,18);">Ge 28:18</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PILLAR">PILLAR</a>, matstsebhah), poured oil upon it and called the name of the place Bethel, "house of God"; that is, of God whose epiphany was for him associated with the pillar. This spot became a center of great interest, lending growing importance to the town. In process of time the name Luz disappeared, giving place to that of the adjoining sanctuary, town and sanctuary being identified. Jacob revisited the place on his return from Paddan-aram; here Deborah, Rebekah\'s nurse, died and was buried under "the oak" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,6);">Ge 35:6</a>f). Probably on rising ground east of Bethel Abraham and Lot stood to view the uninviting highlands and the rich lands of the Jordan valley (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,9);">Ge 13:9</a>ff).<P>3. History:<P>Bethel was a royal city of the Canaanites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,16);">Jos 12:16</a>). It appears to have been captured by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,7);">8:7</a>), and it was allotted to Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,22);">Jos 18:22</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,22);">Jud 1:22</a>ff it is represented as held by Canaanites, from whom the house of Joseph took it by treachery (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,28);">1Ch 7:28</a>). Hither the ark was brought from Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,1);">Jud 2:1</a>, Septuagint). Israel came to Bethel to consult the Divine oracle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,18);">Jud 20:18</a>), and it became an important center of worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,3);">1Sa 10:3</a>). The home of the prophetess Deborah was not far off (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,5);">Jud 4:5</a>). Samuel visited Bethel on circuit, judging Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,16);">1Sa 7:16</a>).<P>With the disruption of the kingdom came Bethel\'s greatest period of splendor and significance. To counteract the influence of Jerusalem as the national religious center Jeroboam embarked on the policy which won for him the unenviable reputation of having "made Israel to sin." Here he erected a temple, set up an image, the golden calf, and established an imposing ritual. It became the royal sanctuary and the religious center of his kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,29);">1Ki 12:29</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,13);">Am 7:13</a>). He placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,32);">1Ki 12:32</a>). To Bethel came the man of God from Judah who pronounced doom against Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,\'1-\');">1Ki 13</a>), and who, having been seduced from duty by an aged prophet in Bethel, was slain by a lion. According to the prophets Amos and Hosea the splendid idolatries of Bethel were accompanied by terrible moral and religious degradation. Against the place they launched the most scathing denunciations, declaring the vengeance such things must entail (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,14);">Am 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,11);">5:11</a> m; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,1);">Am 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,15);">Ho 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,8);">5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',10,5,8,15);">10:5, 8, 15</a>). With the latter the name Bethel gives place in mockery to Beth-aven. Bethel shared in the downfall of Samaria wrought by the Assyrians; and according to an old tradition, Shalmaneser possessed himself of the golden calf (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,13);">Jer 48:13</a>). The priest, sent by the Assyrians to teach the people whom they had settled in the land how to serve Yahweh, dwelt in Bethel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,28);">2Ki 17:28</a>). King Josiah completed the demolition of the sanctuary at Bethel, destroying all the instruments of idolatry, and harr ying the tombs of the idolaters. The monument of the man of God from Judah he allowed to stand (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,4,25);">2Ki 23:4, 25</a>). The men of Bethel were among those who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,28);">Ezr 2:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,32);">Ne 7:32</a>), and it is mentioned as reoccupied by the Benjamites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,31);">Ne 11:31</a>). Zechariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,2);">Zec 7:2</a>) records the sending of certain men from Jerusalem in the 4th year of King Darius to inquire regarding particular religious practices. Bethel was one of the towns fortified by Bacchides in the time of the Maccabees (1Macc 9:50; Ant, XIII, i, 3). It is named again as a small town which, along with Ephraim, was taken by Vespasian as he approached Jerusalem (BJ, IV, ix, 9).<P>(2) A city in Judah which in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,27);">1Sa 30:27</a> is called Bethel; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,4);">Jos 19:4</a> Bethul; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,30);">1Ch 4:30</a> Bethuel. The site has not been identified. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,30);">Jos 15:30</a> Septuagint gives Baithel in Judah, where the Hebrew has Kecil, probably a scribal error.``54';
|
|
isbe[1449]='Bethel, Mount`(har beth-\'el; Baithel louza (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,2);">1Sa 13:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "the mount of Bethel"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,1);">Jos 16:1</a>)): The hill which stretches from the north of the town to Tell \'Acur. The road to Shechem lies along the ridge. An army in possession of these heights easily commanded the route from north to south.``1';
|
|
isbe[1450]='Bethelite`beth\'-el-it: The term applied to a man who in the days of Ahab rebuilt Jericho (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,34);">1Ki 16:34</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HIEL">HIEL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1451]='Bether`be\'-ther (bether): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',2,17);">So 2:17</a> mention is made of "the mountains of Bether." It is doubtful if a proper name is intended. The Revised Version, margin has, "perhaps, the spice malobathron." A Bether is prominent in late Jewish history as the place where the Jews resisted Hadrian under Bar Cochba in 135 AD. Its identity with Bittir, 7 miles southwest of Jerusalem, is attested by an inscription.``1';
|
|
isbe[1452]='Bethesda`be-thez\'-da (Bethesda; Textus Receptus of the New Testament, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,2);">Joh 5:2</a> (probably beth chicda\', "house of mercy"); other forms occur as Bethzatha and Bethsaida):<P>1. The Conditions of the Narrative: <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,2);">Joh 5:2</a>:<P>The only data we have is the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,\'2-4\');">Joh 5:2-4</a>: "Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered." Many ancient authorities add (as in the Revised Version, margin) "waiting for the moving of the water: for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the water," etc.<P>The name does not help as to the site, no such name occurs elsewhere in Jerusalem; the mention of the sheep gate is of little assistance because the word "gate" is supplied, and even were it there, its site is uncertain. Sheep "pool" or "place" is at least as probable; the tradition about the "troubling of the water" (which may be true even if the angelic visitant may be of the nature of folk-lore) can receive no rational explanation except by the well-known phenomenon, by no means uncommon in Syria and always considered the work of a supernatural being, of an intermittent spring. The arrangement of the five porches is similar to that demonstrated by Dr. F. Bliss as having existed in Roman times as the Pool of Siloam; the story implies that the incident occurred outside the city walls, as to carry a bed on the Sabbath would not have been forbidden by Jewish traditional law.<P>2. The Traditional Site:<P>Tradition has varied concerning the site. In the 4th century, and probably down to the Crusades, a pool was pointed out as the true site, a little to the Northwest of the present Stephen\'s Gate; it was part of a twin pool and over it were erected at two successive periods two Christian churches. Later on this site was entirely lost and from the 13th century the great Birket Israel, just north of the Temple area, was pointed out as the site.<P>Within the last quarter of a century, however, the older traditional site, now close to the Church of Anne, has been rediscovered, excavated and popularly accepted. This pool is a rock-cut, rain-filled cistern, 55 ft. long X 12 ft. broad, and is approached by a steep and winding flight of steps. The floor of the rediscovered early Christian church roofs over the pool, being supported upon five arches in commemoration of the five porches. At the western end of the church, where probably the font was situated, there was a fresco, now much defaced and fast fading, representing the angel troubling the waters.<P>3. A More Probable Site:<P>Although public opinion supports this site, there is much to be said for the proposal, promulgated by Robinson and supported by Conder and other good authorities, that the pool was at the "Virgin\'s Fount" (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIHON">GIHON</a>), which is today an intermittent spring whose "troubled" waters are still visited by Jews for purposes of cure. As the only source of "living water" near Jerusalem, it is a likely spot for there to have been a "sheep pool" or "sheep place" for the vast flocks of sheep coming to Jerusalem in connection with the temple ritual. See Biblical World, XXV, 80ff.``117';
|
|
isbe[1453]='Bethink`be-think\' (heshibh \'el lebh, "to lay to heart," hence, "recall to mind"): Anglo-Saxon word used only in seventh petition of Solomon\'s prayer at the dedication of the Temple. If the people, carried into captivity, because of sin, should "take it to heart," then God (he prayed) would hear and forgive (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,47);">1Ki 8:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,37);">2Ch 6:37</a>). A choice illustration of the mental and heart process in reflection, repentance and conversion.``1';
|
|
isbe[1454]='Bethlehem`beth\'-le-hem (bethlechem; Baithleem, or Bethleem, "house of David," or possibly "the house of Lakhmu," an Assyrian deity):<P>I. Bethlehem Judah:<P>Bethlehem Judah, or <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRATH">EPHRATH</a> or <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRATHAH">EPHRATHAH</a> (which see) is now Beit Lahm (Arabic = "house of meat"), a town of upward of 10,000 inhabitants, 5 miles south of Jerusalem and 2,350 ft. above sea level. It occupies an outstanding position upon a spur running east from the watershed with deep valleys to the northeast and south. It is just off the main road to Hebron and the south, but upon the highroad to Tekoa and En-gedi. The position is one of natural strength; it was occupied by a garrison of the Philistines in the days of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,14);">2Sa 23:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,16);">1Ch 11:16</a>) and was fortified by Rehoboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,6);">2Ch 11:6</a>). The surrounding country is fertile, cornfields, fig and olive yards and vineyards abound. Bethlehem is not naturally well supplied with water, the nearest spring is 800 yds. to the southeast, but for many centuries the "low level aqueduct" from "Solomon\'s Pools" in the Artas valley, which has here been tunneled through the hill, has been tapped by the inhabitants; there are also many rock-cut cisterns.<P>1. Early History:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,51);">1Ch 2:51</a> Salma, the son of Caleb, is described as the "father of Bethlehem." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,19);">Ge 35:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,7);">48:7</a> it is recorded that Rachel "was buried in the way to Ephrath (the same is Beth-lehem)." Tradition points out the site of Rachel\'s tomb near where the road to Bethlehem leaves the main road. The Levites of the events of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'1-\');">Jud 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,\'1-\');">Jud 19</a> were Bethlehemites. In the list of the towns of Judah the name Bethlehem occurs, in the Septuagint version only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,57);">Jos 15:57</a>.<P>2. David the Bethlehemite:<P>Ruth, famous chiefly as the ancestress of David, and of the Messiah, settled in Bethlehem with her second husband Boaz, and it is noticeable that from her new home she could view the mountains of Moab, her native land. David himself "was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah, whose name was Jesse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,12);">1Sa 17:12</a>). To Bethlehem came Samuel to anoint a successor to unworthy Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,4);">1Sa 16:4</a>): "David went to and fro from Saul to feed his father\'s sheep at Bethlehem" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,15);">1Sa 17:15</a>). David\'s "three mighty men" "brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth- lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,14,16);">2Sa 23:14, 16</a>). Tradition still points out the well. From this town came those famous "sons of Zeruiah," David\'s nephews, whose loyalty and whose ruthless cruelty became at once a protection and a menace to their royal relative: in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,32);">2Sa 2:32</a> it is mentioned that one of them, Asahel, was buried "in the sepulchre of his father, which was in Bethlehem."<P>3. Later Bible History:<P>After the time of David, Bethlehem would appear to have sunk into insignificance. But its future fame is pointed at by Micah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,2);">Mi 5:2</a>): "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<P>In the return of the Jews captive Bethlehemites re-inhabited the place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,21);">Ezr 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,26);">Ne 7:26</a> "men"; 1Esdras 5:17 "sons").<P>4. The Christian Era:<P>In the New Testament Bethlehem is mentioned as the birthplace of the Messiah Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,1,5);">Mt 2:1, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,4,25);">Lu 2:4, 25</a>) in consequence of which event occurred Herod\'s "massacre of the innocents" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,8,16);">Mt 2:8, 16</a>). Inasmuch as Hadrian devastated Bethlehem and set up there a sacred grove to Adonis (Jerome, Ep. ad Paul, lviii. 3) it is clear that veneration of this spot as the site of the Nativity must go back before 132 AD. Constantine (circa 330) founded a basilica over the cave-stable which tradition pointed out as the scene of the birth, and his church, unchanged in general structure though enlarged by Justinian and frequently adorned, repaired and damaged, remains today the chief attraction of the town. During the Crusades, Bethlehem became of great importance and prosperity; it remained in Christian hands after the overthrow of the Latin kingdom, and at the present day it is in material things one of the most prosperous Christian centers in the Holy Land.<P>II. Bethlehem of Zebulun:<P>Bethlehem of Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,15);">Jos 19:15</a>) was probably the home of Ibzan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,8);">Jud 12:8</a>) though Jewish tradition is in support of (1). See Josephus, Ant, V, vii, 13. This is now the small village of Beit Lahm, some 7 miles Northwest of Nazareth on the edge of the oak forest. Some antiquities have been found here recently, showing that in earlier days it was a place of some importance. It is now the site of a small German colony. See PEF, I, 270, Sh V.``117';
|
|
isbe[1455]='Bethlehem, Star of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STAR+OF+THE+MAGI">STAR OF THE MAGI</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1456]='Bethphage`beth\'-fa-je, beth\'-faj (from beth paghah; Bethphage, or Bethphage; in Aramaic "place of young figs"): Near the Mount of Olives and to the road from Jerusalem to Jericho; mentioned together with Bethany (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,1);">Mt 21:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,1);">Mr 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,29);">Lu 19:29</a>). The place occurs in several Talmudic passages where it may be inferred that it was near but outside Jerusalem; it was at the Sabbatical distance limit east of Jerusalem, and was surrounded by some kind of wall. The medieval Bethphage was between the summit and Bethany. The site is now enclosed by the Roman Catholics. As regards the Bethphage of the New Testament, the most probable suggestion was that it occupied the summit itself where Kefr et Tur stands today. This village certainly occupies an ancient site and no other name is known. This is much more probable than the suggestion that the modern Abu Dis is on the site of Bethphage.``117';
|
|
isbe[1457]='Bethsaida`beth-sa\'-i-da (Bethsaida, "house of fishing"):<P>(1) A city east of the Jordan, in a "desert place" (that is, uncultivated ground used for grazing) at which Jesus miraculously fed the multitude with five loaves and two fishes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,32);">Mr 6:32</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,10);">Lu 9:10</a>). This is doubtless to be identified with the village of Bethsaida in Lower Gaulonitis which the Tetrarch Philip raised to the rank of a city, and called Julias, in honor of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. It lay near the place where the Jordan enters the Sea of Gennesaret (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1; BJ, II, ix, 1; III, x, 7; Vita, 72). This city may be located at et-Tell, a ruined site on the east side of the Jordan on rising ground, fully a mile from the sea. As this is too far from the sea for a fishing village, Schumacher (The Jaulan, 246) suggests that el-\'Araj, "a large, completely destroyed site close to the lake," connected in ancient times with et-Tell "by the beautiful roads still visible," may have been the fishing village, and et- Tell the princely residence. He is however inclined to favor el-Mes\'adiyeh, a ruin and winter village of Arab et- Tellawiyeh, which stands on an artificial mound, about a mile and a half from the mouth of the Jordan. It should be noted, however, that the name is in origin radically different from Bethsaida. The substitution of sin for cad is easy: but the insertion of the guttural \'ain is impossible. No trace of the name Bethsaida has been found in the district; but any one of the sites named would meet the requirements.<P>To this neighborhood Jesus retired by boat with His disciples to rest awhile. The multitude following on foot along the northern shore of the lake would cross the Jordan by the ford at its mouth which is used by foot travelers to this day. The "desert" of the narrative is just the barriyeh of the Arabs where the animals are driven out for pasture. The "green grass" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,39);">Mr 6:39</a>, and the "much grass" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,10);">Joh 6:10</a>, point to some place in the plain of el-Bateichah, on the rich soil of which the grass is green and plentiful compared with the scanty herbage on the higher slopes.<P>(2) Bethsaida of Galilee, where dwelt Philip, Andrew, Peter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,44);">Joh 1:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,21);">12:21</a>), and perhaps also James and John. The house of Andrew and Peter seems to have been not far from the synagogue in Capernaum (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,14);">Mt 8:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,29);">Mr 1:29</a>, etc.). Unless they had moved their residence from Bethsaida to Capernaum, of which there is no record, and which for fishermen was unlikely, Bethsaida must have lain close to Capernaum. It may have been the fishing town adjoining the larger city. As in the case of the other Bethsaida, no name has been recovered to guide us to the site. On the rocky promontory, however, east of Khan Minyeh we find Sheikh \'Aly ec-Caiyadin, "Sheikh Aly of the Fishermen," as the name of a ruined weley, in which the second element in the name Bethsaida is represented. Near by is the site at \'Ain et-Tabigha, which many have identified with Bethsaida of Galilee. The warm water from copious springs runs into a little bay of the sea in which fishes congregate in great numbers. This has therefore always been a favorite haunt of fishermen. If Capernaum were at Khan Minyeh, then the two lay close together. The names of many ancient places have been lost, and others have strayed from their original localities. The absence of any name resembling Bethsaida need not concern us.<P>Were There Two Bethsaidas?:<P>Many scholars maintain that all the New Testament references to Bethsaida apply to one place, namely, Bethsaida Julias. The arguments for and against this view may be summarized as follows:<P>(a) Galilee ran right round the lake, including most of the level coastland on the east. Thus Gamala, on the eastern shore, was within the jurisdiction of Josephus, who commanded in Galilee (BJ, II, xx, 4). Judas of Gamala (Ant., XVIII, i, l) is also called Judas of Galilee (ibid., i, 6). If Gamala, far down the eastern shore of the sea, were in Galilee, a fortiori Bethsaida, a town which lay on the very edge of the Jordan, may be described as in Galilee.<P>But Josephus makes it plain that Gamala, while added to his jurisdiction, was not in Galilee, but in Gaulonitis (BJ, II, xx, 6). Even if Judas were born in Gamala, and so might properly be called a Gaulonite, he may, like others, have come to be known as belonging to the province in which his active life was spent. "Jesus of Nazareth" was born in Bethlehem. Then Josephus explicitly says that Bethsaida was in Lower Gaulonitis (BJ, II, ix, 1). Further, Luke places the country of the Gerasenes on the other side of the sea from Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,26);">Lu 8:26</a>)—antipera tes Galilaias ("over against Galilee").<P>(b) To go to the other side—eis to peran (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,45);">Mr 6:45</a>)—does not of necessity imply passing from the east to the west coast of the lake, since Josephus uses the verb diaperaioo of a passage from Tiberias to Tarichea (Vita, 59). But (i) this involved a passage from a point on the west to a point on the south shore, "crossing over" two considerable bays; whereas if the boat started from any point in el-Bateichah, to which we seem to be limited by the "much grass," and by the definition of the district as belonging to Bethsaida, to sail to et-Tell, it was a matter of coasting not more than a couple of miles, with no bay to cross. (ii) No case can be cited where the phrase eis to peran certainly means anything else than "to the other side." (iii) Mark says that the boat started to go unto the other side to Bethsaida, while John, gives the direction "over the sea unto Capernaum" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,17);">Mr 6:17</a>). The two towns were therefore practically in the same line. Now there is no question that Capernaum was on "the other side," nor is there any suggestion that the boat was driven out of its course; and it is quite obvious that, sailing toward Capernaum, whether at Tell Chum or at Khan Minyeh, it would never reach Bethsaida Julius. (iv) The present writer is familiar with these waters in both storm and calm. If the boat was taken from any point in el-Bateichah towards et-Tell, no east wind would have distressed the rowers, protected as that part is by the mountains. Therefore it was no contrary wind that carried them toward Capernaum and the "land of Gennesaret." On the other hand, with a wind from the west, such as is often experienced, eight or nine hours might easily be occupied in covering the four or five miles from el-Bateichah to the neighborhood of Capernaum.<P>(c) The words of Mark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,45);">Mr 6:45</a>), it is suggested (Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 42), have been too strictly interpreted: as the Gospel was written probably at Rome, its author being a native, not of Galilee, but of Jerusalem. Want of precision on topographical points, therefore, need not surprise us. But as we have seen above, the "want of precision" must also be attributed to the writer of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,17);">Joh 6:17</a>. The agreement of these two favors the strict interpretation. Further, if the Gospel of Mark embodies the recollections of Peter, it would be difficult to find a more reliable authority for topographical details connected with the sea on which his fisher life was spent.<P>(d) In support of the single-city theory it is further argued that<P>(i) Jesus withdrew to Bethsaida as being in the jurisdiction of Philip, when he heard of the murder of John by Antipas, and would not have sought again the territories of the latter so soon after leaving them.<P>(ii) Medieval works of travel notice only one Bethsaida.<P>(iii) The east coast of the sea was definitely attached to Galilee in AD 84, and Ptolemy (circa 140) places Julius in Galilee. It is therefore significant that only the Fourth Gospel speaks of "Bethsaida of Galilee."<P>(iv) There could hardly have been two Bethsaidas so close together.<P>But:<P>(i) It is not said that Jesus came hither that he might leave the territory of Antipas for that of Philip; and in view of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,30);">Mr 6:30</a>ff, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,10);">Lu 9:10</a>ff, the inference from <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,13);">Mt 14:13</a> that he did so, is not warranted.<P>(ii) The Bethsaida of medieval writers was evidently on the west of the Jordan. If it lay on the east it is inconceivable that none of them should have mentioned the river in this connection.<P>(iii) If the 4th Gospel was not written until well into the 2nd century, then the apostle was not the author; but this is a very precarious assumption. John, writing after 84 AD, would hardly have used the phrase "Bethsaida of Galilee" of a place only recently attached to that province, writing, as he was, at a distance from the scene, and recalling the former familiar conditions.<P>(iv) In view of the frequent repetition of names in Palestine the nearness of the two Bethsaidas raises no difficulty. The abundance of fish at each place furnished a good reason for the recurrence of the name.``54';
|
|
isbe[1458]='Bethsamos`beth-sa\'-mos.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETHASMOTH">BETHASMOTH</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1459]='Bethsura; Bethsuron`beth-su\'-ra (Baithsoura (1Macc 4:29, etc.)), (2Macc 11:5 the Revised Version (British and American)): The Greek form of the name <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH-ZUR">BETH-ZUR</a> (which see).``1';
|
|
isbe[1460]='Bethuel (1)`be-thu\'-el (bethu\'el; "dweller in God"): A son of Nahor and Milcah, Abraham\'s nephew, father of Laban and Rebekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,23);">Ge 22:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,15,24,47,50);">24:15, 24, 47, 50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,20);">25:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,2,5);">28:2, 5</a>). In the last-named passage, he is surnamed "the Syrian." The only place where he appears as a leading character in the narrative is in connection with Rebekah\'s betrothal to Isaac; and even here, his son Laban stands out more prominently than he—a fact explainable on the ground of the custom which recognized the right of the brother to take a special interest in the welfare of the sister (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,5,21,25);">Ge 34:5, 21, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,20,22);">2Sa 13:20, 22</a>). Ant, I, xvi, 2 states that Bethuel was dead at this time.``77';
|
|
isbe[1461]='Bethuel (2)`be-thu\'-el, beth\'-u-el (bethu\'el, "destroyed of God"): A town of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,30);">1Ch 4:30</a>), the same as Bethul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,4);">Jos 19:4</a>), and, probably, as the Beth-el of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,27);">1Sa 30:27</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[1462]='Bethul`beth\'-ul, be\'-thul (bethul):`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETHUEL">BETHUEL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHESIL">CHESIL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1463]='Bethulia`be-thu\'-li-a (Baithouloua): A town named only in the Book of Judith (4:6; 6:10ff; 7:1ff; 8:3; 10:6; 12:7; 15:3,6; 16:21ff). From these references we gather that it stood beside a valley, on a rock, at the foot of which was a spring, not far from Jenin; and that it guarded the passes by which an army might march to the south. The site most fully meeting these conditions is that of Sanur. The rock on the summit of which it stands rises sheer from the edge of Merj el-Ghariq, on the main highway, some 7 miles south of Jenin. Other identifications are suggested: Conder favoring Mithiliyeh, a little farther north; while the writer of the article "Bethulia" in Encyclopedia Biblica argues for identification with Jerusalem.``54';
|
|
isbe[1464]='Betimes`be-timz\':In the sense of "early" is the translation of two Hebrew words:<P>(1) shakham, a root meaning "to incline the shoulder to a load," hence "to load up," "start early": in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,31);">Ge 26:31</a> "they rose up betimes in the morning," also in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',36,15);">2Ch 36:15</a> (the American Standard Revised Version "early");<P>(2) of shachar, a root meaning "to dawn" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,5);">Job 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',24,5);">24:5</a>, the American Standard Revised Version "diligently," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',13,24);">Pro 13:24</a>, "chasteneth him betimes."<P>In the Apocrypha (Sirach 6:36) "betimes" is the translation of orthizo, literally, "to rise early in the morning," while in Bel and the Dragon verse 16 the same word is translated "betime."<P>In other cases the King James Version "betimes" appears as "before the time" (Sirach 51:30); "early" (1Macc 4:52; 11:67); "the mourning" (1Macc 5:30).``89';
|
|
isbe[1465]='Betolion`be-to\'-li-on (Betolio (Codex Alexandrinus), or (Codex Vaticanus) Betolio; the King James Version Betolius, be-to\'-li-us): A town the people of which to the number of 52 returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:21). It corresponds to Bethel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,28);">Ezr 2:28</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[1466]='Betomesthaim; Betomasthaim`be-to-mes\'-tha-im, be-to-mes\'-tham the King James Version Betomestham, (Betomesthaim (Judith 4:6)): the King James Version Betomasthem (Baitornasthaim (Judith 15:4)): The place is said to have been "over against Jezreel, in the face of (i. e eastward of) the plain that is near Dothan" It can hardly be Deir Massin, which lies west of the plain. The district is clearly indicated, but no identification is yet possible.``1';
|
|
isbe[1467]='Betonim`bet\'-o-nim, be-to\'-nim (betonim; Botanei or Botanin): A town east of the Jordan in the territory of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,26);">Jos 13:26</a>). It may be identical with Batneh, about 3 miles southwest of es-salt.``1';
|
|
isbe[1468]='Betray`be-tra\' (ramah; paradidomi): In the Old Testament only once (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,17);">1Ch 12:17</a>). David warns those who had deserted to him from Saul: "If ye be come to betray me to mine adversaries...the God of our fathers look thereon." The same Hebrew word is elsewhere translated "beguile" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,25);">Ge 29:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,22);">Jos 9:22</a>), "deceive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,17);">1Sa 19:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,12);">28:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,26);">2Sa 19:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,19);">Pr 26:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,19);">La 1:19</a>).<P>In the New Testament, for paradidomi: 36 times, of the betrayal of Jesus Christ, and only 3 times besides (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,10);">Mt 24:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,12);">Mr 13:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,16);">Lu 21:16</a>) of kinsmen delivering up one another to prosecution. In these three places the Revised Version (British and American) translates according to the more general meaning, "to deliver up," and also (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,22);">Mt 17:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,18);">20:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,16);">26:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,10,21);">Mr 14:10, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,4,6);">Lu 22:4, 6</a>) where it refers to the delivering up of Jesus. The Revisers\' idea was perhaps to retain "betray" only in direct references to Judas\' act, but they have not strictly followed that rule. Judas\' act was more than that of giving a person up to the authorities; he did it under circumstances of treachery which modified its character:<P>(a) he took advantage of his intimate relation with Jesus Christ as a disciple to put Him in the hands of His enemies;<P>(b) he did it stealthily by night, and<P>(c) by a kiss, an act which professed affection and friendliness;<P>(d) he did it for money, and<P>(e) he knew that Jesus Christ was innocent of any crime (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,4);">Mt 27:4</a>).``145';
|
|
isbe[1469]='Betrayers`be-tra\'-ers (prodotai, "betrayers," "traitors"): Stephen charged the Jews with being betrayers of the Righteous One (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,52);">Ac 7:52</a>) i.e. as having made Judas\' act their own; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,16);">Lu 6:16</a>: "Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor;" <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,4);">2Ti 3:4</a>, "traitors."``1';
|
|
isbe[1470]='Betroth`be-troth\', be-troth\' (\'dras): On betrothal as a social custom see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MARRIAGE">MARRIAGE</a>. Hosea, in his great parable of the prodigal wife, surpassed only by a greater Teacher\'s parable of the Prodigal Son, uses betrothal as the symbol of Yahweh\'s pledge of His love and favor to penitent Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19,20);">Ho 2:19-20</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,8,9);">Ex 21:8-9</a> the Revised Version (British and American) renders "espouse" for the "betroth" of the King James Version, the context implying the actual marriage relation.``1';
|
|
isbe[1471]='Between the Testaments`<b>I. THE PERIOD IN GENERAL</b><P><b>II. A GLANCE AT CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. The Egyptian Empire<P class="in15">2. Greece<P class="in15">3. Rome<P class="in15">4. Asia<P><b>III. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS</b><P class="in15">1. The Persian Period<P class="in15">2. The Alexandrian Period<P class="in15">3. The Egyptian Period<P class="in15">4. The Syrian Period<P class="in15">5. The Maccabean Period<P class="in15">6. The Roman Period<P><b>IV. INTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS PERIOD</b><P class="in15">1. Literary Activity<P class="in30">(a) The Apocrypha<P class="in30">(b) Pseudepigrapha<P class="in30">(c) The Septuagint<P class="in15">2. Spiritual Conditions<P class="in15">3. Parties<P class="in15">4. Preparation for Christianity<hr /><P>As the title indicates, the historical period in the life of Israel extends from the cessation of Old Testament prophecy to the beginning of the Christian era.<P>I. The Period in General.<P>The Exile left its ineffaceable stamp on Judaism as well as on the Jews. Their return to the land of their fathers was marked by the last rays of the declining sun of prophecy. With Malachi it set. Modern historical criticism has projected some of the canonical books of the Bible far into this post-exilic period. Thus Kent (HJP, 1899), following the lead of the Wellhausen-Kuenen hypothesis, with all its later leaders, has charted the period between 600 BC, the date of the first captivity, to 160 BC, the beginning of the Hasmonean period of Jewish history, in comparative contemporaneous blocks of double decades. Following the path of Koster, the historical position of Ezra and Nehemiah is inverted, and the former is placed in the period 400-380 BC, contemporaneously with Artaxerxes II; Joel is assigned to the same period; portions of Isaiah (chapters 63-66; 24-27) are placed about 350 BC; Zechariah is assigned to the period 260-240, and Daniel is shot way down the line into the re ign of the Seleucids, between 200 and 160 BC. Now all this is very striking and no doubt very critical, but the ground of this historical readjustment is wholly subjective, and has the weight only of a hypothetical conjecture. Whatever may be our attitude to the critical hypothesis of the late origin of some of the Old Testament literally, it seems improbable that any portion of it could have reached far into the post-exilic period. The interval between the Old and the New Testaments is the dark period in the hist ory of Israel. It stretches itself out over about four centuries, during which there was neither prophet nor inspired writer in Israel. All we know of it we owe to Josephus, to some of the apocryphal books, and to scattered references in Greek and Latin historians. The seat of empire passed over from the East to the West, from Asia to Europe. The Persian Empire collapsed, under the fierce attacks of the Macedonians, and the Greek Empire in turn gave way to the Roman rule.<P>II. A Glance at Contemporaneous History.<P>For the better understanding of this period in the history of Israel, it may be well to pause for a moment to glance at the wider field of the history of the world in the centuries under contemplation, for the words "fullness of time" deal with the all-embracing history of mankind, for whose salvation Christ appeared, and whose every movement led to its realization.<P>1. The Egyptian Empire:<P>In the four centuries preceding Christ, The Egyptian empire, the oldest and in many respects the most perfectly developed civilization of antiquity, was tottering to its ruins. The 29th or Mendesian Dynasty, made place, in 384 BC, for the 30th or Sebennitic Dynasty, which was swallowed up, half a century later, by the Persian Dynasty. The Macedonian or 32nd replaced this in 332 BC, only to give way, a decade later, to the last or 33rd, the Ptolemaic Dynasty. The whole history of Egypt in this period was therefore one of endless and swiftly succeeding changes. In the Ptolemaic Dynasty there was a faint revival of the old glory of the past, but the star of empire had set for Egypt, and the mailed hand of Rome finally smote down a civilization whose beginnings are lost in the dim twilight of history. The Caesarian conquest of 47 BC was followed, 17 years later, by the annexation of Egypt to the new world-power, as a Roman province. Manetho\'s history is the one great literary monument of Egyptian history in this period. Her priests had been famous for their wisdom, to which Lycurgus and Solon, the Greek legislators, had been attracted, as well as Pythagoras and Plato, the world\'s greatest philosophers.<P>2. Greece:<P>In Greece also the old glory was passing away. Endless wars sapped the strength of the national life. The strength of Athens and Sparta, of Corinth and Thebes had departed, and when about the beginning of our period, in 337 BC, the congress of Greek states had elected Philip of Macedon to the hegemony of united Greece, the knell of doom sounded for all Greek liberty. First Philip and after him Alexander wiped out the last remnants of this liberty, and Greece became a fighting machine for the conquest of the world in the meteoric career of Alexander the Great. But what a galaxy of illustrious names adorn the pages of Greek history, in this period, so dark for Israel! Think of Aristophanes and Hippocrates, of Xenophon and Democritus, of Plato and Apelies, of Aeschines and Demosthenes, of Aristotle and Praxiteles and Archimedes, all figuring, amid the decay of Greek liberty, in the 4th and 3rd centuries before Christ! Surely if the political glory of Greece had left its mark on the ages, its intellectual brilliancy is their pride.<P>3. Rome:<P>Rome meanwhile was strengthening herself, by interminable wars, for the great task of world-conquest that lay before her. By the Latin and Samnite and Punic wars she trained her sons in the art of war, extended her territorial power and made her name dreaded everywhere. Italy and north Africa, Greece and Asia Minor and the Northernbarbarians were conquered in turn. Her intellectual brilliancy was developed only when the lust of conquest was sated after a fashion, but in the century immediately preceding the Christian era we find such names as Lucretius and Hortentius, Cato and Cicero, Sallust and Diodorus Siculus, Virgil and Horace. At the close of the period between the Testaments, Rome had become the mistress of the world and every road led to her capital.<P>4. Asia:<P>In Asia the Persian empire, heir to the civilization and traditions of the great Assyrian-Babylonian world-power, was fast collapsing and was ultimately utterly wiped out by the younger Greek empire and civilization. In far-away India the old ethnic religion of Brahma a century or more before the beginning of our period passed through the reformatory crisis inaugurated by Gatama Buddha or Sakya Mouni, and thus Buddhism, one of the great ethnic religions, was born. Another reformer of the Tauistic faith was Confucius, the sage of China, a contemporary of Buddha, while Zoroaster in Persia laid the foundations of his dualistic world-view. In every sense and in every direction, the period between the Testaments was therefore one of political and intellectual ferment.<P>III. Historical Developments.<P>As regards Jewish history, the period between the Testaments may be divided as follows:<P class="in15">(1) the Persian period;<P class="in15">(2) the Alexandrian period;<P class="in15">(3) the Egyptian period;<P class="in15">(4) the Syrian period;<P class="in15">(5) the Maccabean period;<P class="in15">(6) the Roman period.<P>1. The Persian Period:<P>The Persian period extends from the cessation of prophecy to 334 BC. It was in the main uneventful in the history of the Jews, a breathing spell between great national crises, and comparatively little is known of it. The land of Palestine was a portion of the Syrian satrapy, while the true government of the Jewish people was semi-theocratic, or rather sacerdotal, under the rule of the high priests, who were responsible to the satrap. As a matter of course, the high-priestly office became the object of all Jewish ambition and it aroused the darkest passions. Thus John, the son of Judas, son of Eliashib, through the lust of power, killed his brother Jesus, who was a favorite of Bagoses, a general of Artaxerxes in command of the district. The guilt of the fratricide was enhanced, because the crime was committed in the temple itself, and before the very altar. A storm of wrath, the only notable one of this period, thereupon swept over Judea. The Persians occupied Jerusalem, the temple was defiled, the city laid waste in part, a heavy fine was imposed on the people and a general persecution followed, which lasted for many years (Ant., XI, 7; Kent, HJP, 231). Then as later on, in the many persecutions which followed, the Samaritans, ever pliable and willing to obey the tyrant of the day, went practically scot free.<P>2. The Alexandrian Period:<P>The Alexandrian period was very brief, 334-323 BC. It simply covers the period of the Asiatic rule of Alexander the Great. In Greece things had been moving swiftly. The Spartan hegemony, which had been unbroken since the fall of Athens, was now by destroyed by the Thebans under Epaminondas, in the great battles of Leuctra and Mantinea. But the new power was soon crushed Philip of Macedon, who was thereupon chosen general leader by the unwilling Greeks. Persia was the object of Philip\'s ambition and vengeance, but the dagger of Pausanias (Ant., XI, viii, 1) forestalled the execution of his plans. His son Alexander, a youth of 20 years, succeeded him, and thus the "great he-goat," of which Daniel had spoken (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,8);">Da 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,20);">10:20</a>), appeared on the scene. In the twelve years of his reign (335-323 BC) he revolutionized the world. Swift as an eagle he moved. All Greece was laid at his feet. Thence he moved to Asia, where he defeated Darius in the memorable battles of Granicus and Issus. Passing southward, he conquered the Mediterranean coast and Egypt and then moved eastward again, for the complete subjugation of Asia, when he was struck down in the height of his power, at Babylon, in the 33rd year of his age. In the Syrian campaign he had come in contact with the Jews. Unwilling to leave any stronghold at his back, he reduced Tyre after a siege of several months, and advancing southward demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. But the Jews, taught by bitter experience, desired to remain loyal to Persia. As Alexander approached the city, Jaddua the high priest, with a train of priests in their official dress, went out to meet him, to supplicate mercy. A previous dream of this occurrence is said to have foreshadowed this event, and Alexander spared the city, sacrificed to Yahweh, had the prophecies of Daniel concerning him rehearsed in his hearing, and showed the Jews many favors (Ant., XI, viii, 5) From that day on they became his favorites; he employed them in his army and gave them equal rights w ith the Greeks, as first citizens of Alexandria, and other cities, which he founded. Thus the strong Hellenistic spirit of the Jews was created, which marked so large a portion of the nation, in the subsequent periods of their history.<P>3. The Egyptian Period:<P>The Egyptian period (324-264 BC). The death of Alexander temporarily turned everything into chaos. The empire, welded Thrace together by his towering genius, fell apart under four of his generals—Ptolemy, Lysimachus, Cassander, and Selenus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,21,22);">Da 8:21-22</a>). Egypt fell to the share of Ptolemy Soter and Judea was made part of it. At first Ptolemy was harsh in his treatment of the Jews, but later on he learned to respect them and became their patron as Alexander had been. Hecataeus of is at this time said to have studied the Jews, through information received from Hezekiah, an Egyptian Jewish immigrant, and to have written a Jewish history from the time of Abraham till his own day. This book, quoted by Josephus and Origen, is totally lost. Soter was succeeded by Ptolemy Philadelphus, an enlightened ruler, famous through the erection of the lighthouse of Pharos, and especially through the founding of the celebrated Alexandrian library. Like his father he was very friendly to the Jews, and in his reign the celebrated Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Septuagint, was made, according to tradition (Ant., XII, ii). As however the power of the Syrian princes, the Seleucids, grew, Palestine increasingly became the battle ground between them and the Ptolemies. In the decisive battle between Ptolemy Philopator and Antiochus the Great, at Raphia near Gaza, the latter was crushed and during Philopator\'s reign Judea remained an Egyptian province. And yet this battle formed the turning-point of the history of the Jews in their relation to Egypt. For when Ptolemy, drunk with victory, came to Jerusalem, he endeavored to enter the holy of holies of the temple, although he retreated, in confusion, from the holy place. But he wreaked his vengeance on the Jews, for opposing his plan, by a cruel persecution. He was succeeded by his son Ptolemy Epiphanes, a child of 5 years. The long-planned vengeance of Antiochus now took form in an invasion of Egypt. Coele-Syria and Judea were occupied by the Syrians and passed over into the possession of the Seleucids.<P>4. The Syrian Period:<P>The Syrian period (204-165 BC). Israel now entered into the valley of the shadow of death. This entire period was an almost uninterrupted martyrdom. Antiochus was succeeded by Seleucis Philopator. But harsh as was their attitude to the Jews, neither of these two was notorious for his cruelty to them. Their high priests, as in former periods, were still their nominal rulers. But the aspect of everything changed when Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC) came to the throne. He may fitly be called the Nero of Jewish history. The nationalists among the Jews were at that time wrangling with the Hellenists for the control of affairs. Onias III, a faithful high priest, was expelled from office through the machinations of his brother Jesus or Jason (2Macc 4:7-10). Onias went to Egypt, where at Heliopolis he built a temple and officiated as high priest. Meanwhile Jason in turn was turned out of the holy office by the bribes of still another brother, Menelaus, worse by far than Jason, a Jew-hater and an avowed defender of Greek life and morals. The wrangle between the brothers gave Antiochus the opportunity he craved to wreak his bitter hatred on the Jews, in the spoliation of Jerusalem, in the wanton and total defilement of the temple, and in a most horrible persecution of the Jews (1Macc 1:16-28; 2Macc 5:11-23; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,28);">Da 11:28</a>; Ant, XII, v, 3.4). Thousands were slain, women and children were sold into captivity, the city wall was torn down, all sacrifices ceased, and in the temple on the altar of burnt offering a statue was erected to Jupiter Olympius (1Macc 1:43; 2Macc 6:1-2). Circumcision was forbidden, on pain of death, and all the people of Israel were to be forcibly paganized. As in the Persian persecution, the Samaritans again played into the hands of the Syrians and implicitly obeyed the will of the Seleucids. But the very rigor of the persecution caused it to fail of its purpose and Israel proved to be made of sterner stuff than Antiochus imagined. A priestly family dwelling at Modin, west of Jerusalem, named Hasmonean, after one of its ancestors, consisting of Mattathias and his five sons, raised the standard of revolt, which proved successful after a severe struggle.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASMONEANS">ASMONEANS</a>.<P>5. The Maccabean Period:<P>The Maccabean period (165-63 BC). The slaying of an idolatrous Jew at the very altar was the signal of revolt. The land of Judea is specially adapted to guerilla tactics, and Judas Maccabeus, who succeeded his father, as leader of the Jewish patriots, Was a past master in this kind of warfare. All efforts of Antiochus to quell the rebellion failed most miserably, in three Syrian campaigns. The king died of a loathsome disease and peace was at last concluded with the Jews. Though still nominally under Syrian control, Judas became governor of Palestine. His first act was the purification and rededication of the temple, from which the Jews date their festival of purification (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PURIFICATION">PURIFICATION</a>). When the Syrians renewed the war, Judas applied for aid to the Romans, whose power began to be felt in Asia, but he died in battle before the promised aid could reach him (Ant., XII, xi, 2). He was buried by his father\'s side at Modin and was succeeded by his brother Jonathan. From that time the Maccabean history becomes one of endless cabals. Jonathan was acknowledged by the Syrians as meridarch of Judea, but was assassinated soon afterward. Simon succeeded him, and by the help of the Romans was made hereditary ruler of Palestine. He in turn was followed by John Hyrcanus. The people were torn by bitter partisan controversies and a civil war was waged, a generation later, by two grandsons of John Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. In this internecine struggle the Roman general Pompey participated by siding with Hyrcanus, while Aristobulus defied Rome and defended Jerusalem. Pompey took the city, after a siege of three months, and entered the holy of holies, thereby forever estranging from Rome every loyal Jewish heart.<P>6. The Roman Period:<P>The Roman period (63-4 BC). Judea now became a Roman province. Hyrcanus, stripped of the hereditary royal power, retained only the high-priestly office. Rome exacted an annual tribute, and Aristobulus was sent as a captive to the capital. He contrived however to escape and renewed the unequal struggle, in which he was succeeded by his sons Alexander and Antigonus. In the war between Pompey and Caesar, Judea was temporarily forgotten, but after Caesar\'s death, under the triumvirate of Octavius, Antony and Lepidus, Antony, the eastern triumvir, favored Herod the Great, whose intrigues secured for him at last the crown of Judea and enabled him completely to extinguish the old Maccabean line of Judean princes.<P>IV. Internal Developments in This Period.<P>One thing remains, and that is a review of the developments within the bosom of Judaism itself in the period under consideration. It is self-evident that the core of the Jewish people, which remained loyal to the national traditions and to the national faith, must have been radically affected by the terrible cataclysms which mark their history, during the four centuries before Christ. What, if any, was the literary activity of the Jews in this period? What was their spiritual condition? What was the result of the manifest difference of opinion within the Jewish economy? What preparation does this period afford for the "fullness of time"? These and other questions present themselves, as we study this period of the history of the Jews.<P>1. Literary Activity:<P>The voice of prophecy was utterly hushed in this period, but the old literary instinct of the nation asserted itself; it was part and parcel of the Jewish traditions and would not be denied. Thus in this period many writings were produced, which of although they lack canonical authority, among Protestants at least, still are extremely helpful for a correct understanding the life of Israel in the dark ages before Christ.<P>(a) The Apocrypha.<P>First of all among the fruits of this literary activity stand the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. It is enough here to mention them. They are fourteen in number: 1 and 2Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 2 Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, in Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2Maccabees. As 3 and 4 Maccabees fall presumably within the Christian era, they are not here enumerated. All these apocryphal writings are of the utmost importance for a correct understanding of the Jewish problem in the day which they were written. For fuller information, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>.<P>(b) Pseudepigrapha.<P>Thus named from the spurious character of the authors\' names they bear. Two of these writings very probably belong to our of period, while a host of them evidently belong to a later date. In this class of writings there is a mute confession of the conscious poverty of the day. First of all, we have the Psalter of Solomon, originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek—a collection of songs for worship, touching in their spirit, and evincing the fact that true faith never died in the heart of the true believer. The second is the Book of Enoch, a production of an apocalyptic nature, named after Enoch the patriarch, and widely known about the beginning the Christian era. This book is quoted in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14);">Jude 1:14</a>). It was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic and translated into Greek as there is no trace of a Christian influence in the book, the presumption is that the greater part of it was written at an earlier period. Both Jude and the author of Revelation must have known it, as a comparative study of both books will show. The question of these quotations or allusions is a veritable crux interpretum: how to reconcile the inspiration of these books with these quotations?<P>(c) The Septuagint.<P>The tradition of the Septuagint is told by Josephus (Ant., XII, ii, 13). Aristeas and Aristobulus, a Jewish priest in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (2Macc 1:10), are also quoted in support of it by Clement of Alexandria and by Eusebius. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPTUAGINT">SEPTUAGINT</a>. The truth of the matter is most probably that this great translation of the Old Testament Scriptures was begun at the instance of Ptolemy Philadelphus 285-247 BC, under the direction of Demetrius Phalereus, and was completed somewhere about the middle of the 2nd century BC. Internal evidence abounds that the translation was made by different hands and at different times. If the translation was in any way literal, the text of the Septuagint raises various interesting questions in regard to the Hebrew text that was used in the translation, as compared with the one we now possess. The Septuagint was of the utmost missionary value and contributed perhaps more than any other thing to prepare the world for the "fullness of time."<P>2. Spiritual Conditions:<P>The return from Babylon marked a turning point in the spiritual history of the Jews. From that time onward, the lust of idolatry, which had marked their whole previous history, utterly disappears. In the place of it came an almost intolerable spirit of exclusiveness, a striving after legal holiness, these two in combination forming the very heart and core of the later Pharisaism. The holy books, but especially the law, became an object of almost idolatrous reverence; the spirit was utterly lost in the form. And as their own tongue, the classic Hebrew, gradually gave way to the common Aramaic, the rabbis and their schools strove ever more earnestly to keep the ancient tongue pure, worship and life each demanding a separate language. Thus, the Jews became in a sense bilingual, the Hebrew tongue being used in their synagogues, the Aramaic in their daily life, and later on, in part at least, the Greek tongue of the conqueror, the lingua franca of the period. A spiritual aristocracy very largely replaced the former rule of their princes and nobles. As the core of their religion died, the bark of the tree flourished. Thus, tithes were zealously paid by the believer (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,23);">Mt 23:23</a>), the Sabbath became a positive burden of sanctity, the simple laws of God were replaced by cumbersome human inventions, which in later times were to form the bulk of the Talmud, and which crushed down all spiritual liberty in the days of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28);">Mt 11:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,4,23);">23:4, 23</a>). The substitution of the names "Elohim" and "Adonai" for the old glorious historic name "Yahweh" is an eloquent commentary on all that has been said before and on the spiritual condition of Israel in this period (Ewald, History of Israel, V, 198), in which the change was inaugurated. The old centripetal force, the old ideal of centralization, gave way to an almost haughty indifference to the land of promise. The Jews became, as they are today, a nation without a country. For, for every Jew that came back to the old national home, a thousand remained in the land of their adopti on. And yet scattered far and wide, in all sorts of environments, they remained Jews, and the national consciousness was never extinguished. It was God\'s mark on them now as then. And thus they became world-wide missionaries of the knowledge of the true God, of a gospel of hope for a world that was hopeless, a gospel which wholly against their own will directed the eyes of the world to the fullness of time and which prepared the fallow soil of human hearts for the rapid spread of Christianity when it ultimately appeared.<P>3. Parties:<P>During the Greek period the more conservative and zealous of the Jews were all the time confronted with a tendency of a very considerable portion of the people, especially the younger and wealthier set, to adopt the manners of life and thought and speech of their masters, the Greeks. Thus the Hellenistic party was born, which was bitterly hated by all true blooded Jews, but which left its mark on their history, till the date of the final dispersion 70 AD. From the day of Mattathias, the Chasids or Haside ans (1Macc 2:42) were the true Jewish patriots. Thus the party of the Pharisees came into existence (Ant., XIII, x, 5; XVIII, i, 2; BJ, I, v, 2). See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHARISEES">PHARISEES</a>. They were opposed by the more secular-minded Sadducees (Ant., XIII, x, 6; XVIII, i, 3; BJ, II, viii, 14), wealthy, of fine social standing, wholly free from the restraints of tradition, utterly oblivious of the future life and closely akin to the Greek Epicureans. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SADDUCEES">SADDUCEES</a>. These parties bitterly opposed each other till the very end of the national existence of the Jews in Palestine, and incessantly fought for the mastery, through the high-priestly office. Common hatred for Christ, for a while, afforded them a community of interests.<p>4. Preparation for Christianity:<P>Throughout this entire dark period of Israel\'s history, God was working out His own Divine plan with them. Their Scriptures were translated into Greek, after the conquest of Alexander the Great the common language in the East. Thus the world was prepared for the word of God, even as the latter in turn prepared the world for the reception of the gift of God, in the gospel of His Son. The Septuagint thus is a distinct forward movement in the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,18);">18:18</a>). As the sacrificial part of Jewish worship declined, through their wide separation from the temple, the eyes of Israel were more firmly fixed on their Scriptures, read every Sabbath in their synagogues, and, as we have seen, these Scriptures, through the rendering of the Septuagint, had become the property of the entire world. Thus, the synagogue everywhere became the great missionary institute, imparting to the world Israel\'s exalted Messianic hopes. On the other hand, the Jews themselves, embittered by long-continued martyrdoms and suffering, utterly carnalized this Messianic expectation in an increasing ratio as the yoke of the oppressor grew heavier and the hope of deliverance grew fainter. And thus when their Messiah came, Israel recognized Him not, while the heart-hungry heathen, who through the Septuagint had become familiar with the promise, humbly received Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,\'9-14\');">Joh 1:9-14</a>). The eyes of Israel were blinded for a season, \'till the fullness of the Gentiles shall be gathered in\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,32);">Ro 9:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,25);">11:25</a>).``42';
|
|
isbe[1472]='Beulah`bu\'-la (be\'ulah "married"): A name symbolically applied to Israel: "Thy land (shall be called) Beulah...thy land shall be married....so shall thy sons marry thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',62,4);">Isa 62:4</a>f). In this figure, frequently used since Hosea, the prophet wishes to express the future prosperity of Israel. The land once desolate shall again be populated.``1';
|
|
isbe[1473]='Bewail`be-wal\' (kopto): In the middle voice, this word has the thought of striking on the breast and of loud lamentation, so common among oriental people in time of great sorrow. It is used to express the most intense grief, a sorrow that compels outward demonstration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,52);">Lu 8:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,27);">23:27</a>). A striking instance of this grief is that of the daughter of Jephthah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,37);">Jud 11:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,6);">Le 10:6</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BURIAL">BURIAL</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GRIEF">GRIEF</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1474]='Bewitch`be-wich\' (existemi): There are two Greek words in the New Testament translated "bewitch." The one given above (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,9,21);">Ac 8:9, 21</a> the King James Version "bewitched," the Revised Version (British and American) "amazed") has reference to the work of Simon Magus. It means "to be out of one\'s mind," "to astonish," "to overwhelm with wonder." The other word, baskaino (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,1);">Ga 3:1</a>), means "to fascinate by false representation." It is by this means the apostle complains they have been led to accept a teaching wholly contrary to the gospel of Christ. Both these words reveal to us something of the difficulty the early teachers had to eradicate the idea so widely held by the Jews and Egyptians especially, that there were certain powers, dark and mysterious, which by certain occult forces they could control. For a long time this had to be contended with as one of the corrupt practices brought into the church by the converts, both from Judaism and heathenism. These words have a reference to the evil eye which for centuries was, and even today is, an important factor in the life of the people of the East. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20);">1Ti 6:20</a> is a reference to this thought and explains the word "science" (the King James Version) as there used.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DIVINATION">DIVINATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EVIL+EYE">EVIL EYE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SORCERY">SORCERY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SUPERSTITION">SUPERSTITION</a>`87';
|
|
isbe[1475]='Bewray; Bewrayer`be-ra\', be-ra\'-er: In its derivation is entirely different from betray (Latin, tradere), and meant originally "to disclose," "reveal" (compare Shakspere, Titus Andronicus, II, iv, 3: "Write down thy mind, bewray thy meaning so"); but has been affected by the former word and is used almost synonymously. It is the translation of three Hebrew words:<P>(1) qara\', meaning "to call out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,16);">Pr 27:16</a>), "the ointment of his right hand which bewrayeth itself" (the American Standard Revised Version "his right hand encountereth oil," the American Revised Version, margin "the oil of his right hand betrayeth itself");<P>(2) naghadh meaning "to front," "to announce" (by word of mouth): <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,24);">Pr 29:24</a>, "heareth cursing and bewrayeth it not" (the American Standard Revised Version "heareth the adjuration and uttereth nothing");<P>(3) galah, "to denude," figuratively, "to reveal" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',16,3);">Isa 16:3</a>), "bewray not him that wandereth" (the American Standard Revised Version "betray not the fugitive").<P>In Sirach 27:17 "bewray (the Revised Version (British and American) "reveal") his secrets" is the translation of apokalupto, literally "to uncover"; so also in Sirach 27:21 (the Revised Version (British and American) "revealeth"). Bewrayer of 2Macc 4:1 ("bewrayer of. the money and of his country," the Revised Version (British and American) "had given information of the money and had betrayed his country") is the translation of endeiktes, literally, "one who shows."<P>In the New Testament "bewrayeth" is the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,73);">Mt 26:73</a>; "thy speech bewrayeth thee" is the translation of the phrase delon poiein, which the American Standard Revised Version renders "maketh thee known."``89';
|
|
isbe[1476]='Beyond`be-yond\':Found in the Hebrew only in its application to space and time, and for these ideas three words are employed: hale\'ah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,21);">Ge 35:21</a>) = "to the distance"; \'abhar = "to go beyond" "to cross" derivative \'ebher (Chald. \'abhar) = "across," "beyond" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,13);">De 30:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,7);">Jos 18:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,26);">Jud 3:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,36);">1Sa 20:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',20,2);">2Ch 20:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,17,20);">Ezr 4:17, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,22);">Jer 25:22</a>); and \'al (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',15,25);">Le 15:25</a>) = "beyond the time." In the New Testament peran, is used to express "beyond" in the spatial sense (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,15);">Mt 4:15</a>), while other words and phrases are employed for adverbial ideas of degree: huperperissos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,37);">Mr 7:37</a>); huper (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,3);">2Co 8:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,16);">10:16</a>); kathuperbolen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,13);">Ga 1:13</a>). In the King James Version be\'eher, is occasionally translated "beyond," and when this word is joined to ha- yarden, "Jordan," as it usually is, it becomes critically important. In the American Standard Revised Version, be\'ebher ha- yarden is translated "beyond the Jordan," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,10,21);">Ge 50:10, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,20,25);">De 3:20, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,10);">Jos 9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,17);">Jud 5:17</a>; "on this side Jordan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1,5);">De 1:1, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,14,15);">Jos 1:14-15</a>; "on the other side Jordan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,30);">De 11:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,1);">Jos 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,4);">22:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,2,8);">24:2, 8</a> (compare the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,14,25);">Jos 24:14, 25</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RIVER,+THE">RIVER, THE</a>), <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,8);">Jud 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,7);">1Sa 31:7</a>; and "on the side of Jordan" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,1);">Jos 5:1</a>. The American Standard Revised Version gives "beyond the Jordan" throughout. me\'ebher, is used with ha-yarden in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,15);">Nu 34:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,14);">35:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,32);">Jos 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,25);">Jud 7:25</a>; and \'ebher, alone in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,49);">De 4:49</a> (the King James Version "on this side"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a> (the King James Version "on the other side"). It is clear that the phrase may be translated "across Jordan"; that it is used of either side of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,8);">De 3:8</a> speaks of the eastern, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,20,25);">De 3:20, 25</a> of the western); that "beyond Jordan" may be used of the side of the Jordan on which the writer stands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,1);">Jos 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,1);">9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,7);">12:7</a>); but from the fact that <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,1,5);">De 1:1, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,41,46,47,49);">4:41, 46-47, 49</a>, where statements are made about Moses, the reference is to the country east of the Jordan, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,20,25);">De 3:20, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,30);">11:30</a>, where Moses is represented as speaking, the west is indicated, critics have concluded that the author (at least of Deuteronomy) must have lived after Moses, being careful to distinguish between himself and the prophet.``77';
|
|
isbe[1477]='Bezaanannim`be-za-an-an\'-im (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,33);">Jos 19:33</a> the Revised Version, margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZAANANNIM">ZAANANNIM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1478]='Bezai`be\'-za-i (betsay, "shining"(?)):<P>(1) A chief who with Nehemiah sealed the covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,18);">Ne 10:18</a>).<P>(2) The descendants of Bezai returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (323, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,17);">Ezr 2:17</a>; 324, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,23);">Ne 7:23</a> = Bassai, 1Esdras 5:16).``1';
|
|
isbe[1479]='Bezalel`bez\'-a-lel (betsal\'el, "in the shadow (protection) of \'El (God)"; Beseleel; the King James Version Bezaleel):<P>(1) A master workman under Moses; son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. Yahweh gave him especial wisdom and skill for his task, which was, with the aid of Oholiab of the tribe of Dan, to superintend the making of the tabernacle and its furniture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,2);">Ex 31:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,30);">35:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,1,2,8);">36:1-2, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',37,1);">37:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,22);">38:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,20);">1Ch 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,5);">2Ch 1:5</a>).<P>(2) An Israelite of the time of Ezra who put away a foreign wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,30);">Ezr 10:30</a>).``57';
|
|
isbe[1480]='Bezek`be\'-zek (bezeq; Bezek, Codex Vaticanus, Abiezek):<P>(1) The city of Adoni-bezek taken by Judah and Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,4);">Jud 1:4</a>f), in the territory allotted to Judah. It is somewhat doubtfully identified with Bezqah, about 3 miles Northeast of Gezer.<P>(2) The place where Saul marshaled his army before marching to the relief of Jabesh-gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,8);">1Sa 11:8</a>). Eusebius, Onomasticon speaks of two villages of this name 17 Roman miles from Shechem, on the way to Scythopolis. No doubt Khirbet Ibziq is intended. Here, or on the neighboring height, Ras Ibziq, a mountain 2,404 ft. above sea level, the army probably assembled.``54';
|
|
isbe[1481]='Bezer`be\'-zer (betser; Bosor, "strong"):<P>(1) A city of refuge, set apart by Moses for the Reubenites and located in the "plain country" (or table-land, Mishor) east of the Jordan, later assigned to this tribe by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,43);">De 4:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,8);">Jos 20:8</a>). The same city was assigned by lot as place of residence to the children of Merari of the Levite tribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,36);">Jos 21:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,63,78);">1Ch 6:63, 78</a>). Driver, HDB, suggests the identity of Bezer with Bozrah (Septuagint, Bosor) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,24);">Jer 48:24</a>). Besheir has been suggested as the present site. According to the manuscript it was forti fied by Mesha.<P>(2) A son of Zophah of the house of Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,37);">1Ch 7:37</a>).``16';
|
|
isbe[1482]='Bezeth`be\'-zeth (Bezeth): A place in the neighborhood of Jerusalem to which Bacchides withdrew and where he slew several deserters (1Macc 7:19). Possibly the same as Bezetha.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1483]='Bezetha`be-ze\'-tha: Also called by Josephus the "New City" (BJ, V, iv, 2), certain suburbs of Jerusalem, north of the Temple, which were outside the second but included within the third wall. <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BEZETH">BEZETH</a> (which see) may be the same place.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1484]='Biatas`bi\'-a-tas (Phalias; Codex Alexandrinus, Phiathas): the Revised Version (British and American) "Phalias," one of the Levites (1Esdras 9:48) who "taught (the people) the law of the Lord, making them withal to understand it." Called Pelaiah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[1485]='Bible, the, I., II., III. I Introduction`bi\'-b\'-l, (biblia):<P><b>I. THE NAMES</b><P class="in15">1. Bible<P class="in15">2. Other Designations—Scriptures, etc.<P class="in15">3. Old Testament and New Testament<P><p>II. LANGUAGES</b><P><b>III. COMPASS AND DIVISIONS</b><P class="in15">1. The Jewish Bible<P class="in30">Josephus, etc.<P class="in15">2. The Septuagint<P class="in30">The Apocrypha<P class="in15">3. The Vulgate (Old Testament)<P class="in15">4. The New Testament<P class="in30">(1) Acknowledged Books<P class="in30">(2) Disputed Books<P><p>IV. LITERARY GROWTH AND ORIGIN—CANONICITY</b><P class="in15">1. The Old Testament<P class="in30">(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself<P class="in45">(a) Patriarchal Age<P class="in45">(b) Mosaic Age<P class="in45">(c) Judges<P class="in45">(d) Monarchy<P class="in45">(e) Wisdom Literature—History<P class="in45">(f) Prophecy<P class="in60">(aa) Assyrian Age<P class="in60">(bb) Chaldean Age<P class="in45">(g) Josiah\'s Reformation<P class="in45">(h) Exilian and Post-Exilian<P class="in45">(i) Daniel, etc.<P class="in45">(j) Pre-exilic Bible<P class="in30">(2) Critical Views<P class="in45">(a) The Pentateuch<P class="in45">(b) Histories<P class="in45">(c) Psalms and Prophets<P class="in30">(3) Formation of Canon<P class="in45">(a) Critical Theory<P class="in45">(b) More Positive View<P class="in45">(c) Close of Canon<P class="in15">2. The New Testament<P class="in30">(1) Historical Books<P class="in45">(a) The Synoptics<P class="in45">(b) Fourth Gospel<P class="in45">(c) Acts<P class="in30">(2) The Epistles<P class="in45">(a) Pauline<P class="in45">(b) Epistle to Hebrews<P class="in45">(c) Catholic Epistles<P class="in30">(3) Prophecy<P class="in45">Book of Revelation<P class="in30">(4) New Testament Canon<P><b>V. UNITY AND SPIRITUAL PURPOSE—INSPIRATION</b><P class="in15">1. Scripture a Unity<P class="in15">2. The Purpose of Grace<P class="in15">3. Inspiration<P class="in15">4. Historical Influence<P><b>VI. ADDENDA</b><P class="in15">1. Chapters and Verses<P class="in15">2. The King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)<P class="in15">3. Helps to Study<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>General Designation:<P>This word designates the collection of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament recognized and in use in the Christian churches. Different religions (such as the Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan) have their collections of sacred writings, sometimes spoken of as their "Bibles." The Jews acknowledge only the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Christians add the writings contained in the New Testament. The present article deals with the origin, character, contents and purpose of the Christian Scriptures, regarded as the depository and authoritative record of God\'s revelations of Himself and of His will to the fathers by the prophets, and through His Son to the church of a later age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1,2);">Heb 1:1-2</a>). Reference is made throughout to the articles in which the several topics are more fully treated.<P>I. The Names.<P>1. Bible:<P>The word "Bible" is the equivalent of the Greek word biblia (diminutive from biblos, the inner bark of the papyrus), meaning originally "books." The phrase "the books" (ta biblia) occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,2);">Da 9:2</a> (Septuagint) for prophetic writings. In the Prologue to Sirach ("the rest of the books") it designates generally the Old Testament Scriptures; similarly in 1Macc 12:9 ("the holy books"). The usage passed into the Christian church for Old Testament (2 Clem 14:2), and by and by (circa 5th century) was extended to the whole Scriptures. Jerome\'s name for the Bible (4th century) was "the Divine Library" (Bibliotheca Divina). Afterward came an important change from plural to singular meaning. "In process of time this name, with many others of Greek origin, passed into the vocabulary of the western church; and in the 13th century, by a happy solecism, the neuter plural came to be regarded as a feminine singular, and \'The Books\' became by common consent \'The Book\' (biblia, singular), in which form the word was passed into the languages of modern Europe" (Westcott, Bible in the Church, 5). Its earliest occurrences in English are in Piers Plowman, Chaucer and Wycliffe.<P>2. Other Designations—Scriptures, etc.:<P>There is naturally no name in the New Testament for the complete body of Scripture; the only Scriptures then known being is those of the Old Testament. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,16);">2Pe 3:16</a>, however, Paul\'s epistles seem brought under this category. The common designations for the Old Testament books by our Lord and His apostles were "the scriptures" (writings) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,42);">Mt 21:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,49);">Mr 14:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,32);">Lu 24:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,39);">Joh 5:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,24);">Ac 18:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,4);">Ro 15:4</a>, etc.), "the holy, scriptures" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,2);">Ro 1:2</a>); once "the sacred writings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,15);">2Ti 3:15</a>). The Jewish technical division (see below) into "the law," the "prophets," and the "(holy) writings" is recognized in the expression "in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,44);">Lu 24:44</a>). More briefly the whole summed up under "the law and the prophets" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,13);">11:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,15);">Ac 13:15</a>). Occasionally even the term "law" is extended to include the other divisions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,34);">Joh 10:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,34);">12:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,25);">15:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',14,21);">1Co 14:21</a>). Paul uses the phrase "the oracles of God" as a name for the Old Testament Scriptures (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,2);">Ro 3:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,38);">Ac 7:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,12);">Heb 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,11);">1Pe 4:11</a>).<P>3. Old Testament and New Testament:<P>Special interest attaches to the names "Old" and "New Testament," now and since the close of the 2nd century in common use to distinguish the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. "Testament" (literally "a will") is used in the New Testament (the King James Version) to represent the Greek word diatheke, in classical usage also "a will," but in the Septuagint and New Testament employed to translate the Hebrew word berith, "a covenant." In the Revised Version (British and American), accordingly, "testament" is, with two exceptions (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,16,27);">Heb 9:16, 27</a>), changed to "covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,28);">Mt 26:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,6);">2Co 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,15);">Ga 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,22);">Heb 7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,15);">9:15</a>, etc.). Applied to the Scriptures, therefore, "Old" and "New Testament" mean, strictly, "Old" and "New Covenant," though the older usage is now too firmly fixed to be altered. The name is a continuation of the Old Testament designation for the law, "the book of the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,2);">2Ki 23:2</a>). In this sense Paul applies it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,14);">2Co 3:14</a>) to the Old Testament law; "the reading of the old testament" (the Revised Version (British and American) "Covenant"). When, after the middle of the 2nd century, a def inite collection began to be made of the Christian writings, these were named "the New Testament," and were placed as of equal authority alongside the "Old." The name Novum Testamentum (also Instrumentum) occurs first in Tertullian (190-220 AD), and soon came into general use. The idea of a Christian Bible may be then said to be complete.<P>II. Languages.<P>The Old Testament, it is well known, is written mostly in Hebrew; the New Testament is written wholly in Greek, the parts of the Old Testament not in Hebrew, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,8);">Ezr 4:8-6:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'12-26\');">7:12-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,11);">Jer 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,\'4-\');">Da 2:4-7:28</a>, are in Aramaic (the so-called Chaldee), a related dialect, which, after the Exile, gradually displaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARAMAIC">ARAMAIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGES+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>). The ancient Hebrew text was "unpointed," i.e. without the vowel-marks now in use. These are due to the labors of the Massoretic scholars (after 6th century AD).<P>The Greek of the New Testament, on which so much light has recently been thrown by the labors of Deissmann and others from the Egyptian papyri, showing it to be a form of the "common" (Hellenistic) speech of the time (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LANGUAGE+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>), still remains, from its penetration by Hebrew ideas, the influence of the Septuagint, peculiarities of training and culture in the writers, above all, the vitalizing and transforming power of Christian conceptions in vocabulary and expression, a study by itself. "We speak," the apostle says, "not in words which man\'s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,13);">1Co 2:13</a>). This is not always remembered in the search for parallels in the papyri. (For translations into other languages, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VERSIONS">VERSIONS</a>.)<P>III. Compass and Divisions.<P>The story of the origin, collection, and final stamping with canonical authority of the books which compose our present Bible involves many points still keenly in dispute. Before touching on these debatable matters, certain more external facts fall to be noticed relating to the general structure and compass of the Bible, and the main divisions of its contents.<P>1. Jewish Bible<P>Josephus, etc.:<P>A first step is to ascertain the character and contents of the Jewish Bible—the Bible in use by Christ and His apostles. Apart from references in the New Testament itself, an important aid is here afforded by a passage in Josephus (Apion, I, 8), which may be taken to represent the current belief of the Jews in the 1st century AD. After speaking of the prophets as writing their histories "through the inspiration of God," Josephus says: "For we have not myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but 22 only, comprising the record of all time, and justly accredited as Divine. Of these, 5 are books of Moses, which embrace the laws and the traditions of mankind until his own death, a period of almost 3,000 years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, the successor of Xerxes, king of Persia, the prophets who followed Moses narrated the events of their time in 13 books. The remaining 4 books consist of hymns to God, and maxims of conduct for men. From Artaxerxes to our own age, the history has been written in detail, but it is not esteemed worthy of the same credit, on account of the exact succession of the prophets having been no longer maintained." He goes on to declare that, in this long interval, "no one has dared either to add anything to (the writings), or to take anything from them, or to alter anything," and speaks of them as "the decrees (dogmata) of God," for which the Jews would willingly die. Philo (20 BC-circa 50 AD) uses similar strong language about the law of Moses (in Eusebius, Pr. Ev., VIII, 6).<P>In this enumeration of Josephus, it will be seen that the Jewish sacred books—39 in our Bible—are reckoned as 22 (after the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet), namely, 5 of the law, 13 of the prophets and 4 remaining books. These last are Psalms, Proverbs, Songs and Ecclesiastes. The middle class includes all the historical and prophetical books, likewise Job, and the reduction in the number from 30 to 13 is explained by Judges-Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jereremiah-Lamentations and the 12 minor prophets, each being counted as one book. In his 22 books, therefore, Josephus includes all those in the present Hebrew canon, and none besides—not the books known as the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHA">APOCRYPHA</a>, though he was acquainted with and used some of these.<P>Other Lists and Divisions.<P>The statement of Josephus as to the 22 books acknowledged by the Jews is confirmed, with some variation of enumeration, by the lists preserved by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, vi.26) from Melito of Sardis (circa 172 AD) and Origen (186-254 AD), and by Jerome (Pref to Old Testament, circa 400)—all following Jewish authorities. Jerome knew also of a rabbinical of division into 24 books. The celebrated passage from the Talmud (Babha\' Bathra\', 14b: see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>; compare Westcott, Bible in Church, 35; Driver, LOT, vi) counts also 24. This number is obtained by separating Ruth from Judges and Lamentations from Jeremiah. The threefold division of the books, into Law, Prophets, and other sacred Writings (Hagiographa), is old. It is already implied in the Prologue to Sirach (circa 130 BC), "the law, the prophets, and the rest the books"; is glanced at in a work ascribed to Philo (De vita contempl., 3); is indicated, as formerly seen, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,44);">Lu 24:44</a>. It really reflects stages in the formation of the Hebrew canon (see below). The rabbinical division, however, differed materially from that of Josephus in reckoning only 8 books of the prophets, and relegating 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job and Daniel to the Hagiographa, thus enlarging that group to 9 (Westcott, op. cit., 28; DB, I, "Canon"). When Ruth and Lamenations were separated, they were added to the list, raising the number to 11. Some, however, take this to be the original arrangement. In printed Hebrew Bibles the books in all the divisions are separate. The Jewish schools further divided the "Prophets" into "the former prophets" (the historical books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), and "the latter prophets" (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets as one book).<P>New Testament References.<P>It may be concluded that the above lists, excluding the Apocrypha, represent the Hebrew Bible as it existed in the time of our Lord (the opinion, held by some, that the Sadducees received only the 5 books of the law rests on no sufficient evidence). This result is borne out by the evidence of quotations in Josephus and Philo (compare Westcott, op. cit.). Still more is it confirmed by an examination of Old Testament quotations and references in the New Testament. It was seen above that the main divisions of the Old Testament are recognized in the New Testament, and that, under the name "Scriptures," a Divine authority is ascribed to them. It is therefore highly significant that, although the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha (see below), no quotation from any book of the Apocrypha occurs in their pages, One or two allusions, at most, suggest acquaintance with the Book of Wisdom (e.g. The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon</span> 5:18-21 parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,\'13-17\');">Eph 6:13-17</a>). On the other hand, "every book in the Hebrew Bible is distinctly quoted in the New Testament with the exception of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Obadiah, Zechariah and Nahum" (Westcott). Enumerations differ, but about 178 direct quotations may be reckoned in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles; if references are included, the number is raised to about 700 (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=QUOTATIONS+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>). In four or five places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,49,50,51);">Lu 11:49-51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,5);">Jas 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,9);">1Co 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">Eph 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,38);">Joh 7:38</a>) apparent references occur to sources other than the Old Testament; it is doubtful whether most of them are really so (compare Westcott, op. cit., 46-48; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">Eph 5:14</a> may be from a Christian hymn). An undeniable influence of Apocalyptic literature is seen in Jude, where <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14,25);">Jude 1:14, 25</a> are a direct quotation from the Book of Enoch. It does not follow that Jude regarded this book as a proper part of Scripture.<P>2. The Septuagint:<P>Hitherto we have been dealing with the Hebrew Old Testament; marked changes are apparent when we turn to the Septuagint, or Greek version of the Septuagint current in the Greek-speaking world at the commencement of the Christian era. The importance of this version lies in the fact that it was practically the Old Testament of the early church. It was used by the apostles and their converts, and is freely quoted in the New Testament, sometimes even when its renderings vary considerably from the Hebrew. Its influence was necessarily, therefore, very great.<P>Origin.<P>The special problems connected with origin, text and literary relations of the Septuagint are dealt with elsewhere (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPTUAGINT">SEPTUAGINT</a>). The version took its rise, under one of the early Ptolemies, from the needs of the Jews in Egypt, before the middle of the 2nd century BC; was gradually executed, and completed hardly later than circa 100 BC; thereafter spread into all parts. Its renderings reveal frequent divergence in manuscripts from the present Massoretic Text, but show also that the translators permitted themselves considerable liberties in enlarging, abbreviating, transposing and otherwise modifying the texts they had, and in the insertion of materials borrowed from other sources.<P>The Apocrypha.<P>The most noteworthy differences are in the departure from Jewish tradition in the arrangement of the books (this varies greatly; compare Swete, Introduction to Old Testament in Greek, II, chapter i), and in the inclusion in the list of the other books, unknown to the Hebrew canon, now grouped as the Apocrypha. These form an extensive addition. They include the whole of the existing Apocrypha, with the exception of 2Esdras and Pr Man. All are of late date, and are in Greek, though Sirach had a Hebrew original which has been partly recovered. They are not collected, but are interspersed among the Old Testament books in what are taken to be their appropriate places. The Greek fragments of Esther, e.g. are incorporated in that book; Susanna and Bel and the Dragon form part of Daniel; Baruch is joined with Jeremiah, etc. The most important books are Wisdom, Sirach and 1Maccabees (circa 100 BC). The fact that Sirach, originally in Hebrew (circa 200 BC), and of high repute, was not included in the Hebrew canon, has a weighty bearing on the period of the closing of the latter.<P>Ecclesiastical Use.<P>It is, as already remarked, singular that, notwithstanding this extensive enlargement of the canon by the Septuagint, the books just named obtained no Scriptural recognition from the writers of the New Testament. The more scholarly of the Fathers, likewise (Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Cyprian, Jerome, etc.), adhere to the Hebrew list, and most draw a sharp distinction between the canonical books, and the Greek additions, the reading of which is, however, admitted for edification (compare Westcott, op. cit., 135-36, 168, 180, 182-83). Where slight divergencies occur (e.g. Esther is omitted by Melito and placed by Athanasius among the Apocrypha; Origen and Athanasius add Baruch to Jer), these are readily explained by doubts as to canonicity or by imperfect knowledge. On the other hand, familiarity with the Septuagint in writers ignorant of Hebrew could not but tend to break down the limits of the Jewish canon, and to lend a Scriptural sanction to the additions to that canon. This was aided in the West by the fact that the Old Latin versions (2nd century) based on the Septuagint, included these additions (the Syriac Peshitta followed the Hebrew). In many quarters, therefore, the distinction is found broken down, and ecclesiastical writers (Clement, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Basil, etc.) quote freely from books like Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, 2Esdras, as from parts of the Old Testament.<P>3. The Vulgate (Old Testament):<P>An important landmark is reached in the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) or Latin version of Jerome. Jerome, on grounds explained in his Preface, recognized only the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical; under pressure he executed later a hasty translation of Tobit and Judith. Feeling ran strong, however, in favor of the other books, and ere long these were added to Jerome\'s version from the Old Latin (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=VULGATE">VULGATE</a>). It is this enlarged Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) which received official recognition, under anathema, at the Council of Trent (1543), and, with revision, from Clement VIII (1592), though, earlier, leading Romish scholars (Ximenes, Erasmus, Cajetan) had made plain the true state of the facts. The Greek church vacillated in its decisions, sometimes approving the limited, sometimes the extended, canon (compare Westcott, op. cit., 217-29). The churches of the Reformation (Lutheran, Swiss), as was to be expected, went back to the Hebrew canon, giving only a qualified sanction to the reading and ecclesiastical use of the Apocrypha. The early English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, etc.) include, but separate, the apocryphal books (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ENGLISH+VERSIONS">ENGLISH VERSIONS</a>). The Anglican Articles express the general estimate of these books: "And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine" (Art. VIII). Modern Protestant Bibles usually exclude the Apocrypha altogether.<P>4. The New Testament:<P>From this survey of the course of opinion on the compass of the Old Testament, we come to the New Testament. This admits of being more briefly treated. It has been seen that a Christian New Testament did not, in the strict sense, arise till after the middle of the 2nd century. Gospels and Epistles had long existed, collections had begun to be made, the Gospels, at least, were weekly read in the assemblies of the Christians (Justin, 1 Apol., 67), before the attempt was made to bring together, and take formal account of, all the books which enjoyed apostolic authority (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>). The needs of the church, however, and very specially controversy with Gnostic opponents, made it necessary that this work should be done; collections also had to be formed for purposes of translation into other tongues. Genuine gospels had to be distinguished from spurious; apostolic writings from those of later date, or falsely bearing apostolic names. When this task was undertaken, a distinction soon revealed itself between two classes of books, setting aside those recognized on all hands as spurious: (1) books universally acknowledged—those named afterward by Eusebius the homologoumena; and (2) books only partially acknowledged, or on which some doubt rested—the Eusebian antilegomena (Historia Ecclesiastica, iii. 25). It is on this distinction that differences as to the precise extent of the New Testament turned.<P>(1) Acknowledged Books.<P>The "acknowledged" books present little difficulty. They are enumerated by Eusebius, whose statements are confirmed by early lists (e.g. that of Muratori, circa 170 AD), quotations, versions and patristic use. At the head stand the Four Gospels and the Acts, then come the 13 epistles of Paul, then 1 Peter and 1 John. These, Westcott says, toward the close of the 2nd century, "were universally received in every church, without doubt or limitation, as part of the written rule of Christian faith, equal in authority with the Old Scriptures, and ratified (as it seemed) by a tradition reaching back to the date of their composition" (op. cit., 133). With them may almost be placed Revelation (as by Eusebius) and He, the doubts regarding the latter relating more to Pauline authority than to genuineness (e.g. Origen).<P>(2) Disputed Books.<P>The "disputed" books were the epistles of James, Jude, 2 John and 3 John and 2 Peter. These, however, do not all stand in the same rank as regards authentication. A chief difficulty is the silence of the western Fathers regarding James, 2 Peter and 3 John. On the other hand, James is known to Origen and is included in the Syriac Peshitta; the Muratorian Fragment attests Jude and 2 John as "held in the Catholic church" (Jude also in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen); none of the books are treated as spurious. The weakest in attestation <span class="noTag">is</span> 2 Pet, which is not distinctly traceable before the 3rd century (See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>; articles under the word) It is to be added that, in a few instances, as in the case of the Old Testament Apocrypha, early Fathers cite as Scripture books not generally accepted as canonical (e.g. Barnabas, Hermas, Apocrypha of Peter).<P>The complete acceptance of all the books in our present New Testament canon may be dated from the Councils of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) and of Carthage (397 AD), confirming the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome and Augustine.``1';
|
|
isbe[1486]='Bible, the, IV. Canonicity` IV. Literary Growth and Origin—Canonicity.<P>Thus far the books of the Old Testament and New Testament have been taken simply as given, and no attempt has been made to inquire how or when they were written or compiled, or how they came to acquire the dignity and authority implied in their reception into a sacred canon. The field here entered is one bristling with controversy, and it is necessary to choose one\'s steps with caution to find a safe way through it. Details in the survey are left, as before, to the special articles.<P>1. The Old Testament:<P>Attention here is naturally directed, first, to the Old Testament. This, it is obvious, and is on all sides admitted, has a long literary history prior to its final settlement in a canon. As to the course of that history traditional and modern critical views very widely differ. It may possibly turn out that the truth lies somewhere midway between them.<P>(1) Indications of Old Testament Itself.<P>If the indications furnished by the Old Testament itself be accepted, the results are something like the following:<P>(a) Patriarchal Age:<P>No mention is made of writing in the patriarchal age, though it is now known that a high literary culture then prevailed in Babylonia, Egypt and Palestine, and it is not improbable, indeed seems likely, that records in some form came down from that age, and are, in parts, incorporated in the early history of the Bible.<P>(b) Mosaic Age:<P>In Mosaic times writing was in use, and Moses himself was trained in the learning of the Egyptians (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,10);">Ex 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,22);">Ac 7:22</a>). In no place is the composition of the whole Pentateuch (as traditionally believed) ascribed to Moses, but no inconsiderable amount of written matter is directly attributed to him, creating the presumption that there was more, even when the fact is not stated. Moses wrote "all the words of Yahweh" in the "book of the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">Ex 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,4,7);">24:4, 7</a>). He wrote "the words of this law" of Deuteronomy at Moab, "in a book, until they were finished" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,9,24,26);">De 31:9, 24, 26</a>). This was given to the priests to be put by the side of the ark for preservation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,25,26);">De 31:25-26</a>). Other notices occur of the writing of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,14);">Ex 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,2);">Nu 33:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,19,22);">De 31:19, 22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,26);">Nu 11:26</a>). The song of Miriam, and the snatches of song in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'1-\');">Nu 21</a>, the first (perhaps all) quoted from the "book of the Wars of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">Nu 21:14</a>ff), plainly belong to Mosaic times. In this connection it should be noticed that the discourses and law of Deuteronomy imply the history and legislation of the critical JE histories (see below). The priestly laws (Leviticus, Numbers) bear so entirely the stamp of the wilderness that they can hardly have originated anywhere else, and were probably then, or soon after, written down. Joshua, too, is presumed to be familiar with writing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,\'30-35\');">Jos 8:30-35</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,8);">De 27:8</a>), and is stated to have written his farewell address "in the book of the law of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26);">Jos 24:26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',1,7,8);">Jos 1:7-8</a>). These statements already imply the beginning of a sacred literature.<P>(c) Judges:<P>The song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>) is an indubitably authentic monument of the age of the Judges, and the older parts of Judges, at least, must have been nearly contemporary with the events which they record. A knowledge of writing among the common people seems implied in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,14);">Jud 8:14</a> (American Revised Version, margin). Samuel, like Joshua, wrote "in a book" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,25);">1Sa 10:25</a>), and laid it up, evidently among other writings, "before Yahweh."<P>(d) Monarchy:<P>The age of David and Solomon was one of high development in poetical and historical composition: witness the elegies of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,17);">2Sa 1:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,33,34);">3:33-34</a>), and the finely-finished narrative of David\'s reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,\'1-\');">2Sa 9-20</a>), the so-called "Jerusalem-Source," admitted to date "from a period very little later than that of the events related" (Driver, LOT, 183). There were court scribes and chroniclers. David and the Monarchy: David, as befits his piety and poetical and musical gifts (compare on this POT, 440ff), is credited with laying the foundations of a sacred psalmody (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,1);">2Sa 23:1</a>ff; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>), and a whole collection of psalms (<span class="noTag">Pss 1-72</span>, with exclusion of the distinct collection, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,\'1-\');">Psalms 42-50</a>)), once forming a separate book (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,20);">Ps 72:20</a>), are, with others, ascribed to him by their titles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,\'1-\');">Psalms 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',10,\'1-\');">10</a> are untitled). It is hardly credible that a tradition like this can be wholly wrong, and a Davidic basis of the Psalter may safely be assumed. Numerous psalms, by their mention of the "king" (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,\'1-\');">Psalms 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',20,\'1-\');">20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',28,\'1-\');">28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',33,\'1-\');">33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,\'1-\');">45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',61,\'1-\');">61</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,\'1-\');">63</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,\'1-\');">72</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,\'1-\');">101</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,\'1-\');">110</a>), are naturally referred to the period of the monarchy (some, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,\'1-\');">Ps 18</a> certainly, Davidic). Other groups of psalms are referred to the temple guilds (Sons of Korah, Asaph).<P>(e) Wisdom Literature—History:<P>Solomon is renowned as founder of the Wisdom literature and the author of Proverbs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,32);">1Ki 4:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,1);">Pr 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,1);">10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,9);">Ec 12:9</a>; Ec itself appears to be late), and of the Song of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,1);">So 1:1</a>). The "men of Hezekiah" are said to have copied put a collection of his proverbs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,1);">Pr 25:1</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROVERBS">PROVERBS</a>). Here also may be placed the Book of Job. Hezekiah\'s reign appears to have been one of literary activity: to it, probably, are to be referred certain of the Psalms (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,\'1-\');">Psalms 46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',48,\'1-\');">48</a>; compare Perowne, Delitzsch). In history, during the monarchy, the prophets would seem to have acted as the "sacred historiographers" of the nation. From their memoirs of the successive reigns, as the later books testify (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,29);">1Ch 29:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,29);">2Ch 9:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">12:15</a>, etc.), are compiled most of the narratives in our canonical writings (hence the name "former prophets"). The latest date in 2Ki is 562 BC, and the body of the book is probably earlier.<P>(f) Prophecy:<P>(i) Assyrian Age:<P>With the rise of written prophecy a new form of literature enters, called forth by, and vividly mirroring, the religious and political conditions of the closing periods of the monarchy in Israel and Judah (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PROPHECY">PROPHECY</a>). On the older view, Obadiah and Joel stood at the head of the series in the pre-Assyrian period (9th century), and this seems the preferable view still. On the newer view, these prophets are late, and written prophecy begins in the Assyrian period with Amos (Jeroboam II, circa 750 BC) and Hosea (circa 745-735). When the latter prophet wrote, Samaria was tottering to its fall (721 BC). A little later, in Judah, come Isaiah (circa 740-690) and Micah (circa 720-708). Isaiah, in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, is the greatest of the prophets in the Assyrian age, and his ministry reaches its climax in the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'1-\');">2Ki 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,\'1-\');">Isa 36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',37,\'1-\');">Isa 37</a>). It is a question whether some oracles of an Isaianic school are not mingled with the prophet\'s own writings, and most scholars now regard the 2nd part of the book (<span class="noTag">Isa 40-66</span>) as exilian or (in part) post-exilian in date. The standpoint of much in these chapters is certainly in the Exile; whether the composition of the whole can be placed there is extremely doubtful (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISAIAH">ISAIAH</a>). Nahum, who prophesies against Nineveh, belongs to the very close of this period (circa 660).<P>(ii) Chaldean Age:<P>The prophets Zephaniah (under Josiah, circa 630 BC) and Habakkuk (circa 606) may be regarded as forming the transition to the next—the Chaldean—period. The Chaldeans (unnamed in Zephaniah) are advancing but are not yet come (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',1,6);">Hab 1:6</a>). The great prophetic figure here, however, is Jeremiah, whose sorrowful ministry, beginning in the 13th year of Josiah (626 BC), extended through the succeeding reigns till after the fall of Jerusalem (586 BC). The prophet elected to remain with the remnant in the land, and shortly after, troubles having arisen, was forcibly carried into Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\-\'1);">Jer 43</a>). Here also he prophesied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,\'1-\');">Jer 43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,\'1-\');">Jer 44</a>). From the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah consistently declared the success of the Chaldean arms, and foretold the 70 years\' captivity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,\'12-14\');">Jer 25:12-14</a>). Baruch acted as his secretary in writing out and editing his prophecies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,\'1-\');">Jer 36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',45,\'1-\');">Jer 45</a>).<P>(g) Josiah\'s Reformation:<P>A highly important event in this period was Josiah\'s reformation in his 18th year (621 BC), and the discovery, during repairs of the temple, of "the book of the law," called also "the book of the covenant" and "the law of Moses" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,8);">2Ki 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,2,24,25);">23:2, 24-25</a>). The finding of this book, identified by most authorities with the Book of Deuteronomy, produced an extraordinary sensation. On no side was there the least question that it was a genuine ancient work. Jeremiah, strangely, makes no allusion to this discovery, but his prophecies are deeply saturated with the ideas and style of Deuteronomy.<P>(h) Exilian and Post-Exilian:<P>The bulk of <span class="noTag">Isa 40-66</span> belongs, at least in spirit, to the Exile, but the one prophet of the Exile known to us by name is the priestly Ezekiel. Carried captive under Jehoiachin (597 BC), Ezekiel labored among his fellow-exiles for at least 22 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,2);">Eze 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',29,17);">29:17</a>). A man of the strongest moral courage, his symbolic visions on the banks of the Chebar alternated with the most direct expostulation, exhortation, warning and promise. In the description of an ideal temple and its worship with which his book closes (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',40,\'40-\');">40-48</a>), critics think they discern the suggestion of the Levitical code.<P>(i) Daniel, etc.:<P>After Ezekiel the voice of prophecy is silent till it revives in Daniel, in Babylon, under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. Deported in 605 BC, Daniel rose to power, and "continued" until the 1st year of Cyrus (536 BC; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',1,21);">Da 1:21</a>). Criticism will have it that his prophecies are product of the Maccabean age, but powerful considerations on the other side are ignored (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</a>). Jonah may have been written about this time, though the prophet\'s mission itself was pre- Assyrian (9th century). The rebuilding of the temple after the return, under Zerubbabel, furnished the occasion for the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah (520 BC). Scholars are disposed to regard only <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,\'1-\');">Zec 1-8</a> as belonging to this period—the remainder being placed earlier or later. Malachi, nearly century after (circa 430), brings up the rear of prophecy, rebuking unfaithfulness, and predicting the advent of the "messenger of the covenant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,1,2);">Mal 3:1-2</a>). To this period, or later, belong, besides post-exilian psalms (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',124,\'1-\');">Psalms 124</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',126,\'1-\');">126</a>), the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronciles, Esther and apparently Ecclesiastes.<P>(j) Preexilic Bible:<P>If, in this rapid sketch, the facts are correctly represented, it will be apparent that, in opposition to prevalent views, large body of sacred literature existed (laws, histories, psalms, wisdom-books, prophecies), and was recognized long before the Exile. God\'s ancient people had "Scriptures"—had a Bible—if not yet in collected form. This is strikingly borne out by the numerous Old Testament passages referring to what appears to be a code of sacred writings in the hands of the pious in Israel. Such are the references to, and praises of, the "law" and "word" of God in many of the Psalms (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,\'1-\');">Psalm 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'1-\');">119</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',12,6);">12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,4);">17:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,21,22);">18:21-22</a>), with the references to God\'s known "words," "ways," "commandments," "statutes," in other books of the Old Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,8);">Job 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,12);">Ho 8:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,2);">Da 9:2</a>). In brief, Scriptures, which must have contained records of God\'s dealings with His people, a knowledge of which is constantly presupposed, "laws" of God for the regulation of the heart and conduct, "statutes," "ordinances," "words" of God, are postulate of a great part of the Old Testament.<P>(2) Critical views.<P>The account of the origin and growth of the Old Testament above presented is in marked contrast with that given in the textbooks of the newer critical schools. The main features of these critical views are sketched in the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM">CRITICISM</a> (which see); here a brief indication will suffice. Generally, the books of the Old Testament are brought down to late dates; are regarded as highly composite; the earlier books, from their distance from the events recorded, are deprived of historical worth. Neither histories nor laws in the Pentateuch belong to the Mosaic age: Joshua is a "romance"; Judges may embody ancient fragments, but in bulk is unhistorical. The earliest fragments of Israelite literature are lyric pieces like those preserved in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,23,24);">Ge 4:23-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'25-27\');">9:25-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'1-\');">Nu 21</a>; the Song of Deborah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>) is probably genuine. Historical writing begins about the age of David or soon thereafter. The folklore of the Hebrews and traditions of the Mosaic age began to be reduced to writing about the 9th century BC.<P>(a) The Pentateuch:<P>Our present Pentateuch (enlarged to a "Hexateuch," including Josh) consists of 4 main strands (themselves composite), the oldest of which (called Jahwist (Jahwist), from its use of the name Yahweh) goes back to about 850 BC. This was Judean. A parallel history book (called E, from its use of the name Elohim, God) was produced in the Northern kingdom about a century later (circa 750). Later still these two were united (JE). These histories, "prophetic" in spirit, were originally attributed to individual authors, distinguished by minute criteria of style: the more recent fashion is to regard them as the work of "schools." Hitherto the only laws known were those of the (post-Mosaic) Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20-23</a>). Later, in Josiah\'s reign, the desire for centralization of worship led to the composition of the Book of Deuteronomy. This, secreted in the temple, was found by Hilkiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,\'1-\');">2Ki 22</a>), and brought about the reformation of Josiah formerly mentioned. Deuteronomy (D), thus produced, is the third stra nd in the Pentateuchal compilation. With the destruction of the city and temple, under the impulse of Ezekiel, began a new period of law-construction, now priestly in spirit. Old laws and usages were codified; new laws were invented; the history of institutions was recast; finally, the extensive complex of Levitical legislation was brought into being, clothed with a wilderness dress, and ascribed to Moses. This elaborate Priestly Code (PC), with its accompanying history, was brought from Babylon by Ezra, and, united with the already existing JE and D, was given forth by him to the restored community at Jerusalem (444 BC; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'1-\');">Ne 8</a>) as "the law of Moses." Their acceptance of it was the inauguration of "Judaism."<P>(b) Histories:<P>In its theory of the Pentateuch the newer criticism lays down the determinative positions for its criticism of all the remaining books of the Old Testament. The historical books show but a continuation of the processes of literary construction exemplified in the books ascribed to Moses. The Deuteronomic element, e.g. in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, proves them, in these parts, to be later than Josiah, and historically untrustworthy. The Levitical element in 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrates its pictures of David and his successors to be distorted and false. The same canon applies to the prophets. Joel, e.g. must be post-exilian, because it presupposes the priestly law. The patriarchal and Mosaic histories being subverted, it is not permitted to assume any high religious ideas in early Israel. David, therefore, could not have written the Psalms. Most, if not practically all, of these are post-exilian.<P>(c) Psalms and Prophets:<P>Monotheism came in—at least first obtained recognition—through Amos and Hosea. The prophets could not have the foresight and far-reaching hopes seen in their writings: these passages, therefore, must be removed. Generally the tendency is to put dates as low as possible and very many books, regarded before as preexilian, are carried down in whole or part, to exilian, post-exilian, and even late Greek times (Priestly Code, Psalter, Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Second Isaiah, Joel, Lamentations). Daniel is Maccabean and unhistorical (circa 168-167 BC).<P>It is not proposed here to discuss this theory, <b>which is not accepted in the present article</b>, and is considered elsewhere (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM">CRITICISM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>). The few points calling for remark relate to canonical acceptance.<P>(3) Formation of the Canon.<P>The general lines of the completed Jewish canon have already been sketched, and some light has now been thrown on the process by which the several books obtained a sacred authority. As to the actual stages in the formation of the canon opinions again widely diverge (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+OLD+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a>).<P>(a) Critical Theory:<P>On theory at present in favor, no collections of sacred books were made prior to the return from Babylon. The only books that had authority before the Exile were, perhaps, the old Book of the Covenant, and, from Josiah\'s time, the Book of Deuteronomy. Both, after the return, were, on this theory, embodied, with the JE histories, and the Priestly Code, in Ezra\'s completed Book of the Law (with Joshua(?)), in which, accordingly, the foundation of a canon was laid. The fivefold division of the law was later. Subsequently, answering to the 2nd division of the Jewish canon, a collection was made of the prophetic writings. As this includes books which, on the critical view, go down to Greek times (Jon; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,\'1-\');">Zec 9-14</a>), its completion cannot be earlier than well down in the 3rd century BC. Latest of all came the collection of the "Hagiographa"—a division of the canon, on theory, kept open to receive additions certainly till the 2nd century, some think after. Into it were received such late writings as Ecclesiastes, the Maccabean Psalms, Daniel. Even then one or two books (Ecclesiastes, Esther) remained subjects of dispute.<P>(b) More Positive View:<P>It will appear from the foregoing that this theory is not here accepted without considerable modification. If the question be asked, What constituted a right to a place in the canon? the answer can hardly be other than that suggested by Josephus in the passage formerly quoted—a real or supposed inspiration in the author of the book. Books were received if men had the prophetic spirit (in higher or lower degree: that, e.g. of wisdom); they ceased to be received when the succession of prophets was thought to fail (after Malachi). In any case the writings of truly inspired men (Moses, the prophets, psalmists) were accepted as of authority. It was sought, however, to be shown above, that such books, many of them, already existed from Moses down, long before the Exile (the law, collections of psalms, of proverbs, written prophecies: to what end did the prophets write, if they did not mean their prophecies to be circulated and preserved?); and such writings, to the godly who knew and used them, had the full value of Scripture. A canon began with the first laying up of the "book of the law" before Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,25,26);">De 31:25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,26);">Jos 24:26</a>). The age of Ezra and Nehemiah, therefore, is not that of the beginning, but, as Jewish tradition rightly held (Josephus; 2Macc 2:13; Talmud), rather that of the completion, systematic delimitation, acknowledgment and formal close of the canon. The divisions of "law, prophets, and holy writings" would thus have their place from the beginning, and be nearly contemporaneous. The Samaritans accepted only the 5 books of the law, with apparently Joshua (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITAN+PENTATEUCH">SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH</a>).<P>(c) Close of Canon:<P>There is no need for dogmatism as to an absolute date for the close of the canon. If inspired voices continued to be heard, their utterances were entitled to recognition. Books duly authenticated might be added, but the non-inclusion of such as a book as Sirach (Ecclesiasticus: in Hebrew, circa 200 BC) shows that the limits of the canon were jealously guarded, and the onus of proof rests on those who affirm that there were such books. Calvin, e.g. held that there were Maccabean Psalms. Many modern scholars do the same, but it is doubtful if they are right. Ecclesiastes is thought on linguistic grounds to be late, but it and other books need not be so late as critics make them. Daniel is confidently declared to be Maccabean, but there are weighty reasons for maintaining a Persian date (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DANIEL">DANIEL</a>). As formerly noticed, the threefold division into "the law, the prophets, and the rest (ta loipa, a definite number) of the books" is already attested in the Prologue to Sirach.<P>2. The New Testament:<P>Critical controversy, long occupied with the Old Testament, has again keenly attached itself to the New Testament, with similar disturbing results (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM">CRITICISM</a>). Extremer opinions may be here neglected, and account be taken only of those that can claim reasonable support. The New Testament writings are conveniently grouped into the historical books (Gospels and Acts); Epistles (Pauline and other); and a Prophetic book (Rev). In order of writing, the Epistles, generally, are earlier than the Gospels, but in order of subject, the Gospels naturally claim attention first.<P>(1) Historical Books:<P>The main facts about the origin of the Gospels can perhaps be distinguished from the complicated literary theories which scholars are still discussing (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSPELS">GOSPELS</a>). The first three Gospels, known as the Synoptics, evidently embody a common tradition, and draw from common sources. The Fourth Gospel—that of John—presents problems by itself.<P>(a) The Synoptics:<P>The former—the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)—fall in date well within the apostolic age, and are, in the 2nd century, uniformly connected with the authors whose names they bear, Mark is spoken of as "the interpreter of Peter" (Papias, in HE iii.39); Luke is the well-known companion of Paul. A difficulty arises about Matthew, whose Gospel is stated to have been written in Aramaic (Papias, ut supra, etc.), while the gospel bearing his name is in Greek. The Greek gospel seems at least to have been sufficiently identified with the apostle to admit of the early church always treating it as his.<P>The older theory of origin assumed an oral basis for all 3 Gospels. The tendency in recent criticism is to distinguish two main sources:<P>(1) Mark, the earliest gospel, a record of the preaching of Peter;<P>(2) a collection of the sayings and discourses of Jesus, attributed to Matthew (the Eusebian Logia, now called Q); with<P>(3) a source used by Luke in the sections peculiar to himself—the result of his own investigations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Lu 1:1-4</a>).<P>Matthew and Luke are supposed to be based on Mark and the Logia (Q); in Luke\'s case with the addition of his special material. Oral tradition furnished what remains. A simpler theory may be to substitute for (1) a Petrine tradition already firmly fixed while yet the apostles were working together in Jerusalem. Peter, as foremost spokesman, would naturally stamp his own type upon the oral narratives of Christ\'s sayings and doings (the Mark type), while Matthew\'s stories, in part written, would be the chief source for the longer discourses. The instruction imparted by the apostles and those taught by them would everywhere be made the basis of careful catechetical teaching, and records of all this, more or less fragmentary, would be early in circulation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,\'1-4\');">Lu 1:1-4</a>). This would explain the Petrine type of narrative, and the seeming dependence of Matthew and Luke, without the necessity of supposing a direct use of Mark. So important a gospel could hardly be included in the "attempts" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,1);">Lu 1:1</a>.<P>(b) Fourth Gospel:<P>The Fourth Gospel (John), the genuineness of which is assumed (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+GOSPEL+F">JOHN, GOSPEL OF</a>), differs entirely in character and style. It is less a narrative than a didactic work, written to convince its readers that Jesus is "the Son of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,31);">Joh 20:31</a>). The gospel may be presumed to have been composed at Ephesus, in the last years of the apostle\'s residence there. With this its character corresponds. The other gospels had long been known; John does not therefore traverse the ground already covered by them. He confines himself chiefly to matters drawn from his personal recollections: the Judean ministry, the visits of Christ to Jerusalem, His last private discourses to His disciples. John had so often retold, and so long brooded over, the thoughts and words of Jesus, that they had become, in a manner, part of his own thought, and, in reproducing them, he necessarily did so with a subjective tinge, and in a partially paraphrastic and interpretative manner. Yet it is truly the words, thoughts and deeds of his beloved Lord that he narrates. His gospel is the needful complement to the others—the "spiritual" gospel.<P>(c) Acts:<P>The Acts narrates the origin and early fortunes of the church, with, as its special motive (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,8);">Ac 1:8</a>), the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles through the labors of Paul. Its author is Luke, Paul\'s companion, whose gospel it continues (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,1);">Ac 1:1</a>). Certain sections—the so-called "we-sections" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,\'10-17\');">Ac 16:10-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,\'5-15\');">20:5-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,\'1-18\');">21:1-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,\'1-\');">27:1</s>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,\'1-16\');">28:16</a>)—are transcribed directly from Luke\'s journal of Paul\'s travels. The book closes abruptly with Paul\'s 2 years\' imprisonment at Rome (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',28,30,31);">Ac 28:30-31</a>; 60-61 AD), and not a hint is given of the issue of the imprisonment—trial, liberation or death. Does this mean that a 3rd "treatise" was contemplated? Or that the book was written while the imprisonment still continued? (thus now Harnack). If the latter, the Third Gospel must be very early.<P>(2) The Epistles.<P>(a) Pauline:<P>Doubt never rested in the early church on the 13 epistles of Paul. Following upon the rejection by the "Tubingen" school of all the epistles but 4 (Romans,1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians), the tide of opinion has again turned strongly in favor of their genuineness. An exception is the Pastoral epistles (1, 2 Timothy, Titus), still questioned by some on insufficient grounds (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</a>). The epistles, called forth by actual needs of the churches, are a living outpouring of the thoughts and feelings of the mind and heart of the apostle in relation to his converts. Most are letters to churches he himself had founded (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians(?), Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonains): two are to churches he had not himself visited, but with which he stood in affectionate relations (Romans, Colossians); one is purely personal (Philemon); three are addressed to individuals, but with official responsibilities (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). The larger number were written during his missionary labors, and reflect his personal situation, anxieties and companionships at the places of their composition; four are epistles of the 1st Roman imprisonment (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon): 2 Timothy is a voice from the dungeon, in his 2nd imprisonment, shortly before his martyrdom. Doctrine, counsel, rebuke, admonition, tender solicitude, ethical instruction, prayer, thanksgiving, blend in living fusion in their contents. So marvelous a collection of letters, on such magnificent themes, was never before given to the world.<P>The earliest epistles, in point of date, are generally held to be those to the Thessalonians, written from Corinth (52, 53 AD). The church, newly-founded, had passed through much affliction (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',1,6);">1Th 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,14);">2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,3,4);">3:3-4</a>, etc.), and Paul writes to comfort and exhort it. His words about the Second Coming (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,13);">1Th 4:13</a>ff) led to mistaken expectations and some disorders. His second epistle was written to correct these problems (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,\'1-3\');">2Th 2:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,6);">3:6</a>, etc.).<P>Corinth itself received the next epistles—the 1st called forth by reports received at Ephesus of grave divisions and irregularities (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,11);">1Co 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,18);">11:18</a>ff, etc.), joined with pride of knowledge, doctrinal heresy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,12);">1Co 15:12</a>ff), and at least one case of gross immorality (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>) in the church; the 2nd, written at Philippi, expressing joy at the repentance of the offender, and removing the severe sentence that had been passed upon him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,\'1-10\');">2Co 2:1-10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,3,4);">1Co 5:3-4</a>), likewise vindicating Paul\'s own apostleship 2Co (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,\'1-\');">10-13</a>). The date of both <span class="noTag">is</span> 57 AD. 1Co contains the beautiful hymn on love (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,\'1-\');">13</a>), and the noble chapter on resurrection (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>).<P>In the following year (58 BC) Paul penned from Corinth the Epistle to the Romans—the greatest of his doctrinal epistles. In it he develops his great theme of the impossibility of justification before God through works of law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,\'1-\');">Ro 1-3</a>), and of the Divine provision for human salvation in a "righteousness of God" in Christ Jesus, received through faith. He exhibits first the objective side of this redemption in the deliverance from condemnation effected through Christ\'s reconciling death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-\');">Ro 3-5</a>); then the subjective side, in the new life imparted by the spirit, giving deliverance from the power of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6\'1-\');">Ro 6-8</a>). A discussion follows of the Divine sovereignty in God\'s dealings with Israel, and of the end of these dealings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'1-\');">Ro 9-11</a>), and the epistle concludes with practical exhortations, counsels to forbearance and greetings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,\'1-\');">Ro 12-16</a>).<P>Closely connected with the Epistle to the Romans is that to the Galatians, in which the same truths are handled, but now with a polemical intent in expostulation and reproach. The Galatian churches had apostatized from the gospel of faith to Jewish legalism, and the apostle, sorely grieved, writes this powerful letter to rebuke their faithlessness, and recall them to their allegiance to the truth. It is reasonable to suppose that the two epistles are nearly related in place and time. The question is complicated, however, by the dispute which has arisen as to whether the churches intended are those of Northern Galatia (the older view; compare Conybeare and Howson, Lightfoot) or those of Southern Galatia (Sir Wm. Ramsay), i.e. the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, in Paul\'s time embraced in the Roman province of Galatia (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALATIA">GALATIA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALATIANS">GALATIANS</a>). If the latter view is adopted, date and place are uncertain; if the former, the epistle may have been written from Ephesus (circa 57 AD).<P>The 4 epistles of the imprisonment all fall within the years 60, 61 AD. That to the Philipplans, warmly praising the church, and exhorting to unity, possibly the latest of the group, was sent by the hand of Epaphroditus, who had come to Rome with a present from the Philippian church, and had there been overtaken by a serious illness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'25-30\');">Php 2:25-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,\'15-18\');">4:15-18</a>). The remaining 3 epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon) were written at one time, and were carried to their destinations by Epaphras. Ephesians and Colossians are twin epistles, similar in thought and style, extolling the preeminence of Christ, but it is doubtful whether the former was not really a "circular" epistle, or even, perhaps, the lost Epistle to the Laodiceans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,16);">Col 4:16</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAODICEANS,+EPISTLE+TO+THE">LAODICEANS, EPISTLE TO THE</a>). The Colossian epistle has in view an early form of Gnostic heresy (compare Lightfoot, Galatians). Philemon is a personal letter to a friend of the apostle\'s at Colosse, whose runaway slave, Onesimus, now a Christian, is being sent back to him with warm commendations.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CAPTIVITY+EPISTLES">CAPTIVITY EPISTLES</a>.<P>Latest from Paul\'s pen are the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus), implying his liberation from his first imprisonment, and a new period of missionary labor in Ephesus, Macedonia and Crete (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PASTORAL+EPISTLES">PASTORAL EPISTLES</a>). Timothy was left at Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,3);">1Ti 1:3</a>), Titus at Crete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,5);">Tit 1:5</a>), for the regulation and superintendence of the churches. The epistles, the altered style of which shows the deep impress of advancing years and changed conditions, contain admonitions to pastoral duty, with warnings as to perils that had arisen or would arise. 1 Timothy and Titus were written while the apostle was still at liberty (63 AD); 2 Timothy is from his Roman prison, when his case had been partly heard, and the end was impending (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,6,7);">2Ti 4:6-7</a>).<P>(b) Epistle to the Hebrews:<P>These are the Pauline Epistles proper. The Epistle to the Hebrews, though ascribed to Paul in the title of the King James Version, is not really his. It is an early writing (probably before the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 AD) of some friend of the apostle\'s (in Italy, <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,23,24);">Heb 13:23-24</a>), designed, by a reasoned exhibition of the superiority of Jesus to Moses and the Levitical priesthood, and of the fulfillment of Old Testament types and institutions in His person and sacrifice, to remove the difficulties of Jewish Christians, who clung with natural affection to their temple and divinely appointed ritual. It was included by Eusebius, with others in the East (not, however, by Origen), among the epistles of Paul: in the West the Pauline authorship was not admitted. Many, nevertheless, with Origen, upheld a connection with Paul ("the thoughts are Paul\'s"). Ideas and style suggest an Alexandrian training: hence Luther\'s conjecture of Apollos as the writer. There can be no certainty on the subject. The value of the Epistle is unimpaired, whoever was the author.<P>(c) Catholic Epistles:<P>Of the seven so-called "Catholic" Epistles, James and Jude are by "brethren" of the Lord (James, "the Lord\'s brother," was head of the church at Jerusalem, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',15,13);">Ac 15:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,18);">21:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,19);">Ga 1:19</a>, etc.); Peter and John, to whom the others were ascribed, were apostles. James and 1 Peter are addressed to the Jews of the Dispersion (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,1);">1Pe 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>). The doubts respecting certain of these writings have already been mentioned. The early date and acceptance of James is attested by numerous allusions (Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Didache). Many regard it as the earliest of the epistles—before Paul\'s. Its tone is throughout practical. The seeming conflict with Paul on faith and works, which led Luther to speak slightingly of it, is only verbal. Paul, too, held that a dead faith avails nothing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,2);">1Co 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,6);">Ga 5:6</a>). 1 John, like 1 Peter, was undisputed (if the Fourth Gospel is genuine, 1 John is), and, on internal grounds, the shorter epistles (2 John, 3 John) need not be doubted (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+EPISTLES+OF">JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF</a>). Jude, rugged in style, with allusions to Jewish Apocalypses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,9,24);">1:9, 24</a>), is well attested, and 2 Peter seems to found on it. The last-named epistle must rely for acceptance on its own claim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,1,8);">2Pe 1:1, 8</a>), and on internal evidence of sincerity. It is to be observed that, though late in being noticed, it never appears to have been treated as spurious. The style certainly differs from 1 Peter; this may be due to the use of an amanuensis. If accepted, it must be placed late in Peter\'s life (before 65 AD). 1 Peter and Jude, in that case, must be earlier (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CATHOLIC+EPISTLES">CATHOLIC EPISTLES</a>).<P>(3) Prophecy.<P>The Book of Revelation:<P>The one prophetic book of the New Testament—the apocalyptic counterpart of Daniel in the Old Testament—is the Book of Revelation. The external evidence for the Johannine authorship is strong (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCALYPSE">APOCALYPSE</a>). Tradition and internal evidence ascribe it to the reign of Domitian (circa 95 AD). Its contents were given in vision in the isle of Patmos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,9);">Re 1:9</a>). The theory which connects it with the reign of Nero through the supposed fitness of this name to express the mystic number 666 is entirely precarious (compare Salmon, Introduction to New Testament, 245-54). The main intent is to exhibit in symbolic form the approaching conflicts of Christ and His church with anti-Christian powers—with secular world-power (Beast), with intellectual anti-Christianism (False Prophet), with ecclesiastical anti-Christianism (Woman)—these conflicts issuing in victory and a period of triumph, preluding, after a sharp, final struggle, the last scenes (resurrection, judgment), and the eternal state. When the visions are taken, not as poetic imaginings, but as true apocalyptic unveilings, the change in style from the gospel, which may be regarded as already written, can readily be understood. These mighty revelations in Patmos brought about, as by volcanic force, a tremendous upheaval in the seer\'s soul, breaking through all previous strata of thought and feeling, and throwing everything into a new perspective. On the resultant high keynote: "Amen: Come, Lord Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,20);">Re 22:20</a>), the New Testament closes.<P>(4) New Testament Canon.<P>The principal steps by which the books now enumerated were gradually formed into a New Testament "Canon," have been indicated in previous sections. The test of canonicity here, as in the Old Testament, is the presence of inspiration. Some would prefer the word "apostolic," which comes to the same thing. All the writings above reckoned were held to be the works of apostles or of apostolic men, and on this ground were admitted into the list of books having authority in the church. Barnabas (circa 100-120 AD) already quotes <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,16);">Mt 20:16</a> with the formula "it is written." Paul quotes as "scripture" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,18);">1Ti 5:18</a>) a passage found only in Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,7);">Lu 10:7</a>). Paul\'s Epistles are classed with "other scriptures" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',3,16);">2Pe 3:16</a>. Post-apostolic Fathers draw a clear distinction between their own writings and those of apostles like Paul and Peter (Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas). The Fathers of the close of the 2nd century treat the New Testament writings as in the fullest degree inspired (compare Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, Appendix B). An important impulse to the formation of a definite canon came from the Gnostic Marcion (circa 140 AD), who made a canon for himself in 2 parts, "Gospel" and "Apostolicon," consisting of one gospel (a mutilated Lk) and 10 epistles of Paul (excluding Pastorals). A challenge of this kind had to be taken up, and lists of New Testament writings began to be made (Melito, Muratorian Fragment, etc.), with the results previously described. By the commencement of the 4th century unanimity had practically been attained as regards even the Antilegomena. At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), Westcott says, "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were silently admitted on all sides to have a final authority" (Bible in Church, 155).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CANON+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1487]='Bible, the, V. Inspiration, Unity/Spiritual Purpose`1. Scripture a Unity:<P>Holy Scripture is not simply a collection of religious books: still less does it consist of mere fragments of Jewish and Christian literature. It belongs to the conception of Scripture that, though originating "by divers portions and in divers manners" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,1);">Heb 1:1</a>), it should yet, in its completeness, constitute a unity, evincing, in the spirit and purpose that bind its parts together, the Divine source from which its revelation comes. The Bible is the record of God\'s revelations of Himself to men in successive ages and dispensations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,\'8-10\');">Eph 1:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,\'5-9\');">3:5-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,25,26);">Col 1:25-26</a>), till the revelation culminates in the advent and work of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit. It is this aspect of the Bible which constitutes its grand distinction from all collections of sacred writings—the so-called "Bibles" of heathen religions—in the world. These, as the slightest inspection of them shows, have no unity. They are accumulations of heterogeneous materials, presenting, in their collocation, no order, progress, or plan. The reason is, that they embody no historical revelation working out a purpose in consecutive stages from germinal beginnings to perfect close. The Bible, by contrast, is a single book because it embodies such a revelation, and exhibits such a purpose. The unity of the book, made up of so many parts, is the attestation of the reality of the revelation it contains.<P>2. The Purpose of Grace:<P>This feature of spiritual purpose in the Bible is one of the most obvious things about it (compare POT, 30ff). It gives to the Bible what is sometimes termed its "organic unity." The Bible has a beginning, middle and end. The opening chapters of Genesis have their counterpart in the "new heaven and new earth" and paradise restored of the closing chapters of Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,\'1-\');">21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>). Man\'s sin is made the starting-point for disclosures of God\'s grace. The patriarchal history, with its covenants and promises, is continued in the story of the Exodus and the events that follow, in fulfillment of these promises. Deuteronomy recapitulates the lawgiving at Sinai. Josua sees the people put in possession of the promised land. Backsliding, rebellion, failure, do not defeat God\'s purpose, but are overruled to carry it on to a surer completion. The monarchy is made the occasion of new promises to the house of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'1-\');">2Sa 7</a>). The prophets root themselves in the past, but, at the very hour when the nation seems sinking in ruin; hold out bright hopes of a greater future in the extension of God\'s kingdom to the Gentiles, under Messiah\'s rule. A critical writer, Kautzsch, has justly said: "The abiding value of the Old Testament lies above all in this, that it guarantees to us with absolute certainty the fact and the process of a Divine plan and way of salvation, which found its conclusion and fulfillment in the new covenant, in the person and work of Jesus Christ" (Bleibende Bedeutung des Altes Testament, 22, 24, 28-29, 30-31).<P>Fulfilment in Christ.<P>How truly all that was imperfect, transitional, temporary, in the Old Testament was brought to realization and completion in the redemption and spiritual kingdom of Christ need not here be dwelt upon. Christ is the prophet, priest and king of the New Covenant. His perfect sacrifice, "once for all," supersedes and abolishes the typical sacrifices of the old economy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'1-\');">Heb 9-10</a>). His gift of the Spirit realizes what the prophets had foretold of God\'s law being written in men\'s hearts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,\'31-34\');">Jer 31:31-34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,39,40);">32:39-40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,19,20);">Eze 11:19-20</a>, etc.). His kingdom is established on moveless foundations, and can have no end (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,\'9-11\');">Php 2:9-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,28);">Heb 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,13);">Re 5:13</a>, etc.). In tracing the lines of this redeeming purpose of God, brought to light in Christ, we gain the key which unlocks the inmost meaning of the whole Bible. It is the revelation of a "gospel."<P>3. Inspiration:<P>"Inspiration" is a word round which many debates have gathered. If, however, what has been said is true of the Bible as the record of a progressive revelation, of its contents as the discovery of the will of God for man\'s salvation, of the prophetic and apostolic standing of its writers, of the unity of spirit and purpose that pervades it, it will be difficult to deny that a quite peculiar presence, operation, and guidance of the Spirit of God are manifest in its production. The belief in inspiration, it has been seen, is implied in the formation of these books into a sacred canon. The full discussion of the subject belongs to a special article. (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSPIRATION">INSPIRATION</a>). Biblical Claim.<P>Here it need only be said that the claim for inspiration in the Bible is one made in fullest measure by the Bible itself. It is not denied by any that Jesus and His apostles regarded the Old Testament Scriptures as in the fullest sense inspired. The appeal of Jesus was always to the Scriptures, and the word of Scripture was final with Him. "Have ye not read?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,4);">Mt 19:4</a>). "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,29);">Mt 22:29</a>). This because "God" speaks in them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,4);">Mt 19:4</a>). Prophecies and psalms were fulfilled in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,31);">Lu 18:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,37);">22:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,27,44);">24:27, 44</a>). Paul esteemed the Scriptures "the oracles of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,2);">Ro 3:2</a>). They are "God-inspired" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,16);">2Ti 3:16</a>). That New Testament prophets and apostles were not placed on any lower level than those of the Old Testament is manifest from Paul\'s explicit words regarding himself and his fellow-apostles. Paul never faltered in his claim to be "an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,1);">Eph 1:1</a>, etc.)—"separated unto the gospel of God "(<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,1);">Ro 1:1</a>)—who had received his message, not from man, but by "revelation" from heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,11,22);">Ga 1:11, 22</a>). The "mystery of Christ" had "now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit," in consequence of which the church is declared to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,20);">Eph 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,5);">3:5</a>).<P>Marks of Inspiration.<P>It might be shown that these claims made by New Testament writers for the Old Testament and for themselves are borne out by what the Old Testament itself teaches of prophetic inspiration, of wisdom as the gift of God\'s spirit, and of the light, holiness, saving virtue and sanctifying power continually ascribed to God\'s "law," "words," "statutes," "commandments," "judgments" (see above). This is the ultimate test of "inspiration"—that to which Paul likewise appeals—its power to "make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,15);">2Ti 3:15</a>)—its profitableness "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,16);">2Ti 3:16</a>)—all to the end "that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,17);">2Ti 3:17</a>). Nothing is here determined as to "inerrancy" in minor historical, geographical, chronological details, in which some would wrongly put the essence of inspiration; but it seems implied that at least there is no error which can interfere with or nullify the utility of Scripture for the ends specified. Who that brings Scripture to its own tests of inspiration, will deny that, judged as a whole, it fulfils them?<P>4. Historical Influence of the Bible:<P>The claim of the Bible to a Divine origin is justified by its historical influence. Regarded even as literature, the Bible has an unexampled place in history. Ten or fifteen manuscripts are thought a goodly number for an ancient classic; the manuscripts of whole or parts of the New Testament are reckoned by thousands, the oldest going back to the 4th or 5th century. Another test is translation. The books of the New Testament had hardly begun to be put together before we find translations being made of them in Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, later into Gothic and other barbarous tongues (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABILENE">VERSIONS</a>). In the Middle Ages, before the invention of printing, translations were made into the vernacular of most of the countries of Europe. Today there is not a language in the civilized world, hardly a language among uncivilized tribes, wherever missions have gone, into which this word of God has not been rendered. Thanks to the labors of Bible Societies, the circulation of the Bible in the different countries of the world in recent years outstrips all previous records. No book has ever been so minutely studied, has had so many books written on it, has founded so vast a literature of hymns, liturgies, devotional writings, sermons, has been so keenly assailed, has evoked such splendid defenses, as the Bible. Its spiritual influence cannot be estimated. To tell all the Bible has been and done for the world would be to rewrite in large part the history of modern civilization. Without it, in heathen lands, the arm and tongue of the missionary would be paralyzed. With it, even in the absence of the missionary, wondrous results are often effected. In national life the Bible is the source of our highest social and national aspirations. Professor Huxley, though an agnostic, argued for the reading of the Bible in the schools on this very ground. "By the study of what other book," he asked, "could children be so much humanized, and made to feel that each figure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves, but a momentary space in the interval between two eternities, and earns the blessings or the curses of all times, according to its effort to do good and to hate evil, even as they are also earning their payment for their work?" (Critiques and Addresses, 61).<P>VI. Addenda.<P>A few notes may be added, in closing, on special points not touched in the preceding sections.<P>1. Chapters and Verses:<P>Already in pre-Talmudic times, for purposes of reading in the synagogues, the Jews had larger divisions of the law into sections called Para-shahs, and of the prophets into similar sections called Haphtarahs. They had also smaller divisions into Pecuqim, corresponding nearly with our verses. The division into chapters is much later (13th century). It is ascribed to Cardinal Hugo de St Caro (died 1248); by others to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury (died 1227). It was adopted into the Vulgate, and from this was transferred by R. Nathan (circa 1440) to the Hebrew Bible (Bleek, Keil). Verses are marked in the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A. D.) as early as 1558. They first appear in the New Testament in Robert Stephens\' edition of the Greek Testament in 1551. Henry Stephens, Robert\'s son, reports that they were devised by his father during a journey on horseback from Paris to Lyons.<P>2. The King James Version and Revised Version:<P>The King James Version of 1611, based in part on earlier English Versions, especially Tyndale\'s, justly holds rank as one of the noblest monuments of the English language of its own, or any, age. Necessarily, however, the Greek text used by the translators ("Textus Receptus"), resting on a few late manuscripts, was very imperfect. With the discovery of more ancient manuscripts, and multiplication of appliances for criticism, the need and call for a revised text and translation became urgent. Finally, at the instance of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, the task of revision was undertaken by Committees representing the best English and American scholarship. Their labors resulted in the publication, in 1881, of the Revised New Testament, and in 1885, of the Revised Old Testament (a revised edition of the Apocrypha was published in 1896). The preferencest of the American Revisers were printed in an appendix, a pledge being given that no further changes should be made for 14 years. The English Companies were disbanded shortly after 1885, but the American Committee, adhering to its own renderings, and believing that further improvements on the English the Revised Version (British and American) were possible, continued its organization and work. This issued, in 1901, in the production of the American Standard Revised Version, which aims at greater consistency and accuracy in a number of important respects, and is supplied, also, with carefully selected marginal references (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AMERICAN+REVISED+VERSION">AMERICAN REVISED VERSION</a>). Little could be done, in either the English Revised Version or the American Standard Revised Version, in the absence of reliable data for comparison, with the text of the Old Testament, but certain obvious corrections have been made, or noted in the margin.<P>3. Helps to Study:<P>In recent years abundant helps have been furnished, apart from Commentaries and Dictionaries, for the intelligent study of the English Bible. Among such works may be mentioned the Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible; the valuable Aids to Bible Students (Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898); Dr. Angus\' Bible Handbook (revised by Green); A. S. Peake\'s Guide to Biblical Study (1897); W. F. Adeney\'s How to Read the Bible (1896); R. C. Moulton\'s The Modern Reader\'s Bible (1907); The Sunday School Teachers\' Bible (1875); The Variorum Reference Bible and Variorum Teachers\' Bible (1880); Weymouth\'s New Testament in Modern Speech (1909); The Twentieth Century New Testament (Westcott and Hort\'s text, 1904); S. Lloyd\'s The Corrected English New Testament (Bagster, 1905).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Compare articles in the Bible Dicts., specially Sanday on "Bible," and Dobschutz on "The Bible in the Church," in Hastings\' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, II; Westcott, The Bible in the Church (1875); W. H. Bennett, A Primer of the Bible (1897); A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament (1896); J. Eadie, The English Bible; works on Introduction (Driver, etc.); books mentioned above under "Helps"; B. B. Warfield in Princeton Theological Review (October, 1910); C. A. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (Scribners, 1899); W. H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament (Scribners, 1899); E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure (Scribners, 1885); Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament.``132';
|
|
isbe[1488]='Biblical Criticism``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM+OF+THE+BIBLE">CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1489]='Biblical Discrepancies`bib\'-li-kal diskrep\'-an-siz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DISCREPANCIES+BIBLICAL">DISCREPANCIES, BIBLICAL</a>`1';
|
|
isbe[1490]='Biblical Theology`bib\'-li-kal the-ol\'-o-ji:<P><b>I. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE</b><P class="in15">1. Definition<P class="in15">2. Relation to Dogmatics<P class="in15">3. Place and Method of Biblical Theology<P class="in15">4. Relation to Scientific Exegesis<P><b>II. HISTORY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY</b><P class="in15">1. Its Rise in Scientific Form<P class="in15">2. Patristic and Scholastic Periods<P class="in15">3. Biblical Efforts in 17th and 18th Centuries<P class="in15">4. Old Testament Theology in First Half of 19th Century<P class="in15">5. New Testament Theology in the 19th Century<P class="in15">6. Old Testament Theology in Second Half of 19th Century<P class="in15">7. Bearings of Criticism on Old Testament Theology<P><b>III. DIVISIONS OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY</b><P class="in15">1. Divergent Views of Old Testament Divisions<P class="in15">2. Law and Prophecy<P class="in15">3. Primal Prophetism and Final Judaism<P class="in15">4. Place of Mosaism<P class="in15">5. Nature of Israel\'s Religious Development<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Biblical Theology As a Science.<P>1. Definition:<P>Biblical theology seems best defined as the doctrine of Biblical religion. As such it works up the material contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament as the product of exegetical study. This is the modern technical sense of the term, whereby it signifies a systematic representation of Biblical religion in its primitive form.<P>Biblical theology has sometimes been taken to signify not alone this science of the doctrinal declarations of the Scriptures, but the whole group of sciences Concerned with the interpretation and exposition of the Scriptures. In that wider view of Biblical theology, the term exegetical theology has been used to define and include the group of sciences already referred to. But the whole weight of preference seems, in our view, to belong to the narrower use of the term Biblical theology, as more strictly scientific.<P>2. Relation to Dogmatics:<P>This is not to confound the science of Biblical theology with that of dogmatics, for their characters are sharply distinguished. The science of dogmatics is a historico-philosophical one; that of Biblical theology is purely historic. Dogmatics declares what, for religious faith, must be regarded as truth; Biblical theology only discovers what the writers of the Old Testament and the New Testament adduce as truth. This latter merely ascertains the contents of the ideas put forward by the sacred writers, but is not concerned with their correctness or verification. It is the what of truth, in these documentary authorities, Biblical theology seeks to attain. The why, or with what right, it is so put forward as truth, belongs to the other science, that of dogmatics.<P>3. Place and Method of Biblical Theology:<P>Biblical theology is thus the more objective science; it has no need of dogmatics; dogmatics, on the other hand, cannot be without the aid of Biblical theology. The Biblical theologian should be a Christian philosopher, an exegete, and, above all, a historian. For it is in a manner purely historical that Biblical theology seeks to investigate the teaching, in whole, of each of the sacred writers. Each writing it studies in itself, in its relation to the others, and in its place in history taken as a whole. Its method is historical-genetic. The proper place of Biblical theology is at the head of historical theology, where it shines as a center of light. Its ideal as a science is to present a clear, complete and comprehensive survey of the Biblical teachings.<P>4. Relation to Scientific Exegesis:<P>In pursuance of this end, Biblical theology is served by scientific exegesis, whose results it presents in ordered form so as to exhibit the organic unity and completeness of Biblical religion. The importance of Biblical theology lies in the way it directs, corrects and fructifies all moral and dogmatic theology by bringing it to the original founts of truth. Its spirit is one of impartial historical inquiry.<P>II. History of Biblical Theology.<P>1. Its Rise in Scientific Form:<P>Biblical theology, in any truly scientific form, dates only from the 18th century. Offspring as it was of German rationalism, it has yet been found deserving of cultivation and scientific study by the most orthodox theology. Indeed, Pietism, too, urged its claims as Biblical dogma, over against the too scholastic dogma of orthodoxy.<P>2. Patristic and Scholastic Periods:<P>The Patristic theology, no doubt, was Biblical, and the Alexandrian School deserves special praise. The scholastic theology of the Middle Ages leaned on the Fathers rather than on the Bible. Biblical theology, in spirit, though not in form, found a revival at the Reformation. But this was early followed by a 17th century type of scholasticism, polemical and confessional.<P>3. Biblical Efforts in 17th and 18th Centuries:<P>Even in that century, however, efforts of a more purely Biblical character were not wanting, as witness those of Schmidt, Witsius and Vitringa. But throughout the entire 18th century there were manifest endeavors to throw off the scholastic yoke and return to Biblical simplicity. Haymann (1708), Busching (1756), Zachariae (1772) and Storr (1793), are examples of the efforts referred to. But it was from the rationalistic side that the first vindication of Biblical theology as a science of independent rank was made. This merit belonged to Gabler (1787), who urged a purely historical treatment of the Bible, and was, later, shared by his colleague, G. L. Bauer, who issued a Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Ger) in four parts (1800-1802). More independent still was the standpoint assumed by C. F. Ammon in his Biblische Theologie (2nd edition, 1801- 2). Ammon does not fail to apprehend the historical character of our science, saying that Biblical theology should deal only with the "materials, fundamental ideas, and results of Biblical teaching, without troubling itself about the connection of the same, or weaving them into an artificial system."<P>4. Old Testament Theology in First Half of 19th Century:<P>The influence of Schleiermacher was hardly a fortunate one, the Old Testament being sundered from the New Testament, and attention centered on the latter. Kayser (1813) and, still more, DeWette, who died in 1850, pursued the perfecting of our science, particularly in matters of method. Continuators of the work were Baumgarten-Crusius (1828), Cramer (1830) and Colln, whose work was posthumously presented by D. Schulz in 1836. It was in the second quarter of the 19th century that the Biblical theology of the Old Testament began to receive the full attention it deserved. It has been declared the merit of Hegel\'s philosophy to have taught men to see, in the various Biblical systems of doctrine, a complete development, and Hegel did, no doubt, exert a fertilizing influence on historical inquiry. But it must also be said that the Hegelian philosophy affected Biblical theology in a prejudicial manner, as may be seen in Vatke\'s a priori construction of history and doctrine in his work, Die bib. Theologie (1835), and in Bruno Bauer\'s Die Religion des AT (1838-39), which disputed but did not improve upon Vatke. Steudel (1840), Oehler (1845) and Havernick (1848) are worthy of particularly honorable mention in this Old Testament connection. In his Theology of the Old Testament (3rd edition, 1891; American edition, 1883) G. F. Oehler excellently maintained the close connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which Hengstenberg had already emphasized in 1829.<P>5. New Testament Theology in the 19th Century:<P>The Biblical theology of the New Testament was furthered by the memorable Neander. In 1832, he first issued his Planting and Training of the Christian Church, while his Life of Jesus first appeared in 1837. In this latter work, he summarized the doctrine of the Redeemer, while the former presented the doctrinal teaching of the apostolic writers in such wise as to show the different shades of thought peculiar to each of them, pointing out, at the same time, "how, notwithstanding all difference, there was an essential unity beneath, unless one is deceived by the form, and how the form in its diversity is easily explained." C. F. Schmid improved in some respects upon Neander\'s work in his excellent Biblical Theology of the New Testament, issued (1853) after his death by Weizsacker (new edition, 1864). In Schmid\'s work, the Biblical theology of the New Testament is presented with objectivity, clearness and penetrating sympathy.<P>Hahn\'s Theology of the New Testament (1854) came short of doing justice to the diverse types of doctrinal development in the New Testament. The work of G. V. Lechler on the apostolic and post-apostolic age, was, in its improved form of 1857, much more important. E. Reuss, in 1852, issued his valuable History of the Christian Theology of the Apostolic Age, a complete and critical work, but not sufficiently objective in its treatment. The Prelections on New Testament Theology of F. C. Baur, head of the Tubingen school, exemplify both the merits and the defects of the school. They are critical, independent and suggestive, but lacking in impartiality. They were published by his son after his death (1864). A new edition of these lectures on New Testament theology was issued by Pfleiderer in 1893.<P>Having first dealt with the teachings of Jesus, Baur then set out the materials of the New Testament theology in three periods, making Paul well-nigh the founder of Christianity. For him only four epistles of Paul were genuine products of the apostolic age, namely, Romans, the two Corinthians, Galatians, together with the Revelation. To the growth and history of the New Testament Baur applied the method of the Hegelian dialectic, and, though powerful and profound, displayed a lack of sane, well-balanced judgment. Yet so conservative a scholar as Weiss gave Baur the credit of having "first made it the problem of criticism to assign to each book of the New Testament its place in the history of the development of primitive Christianity, to determine the relations to which it owes its origin, the object at which it aims, and the views it represents." Among Baur\'s followers may be noted Pfleiderer, in his Paulinism (1873).<P>The Theology of the New Testament, by J. J. Van Oosterzee (English edition, 1870), is a serviceable book for students, and the New Testament Theology of A. Immer (1878), already famous for his hermeneutical studies, is noteworthy. Chief among subsequent cultivators of the Biblical theology of the New Testament must be reckoned B. Weiss, whose work in two volumes (English edition, 1882-83) constitutes a most critical and complete, thorough and accurate treatment of the subject in all its details: W. Beyschlag, whose New Testament Theology (English edition, in 2 volumes, 1895) is also valuable; H. Holtzmann, whose treatise on New Testament Theology (1897) dealt in a critical fashion with the doctrinal contents of the New Testament. Holtzmann\'s learning and ability are great, but his work is marred by naturalistic presuppositions. The French work on Theology of the New Testament, by J. Boron (2 volumes, 1893-94) is marked by great independence, skill and fairness. The Theology of the New Testament, by W. F. Adeney (1894), and the yet more recent, and very attractively written, work with the same title, by G. B. Stevens (1899), bring us pretty well up to the present state of our science in respect of the New Testament.<P>6. Old Testament Theology in Second Half of the 19th Century:<P>Coming back to the Biblical theology of the Old Testament in the second half of the 19th century, we find A. Klostermann\'s Investigations into the Old Testament Theology, which appeared in 1868. The Old Testament theology, no less than that of the New Testament, was set forth by that great scholar, H. Ewald, in four volumes (1871-75; English edition (first part), 1888). His interest in New Testament theology was due to his strong feeling that the New Testament is really the second part of the record of Israel\'s revelation. A. Kuenen dealt with the Religion of Israel in two volumes (English edition, 1874-75), writing nobly but with defective insight into, and comprehension of, the higher religious ideas of Israel. F. Hitzig\'s Prelections (1880) deal with theology of the Old Testament, as part of their contents. H. Schultz treated of the Old Testament Theology in two volumes (1st edition, 1869; 5th edition, 1896; English edition, 1892), in a careful, mainly just, and, by comparison, well-balanced handling of the development of its religious ideas.<P>We have not touched upon writers like Smend, for example, in his History of Old Testament Religion (1893), and J. Robertson, in his Early Religion of Israel (2nd edition, 1892), who treat of the Biblical theology of the Old Testament only in a way subsidiary to the consideration of the historico-critical problems. The Conception of Revelation in the Old Testament was dealt with by F. E. Konig in 1882 in a careful and comprehensive manner, and with regard to the order and relation of the documents, revelation in Israel being taken by him in a supranaturalistic sense. Significant also for the progress of Old Testament Biblical theology was The Theological and the Historical View of the Old Testament, by C. Siegfried (1890), who insisted on the development of the higher religion of Israel being studied from the elder prophets as starting-point, instead of the law.<P>Mention should be made of Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods and History, by C. A. Briggs (1883; 4th edition, 1891); of the important Compendium of the Biblical Theology of the Old and the New Testament by K. Schlottmann (1889); of E. Riehm\'s valuable Old Testament Theology (1889); and of G. Dalman\'s Studies in Biblical Theology—the Divine name and its history—in 1889. Also, of the Old Testament Theology of A. Duff (1891); A. Dillmann\'s Handbook of Old Testament Theology, edited by Kittel (189:5); and of Marti\'s edition of the Theology of the Old Testament of A. Kayser (3rd edition, 1897).<P>Of Theology of the Old Testament, by A. B. Davidson (1904), it may be said that it does full justice to the idea of a progressive development of doctrine in the Old Testament, and is certainly divergent from the view of those who, like Cheyne, treat the Old Testament writings as so many fragments, from which no theology can be extracted. Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, by B. Stade (1905), is the work of a distinguished representative of the modern critical views, already famous for his work on the history of Israel (1887). The Theology of the Old Testament by W. H. Bennett (1906) is a clear and useful compendium of the subject.<P>7. Bearings of Criticism on Old Testament Theology:<P>Recent works like The Problem of the Old Testament by James Orr (1905), Old Testament Critics by Thomas Whitelaw (1903), and Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, by Harold M. Wiener (1909), deal with the critical questions, and do not concern us here, save to remark that they are not without bearing, in their results, upon theology of the Old Testament. Such results are, e.g. the insistences, in Orr\'s work, on the unity of the Old Testament, the higher than naturalistic view of Israel\'s religious development, the discriminate use of Divine names like Elohim and Yahweh, and so forth; and the express contention in Whitelaw\'s work, that the critical hypotheses are not such as can yield "a philosophically reasonable theology" (p. 346). Indeed, it must not be supposed that even works, like that of S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (first issued in 1891), axe without resultant influence on Biblical theology.<P>So far from that, the truth is that there is probably no result of the readjustment of the history and literature of the Old Testament so important as its bearings on the Biblical theology of the Old Testament. For the order and the method of revelation are most surely involved in the order and relation of the books or documents, and the course of the history. The progress of the revelation ran parallel with the work of God in Nature and in the growth of human society. Hence, the reconstruction of the historical theology of the Old Testament will take much time and study, that the full value of the Old Testament may be brought out as that of an independent and permanent revelation, with characteristic truths of its own. Meantime, the reality of that revelation, and the teleological character of the Old Testament, have been brought out, in the most signal manner, by theological scholars like Dorner, Dillmann, Kittel, Kautsch, Schultz and others, who feel the inadequacy of natural development or "human reflection" to account for Old Testament th eology, and the immediacy of God\'s contact with man in Old Testament times to be alone sufficient to account for a revelation so weighty, organically connected, dynamically bound together, monotheistic and progressive.<P>III. Divisions of Biblical Theology.<P>1. Divergent Views of Old Testament Divisions:<P>The divisions of Old Testament theology are matters of grave difficulty. For the newer criticism has practically transformed that mode of representing the process of Israel\'s religious development, which had been customary or traditional. On this latter view, the Patriarchal Age was succeeded by the Mosaic Age, with its law-giving under Moses, followed, after an intercalated period of Judges and monarchy, by the splendid Age of Prophecy. Then there was the Exile preparing the way, after the Return, for the new theocracy, wherein the Law of Moses was sought with more persistent endeavor, though not without darkly legalistic result. Such were the historic bases for Old Testament theology, but the modifications proposed by the new criticism are sufficiently serious. These it will be necessary to indicate, without going beyond the scope of this article and attempting criticism of either the one view or the other. It is the more necessary to do so, that finality has not been reached by criticism. We are only concerned with the difference which these divergent views make for Old Testament Biblical theology, whose reconstruction is very far from perfected.<P>2. Law and Prophecy:<P>That they do mean serious difference has been indicated in the historical part of this article. Most obtrusive of these differences is the proposal to invert the order of law and prophecy, and speak rather of the Prophets and the Law. For the Law is, on the newer view, taken to belong to the post-prophetic period—in short, to the period of the return from the Exile, whereas, in the traditional scheme of the order of revelation, the Law was found in full force both at the Exodus and the Return, with a dead-letter period between. The garment of legalism, the newer criticism asserts, could not have suited the Israelite nation in its early and undeveloped stage, as it does after the teachings of the prophets and the discipline of the Exile. Against this, the older scheme prefers the objection that an external and legalistic system is made the outcome of the lofty spiritual teaching of the prophets; the letter appears super-imposed upon the spirit. Criticism, however, postulates for the ritual codes of the Pentateuch an influence parallel in time with that of prophetism.<P>3. Primal Prophetism and Final Judaism:<P>Besides the adjustments of prophecy and law just referred to, the critical views postulate a primal period in which the religion of the prophets, with their view of Israel\'s vocation, was inculcated; also, a final period of Judaism, intercalated between the Return and the Maccabees, in which are seen at work the Levitical law, and various anti-legal tendencies. It must be obvious that attempts to integrate the Old Testament theology amid the prevailing uncertainties of criticism must be far from easy or final, even if the need and importance be felt of keeping the religious interest before even the historical in Old Testament study. For the Old Testament writers, religion was primary, history secondary and incidental, we may well believe.<P>4. Place of Mosaism:<P>We must be content to know less of the remote beginnings and initial stages of Israel\'s religious development, for, as A. B. Davidson remarked, "in matters like this we never can get at the beginning." J. Robertson deems criticism wrong in not allowing "a sufficient starting-point for the development," by which he means that pure prophetic religion needs "a pure pre-prophetic religion" to explain its more than "germinal or elementary character." It may be noted, too, how much greater place and importance are attached to Mosaism or Moses by critics like Reuss, Schultz, Bredenkamp and Strack, than by Wellhausen, who yet allows a certain substratum of actual and historical fact.<P>5. Nature of Israel\'s Religious Development:<P>It may be observed, further, that no one is under any compulsion to account for such a transformation, as even Wellhausen allows, in the slow growth from very low beginnings of the idea of Yahweh up to pure and perfect monotheism—among a non- metaphysical people—by the simple supposition of naturalistic theory. Evolutionary the critical hypothesis of the religious development of Israel may be, but that development was clearly not so exclusively controlled by human elements or factors as to exclude the presence of supernatural energy or power of revelation. It had God within it—had, in Dorner\'s phrase, "teleology as its soul." Thus, as even Gunkel declares, "Israel is, and remains, the people of revelation." This is why Israel was able to make—despite all retrograde tendencies—rectilinear progress toward a predestined goal—the goal of being what Ewald styled a "purely immortal and spiritual Israel." Old Testament theology does not seem to have sufficiently realized that the Old Testament really presents us with theologies rather than a theology—with the progressive development of a religion rather than with theological ideas resting on one historic plane.<P>LITERATURE.<P>I. Old Testament Literature:<P>B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des A T, 1905; H. Schultz, A T Theologie, 5th edition, 1896; English edition, 1892; H. Ewald, Revelation: Its Nature and Record, English edition, 1884; G F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, English edition, 1874; A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, English edition, 1875; E. Riehm, AT Theologie, 1889; S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1st edition,1891,A. B. Davidson, Theology the Old Testament, 1904; J. Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament, 1905; A. Duff, Old Testament Theology, 1891; J. Robertson, Early Religion of Israel, 2nd edition, 1892; W. R. Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, new edition, 1892; W. H. Bennett; The Theology of the Old Testament, 1896; T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, 1893; T. Whitelaw, Old Testament Critics, 1903; W. G. Jordan, Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, 1909; H. M. Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Crit icism, 1909; E. C. Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 1885; D. K. V. Orelli, The Old Testament Prophecy, Amer. edition,1885,English edition, 1893; B. Duhm, Die Theologogie der Propheten, 1875; E. Richre, Messianic Prophecy, 2nd English edition, 1891; C. I. Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, 1881; W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel, 1882; D. K. Schlottmann, Kompendium der biblischen Theologie des A. u. N. Testaments, 1889; A. T. Kirkpatrick, The Divine Library of the Old Testament, 1891; J. Lindsay, The Significance of the Old Testament for Modern Theology, 1896; R. Kittel, Scientific Study of the Old Testament, English edition, 1910.<P>II. New Testament Literature:<P>W. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, 2nd edition, 1896; English edition, 1895; H. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der N T Theologie, 1897; B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des New Testament, 7th edition, 1903; English edition, 1883; J. J. V. Oosterzee, Die Theologie des New Testament, 2nd edition, 1886; English edition, 1870; J. Boron, Theologie du Nouveau Testament, 1893-94; C. F. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des New Testament, new edition, 1864; G. B. Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, 1899; F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen uber New Testament Theologie, 1864; W. F. Adeney, The Theology of the New Testament, 1894; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897; E. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, English edition, 1872; H. H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, English edition, 1892; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1890; J. Moorhouse, The Teaching of Christ, 1891; O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, 2nd edition, 1890; 2nd English edition, 1891; A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, English edition, 1891; G. B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, 2nd edition, 1897; G. Matheso n, The Spiritual Development of Paul, 1890; E. Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefs, 1867; B. Weiss, Der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855; G. B. Stevens, The Johannine Theology, 1894; B. Weiss, Der johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinen Grundzugen untersucht, 1862.``96';
|
|
isbe[1491]='Bichri`bik\'-ri (bikhri, "first born"; compare HPN,88,102): Father of Sheba who rebelled against David. Bichri is of the house of Benjamin and the word probably means a "descendant of Becher" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,1);">2Sa 20:1</a>ff). Compare <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BECHER">BECHER 1</a>.``1';
|
|
isbe[1492]='Bid`Variously signifying, according to six Hebrew and as many Greek originals:<P>(1) "to command" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,10);">Nu 14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,24);">Mt 1:24</a> the King James Version, prostasso);<P>(2) "to prescribe" or "order" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,2);">Joh 2:2</a>);<P>(3) "to consecrate," and so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,7);">Ze 1:7</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,5);">1Sa 16:5</a>);<P>(4) eipon, "to say" or "tell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,12);">Mt 16:12</a>);<P>(5) "to call" i.e. "invite" (kaleo), conspicuously used in this sense in Christ\'s parables of the Marriage Feast (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,\'3-9\');">Mt 22:3-9</a>) and of the Great Supper (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,\'7-24\');">Lu 14:7-24</a>);<P>(6) "to take leave of," appotasso (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,61);">Lu 9:61</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1493]='Bidden`bid\'-n: "Called," "invited" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,13);">1Sa 9:13</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1494]='Bide`bid: A variant of "abide" (which see); is the rendering of perimeno, in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 8:12</span> (the Revised Version (British and American) "they shall wait for me"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,4);">Ac 1:4</a> the same word is translated "wait for."``1';
|
|
isbe[1495]='Bidkar`bid\'-kar (bidhqar; "son of Deker" (?); compare HPN, 69): A captain in the service of Jehu, formerly his fellow-officer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,25);">2Ki 9:25</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1496]='Bier`ber:<P>(1) Found in the Old Testament only in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,31);">2Sa 3:31</a>, "and king David followed the bier"; and in the New Testament in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,14);">Lu 7:14</a>, "and he (Jesus) came nigh and touched the bier." The Hebrew word rendered "bier" (mittah) and its Greek equivalent (soros) mean strictly "coffin." The so-called "bier" among the ancient Hebrews was simply an open coffin or a flat wooden frame, on which the body of the dead was carried from the house to the grave.<P>(2) Closed coffins, so universal now in the West, were unknown to common usage among the Hebrews of olden times, though not unknown to Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.<P>At the burial of Abner the people were commanded to "rend their clothes" and "gird themselves with sackcloth," and the king himself in token of his grief and royal regard, "followed the bier" in the procession to the grave (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,31);">2Sa 3:31</a>).<P>(3) Of Jesus, when He met the procession that went out of the gate of the city of Nain, bearing to the grave the only son of the widowed mother, Luke says, "When the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her...and he came nigh and touched the bier," and commanded the young man to arise, etc. We should recall that contact with a dead body was forbidden by the law as a source of defilement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',19,11);">Nu 19:11</a>f); so Jesus here "came nigh" and "touched the bier" only in raising the young man, thus avoiding any criticism for infraction of the law. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,35);">Joh 11:35</a>, as here, we have a miracle of Jesus which clearly pointed to a higher law—the eternal law of compassion which received its first full expression in the life of Jesus and forms one of the distinctive features of the gospel.``47';
|
|
isbe[1497]='Bigtha`big\'-tha (bighetha\'; Septuagint Barazi; Codex Vaticanus, Boraze; Codex Alexandrinus, Oareboa): One of the seven eunuchs or chamberlains having charge of the harem of King Xerxes ("Ahasuerus") and commanded to bring Vashti to the king\'s banquet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,10);">Es 1:10</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1498]='Bigthan; Bigthana`big\'-than big-tha\'-na (bighethan, bighethana\'; Septuagint omits name): One of the two chamberlains or eunuchs of Xerxes on ("Ahasuerus") who conspired against the king\'s life, the conspiracy being detected by Mordecai and the culprits hanged (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,21);">Es 2:21</a>). Possibly these men had been partially superseded by the degradation of Vashti and were thus prompted to take revenge Xerxes.``1';
|
|
isbe[1499]='Bigvai`big\'-va-i (bighway; Baogei, Bagoua):<P>(1) The head of one of the families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezr 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,7);">Ne 7:7</a>), having a large number of his retainers (2,056, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,14);">Ezr 2:14</a>; <span class="noTag">2,067</span>, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,19);">Ne 7:19</a>), besides 72 males later under Ezra (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,14);">Ezr 8:14</a>).<P>(2) One of those who subscribed the covenant with Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,16);">Ne 10:16</a>).``1';
|
|
isbe[1500]='Bikath-Aven`bik-ath-a\'-ven (biq\'ath \'awen, "valley of vanity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,5);">Am 1:5</a> King James Version, margin)).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AVEN">AVEN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BETH+EDEN">BETH-EDEN</a>`1';
|
|
</script>
|
|
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|
|
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
|